[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 70 (Thursday, June 8, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4722-S4809]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001--Continued

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for the information of the Senate, I would 
like to pose a unanimous consent request with regard to the sequencing 
of speakers.
  We have the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts who has, under a 
previous order, 1 hour. I suggest he be the first and lead off this 
morning, followed by the distinguished Senator from Maine, the chair of 
the Senate Seapower Subcommittee, and that would be for a period of 30 
minutes thereafter. Following that, the distinguished ranking member 
and I have some 30 cleared amendments which we will offer to the Senate 
following these two sets of remarks.
  Then Senator Smith; as soon as I can reach him, I will sequence him 
in.
  I just inform the Senate I will be seeking recognition to offer an 
amendment on behalf of Senator Dodd and myself, and I will acquaint the 
ranking member with the text of that amendment shortly.
  Just for the moment, the unanimous consent request is the Senator 
from Massachusetts, followed by the Senator from Maine followed by a 
period of time, probably not to exceed 30 minutes, for the ranking 
member and myself to deal with some 30-odd amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would add the following: It is my 
understanding of the unanimous consent agreement that recognition of 
the speakers who are listed here with a fixed period of time, including 
Senator Kerry, Senator Smith, Senator Snowe, and Senator Inhofe, is 
solely for the purpose of debate and not for the purpose of offering an 
amendment. Is the Senator correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking member for 
their courtesy and I appreciate the time of the Senate to be able to 
discuss an issue of extraordinary importance. It is an issue that is 
contained in this bill. It is a line item in this bill of some $85 
million with respect to the issue of national missile defense.
  President Clinton has just returned from his first meeting with the 
new Russian President, Vladimir Putin, and arms control dominated their 
agenda, in particular, the plan of the United States to deploy a 
limited national defense system, which would require amending the 1972 
ABM Treaty. Russia is still strongly opposed to changing that treaty, 
and I think we can all expect this will continue to be an issue of 
great discussion between the United States and Russia in the months and 
possibly years to come.
  As I said, in the Senate today, this defense bill authorizes funding 
for the construction of the national missile defense initial deployment 
facilities. Regretfully, we do not always have the time in the Senate 
to lay out policy considerations in a thorough, quiet, and thoughtful 
way, and I will try to do that this morning. The question of whether, 
when, and how the United States should deploy a defense against 
ballistic missiles is, in fact, complex--tremendously complex. I want 
to take some time today to walk through the issues that are involved in 
that debate and to lay bare the implications it will have for the 
national security of the United States.
  No American leader can dismiss an idea that might protect American 
citizens from a legitimate threat. If there is a real potential of a 
rogue nation, as we call them, firing a few missiles at any city in the 
United States, responsible leadership requires that we make our best, 
most thoughtful efforts to defend against that threat. The same is true 
of the potential threat of accidental launch. If ever either of these 
things happened, no leader could explain away not having chosen to 
defend against such a disaster when doing so made sense.

[[Page S4723]]

  The questions before us now are several. Does it make sense to deploy 
a national missile defense now, unilaterally, if the result might be to 
put America at even greater risk? Do we have more time to work with 
allies and others to find a mutually acceptable, nonthreatening way of 
proceeding? Have the threats to which we are responding been 
exaggerated, and are they more defined by politics than by genuine 
threat assessment and scientific fact? Have we sufficiently explored 
various technologies and architectures so we are proceeding in the most 
thoughtful and effective way?
  The President has set out four criteria on which he will base his 
decision to deploy an NMD: The status of the threat, the status and 
effectiveness of the proposed system's technology, the cost of the 
system, and the likely impact of deploying such a system on the overall 
strategic environment and U.S. arms control efforts in general. In my 
judgment, at this point in time none of these criteria are met to 
satisfaction.
  While the threat from developing missile programs has emerged more 
quickly than we expected, I do not believe it justifies a rush to 
action on the proposed defensive system, which is far from 
technologically sound and will probably not even provide the 
appropriate response to the threat as it continues to develop. More 
importantly, a unilateral decision of the United States to deploy an 
NMD system could undermine global strategic stability, damage our 
relationship with key allies in Europe and Asia, and weaken our 
continuing efforts to reduce the nuclear danger.
  Turning first to the issue of the threat that we face, this question 
deserves far greater scrutiny than it has thus far received. I hear a 
number of colleagues, the State Department, and others, saying: Oh, 
yes, the threat exists. Indeed, to some degree the threat does exist. 
But it is important for us to examine to what degree. Recently, the 
decades-long debate on the issue of deploying an NMD has taken on 
bipartisan relevance as the threat of a rogue ballistic missile program 
has increased.

  I want to be very clear. At this point, I support the deployment, in 
cooperation with our friends and allies, of a limited, effective 
National Missile Defense System aimed at containing the threat from 
small rogue ballistic missile programs or the odd, accidental, or 
unauthorized launch from a major power. But I do not believe the United 
States should attempt to unilaterally deploy a National Missile Defense 
System aimed at altering the strategic balance. We have made tremendous 
progress over the last two decades in reducing the threat from weapons 
of mass destruction through bilateral strategic reductions with Russia 
and multilateral arms control agreements such as the Chemical Weapons 
Convention. We simply cannot allow these efforts to be undermined in 
any way as we confront the emerging ballistic missile threat.
  Even as we have made progress with Russia on reducing our cold war 
arsenals, ballistic missile technology has spread, and the threat to 
the United States from rogue powers, so-called, has grown. The July 
1998 Rumsfeld report found that the threat from developing ballistic 
missile states, especially North Korea, Iran, and Iraq, is developing 
faster than expected and could pose an imminent threat to the U.S. 
homeland in the next 5 years. That conclusion was reinforced just 1 
month later when North Korea tested a three-stage Taepo Dong-1 missile, 
launching it over Japan and raising tensions in the region. While the 
missile's third stage failed, the test confirmed that North Korea's 
program for long-range missiles is advancing towards an ICBM capability 
that could ultimately--and I stress ultimately--threaten the United 
States, as surely as its shorter range missiles threaten our troops and 
our allies in the region today.
  A 1999 national intelligence estimate on the ballistic missile threat 
found that in addition to the continuing threat from Russia and China, 
the United States faces a developing threat from North Korea, Iran, and 
Iraq.
  In addition to the possibility that North Korea might convert the 
Taepo Dong-1 missile into an inaccurate ICBM capable of carrying a 
light payload to the United States, the report found that North Korea 
could weaponize the larger Taepo Dong-2 to deliver a crude nuclear 
weapon to American shores, and it could do so at any time, with little 
warning. The NIE also found that, in the next 15 years, Iran could test 
an ICBM capable of carrying a nuclear weapon to the United States--and 
certainly to our allies in Europe and the Middle East--and that Iraq 
may be able to do the same in a slightly longer time frame.
  The picture of the evolving threat to the United States from 
ballistic missile programs in hostile nations has changed minds in the 
Senate about the necessity of developing and testing a national missile 
defense. It has changed my mind about what might be appropriate to 
think about and to test and develop.
  If Americans in Alaska or Hawaii must face this threat, however 
uncertain, I do not believe someone in public life can responsibly tell 
them: We will not look at or take steps to protect you.
  But as we confront the technological challenges and the political 
ramifications of developing and deploying a national missile defense, 
we are compelled to take a closer look at the threat we are rushing to 
meet. I believe the missile threat from North Korea, Iran, and Iraq is 
real but not imminent, and that we confront today much greater, much 
more immediate dangers, from which national missile defense cannot and 
will not protect us.
  To begin, it is critical to note that both the Rumsfeld Commission 
and the National Intelligence Estimate adopted new standards for 
assessing the ballistic missile threat in response to political 
pressures from the Congress.
  The 1995 NIE was viciously criticized for underestimating the threat 
from rogue missile programs. Some in Congress accused the 
administration of deliberately downplaying the threat to undermine 
their call for a national missile defense.
  To get the answer that they were looking for, the Congress then 
established the Rumsfeld Commission to review the threat. Now, that 
commission was made up of some of the best minds in U.S. defense 
policy--both supporters and skeptics of national missile defense. I do 
not suggest the commission's report was somehow fixed. These are people 
who have devoted their lives in honorable service to their country. The 
report reflects no less than their best assessment of the threat.
  But in reaching the conclusions that have alarmed so many about the 
immediacy of the threat, we must responsibly take note of the fact that 
the commission did depart from the standards that we had traditionally 
used to measure the threat.
  First, the commission reduced the range of ballistic missiles that we 
consider to be a threat from missiles that can reach the continental 
United States to those that can only reach Hawaii and Alaska.
  I think this is a minor distinction because, as I said earlier, no 
responsible leader is going to suggest that you should leave Americans 
in Hawaii or Alaska exposed to attack. But certainly the only reason to 
hit Hawaii or Alaska, if you have very few weapons measured against 
other targets, is to wreak terror. And insomuch as that is the only 
reason, one has to factor that into the threat analysis in ways they 
did not.
  Secondly, it shortened the time period for considering a developing 
program to be a threat from the old standard which measured when a 
program could actually be deployed to a new standard of when it was 
simply tested.
  Again, I would be willing to concede this as a minor distinction 
because if a nation were to be intent on using one of these weapons, it 
might not wait to meet the stringent testing requirements that we 
usually try to meet before deploying a new system. It could just test a 
missile, see that it works, and make plans to use it.
  These changes are relatively minor, but they need to be acknowledged 
and factored into the overall discussion.
  But the third change which needs to be factored in is not 
insignificant because both the Rumsfeld Commission and the 1999 NIE 
abandoned the old standard of assessing the likelihood that a nation 
would use its missile capacity in favor of a new standard of whether a 
nation simply has the relevant capacity for a missile attack,

[[Page S4724]]

with no analysis whatsoever of the other factors that go into a 
decision to actually put that capability to use.

  This is tremendously important because, as we know from the cold war, 
threat is more than simply a function of capability; it is a function 
of attention and other political and military considerations. Through 
diplomacy and deterrence, the United States can alter the intentions of 
nations that pursue ballistic missile programs and so alter the threat 
they pose to us.
  This is not simply wishful thinking. There are many examples today of 
nations who possess the technical capacity to attack the United States, 
but whom we do not consider a threat. India and Pakistan have made 
dramatic progress in developing medium-range ballistic missile 
programs. But the intelligence community does not consider India and 
Pakistan to pose a threat to U.S. interests. Their missile capacity 
alone does not translate into a threat because they do not hold 
aggressive intentions against us.
  Clearly, North Korea, Iran, and Iraq are hostile to us, and our 
ability to use diplomacy to reduce the threat they pose will be 
limited. But having the capacity to reach us and an animosity towards 
us does not automatically translate into the intention to use weapons 
of mass destruction against us.
  In the 40 years that we faced the former Soviet Union, with the raw 
capability to destroy each other, neither side resorted to using its 
arsenal of missiles. Why not? Because even in periods of intense 
animosity and tension, under the most unpredictable and isolated of 
regimes, political and military deterrence has a powerful determining 
effect on a nation's decision to use force. We have already seen this 
at work in our efforts to contain North Korea's nuclear and missile 
programs. We saw it at work in the gulf war when Saddam Hussein was 
deterred from using his weapons of mass destruction by the sure promise 
of a devastating response from the United States.
  During the summer of 1999, intelligence reports indicated that North 
Korea was preparing the first test-launch of the Taepo Dong-2. Regional 
tensions rose, as Japan, South Korea and the United States warned 
Pyongyang that it would face serious consequences if it went ahead with 
another long-range missile launch. The test was indefinitely delayed, 
for ``political reasons,'' which no doubt included U.S. military 
deterrence and the robust diplomatic efforts by the United States and 
its key allies in the region.
  Threatening to cut off nearly $1 billion of food assistance and KEDO 
funding to North Korea should the test go forward, while also holding 
out the possibility of easing economic sanctions if the test were 
called off, helped South Korea, Japan and the United States make the 
case to Pyongyang that its interests would be better served through 
restraint. An unprecedented dialogue between the United States and 
North Korea, initiated by former Secretary of Defense William Perry 
during the height of this crisis, continues today. It aims to 
verifiably freeze Pyongyang's missile programs and end 50 years of 
North Korea's economic isolation.
  Acknowledging that these political developments can have an important 
impact on the threat, the intelligence community, according to a May 19 
article in the Los Angeles Times, will reflect in its forthcoming NIE 
that the threat from North Korea's missile program has eased since last 
fall. And if it has eased since last fall, indeed, we should be 
thinking about the urgency of decisions we make that may have a 
profound impact on the overall balance of power.
  In short, even as we remain clear-eyed about the threat these nations 
pose to American interests, we must not look at the danger as somehow 
preordained or unavoidable.
  In cooperation with our friends and allies, we must vigorously 
implore the tools of diplomacy to reduce the threat. We must redouble 
our efforts to stop the proliferation of these deadly weapons. We 
cannot just dismiss the importance of U.S. military deterrence.

  Only madmen, only the most profoundly detached madmen, bent on self-
destruction, would launch a missile against U.S. soil, which obviously 
would invite the most swift and devastating response. One or two or 
three missiles fired by North Korea or Iraq would leave a clear address 
of who the sender was, and there is no question that the United States 
would have the ability to eliminate them from the face of this planet. 
All people would recognize that as an immediate and legitimate 
response.
  My second major concern about the current debate over the missile 
threat is that it does nothing to address equally dangerous but more 
immediate and more likely threats to U.S. interests.
  For one, U.S. troops and U.S. allies today confront the menace of 
theater ballistic missiles, capable of delivering chemical or 
biological weapons. We saw during the gulf war how important theater 
missile defense is to maintaining allied unity and enabling our troops 
to focus on their mission. We must continue to push this technology 
forward regardless of whether we deploy an NMD system.
  The American people also face the very real threat of terrorist 
attack. The 1999 State Department report on Patterns of Global 
Terrorism shows that while the threat of state-sponsored terrorism 
against the U.S. is declining, the threat from nonstate actors, who 
increasingly have access to chemical and biological weapons, and 
possibly even small nuclear devices, is growing. These terrorist groups 
are most likely to attack us covertly, quietly slipping explosives into 
a building, unleashing chemical weapons into a crowded subway, or 
sending a crude nuclear weapon into a busy harbor.
  An NMD system will not protect American citizens from any of these 
more immediate and more realistic threats.
  Finally, on the issue of the missile threat we are confronting, I 
remain deeply concerned about Russia's command and control over its 
nuclear forces. Russia has more than 6,000 strategic missiles armed 
with nuclear warheads. Maintaining these missiles on high alert 
significantly increases the threat of an accidental or an unauthorized 
launch. In 1995, the Russian military misidentified a U.S. weather 
rocket launched from Norway as a possible attack on the Russian 
Federation. With Russia's strategic forces already on high-alert, 
President Yelstin and his advisors had just minutes to decide whether 
to launch a retaliatory strike on the United States. And yet, in an 
effort to reassure Russia that the proposed missile defense will not 
prompt an American first strike, the administration seems to be 
encouraging Russia to, in fact, maintain its strategic forces on high 
alert to allow for a quick, annihilating counterattack that would 
overwhelm the proposed limited defense they are offering.
  In effect, in order to deploy the system the administration is 
currently defining, they are prepared to have Russia, maintain with a 
bad command-and-control system weapons on hair trigger or targeted in 
order to maintain the balance.
  In sum, the threat from rogue missile programs is neither as imminent 
nor is as mutable as some have argued. We have time to use the 
diplomatic tools at our disposal to try to alter the political 
calculation that any nation might make before it decided to use 
ballistic missile capacity.
  Moreover, the United States faces other, more immediate threats that 
will not be met by an NMD. To meet the full range of threats to our 
national security, we need to simultaneously address the emerging 
threat from the rogue ballistic missile program, maintain a vigorous 
defense against theater ballistic missiles and acts of terrorism, and 
avoid actions that would undermine the strategic stability we have 
fought so hard to establish.
  Let me speak for a moment now about the technology. In making his 
deployment decision, the President will also consider the technological 
readiness and effectiveness of the proposed system. Again, I have grave 
concerns that we are sacrificing careful technical development of this 
system to meet an artificial deadline, and, may I say, those concerns 
are shared by people far more expert than I am. Moreover, even if the 
proposed system were to work as planned, I am not convinced it would 
provide the most effective defense against a developing missile threat.
  Let's look for a moment at the system currently under consideration. 
The

[[Page S4725]]

administration has proposed a limited system to protect all 50 States 
against small-scale attacks by ICBMs. In the simplest terms, this is a 
ground-based, hit-to-kill system.
  An interceptor fired from American soil must hit the incoming missile 
directly to destroy it. Most of the components of this system are 
already developed and are undergoing testing. It will be deployed in 3 
phases and is to be completed by about 2010, if the decision to deploy 
is made this year. The completed system will include 200, 250 
interceptors deployed in Alaska and North Dakota, to be complemented by 
a sophisticated array of upgraded early-warning radars and satellite-
based launch detection and tracking systems. I have two fundamental 
questions about this proposed system: Will the technology work as 
intended, and is the system the most appropriate and effective defense 
against this defined threat?
  There are three components to consider in answering the first 
question: The technology's ability to function at the most basic level, 
its operational effectiveness against real world threats, and its 
reliability.
  I do not believe the compressed testing program and decision deadline 
permit us to come close to drawing definitive conclusions about those 
three fundamental elements of readiness.

  In a Deployment Readiness Review scheduled for late July of this 
year, the Pentagon will assess the system, largely on the results of 
three intercept tests. The first of these in October of 1999 was 
initially hailed as a success because the interceptor did hit the 
target, but then, on further examination, the Pentagon conceded that 
the interceptor had initially been confused, it had drifted off course, 
ultimately heading for the decoy balloon, and possibly striking the 
dummy warhead only by accident. That is test No. 1.
  The second test in January of 2000 failed because of a sensor coolant 
leak.
  The third test has not even taken place yet. The third test, 
initially planned for April 2000, was postponed until late June and has 
recently been postponed again. It is expected in early July, just a few 
weeks before the Pentagon review.
  To begin with, after two tests, neither satisfactory, it is still 
unclear whether the system will function at a basic level under the 
most favorable conditions. Even if the next test is a resounding 
success, I fail to see how that would be enough to convince people we 
have thoroughly vetted the potential problems of a system.
  On the second issue of whether the system will be operationally 
effective, we have very little information on which to proceed. We have 
not yet had an opportunity to test operational versions of the 
components in anything such as the environment they would face in a 
real defensive engagement. We are only guessing at this point how well 
the system would respond to targets launched from unanticipated 
locations or how it would perform over much greater distances and much 
higher speeds than those at which it has been tested.
  Finally, the question of reliability is best answered over time and 
extensive use of the system. Any program in its developing stages will 
run into technical glitches, and this program has been no different. 
That does not mean the system will not ever work properly, but it does 
mean we ought to take the time to find out, particularly before we do 
something that upsets the balance in the ways this may potentially do.
  That is one more reason to postpone the deployment decision, to give 
the President and the Pentagon the opportunity to conduct a thorough 
and rigorous testing program.
  This recommendation is not made in a vacuum. Two independent reviews 
have reached a similar conclusion about the risks of rushing to 
deployment. In February of 1998, a Pentagon panel led by former Air 
Force Chief of Staff Gen. Larry Welch, characterized the truncated 
testing program as a ``rush to failure.'' The panel's second report 
recommended delaying the decision to deploy until 2003 at the earliest 
to allow key program elements to be fully tested and proven. The 
concerns of the Welch Panel were reinforced by the release in February 
2000 of a report by the Defense Department's office of operational test 
and evaluation (DOT&E).
  The Coyle report decried the undue pressure being applied to the 
national missile defense testing program and warned that rushing 
through testing to meet artificial decision deadlines has 
``historically resulted in a negative effect on virtually every 
troubled DOD development program.'' The Report recommended that the 
Pentagon postpone its Deployment Readiness Review to allow for a 
thorough analysis and clear understanding of the results of the third 
intercept test (now scheduled for early July), which will be the first 
``integrated systems'' test of all the components except the booster.
  The scientific community is concerned about more than the risks of a 
shortened testing program. The best scientific minds in America have 
begun to warn that even if the technology functions as planned, the 
system could be defeated by relatively simple countermeasures. The 1999 
NIE that addressed the ballistic missile threat concluded that the same 
nations that are developing long-range ballistic missile systems could 
develop or buy countermeasure technologies by the time they are ready 
to deploy their missile systems.

  Just think, we could expend billions of dollars, we could upset the 
strategic balance, we could initiate a new arms race, and we could not 
even get a system that withstands remarkably simple, inexpensive 
countermeasures. Now, there is a stroke of brilliant strategic 
thinking.
  The proposed national missile defense is an exo-atmospheric system, 
meaning the interceptor is intended to hit the target after the boost 
phase when it has left the atmosphere and before reentry. An IBM 
releases its payload immediately after the boost phase. If that payload 
were to consist of more than simply one warhead, then an interceptor 
would have more than one target with which to contend after the boost 
phase.
  The Union of Concerned Scientists recently published a thorough 
technical analysis of three countermeasures that would be particularly 
well suited to overwhelming this kind of system, chemical and 
biological bomblets, antisimulation decoys, and warhead shrouds. North 
Korea, Iran, and Iraq are all believed to have programs capable of 
weaponizing chemical and biological weapons which are cheaper and 
easier to acquire than the most rudimentary nuclear warhead.
  The most effective means of delivering a CBW, a chemical-biological 
warfare warhead on a ballistic missile, is not to deploy one large 
warhead filled with the agent but to divide it up into as many as 100 
submunitions, or bomblets. There are few technical barriers to 
weaponizing CBW this way, and it allows the agents to be dispersed over 
a large area, inflicting maximum casualties. Because the limited NMD 
system will not be able to intercept a missile before the bomblets are 
dispersed, it could quickly be overpowered by just three incoming 
missiles armed with bomblets--and that is assuming every interceptor 
hit its target. Just one missile carrying 100 targets would pose a 
formidable challenge to the system being designed with possibly 
devastating effects.

  The exo-atmospheric system is also vulnerable to missiles carrying 
nuclear warheads armed with decoys. Using antisimulation, an attacker 
would disguise the nuclear warhead to look like a decoy by placing it 
in a lightweight balloon and releasing it along with a large number of 
similar but empty balloons. Using simple technology to raise the 
temperature in all of the balloons, the attacker could make the balloon 
containing the warhead indistinguishable to infrared radar from the 
empty balloons, forcing the defensive system to shoot down every 
balloon in order to ensure that the warhead is destroyed. By deploying 
a large number of balloons, an attacker could easily overwhelm a 
limited national missile defense system. Alternately, by covering the 
warhead with a shroud cooled by liquid nitrogen, an attacker could 
reduce the warhead's infrared radiation by a factor of at least 1 
million, making it incredibly difficult for the system's sensors to 
detect the warhead in time to hit it.
  I have only touched very cursorily on the simplest countermeasures 
that could be available to an attacker with ballistic missiles, but I 
believe this discussion raises serious questions about

[[Page S4726]]

a major operational vulnerability in the proposed system and about 
whether this system is the best response to the threats we are most 
likely to face in the years ahead. I don't believe it is.
  There is a simpler, more sensible, less threatening, more manageable 
approach to missile defense that deserves greater consideration. Rather 
than pursuing the single-layer exo-atmospheric system, I believe we 
should focus our research efforts on developing a forward-deployed, 
boost phase intercept system. Such a system would build on the current 
technology of the Army's land-based theater high altitude air defense, 
THAAD, and the Navy's sea-based theaterwide defense system to provide 
forward-deployed defenses against both theater ballistic missile 
threats and long-range ballistic missile threats in their boost phase.
  The Navy already deploys the Aegis fleet air defense system. An 
upgraded version of this sea-based system could be stationed off the 
coast of North Korea or in the Mediterranean or in the Persian Gulf to 
shoot down an ICBM in its earliest and slowest stage. The ground-based 
THAAD system could be similarly adapted to meet the long-range and 
theater ballistic missile threats. Because these systems would target a 
missile in its boost phase, they would eliminate the current system's 
vulnerability to countermeasures. This approach could also be more 
narrowly targeted at specific threats and it could be used to extend 
ballistic missile protection to U.S. allies and to our troops in the 
field.
  As Dick Garwin, an expert on missile defense and a member of the 
Rumsfeld Commission has so aptly argued, the key advantage to the 
mobile forward-deployed missile defense system is that rather than 
having to create an impenetrable umbrella over the entire U.S. 
territory, it would only require us to put an impenetrable lid over the 
much smaller territory of an identified rogue nation or in a location 
where there is the potential for an accidental launch. A targeted 
system, by explicitly addressing specific threats, would be much less 
destabilizing than a system designed only to protect U.S. soil. It 
would reassure Russia that we do not intend to undermine its nuclear 
deterrent, and it would enable Russia and the United States to continue 
to reduce and to secure our remaining strategic arsenals. It would 
reassure U.S. allies that they will not be left vulnerable to missile 
threats and that they need not consider deploying nuclear deterrents of 
their own. In short, this alternative approach could do what the 
proposed national defense system will not do: It will make us safer.
  There are two major obstacles to deploying a boost phase system, but 
I believe both of those obstacles can and must be overcome. First, the 
technology is not yet there. The Navy's theaterwide defense system was 
designed to shoot down cruise missiles and other threats to U.S. 
warships. Without much faster intercept missiles than are currently 
available, the system would not be able to stop a high speed ICBM, even 
in the relatively slow boost phase. The THAAD system, which continues 
to face considerable challenges in its demonstration and testing 
phases, is also being designed to stop ballistic missiles, but it 
hasn't been tested yet against the kinds of high speeds of an ICBM.
  Which raises the second obstacle to deploying this system: the 
current interpretation of the ABM Treaty, as embodied in the 1997 
demarcation agreements between Russia and the United States, does not 
allow us to test or deploy a theater ballistic missile system capable 
of shooting down an ICBM. I will address this issue a little more in a 
moment, but let me say that I am deeply disturbed by the notion that we 
should withdraw from the ABM Treaty and unilaterally deploy an ABM 
system, particularly the kind of system I have defined that may not do 
the job. In the long run, such a move would undermine U.S. security 
rather than advance it. It is possible--and I believe necessary--to 
reach an agreement with Russia on changes to the ABM Treaty that would 
allow us to deploy an effective limited defense system such as I have 
described. In fact, President Putin hinted quite openly at the 
potential for that kind of an agreement being reached. I commend the 
President for working hard to reach an agreement with Russia that will 
allow us both to deploy in an intelligent and mutual way that does not 
upset the balance.
  I want to briefly address the issue of cost, which I find to be the 
least problematic of the four criterion under consideration. Those who 
oppose the idea of a missile defense point to the fact that, in the 
last forty years, the United States has spent roughly $120 billion 
trying to develop an effective defense against ballistic missiles. And 
because this tremendous investment has still not yielded definitive 
results, they argue that we should abandon the effort before pouring 
additional resources into it.
  I disagree. I believe that we can certainly afford to devote a small 
portion of the Defense budget to develop a workable national missile 
defense. The projected cost of doing so varies--from roughly $4 billion 
to develop a boost-phase system that would build on existing defenses 
to an estimated $60 billion to deploy the three-phased ground-based 
system currently under consideration by the Administration. These 
estimates will probably be revised upward as we confront the inevitable 
technology challenges and delays. But, spread out over the next 5 to 10 
years, I believe we can well afford this relatively modest investment 
in America's security, provided that our research efforts focus on 
developing a realistic response to the emerging threat.
  My only real concern about the cost of developing a national missile 
defense is in the perception that addressing this threat somehow makes 
us safe from the myriad other threats that we face. We must not allow 
the debate over NMD to hinder our cooperation with Russia, China, and 
our allies to stop the proliferation of WMD and ballistic missile 
technology. In particular, we must remain steadfast in our efforts to 
reduce the dangers posed by the enormous weapons arsenal of the former 
Soviet Union. Continued Russian cooperation with the expanded 
Comprehensive Threat Reduction programs will have a far greater impact 
on America's safety from weapons of mass destruction than deploying an 
NMD system. We must not sacrifice the one for the other.
  Let me go to the final of the four considerations the President has 
set forward because I believe that a unilateral decision to deploy a 
national missile defense system would have a disastrous effect on the 
international strategic and political environment. It could destabilize 
our already difficult relationships with Russia and China and undermine 
our allies' confidence in the reliability of the U.S. defensive 
commitment. It would jeopardize current hard fought arms control 
agreements, and it could erode more than 40 years of U.S. leadership on 
arms control.
  The administration clearly understands the dangers of a unilateral 
U.S. deployment. President Clinton was not able to reach agreement with 
the Russian President, but he has made progress in convincing the 
Russian leadership that the ballistic missile threat is real. To be 
clear, I don't support the administration's current proposal, but I do 
support its effort to work out with Russia this important issue. The 
next administration needs to complete that task, if we cannot do it in 
the next months.
  While simply declaring our intent to deploy a system does not 
constitute an abrogation of the ABM Treaty, it surely signals that the 
U.S. withdrawal from the treaty is imminent.
  Mr. President, the first casualty of such a declaration would be 
START II. Article 2 paragraph 2 of the Russian instrument of 
ratification gives Russia the right to withdraw from START II if the 
U.S. withdraws from or violates the 1972 ABM Treaty. Russia would also 
probably stop implementation of START I, as well as cooperation with 
our comprehensive threat reduction program. I don't have time at this 
moment to go through the full picture of the threat reduction problems. 
But suffice it to say that really the most immediate and urgent threat 
the United States faces are the numbers of weapons on Russian soil with 
a command and control system that is increasingly degraded, and the 
single highest priority of the United States now is keeping the 
comprehensive threat reduction program on target. To lose that by a 
unilateral statement of our intention to proceed would be one of the 
most dramatic losses of the last 40 to 50 years.

[[Page S4727]]

  So continued cooperation with Russia on these arms control programs 
is critical. Furthermore, no matter how transparent we are with Russia 
about the intent and capabilities of the proposed system, Russia's 
military leadership will interpret a unilateral deployment as a direct 
threat to their deterrence capacity. And while Russia doesn't have the 
economic strength today to significantly enhance its military 
capabilities, there are clear examples of Russia's capacity to wield 
formidable military power when it wants. We must not allow a unilateral 
NMD deployment to provoke the Russian people into setting aside the 
difficult but necessary tasks of democratization and economic reform in 
a vain effort to return to Russia's days of military glory.
  Finally, with regard to Russia, a unilateral deployment by the United 
States would jeopardize our cooperation on a whole range of significant 
issues. However imperfect it is, U.S.-Russian cooperation will continue 
to be important on matters from stopping Teheran's proliferation 
efforts and containing Iraq's weapons programs to promoting stability 
in the Balkans.
  While the impact of a limited U.S. system on Russian security 
considerations would be largely perceptual, at least as long as that 
system remains limited, its impact on China's strategic posture is real 
and immediate. China today has roughly 20-plus long-range missiles. The 
proposed system would undermine China's strategic deterrent as surely 
as it would contain the threat from North Korea. And that poses a 
problem because, unlike North Korea, China has the financial resources 
to build a much larger arsenal.
  The Pentagon believes it is likely that China will increase the 
number and sophistication of its long-range missiles just as part of 
its overall military modernization effort, regardless of what we do on 
NMD. But as with Russia, if an NMD decision is made without 
consultation with China, the leadership in Beijing will perceive the 
deployment as at least partially directed at them. And given the recent 
strain in U.S.-China relations and uncertainty in the Taiwan Strait, 
the vital U.S. national interest in maintaining stability in the 
Pacific would, in fact, be greatly undermined by such a decision made 
too rashly.
  Nobody understands the destabilizing effect of a unilateral U.S. NMD 
decision better than our allies in Europe and in the Pacific. The steps 
that Russia and China would take to address their insecurities about 
the U.S. system will make their neighbors less secure. And a new 
environment of competition and distrust will undermine regional 
stability by impeding cooperation on proliferation, drug trafficking, 
humanitarian crises, and all the other transnational problems we are 
confronting together. So I think it is critical that we find a way to 
deploy an NMD without sending even a hint of a message that the 
security of the American people is becoming decoupled from that of our 
allies. In Asia, both South Korea and Japan have the capability to 
deploy nuclear programs of their own. Neither has done so, in part, 
because both have great confidence in the integrity the U.S. security 
guarantees and in the U.S. nuclear umbrella that extends over them. 
They also believe that, while China does aspire to be a regional power, 
the threat it poses is best addressed through engagement and efforts to 
anchor China in the international community. Both of these assumptions 
would be undermined by a unilateral U.S. NMD deployment.

  First, our ironclad security guarantees will be perceived by the 
Japanese, by the South Koreans, and others, as somewhat rusty if we 
pursue a current NMD proposal to create a shield over the U.S. 
territory. U.S. cities would no longer be vulnerable to the same 
threats from North Korea that Seoul and Tokyo would continue to face. 
And so they would say: Well, there is a decoupling; we don't feel as 
safe as we did. Maybe now we have to make decisions to nuclearize 
ourselves in order to guarantee our own safety.
  China's response to a unilateral U.S. NMD will make it, at least in 
the short term, a far greater threat to regional stability than it 
poses today. If South Korea and Japan change their perceptions both of 
the threat they face and of U.S. willingness to protect them, they then 
could both be motivated to explore independent means of boosting their 
defenses. Then it becomes a world of greater tensions, not lesser 
tensions. It becomes a world of greater hair-trigger capacity, not 
greater safety-lock capacity.
  Our European allies have expressed the same concerns about decoupling 
as I have expressed about Asia. We certainly cannot dismiss the 
calculations that Great Britain, France, and Germany will make about 
the impact of the U.S. NMD system. But I believe their concerns hinge 
largely on the affect a unilateral decision would have on Russia, 
concerns that would be greatly ameliorated if we make the NMD decision 
with Russia's cooperation.
  Finally, much has been made of the impact a U.S. national missile 
defense system would have and what it would do to the international 
arms control regime. For all of the reasons I have just discussed, a 
unilateral decision would greatly damage U.S. security interests. I 
want to repeat that. It will, in fact, damage U.S. security interests.
  The history of unilateral steps in advancing strategic weapons shows 
a very clear pattern of sure response and escalation. In 1945, the 
United States exploded the first atomic bomb. The Soviets followed in 
1949. In 1948, we unveiled the first nuclear-armed intercontinental 
bomber. The Soviets followed in 1955. In 1952, we exploded the first 
hydrogen bomb. The Soviets followed 1 year later. In 1957, the Soviets 
beat us, for the one time, and launched the first satellite into orbit 
and perfected the first ICBM. We followed suit within 12 months. In 
1960, the United States fired the first submarine-launched ballistic 
missile. The Soviets followed in 1968. In 1964, we developed the first 
multiple warhead missile and reentry vehicle; we tested the first MIRV. 
The Soviets MIRVed in 1973, and so on, throughout the cold war, up 
until the point that we made a different decision--the ABM Treaty and 
reducing the level of nuclear weapons.
  The rationale for testing and deploying a missile defense is to make 
America and the world safer. It is to defend against a threat, however 
realistic, of a rogue state/terrorist launch of an ICBM, or an 
accidental launch. No one has been openly suggesting a public rationale 
at this time of a defense against any and all missiles, such as the 
original Star Wars envisioned, but some have not given up on that 
dream. It is, in fact, the intensity and tenacity of their continued 
advocacy for such a system that drives other people's fears of what the 
U.S. may be up to and which significantly complicates the test of 
selling even a limited and legitimately restrained architecture.
  Mr. President, in diplomacy--as in life--other nations and other 
people make policies based not only on real fears, or legitimate 
reactions to an advocacy/nonfriend's actions, but they also make 
choices based on perceived fears--on worst case scenarios defined to 
their leaders by experts. We do the same thing.
  The problem with unilaterally deployed defense architecture is that 
other nations may see intentions and long-term possibilities that 
negatively affect their sense of security, just as it did throughout 
the cold war. For instance, a system that today is limited, but 
exclusively controlled by us and exclusively within our technological 
capacity is a system that they perceive could be expanded and 
distributed at any time in the future to completely alter the balance 
of power--the balance of terror as we have thought of it. That may 
sound terrific to us and even be good for us for a short period of 
time--but every lesson of the arms race for the last 55 years shows 
that the advantage is short lived, the effect is simply to require 
everyone to build more weapons at extraordinary expense, and the 
advantage is inevitably wiped out with the world becoming a more 
dangerous place in the meantime. That is precisely why the ABM treaty 
was negotiated--to try to limit the unbridled competition, stabilize 
the balance and create a protocol by which both sides could confidently 
reduce weapons.

  The negotiation of the ABM Treaty put an end to this cycle of 
ratcheting up the strategic danger. After 20 years of trying to outdo 
each other--building an increasingly dangerous, increasingly unstable 
strategic environment in the process--we recognized that deploying 
strategic defenses, far from

[[Page S4728]]

making us safer, would only invite a response and an escalation of the 
danger. There is no reason to believe that a unilateral move by the 
United States to alter the strategic balance would not have the same 
affect today as it had for forty years. At the very least, it would 
stop and probably reverse the progress we have made on strategic 
reductions. And it will reduce our capacity to cooperate with Russia on 
the single greatest threat we face, which are the ``loose nukes'' 
existing in the former Soviet Union.
  Under START I levels, both sides agree to reduce those arsenals to 
6,500 warheads. Under START II, those levels come down to 3,500 
warheads. And we are moving toward further reductions in our 
discussions on START III, down to 2,000 warheads. With every agreement, 
the American people are safer. A unilateral withdrawal from the ABM 
Treaty would stop this progress in its tracks. No NMD system under 
consideration can make us safe enough to justify such a reckless act.

  I strongly disagree with my colleagues who argue that the United 
States is no longer bound by our legal obligations under the ABM 
Treaty. No president has ever withdrawn us from the Treaty, and 
President Clinton has reaffirmed our commitment to it. We retain our 
obligations to the Treaty under international law, and those 
obligations continue to serve us well. It would never have been 
possible to negotiate reductions in U.S. and Soviet strategic forces 
without the ABM Treaty's limit on national missile defense. The 
Russians continue to underscore that linkage. And since, as I've 
already argued, Russia's strategic arsenal continues to pose a serious 
threat to the United States and her allies, we must not take steps--
including the unilateral withdrawal from the ABM Treaty--that will 
undermine our efforts to reduce and contain that threat.
  However, the strategic situation we confront today is worlds apart 
from the one we faced in 1972, and we must not artificially limit our 
options as we confront the emerging threats to our security. Under the 
forward-deployed boost-phase system I have described, the United States 
would need to seek Russian agreement to change the 1997 ABM Treaty 
Demarcation agreements, which establish the line between theater 
missile defense systems that are not limited by the Treaty and the 
strategic defenses the Treaty proscribes. In a nutshell, these 
agreements allow the United States to deploy and test the PAC-3, THAAD 
and Navy Theater-Wide TMD systems, but prohibit us from developing or 
testing capabilities that would enable these systems to shoot down 
ICBMs.
  As long as we are discussing ABM Treaty amendments with Russia, we 
should work with them to develop a new concept of strategic defense. A 
boost-phase intercept program would sweep away the line between theater 
and long-range missile defense. But by limiting the number of 
interceptors that could be deployed and working with Russia, China, and 
our allies, so that we move multilaterally, we can maximize the 
transparency of the system, we can strike the right balance between 
meeting new and emerging threats without abandoning the principles of 
strategic stability that have served us well for decades.
  The most important challenge for U.S. national security planners in 
the years ahead will be to work with our friends and allies to develop 
a defense against the threat that has been defined. But how we respond 
to that threat is critical. We must not rush into a politically driven 
decision on something as critical as this; on something that has the 
potential by any rational person's thinking to make us less secure--not 
more secure.
  I urge President Clinton to delay the deployment decision 
indefinitely. I believe, even while the threat we face is real and 
growing, that it is not imminent. We have the time. We need to take the 
time to develop and test the most effective defense, and we will need 
time to build international support for deploying a limited, effective 
system.
  I believe that support will be more forthcoming when we are seen to 
be responding to a changing security environment rather than simply 
buckling to political pressure.
  For 40 years, we have led international efforts to reduce and contain 
the danger from nuclear weapons. We can continue that leadership by 
exploiting our technological strengths to find a system that will 
extend that defense to our friends and allies but not abrogate the 
responsibilities of leadership with a hasty, shortsighted decision that 
will have lasting consequences.
  I hope in the days and months ahead my colleagues will join me in a 
thoughtful and probing analysis of these issues so we can together make 
the United States stronger and not simply make this an issue that falls 
prey to the political dialog in the year 2000.
  I thank my colleagues for their time. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Maine is recognized for 30 minutes.
  Ms. SNOWE. I thank the President.
  I want to begin my remarks by commending our Chairman, Senator John 
Warner, who has provided extraordinary leadership in crafting this 
measure which supports our men and women in uniform with funding for 
the pay, health care, and hardware that they need and deserve. I can 
think of no one with greater credibility on these issues or a wider 
breadth of knowledge, and I thank him for his outstanding efforts.
  I also want to thank the distinguished ranking member of the Senate 
Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, who also has made invaluable 
contributions to the development of this reauthorization.
  This critical legislation which we are considering here today, with 
our distinguished chairman, and the bipartisan support of the ranking 
member, Senator Levin, the senior Senator from Michigan, represents the 
committee's response to legitimate concerns and recognizes the 
sacrifices of those who are at the heart of the legislation--the men 
and women who serve in our Nation's Armed Forces.
  As a member of the Armed Services Committee and chair of the Seapower 
Subcommittee, I know we must never forget that the men and women in 
uniform are the ones who make our Nation's defense force the finest and 
strongest in the world, and I salute each of them for their unwavering 
service.
  We are honor bound to ensure that they are provided the very best 
equipment, afforded the highest respect, and compensated at a level 
commensurate with their remarkable service to this Nation. And I 
believe this bill reflects those principles.
  Since the end of the cold war we have reduced the overall military 
force structure by 36 percent and reduced the defense budget by 40 
percent--a trend that this bill reverses.
  And let me say that comes not a moment too soon. Because while the 
size of our armed services has decreased, the number of contingencies 
that our service members are called on to respond to has increased in a 
fashion that can only be described as dramatic.
  In fact, the Navy/Marine Corps team alone responded to 58 contingency 
missions between 1980 and 1989, while between 1990 and 1999 they 
responded to 192--a remarkable threefold increase in operations.
  During the cold war, the U.N. Security Council rarely approved the 
creation of peace operations. In fact, the U.N. implemented only 13 
such operations between 1948 and 1978, and none from 1979 to 1987. By 
contrast, since 1988--just twelve years ago--38 peacekeeping operations 
have been established--nearly three times as many than the previous 40 
years.
  As a result of the challenges presented by having to do more with 
less, the Armed Services Committee has heard from our leaders in 
uniform on how our current military forces are being stretched too 
thin, and that estimates predicted in the fiscal year 1997 QDR 
underestimated how much the United States would be using our military.
  I fully support this bill which authorizes $309.8 billion in budget 
authority, an amount which is consistent with the concurrent budget 
resolution. For the second year in a row--we recognize the shortfall 
and reverse a 14-year decline by authorizing a real increase in defense 
spending. This funding is $4.5 billion above the President's fiscal 
year 2001 request, and provides a necessary increase in defense 
spending that is vital if we are to meet the national security 
challenges of the 21st century.

[[Page S4729]]

  This bill not only provides funds for better tools and equipment for 
our service men and women to do their jobs but it also enhances quality 
of life for themselves and their families. It approves a 3.7-percent 
pay raise for our military personnel as well as authorizing extensive 
improvements in military health care for active duty personnel, 
military retirees, and their families.
  As chair of the Seapower Subcommittee, I was particularly interested 
in an article that I read this morning in Defense News titled ``U.S. 
Navy: Stretched Too Thin?'' by Daniel Goure. I ask unanimous consent 
that this article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From the Defense News, June 12, 2000]

 U.S. Navy: Stretched Thin?--Surging Demands Overwhelm Shrinking Force

                           (By Daniel Goure)

       The term floating around Washington to describe the current 
     state of the U.S. armed forces is overstretched. This means 
     the military is attempting to respond to too many demands 
     with too few forces.
       Clear evidence of this overstretch was provided by the war 
     in Kosovo. In order to meet the demands posed by that 
     conflict, the United States had to curtail air operations in 
     the skies over Iraq and leave the eastern Pacific without an 
     aircraft carrier.
       The number of missions the U.S. military has been asked to 
     perform has increased dramatically in the last decade--by 
     some measures almost eight-fold--while the force posture has 
     shrunk by more than a third.
       In testimony this year before Congress, senior Defense 
     Department officials and the heads of the military services 
     revealed the startling fact that by their own estimates the 
     existing force posture is inadequate to meet the stated 
     national security requirement of being able to fight and win 
     two major theater wars.
       Nowhere is the problem worse than for the Navy. This is 
     due, in large measure, to the Navy's unique set of roles and 
     missions. Unlike the other services which are now poised to 
     conduct expeditionary warfare based on power projection from 
     the continental United States, the Navy is required to 
     maintain continuous forward presence in all critical regions.
       The Armed Forces Journal reported that in September 1998, 
     Adm. Jay Johnson, chief of naval operations, told the Senate 
     Armed Services Committee that ``On any given day, one-third 
     of the Navy's forces are forward deployed. . . . In addition, 
     it must ensure freedom of the seas and, increasingly, provide 
     time-critical strike assets for operations against the 
     world's littorals under the rubric of operations from the 
     sea.''
       It should be remembered that the 1999 military strikes 
     against terrorist sites in Afghanistan, which is land-locked, 
     and Sudan, which has coastline only on the Red Sea, was 
     accomplished solely by cruise missiles launched from U.S. 
     Navy ships.
       Naturally, naval forces are in demand during crisis and 
     conflict and have made significant, and in some instances, 
     singular contributions to military operations in the Balkans 
     and Middle East.
       In fact, since the end of the Cold War, the Navy has 
     responded to some 80 crisis deployments, approximately one 
     every four weeks, while struggling to maintain forward 
     presence in non-crises regions.
       So far, the Navy has been able to perform its missions and 
     respond to crises. This is unlikely to remain true in the 
     future. The size of the navy has shrunk by nearly half during 
     the last decade. From a force of well over 500 ships at the 
     end of the Cold War, the navy is reduced to some 300 ships 
     today.
       The mathematics of the problem are simple: A force half the 
     size attempting to perform eight times the missions has an 
     effective 16-fold increase in its required operational tempo. 
     This increased burden results in longer deployments, reduced 
     maintenance, lower morale and less time on-station. 
     Ultimately, it means that on any given day, there will not be 
     enough ships to meet all the requirements and cover all the 
     crises.
       The Navy understands the problem. In testimony before the 
     House of Representatives this year. Vice Adm. Conrad 
     Lautenbach, deputy chief of naval operations, stated that 
     ``it is no secret that our current resources of 316 ships is 
     fully deployed and in many cases stretched thin to meet the 
     growing national security demands.''
       This is not merely the view from the headquarters. Adm. 
     Dennis McGinn, commander Third Fleet, stated in an appearance 
     before Congress in February that ``force structure throughout 
     the Navy is such that an increased commitment anywhere 
     necessitates reduction of operations somewhere else, or a 
     quality of life impact due to increased operating tempo.''
       Vice Adm. Charles Moore, commander of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, 
     operating in the Arabian Sea and Persian Gulf, told the House 
     Armed Services procurement subcommittee Feb. 29 that 
     ``Although I am receiving the necessary forces to meet Fifth 
     Fleet obligations, the fleet is stretched, and I am uncertain 
     how much longer they can continue to juggle forces to meet 
     the varied regional requirements, including the Fifth 
     Fleet's.
       ``I am uncertain that we have the surge capability to a 
     major theater contingency, or theater war. Eventually, the 
     increased operational tempo on our fewer and fewer ships will 
     take its toll on their availability and readiness.''
       The reality is that numbers matter, particularly for naval 
     forces. This is due in part to the tyranny of distance that 
     is imposed on every Navy ship, whether or not it is steaming 
     in harm's way. Deployments to the Persian Gulf, 8,000 miles 
     from the Navy's home ports on both coasts, mean ships must 
     travel from 10 to 14 days just to reach their forward 
     deployed positions.
       Even deployments from Norfolk, Va., to the Caribbean take 
     several days. The conventional wisdom is that in order to 
     provide adequate rotation and maintain a tolerable 
     operational tempo, an inventory of three ships is required 
     for every one deployed forward.
       However, when the time required for steaming to and from 
     global deployment areas, maintenance and overhaul, and 
     training and shakedowns are included, the ratio rises to 
     four, five and even six ships to one.
       As a result of recent events such as Kosovo, in which U.S. 
     naval forces in the western Pacific were stripped of their 
     aircraft carrier in order to support naval operations in the 
     Adriatic, public and congressional attention was focused on 
     the inadequacy of the Navy's inventory of aircraft carriers. 
     The Joint Chiefs of Staff published an attack submarine study 
     that concluded the nation requires 68 attack boats instead of 
     the 50 they had been allowed.
       Attention is particularly lacking on the Navy's surface 
     combatants. These are the destroyers and cruisers, the 
     workhorses of the Navy. Not only do they protect aircraft 
     carriers and visibly demonstrate forward presence, but due to 
     the advent of precision strike systems and advanced 
     communication and surveillance, increasingly are the 
     principal combat forces deployed to a regional crisis.
       A recent surface combatant study concluded that the Navy 
     required up to 139 multimission warships to satisfy the full 
     range of requirements and meet day-to-day operations. 
     Instead, the navy has been allowed only 116. At least a 
     quarter of these are aging frigates and older destroyers that 
     lack the modern offensive and defensive capabilities 
     essential to a 21st-century Navy.
       Speaking about the inadequate number of surface combatants, 
     one senior Navy source cited by Defense News in the Jan. 31 
     issue said, ``We know we are broken. We are running our ships 
     into the ground, our missions are expanding and our force 
     structure is being driven down to 116 surface ships. We have 
     to address it before we hit the precipice.''
       To avoid breaking the force, the Navy must increase its 
     number of surface combatants. This also will expand 
     significantly the number of vertical-launch system tubes 
     available in the fleet. The Navy needs to add 15-20 more 
     surface combatants to the fleet during the next decade, 
     beyond the new construction already planned, just to maintain 
     its current operational tempo.
       In order to meet immediate needs, the Navy must retain 
     older DDG-51s and build more of them. When a new destroyer, 
     the DDG-21, becomes available later in the decade, the Navy 
     would like to purchase an additional 16 ships beyond the 32 
     they are scheduled to buy.
       It is time for the administration, Congress and the 
     American people to realize that U.S. national security and 
     global stability could be damaged by no maintaining an 
     adequate Navy.
       To paraphrase an old rhyme, for want of a surface 
     combatant, forward presence was lost. For want of forward 
     presence, an important ally was lost. For want of an ally, 
     peace in the region was lost. For want of peace, the region 
     itself was lost. And all this for the want of surface 
     combatants.

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, this article describes the current state of 
the U.S. Armed Forces and how they are overstretched. This means that 
the military is attempting to respond to too many demands with too few 
forces. And I quote ``Nowhere is the problem worse than for the Navy.''
  In the Seapower subcommittee's work this year in review of the fiscal 
year 2001 budget request we continued the Congress' review of the 
adequacy of Navy and Marine Corps force structure to carry out the 
National Security Strategy, which we all know has been signed by the 
President of the United States.
  This included hearings, visits to fleet units, and discussions with 
the most junior personnel in the fleet to the highest flag officers and 
civilian leaders in the Navy and Marine Corps.
  The subcommittee constructed a firm foundation for review of the 
fiscal year 2001 budget request by requesting operational commanders to 
testify on their ability to carry out the National Security Strategy.
  The operational commanders confirmed what my colleagues and I had 
been hearing directly from fleet units which included discussions with 
individual sailors and marines representing

[[Page S4730]]

a cross section of all ranks. The operational commanders provided 
convincing evidence that their commands do not have a sufficient number 
of ships and airplanes to carry out the National Security Strategy to 
shape the international environment and respond to crisis within the 
required time frame.
  They further testified that the Navy has reduced the force structure 
to the extent that the brunt of the burden of this inadequate force 
structure is being borne, in their words, by the men and women in their 
commands.
  Simply put, in the words of the Sixth Fleet commander,

       Nine years ago, we never anticipated the environment in 
     which we find ourselves operating. The sense that it was 
     going to be a much easier load, that we might actually be 
     able to take our pack off every now and again prevailed. And 
     it for the most part underpinned the decline in defense 
     spending in my estimation. We were wrong. And the facts have 
     borne that out with ever increasing consistency in those nine 
     years that have occurred.

  And I quote the Second Fleet commander.

       . . . back in the euphoric days at the end of the Cold War 
     as we were drawing down, we actually figured that we would 
     have a window of opportunity here where we could afford to, 
     in fact, decrease structure, turn some of that savings into a 
     long-term recapitalization, maybe forego an upgrade or 
     modernization here and there. And that just has not been the 
     case.

  In this article, Mr. Goure quotes Vice Admiral Charles Moore, 
commander of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, he states ``I am uncertain how much 
longer they can continue to juggle forces to meet the varied regional 
requirements.''
  And he further quotes Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn, commander of the 
Third Fleet, ``that force structure throughout the Navy is such that an 
increased commitment anywhere necessitates reduction of operations 
somewhere else, or a quality of life impact due to increased operating 
tempo.''
  Again, those are the words of our commanders on the front lines 
charged with carrying out the day-to-day operations of our naval forces 
and to the challenges and requirements around the world.
  It is noteworthy that these commanders state that the prediction of 
how much our naval forces could be reduced does not represent the 
reality of what is going on in the world.
  I have two charts which I think explain graphically the numbers that 
are consistent with the commander's explanations and characterizations 
of the demands that have been placed on them as a result of a reduced 
force structure, while at the same time increasing the number of 
responses to contingency operations. Both charts use the same timeframe 
across the board. The charts track data in 4-year increments starting 
in 1980 and continuing through 1990. Each chart shows the 8 years 
before the cold war, 1980 through 1987, then the period between the end 
of the cold war and the beginning of the Quadrennial Defense Review in 
assessing exactly how many ships will be required to meet the security 
demands around the world. Here we have the ship force structure from 
1980 to 1999.
  I bring to my colleagues' attention the last 8 years charted in the 
graphs, the time period between 1992 to 1995, which is before the 
Quadrennial Defense Review; and then in 1996 to 1999, the post 
Quadrennial Defense Review in terms of the number of ships we have. We 
have the ship force structure on the top chart, and on the bottom chart 
we have the number of contingency operations during these same time 
periods. These last two data points in these graphs are significant 
because they show the large force structure reductions of over 200 
ships while at the same time the contingencies more than triple, from 
31 to 103.
  The QDR, we know, developed the exact force structure that was 
necessary for both the Navy and the Marine Corps in this instance to 
respond to the number of requirements around the world and what they 
anticipated would be the number of operations around the world. The QDR 
has anticipated there would be a rise in contingency operations but not 
to the extent to which they have occurred.
  The first chart shows the ship force structure, the dramatic decline 
in the number of ships, both in decommissioning and in the reduction, 
and the number of new constructions. At its peak during the cold war, 
we were up to 500, going towards a 600-ship Navy. We can see we had 500 
ships in 1980 to 1983; up to 1988, we had 550 ships. We were building 
up to a 600-ship Navy. We declined to 417 ships at the end of the cold 
war and, prior to the development of the Quadrennial Defense Review, to 
a total of 316 ships. In those 8 short years where we declined from 500 
ships to 316 ships, we had a dramatic increase in the number of 
contingency operations.
  The second chart shows during the end of the cold war we had 31 
contingency operations, when we had 550 ships. During 1992 and 1995, 
prior to the Quadrennial Defense Review in terms of assessing how many 
ships we would need, we had 68 contingency operations and 417 ships. In 
the post QDR, in 1996 to 1999, we had 103 contingency operations, 
tripling the number we had during the cold war. Yet we only had 316 
ships during this period.
  This is a dramatic increase in the number of contingency operations. 
While we had the highest number of ships, we had the lowest number of 
contingency operations. While we now have the lowest number of ships, 
we have the highest number of contingency operations. That is placing 
tremendous pressure on our Armed Forces and our personnel because of 
the lack of ships to meet those responses. So not only is it a problem 
in trying to meet the demands around the world, but it also is 
problematic for our men and women in uniform in terms of the quality of 
life, in terms of morale, in terms of recruitment and retention. That 
is the end result of what is happening. It may be difficult to 
quantify. I think these charts illustrate very clearly the pressures 
that are being placed on our naval forces and the Marine Corps today.
  This is a disturbing and alarming trend. I think it does support the 
commander's testimony that we are being stretched too thin in 
responding to the increasing number of contingencies while reducing the 
number of ships. The assertion that a smaller number of more capable 
ships resulting in a stronger Navy is just not being borne out. Some 
would say it is quality that matters. That may well be true. In fact, 
we are moving to enhance the quality of the ships in the future.
  As the commanders have told us time and again and repeatedly in 
testimony before the Seapower Subcommittee, numbers do count. Quantity, 
as one commander said, is a quality all its own. One ship, even though 
it is more capable than three ships it replaces, cannot cover two 
geographic areas at once. The fact is, we found that out during the 
course of the Kosovo campaign and the onset of the Kosovo campaign. In 
fact, General Clark, the Supreme Allied Commander, had requested an 
aircraft carrier presence in the Adriatic. It took 2 weeks before we 
were able to have an aircraft carrier in the Adriatic, 2 weeks into the 
Kosovo conflict.

  We heard in testimony before the Seapower Subcommittee from Vice 
Admiral Murphy, who is commander of the 6th Fleet, who told us that:

     . . . if we had a Navy air wing--

  And I am using his words--

     in the fight from day one, we could only speculate as to the 
     difference the naval air would have made in the first 2 weeks 
     but I believe it would have been substantial.

  In his words, he said it would have been substantial. It could have 
made a difference, having that airpower there from day one of the 
Kosovo conflict. But that did not happen. It took 2 weeks.
  In the meantime, we left a gap in the Pacific command. We left the 
Pacific command without an aircraft carrier because we had to cover the 
Persian Gulf and, of course, meet the demands in Kosovo. That is what 
happens when we are stretched too thin and we do not have the number of 
ships to meet our responsibilities around the world.
  As I said in the course of my discussion this morning, the fact is, 
the demands being placed on our naval forces and the Marine Corps are 
becoming greater and greater. Yet the number of ships to meet those 
demands is becoming fewer. So the question becomes, How many ships? 
That is a good question, one we are striving to answer. Have we gone 
too far in bringing down

[[Page S4731]]

the number of ships to 300? The operational commanders will tell us 
yes. Without a doubt, due to the high operational tempo that is 
reflected in this chart, as we have seen, tripling the number of 
contingency operations compared to where we were during the cold war, I 
would have to agree. We have had 103 contingency operations during the 
period of 1996 to 1999, with 316 ships. Yet during the cold war period, 
during a 9-year period, we only had 31. So obviously the demands are 
greater.
  I think we have to make some decisions about where we need to go in 
the future. As the commander of the 6th Fleet testified, again during 
the course of his testimony, he said:

       Numbers count. If there is an insufficiency of numbers, by 
     the time you figure it out, it is usually too late.

  So these shortcomings become a concern, as I say, leaving gaps, for 
example, in the Pacific command, not being able to respond to the 
Supreme Allied Commander by having an aircraft carrier for the duration 
of the entire conflict because we don't have enough ships; or because 
of the impact on the men and women because of the extended deployments, 
because of the quality of life, because of the recruitment and 
retention problems and the soaring cost of contingency operations--it 
is having an impact across the board. So, yes, there are higher risks 
in all respects. We have to address those risks.
  We are trying. As chair of the Seapower Subcommittee and member of 
the overall committee, we have been asking for a report from the 
Pentagon as to what is their long-term shipbuilding plan that will 
ascertain exactly how many ships will be required to respond to these 
demands.
  Senator Robb of Virginia had included an amendment to the Defense 
authorization last year that asked for this long-term shipbuilding 
plan. The statutory requirement included a deadline of February of this 
year for the Pentagon to submit this report to the committee and to the 
Congress. They have failed to meet this prescribed statutory 
requirement of this analysis so the committee could make some decisions 
for the long term because it is not easy to shift these decisions when 
it comes to shipbuilding. It takes 5 to 6 years, on average, to 
construct a ship.
  If we are going to reverse some of the trends that are already 
inherent in the budgets that have been submitted by the Pentagon, and 
if we are going to respond to those shifts, it is going to take a 
required lead time to make those changes. Yet the Defense Department 
has not submitted this analysis that was required under the law by 
February of this year. We have asked time and again; we have submitted 
letters to the Pentagon. I plan to hold a hearing to find out exactly 
why this report has not been submitted to the committee so we, in turn, 
can make the decisions, evaluate the analysis, and make some changes 
for the future.
  If we are being told by the top civilian and military leadership of 
the Navy and Marine Corps that they are being stretched too thin, even 
with today's force structure of about 316 ships, then we are required 
to make some decisions about the future. They have confirmed time and 
again the predicted operating tempo of the Quadrennial Defense Review 
upon which this force structure of 316 ships is being based is 
different, quite different from what is occurring around the world. In 
fact, in regard to the QDR, the Navy's Deputy Chief of Naval Operations 
for Resources, Warfare Requirements and Assessments testified:

       . . . prognostications for the future were different than 
     the reality has turned out in the last few years . . . we 
     need to build higher number of ships than we are building 
     today.

  Other witnesses have also confirmed the budget request that was 
submitted by the administration did not include the construction of 8.7 
new ships required to recapitalize the fleet at a rate that would 
maintain 308 ships, let alone increasing the number above the 316 ships 
in the fleet today.
  We had testimony from a Congressional Research Service witness that a 
$10 billion to $12 billion investment on an annual basis, depending on 
the actual ship mix, to build an average of 8.7 ships per year is 
required just to maintain a 308-ship Navy. However, as I said, the 
budget request submitted by the Pentagon and by the administration for 
future years was only 7.5 ships per year on average. So that 
exacerbates the force structure problem rather than addressing it with 
the required resources.
  The fact is, the historical average for shipbuilding over the last 5 
to 6 years has been 7.5 ships. That puts us on a course for 263 ships 
in the Navy. So it is obviously far below the 300-ship Navy that has 
been determined to be necessary by the Quadrennial Defense Review, 
certainly less than the 316-ship Navy we have today, and certainly that 
is fewer ships than we need to be able to respond when it comes to the 
number of challenges around the world and the number of contingency 
operations that we have been engaged in and are responding to, just in 
a 4-year period between 1996 and 1999, which has been 103 contingency 
operations.
  The subcommittee has tried to respond to these challenges. We have 
tried to respond in a number of ways, at least to begin to reverse 
course until we get this analysis from the Pentagon. Again, as I said, 
we will demand that analysis from the Pentagon so we can make a 
decision whether it is going to be 300 ships or 263 ships--which we are 
on a course towards, given the request and given the previous budgets 
by the administration--or if we are going to change that course, 
increasing the number from 316 or 300 or whatever the number may be. 
But we need to have a realistic assessment of where we should go in the 
future.
  We have tried in this budget before us today in the reauthorization 
to respond to some of the issues. We have decided to do it in a number 
of ways. First, we included a legislative provision that will provide 
for advanced procurement but at the same time save $1.1 billion in 
taxpayers' dollars, if the Navy takes advantage of the opportunities 
that are provided in this reauthorization. To attain $500 million of 
the $1.1 billion in savings, the bill authorizes the Navy to buy the 
next six DDG-51 ships under a multiyear agreement at an economic rate 
of three ships per year and provides $143 million in advanced 
procurement to achieve economies of scale.
  An additional $600 million in savings will result from the Navy 
contracting for the LHD-8 with prior year funding, as well as $460 
million in this bill, and future full funding.
  These smart acquisition strategies are actions that leverage the ship 
construction funding. It also provides a number of other cost-saving 
provisions. We authorize a block buy for economic order quantities for 
up to five Virginia class submarines and smart product modeling for our 
Navy's aircraft carriers. Both of these initiatives will result in 
shipbuilding savings.
  Over the long haul, to sustain the minimum ship requirements, the 
Navy must find economies in all areas, including reducing operational 
costs for its entire fleet. The key to reducing these operating costs 
of ships lies in research and development for the design of future 
ships that can operate more efficiently and with less manning.
  Our bill does approve ship design research and development which will 
directly result in reduced overall life-cycle costs of the Navy's next 
generation of ships. The research and development investment includes 
$550 million for the DD-21 program, $38 million for the CVN-77, $236 
million for the CVN(X) and $207 million for the Virginia class 
submarine technologies.
  In addition to the ship force structure issues, subcommittee 
witnesses testified that capabilities must remain ahead of the threats 
designed to disrupt or deny maritime operations on the high seas and in 
the littorals.
  We also had testimony that indicated air and sea strategic lift and 
support are absolutely important to support all warfighting commanders 
in chief and all services, as well as supporting other Government 
agencies.
  We tried to address the requirements to modernize the equipment as 
soon as possible while continuing the research and development which 
has the potential to provide our forces with the future systems they 
require.
  We also supported the Marine Corps requirements of two LPD-17 class 
amphibious ships, which is state-of-the-art advance transport ships, as 
well as 12 MV-22 tilt-rotor aircraft, one landing craft air cushion 
life extension, and an additional $27 million for the advanced 
amphibious assault vehicle research and development.

[[Page S4732]]

  We tried to address a number of the requirements for both the Navy 
and the Marine Corps to address what we consider to be the deficiencies 
that were submitted in the budget request by the administration for the 
Navy and the Marine Corps. It is also an attempt to fill the gap that 
has been placed on both of those services with respect to demands that 
not only have been required of them in contingency operations, but also 
in terms of the reduced force structure that has been demonstrated by 
these charts and by the realities in the world today.
  I hope in the future we will be able to have the kind of analysis 
upon which we can develop what will be an adequate force structure, 
what will be an adequate number of ships, and other requirements for 
the Navy and the Marine Corps. Whether it is a 300-ship Navy, 308-ship 
Navy, a 316-ship Navy or beyond, or a 263-ship Navy, which has been the 
historical trend, as I said, over the last 5 to 6 years and which this 
authorization is attempting to reverse, it is going to take more than 
that. Obviously, we need to have the numbers and the analysis upon 
which to base those numbers from the Defense Department so that 
Congress has the ability to analyze those numbers in terms of what is 
sufficient to meet the security challenges around the world.

  As I said earlier, the Quadrennial Defense Review developed a number. 
They said a 300-ship Navy would be adequate to respond to the security 
challenges. They anticipated there would be an increase in contingency 
operations, but the problem is they did not anticipate the extent to 
which those operations would place demands on our naval forces and our 
Marine Corps.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I again thank the chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee for his leadership and the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Seapower, Senator Kennedy. I also thank the 
professional staff: Gary Hall, Tom McKenzie, and John Barnes on the 
majority side, and Creighton Greene on the minority side. I also thank 
my personal staff: Tom Vecchiolla, Sam Horton, and Jennifer Ogilvie, 
defense fellows in my office as well.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our distinguished colleague for 
her contribution first as chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee, and 
for this very important message she has delivered to the Senate this 
morning.
  I understand our distinguished colleague from Michigan, Mr. Levin, 
and the Senator from Georgia have consulted, and the Senator from 
Georgia desires some time now.
  Mr. LEVIN. I hope the Chair will now recognize the next person 
seeking recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Warner and ranking 
member Levin for their hard work during the Department of Defense 
authorization process this year. They have done a tremendous job in 
enhancing the quality of life for our military personnel and their 
families. I appreciate the support of Senators Levin, Bingaman, Reed, 
and Robb, who have cosponsored my GI bill enhancements which we are 
about to adopt.
  Specifically, I recognize the chairman of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, the distinguished Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, who 
himself went to school on the GI bill after World War II. I thank him 
for his support and his encouragement in improving the GI bill for 
military personnel and their families.
  My amendment will improve and enhance the current educational 
benefits and create the GI bill for the 21st century.
  One of the most important provisions of my amendment would give the 
service Secretaries the authority to authorize a service member to 
transfer his or her basic Montgomery GI bill benefits to family 
members. It will make the GI bill for the first time family friendly. 
This will give the Secretaries of the services a very powerful 
retention tool.
  My amendment will also give the Secretaries the authority to 
authorize the Veterans' Educational Assistance Program, VEAP, 
participants and those active duty personnel who did not enroll in the 
Montgomery GI bill to participate in the current GI bill program.
  Another enhancement to the current Montgomery GI bill extends the 
period in which the members of Reserve components can use this benefit.

  Other provisions of this amendment will allow the Service Secretaries 
to pay 100 percent of tuition assistance or enable service members to 
use the Montgomery GI bill to cover any unpaid tuition and expenses 
when the services do not pay 100 percent.
  This GI bill amendment is an important retention tool for the 
services, as well as a wonderful benefit for the men and women who 
bravely serve our country. I believe that education begets education. 
We must continue to focus our resources in retaining our personnel and 
meeting their personal needs. It is cheaper and better all around to 
retain than retrain.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Cleland for making an 
extraordinary contribution, not just on this amendment but in so many 
ways on the Armed Services Committee and in the Senate. This will be an 
aid to recruitment and retention. I congratulate him for his usual 
perceptiveness of trying to improve the morale and conditions for the 
men and women in our armed services. He is a supreme leader in that 
regard. I thank him for his continuing leadership and look forward to 
the adoption of his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join my distinguished colleague from 
Michigan. The Senator and I have been here 22 years, and we have seen a 
lot of Senators come and go on the Armed Services Committee. When this 
fine American stepped on to our committee, from the first day he has 
taken a position for which we all respect and value his guidance and 
judgment.
  I will say, this man has a sense of humor. Now, it takes sometimes a 
little probing to get it out. He always combines his humor with 
history. He is a great student of military history and those who have 
been in public life in the past. He livens up the committee meetings 
and the markups. When things are sort of in a trough, he will inject 
himself.
  But this is something he and I have discussed for a number of years. 
I am very hopeful that we, in the course of the conference, can achieve 
some measure of these goals, maybe the full measure, I say to the 
Senator, but I know not.
  As I have said, with great humility, what modest military career I 
have had in terms of periods of active duty, both at the end of World 
War II and during the Korean War, in no way compares to the heroic 
service that this fine Senator rendered his country.
  But I will say, the greatest investment America made in post-World 
War II, in those years when this country was returning to normalcy--
they were exciting years, 1946 to 1950--it was the GI bill, the 
investment by America in that generation of some 16 million men and 
women who were privileged to serve in uniform during that period, and I 
was a modest recipient of the GI bill. I would not be here today, I say 
to the Senator, had it not been for that education given to me.
  My father had passed on in the closing months of World War II, and my 
mother was widowed. We were prepared to all struggle together to do the 
best we could in our family. Among the assets was not the money to go 
to college. Had it not been for the GI bill, I would not be here today.
  So you have a strong shoulder at the wheel with this Senator. But I 
salute you. We are going to do our very best. I thank you for working 
tirelessly on behalf of the men and women of the Armed Forces.

  Mr. President, the distinguished ranking member and I are prepared to 
offer a number of amendments with our colleagues.


                           Amendment No. 3216

(Purpose: To ensure that obligations to make payments under the CVN-69 
  contract for a fiscal year after fiscal year 2001 is subject to the 
                    availability of appropriations)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Snowe and Senator

[[Page S4733]]

Kennedy, I offer an amendment, which is a technical amendment to 
section 125 of the bill regarding the overhaul of CVN-69, the U.S.S. 
Eisenhower.
  Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been cleared by the other 
side; am I correct?
  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] for Ms. Snowe, for 
     herself and Mr. Kennedy, proposes an amendment numbered 3216.

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

       On page 31, strike lines 16 through 18, and insert the 
     following:
     ``of the CVN-69 nuclear aircraft carrier.
       ``(c) Condition for Out-Year Contract Payments.--A contract 
     entered into under subsection (b) shall include a clause that 
     states that any obligation of the United States to make a 
     payment under the contract for a fiscal year afer fiscal year 
     2001 is subject to the availability of appropriations for 
     that purpose for that later fiscal year.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  There being no further debate on the amendment, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3216) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3217

(Purpose: To repeal authorities to delay pay days at the end of fiscal 
                               year 2000)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I offer an amendment which repeals 
authorities to delay pay days--that is, military and civilian--at the 
end of fiscal year 2000 and into fiscal year 2001. I believe this 
amendment has been cleared.
  Mr. LEVIN. It has been cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3217.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 364, between the matter following line 13 and line 
     14, insert the following:

     SEC. 1010. REPEAL OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS SHIFTING CERTAIN 
                   OUTLAYS FROM ONE FISCAL YEAR TO ANOTHER.

       Sections 305 and 306 of H.R. 3425 of the 106th Congress, as 
     enacted into law by section 1000(a)(5) of Public Law 106-113 
     (113 Stat. 1501A-306), are repealed.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any further debate on the amendment?
  There being no further debate, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3217) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3218

(Purpose: To require a report on the Defense Travel System and to limit 
                    the use of funds for the system)

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Robb, I offer an 
amendment which requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to 
the congressional defense committees concerning the management and 
fielding of the defense travel system. I believe this has been cleared 
by the other side.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it has been cleared. I commend the Senator 
from Virginia. This is a very important subject. Indeed, it is one on 
which we should have additional oversight. This report will be helpful.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Robb, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3218.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page ____, between lines ____ and ____, insert the 
     following:

     SEC.  . DEFENSE TRAVEL SYSTEM.

       (a) Requirement for Report.--Not later than November 30, 
     2000, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a report on the Defense 
     Travel System.
       (b) Content of Report.--The report shall include the 
     following:
       (1) A detailed discussion of the development, testing, and 
     fielding of the system, including the performance 
     requirements, the evaluation criteria, the funding that has 
     been provided for the development, testing, and fielding of 
     the system, and the funding that is projected to be required 
     for completing the development, testing, and fielding of the 
     system.
       (2) The schedule that has been followed for the testing of 
     the system, including the initial operational test and 
     evaluation and the final operational testing and evaluation, 
     together with the results of the testing.
       (3) The cost savings expected to result from the deployment 
     of the system and from the completed implementation of the 
     system, together with a discussion of how the savings are 
     estimated and the expected schedule for the realization of 
     the savings.
       (4) An analysis of the costs and benefits of fielding the 
     front-end software for the system throughout all 18 
     geographical areas selected for the original fielding of the 
     system.
       (c) Limitations.--(1) Not more than 25 percent of the 
     amount authorized to be appropriated under section 301(5) for 
     the Defense Travel System may be obligated or expended before 
     the date on which the Secretary submits the report required 
     under subsection (a).
       (2) Funds appropriated for the Defense Travel System 
     pursuant to the authorization of appropriations referred to 
     in paragraph (1) may not be used for a purpose other than the 
     Defense Travel System unless the Secretary first submits to 
     Congress a written notification of the intended use and the 
     amount to be so used.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the amendment 
is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3218) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3219

(Purpose: To modify authority to carry out a fiscal year 1990 military 
 construction project relating to Portsmouth Naval Hospital, Virginia)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Robb and myself, I 
offer an amendment which would modify the authority to carry out a 
fiscal year 1990 military construction project relating to the naval 
hospital at Portsmouth, VA.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for himself and Mr. 
     Robb, proposes an amendment numbered 3219.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 501, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:

     SEC. 2404. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT CERTAIN 
                   FISCAL YEAR 1990 PROJECT.

       (a) Increase.--Section 2401(a) of the Military Construction 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (division B 
     of Public Law 101-189), as amended by section 2407 of the 
     Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 
     (division B of Public Law 105-261; 112 Stat. 2197), is 
     amended in the item relating to Portsmouth Naval Hospital, 
     Virginia, by striking ``$351,354,000'' and inserting 
     ``$359,854,000''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2405(b)(2) of the 
     Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 
     and 1991, as amended by section 2407 of the Military 
     Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, is 
     amended by striking ``$342,854,000'' and inserting 
     ``$351,354,000''.

  Mr. WARNER. Let the Record reflect it has been cleared on both sides.
  Mr. LEVIN. We support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There being no objection, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3219) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3220

      (Purpose: To authorize the payment of $7,975 for a fine for 
      environmental permit violations at Fort Sam Houston, Texas)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I offer an amendment to section 345 of S. 
2549 that would authorize the Secretary of the Army to pay the cash 
fine of $7,975 to the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission 
for permit violations assessed under the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act at Fort Sam Houston, TX.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3220.


[[Page S4734]]


  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 94, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
       (6) $7,975 for payment to the Texas Natural Resource 
     Conservation Commission of a cash fine for permit violations 
     assessed under the Solid Waste Disposal Act.

  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared on this side.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without further debate, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3220) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3221

    (Purpose: To strike section 344, relating to a modification of 
    authority for indemnification of transferees of closing defense 
                               property)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I offer an amendment to strike all of 
section 344 of S. 2549.
  I believe this amendment has been cleared.
  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3221.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 88, strike line 11 and all that follows through 
     page 92, line 19.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without further debate, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3221) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3222

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I offer an amendment which makes technical 
corrections to the bill. This has been cleared on the other side.
  Mr. LEVIN. It has been cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3222.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 147, line 6, strike ``section 573(b)'' and insert 
     ``section 573(c)''.
       On page 303, strike line 10 and insert the following:

     SEC. 901. REPEAL OF LIMITATION ON MAJOR.

       On page 358, beginning on line 11, strike ``Defense Finance 
     and Accounting System'' and insert ``Defense Finance and 
     Accounting Service''.
       On page 358, beginning on line 12, strike ``contract 
     administration service'' and insert ``contract administration 
     services system''.
       On page 359, line 5, strike ``Defense Finance and 
     Accounting System'' and insert ``Defense Finance and 
     Accounting Service''.
       On page 359, beginning on line 6, strike ``contract 
     administration service'' and insert ``contract administration 
     services system''.
       On page 359, beginning on line 9, strike ``Defense Finance 
     and Accounting System'' and insert ``Defense Finance and 
     Accounting Service''.
       On page 493, in the table following line 10, strike ``136 
     units'' in the purpose column in the item relating to 
     Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, and insert ``119 
     units''.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without further debate on the amendment, the 
amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3222) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3223

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I offer a technical amendment in relation 
to the DOE future-years nuclear security plan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3223.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 584, line 13, strike ``3101(c)'' and insert 
     ``3101(a)(1)(C)''.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on this 
side.
  Mr. WARNER. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the 
amendment, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3223) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3224

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

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3224.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 565, strike lines 9 through 13.

  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without further debate, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3224) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3225

  Mr. WARNER. I offer a technical amendment in relation to the mixed 
oxide fuel construction project.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3225.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 554, line 25, strike ``$31,000,000.'' and insert 
     ``$20,000,000.''.
       On page 555, line 4, strike ``$15,000,000.'' and insert 
     ``$26,000,000.''.

  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without further debate, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3225) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3226

   (Purpose: To enhance and improve educational assistance under the 
  Montgomery GI Bill in order to enhance recruitment and retention of 
                      members of the Armed Forces)

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Cleland, and other 
cosponsors whom he has identified, I offer an amendment that would 
enhance the Montgomery GI bill for both active and reserve members of 
the Armed Forces. This is the amendment we just discussed and on which 
we are so appreciative of Senator Cleland's leadership.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] for Mr. Cleland, for 
     himself, Mr. Robb, and Mr. Reed, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3226.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I come before you today to offer an 
amendment that addresses the educational needs of our men and our men 
and women in uniform and their families. I appreciate the support of my 
colleagues who have supported my provisions to enhance the GI bill, 
Senators Levin, Bingaman, Reed, and Robb. I also like to recognize the 
chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, who 
himself went to school on the GI bill. I want to thank him for his 
support and encouragement in improving the GI bill for military 
personnel and their families.
  I call this measure the HOPE--Help Our Professionals Educationally--
Act of 2000. This measure is the same at my original legislation, S. 
2402.
  Last year, Time magazine named the American GI as the Person of the 
Century. That alone is a statement about the value of our military 
personnel. They are recognized around the world for their dedication 
and commitment to fight for our country and for peace in the world. 
This past century has been the most violent century in the

[[Page S4735]]

modern era. The American GI has fought in the trenches during the First 
World War, the beaches at Normandy, in the jungles of Vietnam, in the 
deserts of the Persian Gulf, and most recently in the Balkans and 
Kosovo.
  The face of our military and the people who fight our wars has 
changed. The traditional image of the single, mostly male, drafted, and 
disposable soldier is gone. Today we are fielding the force for the 
21st century. This new force is a volunteer force, filled with men and 
women who are highly skilled, married, and definitely not disposable. 
Gone are the days when quality of life for a GI included a beer in the 
barracks and a three-day pass. Now, we know we have to recruit a 
soldier and retain a family.
  We have won the cold war. This victory has changed the world and our 
military. The new world order has given us a new world disorder. The 
United States is responding to crises around the globe--whether it be 
strategic bombing or humanitarian assistance--and our military is the 
most effective response. In order to meet these challenges, we are 
retooling our forces to be lighter, leaner and meaner. This is a 
positive move. Along with this lighter force, our military 
professionals must be highly educated and highly trained.
  Our nation is currently experiencing the longest running peacetime 
economic growth in history. This economic expansion has been a boom for 
our nation. However, there is a negative impact of this growing 
economy. With the enticement of quick prosperity in the civilian sector 
it is more difficult than ever to recruit and retain our highly skilled 
force.
  In fiscal year 99, the Army missed its recruiting goals by 6,291 
recruits, while the Air Force missed its recruiting goal by 1,732 
recruits. Pilot retention problems persist for all services; the Air 
Force ended FY99 1,200 pilots short and the Navy ended FY99 500 pilots 
short. The Army is having problems retaining captains, while the Navy 
faces manning challenges for Surface Warfare Officers and Special 
Warfare Officers. It is estimated than $6 million is spent to train a 
pilot. We as a nation cannot afford to train our people, only to lose 
them to the private sector. It is better to retain than retrain.
  There is hope that we are addressing these challenges. Last year was 
a momentous year for our military personnel. The Senate passed 
legislation that significantly enhances the quality of life for our 
military personnel. From retirement reform to pay raises, this Congress 
is on record supporting our men and women in uniform. However, more 
must be done.
  In talking with our military personnel, we know that money alone is 
not enough. Education is the number one reason service members come 
into the military and the number one reason its members are leaving. 
Last year the Senate began to address this issue by supporting improved 
education benefits for military members and their families. Since last 
year, we have gone back and studied this issue further. In reviewing 
the current Montgomery GI bill, we found several disincentives and 
conflicts among the education benefits offered by the services. These 
conflicts make the GI bill, an earned benefit, less attractive than it 
could be.
  My amendment will improve and enhance the current educational 
benefits and create the GI bill for the 21st century.
  One of the most important provisions of my amendment would give the 
Service Secretaries the authority to authorize a service member to 
transfer his or her basic MGIB benefits to family members. Many service 
members tell us that they really want to stay in the service, but do 
not feel that they can stay and provide an education for their 
families. This will give them an Educational Savings Account, so that 
they can stay in the service and still provide an education for their 
spouses and children. This will give the Secretaries a very powerful 
retention tool. The measure would allow the Services to authorize 
transfer of basic GI bill benefits anytime after 6 years of service. To 
encourage members to stay longer, the transferred benefits could not be 
used until completion of at least 10 years of service. I believe that 
the Services can use this much like a reenlistment bonus to keep 
valuable service members in the service. It can be creatively combined 
with reenlistment bonuses to create a very powerful and cost effective 
incentive for highly skilled military personnel to stay in the Service. 
In talking with service members upon their departure from the military, 
we have found that the family plays a crucial role in the decision of a 
member to continue their military career. Reality dictates that we must 
address the needs of the family in order to retain our soldiers, 
sailors, airmen, and marines.
  My amendment would also give the Secretaries the authority to 
authorize the Veterans' Educational Assistance Program (VEAP) 
participants and those active duty personnel who did not enroll in MGIB 
to participate in the current GI bill program. The VEAP participants 
would contribute $1200, and those who did not enroll in MGIB would 
contribute $1500. The services would pay any additional costs of the 
benefits of this measure.
  Another enhancement to the current MGIB would extend the period in 
which the members of Reserve components can use this benefit. Currently 
they lose this benefit when they leave the service or after 10 years of 
service. They have no benefit when they leave service. My amendment 
will permit them to use the benefit up to 5 years after their 
separation. This will encourage them to stay in the Reserves for a full 
career. Other provisions of this amendment would allow the Service 
Secretaries to pay 100 percent tuition assistance or enable service 
members to use the MGIB to cover any unpaid tuition and expenses when 
the services don't pay 100 percent.
  Mr. President, I believe that this is a necessary next step for 
improving our education benefits for our military members and their 
families. We must offer them credible choices. If we offer them 
choices, and treat the members and their families properly, we will 
show them our respect for their service and dedication. Maybe then we 
can turn around our current retention statistics. This GI bill is an 
important retention tool for the services. I believe that education 
begets education. We must continue to focus our resources in retaining 
our personnel based on their needs.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the clerk could read for us the list of 
cosponsors on that amendment so any others who might wish 
cosponsorship.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the cosponsors.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan Mr. Levin, for Mr. Cleland, for 
     himself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Robb, and Mr. Reed of Rhode Island.

  Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, given the importance of this legislation, 
I ask unanimous consent that such other Senators who desire to be 
cosponsors may be listed through the close of business today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Without 
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3226) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3227

 (Purpose: To strike section 553(c) which repeals authority regarding 
 grants and contracts to uncooperative instutions of higher education)

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Kennedy, I offer an 
amendment that would strike a repeal of the duplicative authority from 
section 553 of the bill. I believe the amendment has been cleared on 
the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Kennedy, for 
     himself, and Mr. Cleland, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3227.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 186, strike lines 1 through 9, and insert the 
     following:
       (c) Effective Dates.--(1) The amendment made by subsection 
     (a) shall take effect on July 1, 2002.
       (2) The amendments made by subsection (b).


[[Page S4736]]


  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without further debate, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3227) 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.


                           Amendment No. 3228

(Purpose: To amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to strengthen 
 the financial security of families of uniformed services personnel in 
                    cases of loss of family members)

  Mr. WARNER. On behalf of Senator McCain, I offer an amendment that 
will enhance the survival benefit plan available to retired members of 
the uniformed services, and I ask unanimous consent to be listed as 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. McCain, for 
     himself, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Levin, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3228.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing three amendments to 
S. 2549, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2001. The first 
amendment will provide more pay for mid-career enlisted service 
members. The second amendment will authorize survivor benefit 
improvements for the families of service members. The third amendment 
will improve benefits for members of the National Guard and Reservists.
  Last year, I was pleased to see military pay table reform enacted 
into law. Our servicemembers will receive a much needed pay raise next 
month, and I commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who voted 
for this legislation.
  However, there was one group of servicemembers that was under-
represented in last year's pay table reform. Our E-5s, E-6s and E-7s 
have seen their pay erode in comparison to other pay grades. With our 
severe recruitment and retention issues still looming, we must 
adequately compensate our mid-grade enlisted servicemembers who are 
critical to leading the junior enlisted force.
  We have significantly underpaid these enlisted members since the 
advent of the All-Volunteer Force. The value of their pay, compared to 
that of a private/seaman/airman, has dropped 50% since the all 
volunteer force was enacted by Congress.
  The 1990s placed undue burdens on our career NCOs. Their expansion of 
duties during the drawdown came with little or no pay incentives, 
resulting in the departure of mid-grade NCOs and Petty Officers from 
the uniformed services.
  On promotion to grades E-5 through E-8, the gap between military and 
civilian pay begins to widen. Last year's pay table reform, which 
helped to alleviate this gap, increased the pay of mid-grade officers, 
but is lacking for the mid-grade enlisted force.
  My amendment would alleviate this inequity by increasing the pay for 
E-5s, E-6s and E-7s to the same level as those of officers with similar 
lengths of service. The amendment is estimated to cost approximately 
$200-300 million a year and is similar to legislation recently 
introduced in the House.
  My second amendment would provide low-cost survivor benefit plan 
improvements for the survivors of active duty personnel who die in the 
line of duty. Under current SBP rules, only survivors of retired 
members or those of active duty members who have greater than 20 years 
of service are eligible for SBP.
  My amendment, at an estimated cost of only $800 thousand in FY01 and 
$12.6 million over 5 years, would extend SBP coverage to all survivors 
of members who die on active duty with the annuities calculated as if 
the member had been retired with a 100% disability on the date of 
death.
  This is an inexpensive amendment that would greatly help the 
survivors of our courageous servicemembers who have made the ultimate 
sacrifice in the defense of our country.
  The second part of this amendment is a no-cost initiative that would 
allow the spouses and children of active duty personnel to participate 
in the Serviceman Group Life Insurance Program.
  Junior servicemembers can rarely afford commercial insurance on their 
spouses and children, and the unexpected loss of their spouses--who in 
many cases are the primary care givers of their children--places an 
extreme strain on the service members' ability to properly take care of 
their families.
  Premiums for this insurance would be significantly lower than 
comparable life insurance programs, because the Serviceman Group Life 
Insurance Program is composed of a consortium of insurance companies. 
This amendment would simply authorize spouses to buy up to 50% of the 
servicemember benefits--a maximum of $100,000 in coverage, and each 
dependent child could be covered for up to $10,000.
  The final amendment I have offered today increases benefits for the 
Total Force--members of the National Guard and the Reserve Components. 
The National Guard and Reserves have become a larger percentage of the 
Total Force and are essential partners in a wide range of military 
operations. Due to the high operating tempo demands on the active 
component, the Reserve components are being called upon more frequently 
and for longer periods than ever before. We must stop treating them 
like a ``second class'' force.
  This amendment will specifically authorize five improvements for the 
National Guard and Reserves. First, it will urge through a sense of 
Congress that the President should adequately request in the DoD budget 
the funds necessary to modernize these forces, and support their 
training and readiness accounts to ensure that the Total Force can 
continue to support our National Military Strategy.
  Second, this amendment will authorize National Guard and reserve 
servicemembers to travel for duty or training on a space-required basis 
on military airlift between the servicemember's home of record and 
their place of duty.
  Third, it will authorize National Guard and reserve servicemembers 
who travel more than 50 miles from their home of record to attend their 
drills to be able to stay at Bachelor Quarters on military 
installations.
  Fourth, it will increase from 75 to 90 the maximum number of reserve 
retirement points that may be credited in a year for reserve service.
  Finally, it will authorize legal/JAG services be extended for up to 
twice the length of period of military service after active duty recall 
for National Guard and reserve servicemembers to handle issues or 
problems under the Sailor and Soldier Act.
  In conclusion, I would like to emphasize the importance of enacting 
meaningful improvements for our servicemembers; our Soldiers, Sailors, 
Airmen, Marines, their families and their survivors. They risk their 
lives to defend our shores and preserve democracy and we can not thank 
them enough for their service. But we can pay them more, improve their 
benefits to their survivors, and support the Total Force in a similar 
manner as the active forces. Our servicemembers past, present, and 
future need these improvements, and these three amendments are just one 
step we can take to show our support and improve the quality of life 
for our servicemembers and their families.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without further debate, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3228) 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. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a 
cosponsor to amendment No. 3228.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3229

 (Purpose: To provide an additional increase in military basic pay for 
 enlisted members of the uniformed services in pay grades E-5, E-6, or 
                                  E-7)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator McCain, I offer an 
amendment that would provide an additional increase in the military 
basic pay for enlisted personnel in grades E5, E6, E7, and I ask 
unanimous consent to

[[Page S4737]]

be listed as a cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. McCain, for 
     himself, and Mr. Warner, proposes an amendment numbered 3229.

  The amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 610. RESTRUCTURING OF BASIC PAY TABLES FOR CERTAIN 
                   ENLISTED MEMBERS.

       (a) In General.--The table under the heading ``ENLISTED 
     MEMBERS'' in section 601(c) of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 105-65; 
     113 Stat. 648) is amended by striking the amounts relating to 
     pay grades E-7, E-6, and E-5 and inserting the amounts for 
     the corresponding years of service specified in the following 
     table:

                                                                                        ENLISTED MEMBERS
                                                          [Years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States Code]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Pay Grade                                  2 or less                    Over 2                     Over 3                     Over 4                     Over 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-7......................................................                   1,765.80                   1,927.80                   2,001.00                   2,073.00                   2,148.60
E-6......................................................                   1,518.90                   1,678.20                   1,752.60                   1,824.30                   1,899.40
E-5......................................................                   1,332.60                   1,494.00                   1,566.00                   1,640.40                   1,715.70
                                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Over 8                    Over 10                    Over 12                    Over 14                    Over 16
                                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-7......................................................                   2,277.80                   2,350.70                   2,423.20                   2,495.90                   2,570.90
E-6......................................................                   2,022.60                   2,096.40                   2,168.60                   2,241.90                   2,294.80
E-5......................................................                   1,821.00                   1,893.00                   1,967.10                   1,967.60                   1,967.60
                                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Over 18                    Over 20                    Over 22                    Over 24                    Over 26
                                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-7......................................................                   2,644.20                   2,717.50                   2,844.40                   2,926.40                   3,134.40
E-6......................................................                   2,332.00                   2,332.00                   2,335.00                   2,335.00                   2,335.00
E-5......................................................                   1,967.60                   1,967.60                   1,967.60                   1,967.60                   1,967.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (b) Application of Amendments.--The amendments made by 
     subsection (a) shall take effect as of October 1, 2000, and 
     shall apply with respect to months beginning on or after that 
     date.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without further debate, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3229) 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.


                           Amendment No. 3230

(Purpose: To improve the benefits for members of the reserve components 
               of the Armed Forces and their dependents)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Grams, McCain, 
Sessions, Allard, Ashcroft, and myself, I offer an amendment that would 
improve benefits for members of the reserve components of the Armed 
Forces and their dependents.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Grams, for 
     himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Allard, Mr. Ashcroft, 
     Mr. Warner, and Mr. Levin, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3230.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 239, after line 22, add the following:

   Subtitle F--Additional Benefits For Reserves and Their Dependents

     SEC. 671. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that it is in the national 
     interest for the President to provide the funds for the 
     reserve components of the Armed Forces (including the 
     National Guard and Reserves) that are sufficient to ensure 
     that the reserve components meet the requirements specified 
     for the reserve components in the National Military Strategy, 
     including training requirements.

     SEC. 672. TRAVEL BY RESERVES ON MILITARY AIRCRAFT.

       (a) Space-Required Travel for Travel to Duty Stations 
     INCONUS and OCONUS.--(1) Subsection (a) of section 18505 of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) A member of a reserve component traveling to a place 
     of annual training duty or inactive-duty training (including 
     a place other than the member's unit training assembly if the 
     member is performing annual training duty or inactive-duty 
     training in another location) may travel in a space-required 
     status on aircraft of the armed forces between the member's 
     home and the place of such duty or training.''.
       (2) The heading of such section is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``Sec. 18505. Reserves traveling to annual training duty or 
       inactive-duty training: authority for space-required 
       travel''.

       (b) Space-Available Travel for Members of Selected Reserve, 
     Gray Area Retirees, and Dependents.--Chapter 1805 of such 
     title is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 18506. Space-available travel: Selected Reserve 
       members and reserve retirees under age 60; dependents

       ``(a) Eligibility for Space-Available Travel.--The 
     Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations to allow 
     persons described in subsection (b) to receive transportation 
     on aircraft of the Department of Defense on a space-available 
     basis under the same terms and conditions (including terms 
     and conditions applicable to travel outside the United 
     States) as apply to members of the armed forces entitled to 
     retired pay.
       ``(b) Persons Eligible.--Subsection (a) applies to the 
     following persons:
       ``(1) A person who is a member of the Selected Reserve in 
     good standing (as determined by the Secretary concerned) or 
     who is a participating member of the Individual Ready Reserve 
     of the Navy or Coast Guard in good standing (as determined by 
     the Secretary concerned).
       ``(c) Dependents.--A dependent of a person described in 
     subsection (b) shall be provided transportation under this 
     section on the same basis as dependents of members of the 
     armed forces entitled to retired pay.
       ``(d) Limitation on Required Identification.--Neither the 
     `Authentication of Reserve Status for Travel Eligibility' 
     form (DD Form 1853), nor or any other form, other than the 
     presentation of military identification and duty orders upon 
     request, or other methods of identification required of 
     active duty personnel, shall be required of reserve component 
     personnel using space-available transportation within or 
     outside the continental United States under this section.''.
       (c) Clerical Amendments.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by striking the item 
     relating to section 18505 and inserting the following new 
     items:

``18505. Reserves traveling to annual training duty or inactive-duty 
              training: authority for space-required travel.
``18506. Space-available travel: Selected Reserve members and reserve 
              retirees under age 60; dependents.''.
       (d) Implementing Regulations.--Regulations under section 
     18506 of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection 
     (b), shall be prescribed not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 673. BILLETING SERVICES FOR RESERVE MEMBERS TRAVELING 
                   FOR INACTIVE DUTY TRAINING.

       (a) In General.--(1) Chapter 1217 of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting after section 12603 the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 12604. Billeting in Department of Defense facilities: 
       Reserves attending inactive-duty training

       ``(a) Authority for Billeting on Same Basis as Active Duty 
     Members Traveling Under Orders.--The Secretary of Defense 
     shall prescribe regulations authorizing a Reserve traveling 
     to inactive-duty training at a location more than 50 miles 
     from that Reserve's residence to be eligible for billeting in 
     Department of Defense facilities on the same basis and to the 
     same extent as a member of the armed forces on active duty 
     who is traveling under orders away from the member's 
     permanent duty station.
       ``(b) Proof of Reason for Travel.--The Secretary shall 
     include in the regulations the means for confirming a 
     Reserve's eligibility for billeting under subsection (a).''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
     12603 the following new item:

``12604. Billeting in Department of Defense facilities: Reserves 
              attending inactive-duty training.

[[Page S4738]]

       (b) Effective Date.--Section 12604 of title 10, United 
     States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall apply with 
     respect to periods of inactive-duty training beginning more 
     than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 674. INCREASE IN MAXIMUM NUMBER OF RESERVE RETIREMENT 
                   POINTS THAT MAY BE CREDITED IN ANY YEAR.

       Section 12733(3) of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``but not more than'' and all that 
     follows and inserting ``but not more than--
       ``(A) 60 days in any one year of service before the year of 
     service that includes September 23, 1996;
       ``(B) 75 days in the year of service that includes 
     September 23, 1996, and in any subsequent year of service 
     before the year of service that includes the date of the 
     enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2001; and
       ``(C) 90 days in the year of service that includes the date 
     of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 2001 and in any subsequent year of 
     service.''.

     SEC. 675. AUTHORITY FOR PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES TO 
                   RESERVE COMPONENT MEMBERS FOLLOWING RELEASE 
                   FROM ACTIVE DUTY.

       (a) Legal Services.--Section 1044(a) of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new 
     paragraph (4):
       ``(4) Members of reserve components of the armed forces not 
     covered by paragraph (1) or (2) following release from active 
     duty under a call or order to active duty for more than 30 
     days issued under a mobilization authority (as determined by 
     the Secretary of Defense), but only during the period that 
     begins on the date of the release and is equal to at least 
     twice the length of the period served on active duty under 
     such call or order to active duty.''.
       (b) Dependents.--Paragraph (5) of such section, as 
     redesignated by subsection (a)(1), is amended by striking 
     ``and (3)'' and inserting ``(3), and (4)''.
       (c) Implementing Regulations.--Regulations to implement the 
     amendments made by this section shall be prescribed not later 
     than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Warner for his help and 
leadership in accepting my amendment to help our National Guard and 
Reserves. Without his steadfast support for our military personnel, the 
changes being endorsed in my amendment would not be possible.
  In an attempt to maintain a strong national defense despite budget 
cuts, the President has increasingly asked the Guard and Reserves to 
make up the difference. Work days contributed by reservists have risen 
from 1 million days in 1992, to over 13 million days last year. If you 
look at the Armed Forces personnel participating in the Bosnia and 
Kosovo operations, 33 percent are members of the Guard and Reserves in 
Bosnia and 22 percent in Kosovo. The National Guard can provide many of 
the same services as the active duty personnel at a fraction of the 
cost. But what impact does this have on Guardsmen, Reservists, and 
their families?
  I support the total force concept, but I don't believe we can afford 
to balance DoD's budget on the backs of our citizen soldiers and 
airmen. That's why I introduced this amendment to the Defense 
Authorization bill, along with Senators McCain, Allard, Sessions, 
Ashcroft, Warner, and Levin.
  My amendment addresses quality of life issues. It extends space 
required travel to the National Guard and Reserves for travel to duty 
stations both inside and outside of the United States. It also provides 
the same space available travel privileges for the Guard, Reserves, and 
dependents that the armed forces provides to retired military and their 
dependents. My amendment gives them the same priority status and 
billeting privileges as active duty personnel when traveling for 
monthly drills. It raises the annual reserve retirement point maximum, 
upon which retirement pensions are based, from 75 to 90. Finally, it 
will extend free legal services to Selected Reservists by Judge 
Advocate General officers for a time equal to twice the length of their 
last period of active duty service.
  I believe the dramatic increase in overseas active-duty assignments 
for reserve members merits the extension of military benefits for our 
Nation's citizen soldiers. It is only fair to close these disparities. 
This amendment would restore fairness to Guard and Reserve members, and 
it would strengthen our national defense and increase our military 
readiness by alleviating many of the recruitment and retention 
problems.
  These are difficult days, without clear and easy answers. But I'm 
glad that, as we often have during trying times, we're able to turn to 
the men and women of the National Guard and Reserves to help ease the 
way. We must not forget their sacrifices. For in the words of President 
Calvin Coolidge, ``the nation which forgets its defenders will itself 
be forgotten.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without further debate, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3230) 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. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a 
cosponsor of amendment No. 3230.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3231

   (Purpose: To authorize the President to award the gold and silver 
    medals on behalf of the Congress to the Navajo Code Talkers, in 
           recognition of their contributions to the Nation)

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bingaman, I offer an 
amendment that would authorize the President to award gold and silver 
medals on behalf of Congress to the Navaho Code Talkers in recognition 
of their contributions to the Nation during World War II.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows;

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Bingaman, 
     for himself and Mr. Warner, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3231.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title X, insert the following:

     SEC. 10____. CONGRESSIONAL MEDALS FOR NAVAJO CODE TALKERS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) on December 7, 1941, the Japanese Empire attacked Pearl 
     Harbor and war was declared by Congress on the following day;
       (2) the military code developed by the United States for 
     transmitting messages had been deciphered by the Japanese, 
     and a search was made by United States Intelligence to 
     develop new means to counter the enemy;
       (3) the United States Government called upon the Navajo 
     Nation to support the military effort by recruiting and 
     enlisting 29 Navajo men to serve as Marine Corps Radio 
     Operators;
       (4) the number of Navajo enlistees later increased to more 
     than 350;
       (5) at the time, the Navajos were often treated as second-
     class citizens, and they were a people who were discouraged 
     from using their own native language;
       (6) the Navajo Marine Corps Radio Operators, who became 
     known as the ``Navajo Code Talkers'', were used to develop a 
     code using their native language to communicate military 
     messages in the Pacific;
       (7) to the enemy's frustration, the code developed by these 
     Native Americans proved to be unbreakable, and was used 
     extensively throughout the Pacific theater;
       (8) the Navajo language, discouraged in the past, was 
     instrumental in developing the most significant and 
     successful military code of the time;
       (9) at Iwo Jima alone, the Navajo Code Talkers passed more 
     than 800 error-free messages in a 48-hour period;
       (10) use of the Navajo Code was so successful, that--
       (A) military commanders credited it in saving the lives of 
     countless American soldiers and in the success of the 
     engagements of the United States in the battles of 
     Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Saipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa;
       (B) some Code Talkers were guarded by fellow Marines, whose 
     role was to kill them in case of imminent capture by the 
     enemy; and
       (C) the Navajo Code was kept secret for 23 years after the 
     end of World War II;
       (11) following the conclusion of World War II, the 
     Department of Defense maintained the secrecy of the Navajo 
     Code until it was declassified in 1968; and
       (12) only then did a realization of the sacrifice and valor 
     of these brave Native Americans emerge from history.
       (b) Congressional Medals Authorized.--To express 
     recognition by the United States and its citizens in honoring 
     the Navajo Code Talkers, who distinguished themselves in 
     performing a unique, highly successful communications 
     operation that greatly assisted in saving countless lives and 
     hastening the end of World War II in the Pacific, the 
     President is authorized--
       (1) to award to each of the original 29 Navajo Code 
     Talkers, or a surviving family member, on behalf of the 
     Congress, a gold medal of appropriate design, honoring the 
     Navajo Code Talkers; and

[[Page S4739]]

       (2) to award to each person who qualified as a Navajo Code 
     Talker (MOS 642), or a surviving family member, on behalf of 
     the Congress, a silver medal of appropriate design, honoring 
     the Navajo Code Talkers.
       (c) Design and Striking.--For purposes of the awards 
     authorized by subsection (b), the Secretary of the Treasury 
     (in this section referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall 
     strike gold and silver medals with suitable emblems, devices, 
     and inscriptions, to be determined by the Secretary.
       (d) Duplicate Medals.--The Secretary may strike and sell 
     duplicates in bronze of the medals struck pursuant to this 
     section, under such regulations as the Secretary may 
     prescribe, and at a price sufficient to cover the costs 
     thereof, including labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, 
     and overhead expenses, and the cost of the medals.
       (e) National Medals.--The medals struck pursuant to this 
     section are national medals for purposes of chapter 51, of 
     title 31, United States Code.
       (f) Authority To Use Fund Amounts.--There is authorized to 
     be charged against the United States Mint Public Enterprise 
     Fund, not more than $30,000, to pay for the costs of the 
     medals authorized by this section.
       (g) Proceeds of Sale.--Amounts received from the sale of 
     duplicate medals under this section shall be deposited in the 
     United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a 
cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Without further debate, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3231) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, let me expand on this and say how much I 
respect Senator Bingaman for bringing this to the attention of the 
Senate and incorporating this most well-deserved recognition on behalf 
of these individuals.
  Again, with brief service in the concluding months of the war, 
particularly while I was in the Navy, the Marine Corps utilized these 
individuals a great deal. What they would do is get on the walkie-
talkies in the heat of battle and in their native tongue communicate 
the orders of the officers and noncommissioned officers to forward and 
other positions, subjecting themselves to the most intense elements of 
combat at the time. They were very brave individuals. They performed a 
remarkable service. Here we are, some 56 years after the intensity of 
the fighting in the Pacific, which began in 1941, honoring them. They 
were magnificent human beings, and the men in the forward units of 
combat appreciated what they did. I salute our distinguished colleague. 
I am delighted to be a cosponsor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I join my good friend, Senator Warner, in 
thanking and commending the men for their gallant service during World 
War II and to thank Senator Bingaman for remembering them and having us 
as a body remember them. That is a real service, too. We are both 
grateful to Senator Bingaman.
  Mr. WARNER. In other words, the enemy simply did not, if they picked 
up this language with their listening systems, have the vaguest idea. 
There are stories of the confusion of the enemy: They didn't know who 
it was on the beach, what was coming at them. It was remarkable.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is a great bit of history, and it is great to be 
reminded of it.
  Mr. WARNER. Indeed.
  Mr. LEVIN. I hope it has been written up because it is not familiar 
to me. I am now going to become familiar with it.
  Mr. WARNER. There were quite a few stories written about them. They 
were self-effacing, humble people, proud to be identified with their 
tribes. They went back into the sinews of America, as so many of the 
men and women did, to take up their responsibilities at home.


                           Amendment No. 3232

(Purpose: To revise the fee structure for residents of the Armed Forces 
                            Retirement Home)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Lott, I offer an 
amendment that would revise the fee structure for residents of the 
Armed Services Retirement Home.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. WARNER], for Mr. Lott, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3232.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 236, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:

     SEC. 646. FEES PAID BY RESIDENTS OF THE ARMED FORCES 
                   RETIREMENT HOME.

       (a) Naval Home.--Section 1514 of the Armed Forces 
     Retirement Home Act of 1991 (24 U.S.C. 414) is amended by 
     striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
       ``(d) Naval Home.--The monthly fee required to be paid by a 
     resident of the Naval Home under subsection (a) shall be as 
     follows:
       ``(1) For a resident in an independent living status, $500.
       ``(2) For a resident in an assisted living status, $750.
       ``(3) For a resident of a skilled nursing facility, 
     $1,250.''.
       (b) United States Soldiers' and Airmen's Home.--Subsection 
     (c) of such section is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(c) Fixing Fees.--'' and inserting ``(c) 
     United States Soldiers' and Airmen's Home.--'';
       (2) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``the fee required by subsection (a) of 
     this section'' and inserting ``the fee required to be paid by 
     residents of the United States Soldiers' and Airmen's Home 
     under subsection (a)''; and
       (B) by striking ``needs of the Retirement Home'' and 
     inserting ``needs of that establishment''; and
       (3) in paragraph (2), by striking the second sentence.
       (c) Savings Provision.--Such section is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Residents Before Fiscal Year 2001.--A resident of the 
     Retirement Home on September 30, 2000, may not be charged a 
     monthly fee under this section in an amount that exceeds the 
     amount of the monthly fee charged that resident for the month 
     of September 2000.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2000.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without further debate, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3232) 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.


                           Amendment No. 3233

  (Purpose: To request the President to advance the late Rear Admiral 
Husband E. Kimmel on the retired list of the Navy to the highest grade 
 held as Commander in Chief, United States Fleet, during World War II, 
 and to advance the late Major General Walter C. Short on the retired 
   list of the Army to the highest grade held as Commanding General, 
Hawaiian Department, during World War II, as was done under the Officer 
   Personnel Act of 1947 for all other senior officers who served in 
 positions of command during World War II; and to express the sense of 
 Congress regarding the professional performance of Admiral Kimmel and 
                       Lieutenant General Short)

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Kennedy, I offer an 
amendment that would authorize the President to advance Rear Adm. 
Husband Kimmel on the retired list to the highest grade held as 
commander in chief, U.S. Fleet, during World War II and to advance Army 
Maj. Gen. Walter Short on the retirement list of the Army to the 
highest grade held as commanding general, Hawaiian Department, during 
World War II.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Kennedy, for 
     himself, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Roth, and Mr. Biden, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3233.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 200, after line 23, insert the following:

     SEC. 566. SENIOR OFFICERS IN COMMAND IN HAWAII ON DECEMBER 7, 
                   1941.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Rear Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, formerly the Commander 
     in Chief of the United States Fleet and the Commander in 
     Chief, United States Pacific Fleet, had an excellent and 
     unassailable record throughout his career in the United 
     States Navy prior to the December 7, 1941, attack on Pearl 
     Harbor.
       (2) Major General Walter C. Short, formerly the Commander 
     of the United States Army Hawaiian Department, had an 
     excellent and unassailable record throughout his career in 
     the United States Army prior to the December 7, 1941, attack 
     on Pearl Harbor.
       (3) Numerous investigations following the attack on Pearl 
     Harbor have documented that Admiral Kimmel and Lieutenant 
     General Short were not provided necessary and critical 
     intelligence that was available, that

[[Page S4740]]

     foretold of war with Japan, that warned of imminent attack, 
     and that would have alerted them to prepare for the attack, 
     including such essential communiques as the Japanese Pearl 
     Harbor Bomb Plot message of September 24, 1941, and the 
     message sent from the Imperial Japanese Foreign Ministry to 
     the Japanese Ambassador in the United States from December 6 
     to 7, 1941, known as the Fourteen-Part Message.
       (4) On December 16, 1941, Admiral Kimmel and Lieutenant 
     General Short were relieved of their commands and returned to 
     their permanent ranks of rear admiral and major general.
       (5) Admiral William Harrison Standley, who served as a 
     member of the investigating commission known as the Roberts 
     Commission that accused Admiral Kimmel and Lieutenant General 
     Short of ``dereliction of duty'' only six weeks after the 
     attack on Pearl Harbor, later disavowed the report 
     maintaining that ``these two officers were martyred'' and 
     ``if they had been brought to trial, both would have been 
     cleared of the charge''.
       (6) On October 19, 1944, a Naval Court of Inquiry 
     exonerated Admiral Kimmel on the grounds that his military 
     decisions and the disposition of his forces at the time of 
     the December 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor were proper ``by 
     virtue of the information that Admiral Kimmel had at hand 
     which indicated neither the probability nor the imminence of 
     an air attack on Pearl Harbor''; criticized the higher 
     command for not sharing with Admiral Kimmel ``during the very 
     critical period of November 26 to December 7, 1941, important 
     information . . . regarding the Japanese situation''; and, 
     concluded that the Japanese attack and its outcome was 
     attributable to no serious fault on the part of anyone in the 
     naval service.
       (7) On June 15, 1944, an investigation conducted by Admiral 
     T. C. Hart at the direction of the Secretary of the Navy 
     produced evidence, subsequently confirmed, that essential 
     intelligence concerning Japanese intentions and war plans was 
     available in Washington but was not shared with Admiral 
     Kimmel.
       (8) On October 20, 1944, the Army Pearl Harbor Board of 
     Investigation determined that Lieutenant General Short had 
     not been kept ``fully advised of the growing tenseness of the 
     Japanese situation which indicated an increasing necessity 
     for better preparation for war''; detailed information and 
     intelligence about Japanese intentions and war plans were 
     available in ``abundance'' but were not shared with the 
     General Short's Hawaii command; and General Short was not 
     provided ``on the evening of December 6th and the early 
     morning of December 7th, the critical information indicating 
     an almost immediate break with Japan, though there was ample 
     time to have accomplished this''.
       (9) The reports by both the Naval Court of Inquiry and the 
     Army Pearl Harbor Board of Investigation were kept secret, 
     and Rear Admiral Kimmel and Major General Short were denied 
     their requests to defend themselves through trial by court-
     martial.
       (10) The joint committee of Congress that was established 
     to investigate the conduct of Admiral Kimmel and Lieutenant 
     General Short completed, on May 31, 1946, a 1,075-page report 
     which included the conclusions of the committee that the two 
     officers had not been guilty of dereliction of duty.
       (11) The then Chief of Naval Personnel, Admiral J. L. 
     Holloway, Jr., on April 27, 1954, recommended that Admiral 
     Kimmel be advanced in rank in accordance with the provisions 
     of the Officer Personnel Act of 1947.
       (12) On November 13, 1991, a majority of the members of the 
     Board for the Correction of Military Records of the 
     Department of the Army found that Lieutenant General Short 
     ``was unjustly held responsible for the Pearl Harbor 
     disaster'' and that ``it would be equitable and just'' to 
     advance him to the rank of lieutenant general on the retired 
     list.
       (13) In October 1994, the then Chief of Naval Operations, 
     Admiral Carlisle Trost, withdrew his 1988 recommendation 
     against the advancement of Admiral Kimmel and recommended 
     that the case of Admiral Kimmel be reopened.
       (14) Although the Dorn Report, a report on the results of a 
     Department of Defense study that was issued on December 15, 
     1995, did not provide support for an advancement of Rear 
     Admiral Kimmel or Major General Short in grade, it did set 
     forth as a conclusion of the study that ``responsibility for 
     the Pearl Harbor disaster should not fall solely on the 
     shoulders of Admiral Kimmel and Lieutenant General Short, it 
     should be broadly shared''.
       (15) The Dorn Report found that ``Army and Navy officials 
     in Washington were privy to intercepted Japanese diplomatic 
     communications . . . which provided crucial confirmation of 
     the imminence of war''; that ``the evidence of the handling 
     of these messages in Washington reveals some ineptitude, some 
     unwarranted assumptions and misestimations, limited 
     coordination, ambiguous language, and lack of clarification 
     and followup at higher levels''; and, that ``together, these 
     characteristics resulted in failure . . . to appreciate fully 
     and to convey to the commanders in Hawaii the sense of focus 
     and urgency that these intercepts should have engendered''.
       (16) On July 21, 1997, Vice Admiral David C. Richardson 
     (United States Navy, retired) responded to the Dorn Report 
     with his own study which confirmed findings of the Naval 
     Court of Inquiry and the Army Pearl Harbor Board of 
     Investigation and established, among other facts, that the 
     war effort in 1941 was undermined by a restrictive 
     intelligence distribution policy, and the degree to which the 
     commanders of the United States forces in Hawaii were not 
     alerted about the impending attack on Hawaii was directly 
     attributable to the withholding of intelligence from Admiral 
     Kimmel and Lieutenant General Short.
       (17) The Officer Personnel Act of 1947, in establishing a 
     promotion system for the Navy and the Army, provided a legal 
     basis for the President to honor any officer of the Armed 
     Forces of the United States who served his country as a 
     senior commander during World War II with a placement of that 
     officer, with the advice and consent of the Senate, on the 
     retired list with the highest grade held while on the active 
     duty list.
       (18) Rear Admiral Kimmel and Major General Short are the 
     only two eligible officers from World War II who were 
     excluded from the list of retired officers presented for 
     advancement on the retired lists to their highest wartime 
     ranks under the terms of the Officer Personnel Act of 1947.
       (19) This singular exclusion from advancement on the 
     retired list serves only to perpetuate the myth that the 
     senior commanders in Hawaii were derelict in their duty and 
     responsible for the success of the attack on Pearl Harbor, a 
     distinct and unacceptable expression of dishonor toward two 
     of the finest officers who have served in the Armed Forces of 
     the United States.
       (20) Major General Walter Short died on September 23, 1949, 
     and Rear Admiral Husband Kimmel died on May 14, 1968, without 
     the honor of having been returned to their wartime ranks as 
     were their fellow veterans of World War II.
       (21) The Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Pearl Harbor 
     Survivors Association, the Admiral Nimitz Foundation, the 
     Naval Academy Alumni Association, the Retired Officers 
     Association, and the Pearl Harbor Commemorative Committee, 
     and other associations and numerous retired military officers 
     have called for the rehabilitation of the reputations and 
     honor of Admiral Kimmel and Lieutenant General Short through 
     their posthumous advancement on the retired lists to their 
     highest wartime grades.
       (b) Advancement of Rear Admiral Kimmel and Major General 
     Short on Retired Lists.--(1) The President is requested--
       (A) to advance the late Rear Admiral Husband E. Kimmel to 
     the grade of admiral on the retired list of the Navy; and
       (B) to advance the late Major General Walter C. Short to 
     the grade of lieutenant general on the retired list of the 
     Army.
       (2) Any advancement in grade on a retired list requested 
     under paragraph (1) shall not increase or change the 
     compensation or benefits from the United States to which any 
     person is now or may in the future be entitled based upon the 
     military service of the officer advanced.
       (c) Sense of Congress Regarding the Professional 
     Performance of Admiral Kimmel and Lieutenant General Short.--
     It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the late Rear Admiral Husband E. Kimmel performed his 
     duties as Commander in Chief, United States Pacific Fleet, 
     competently and professionally, and, therefore, the losses 
     incurred by the United States in the attacks on the naval 
     base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, and other targets on the island 
     of Oahu, Hawaii, on December 7, 1941, were not a result of 
     dereliction in the performance of those duties by the then 
     Admiral Kimmel; and
       (2) the late Major General Walter C. Short performed his 
     duties as Commanding General, Hawaiian Department, 
     competently and professionally, and, therefore, the losses 
     incurred by the United States in the attacks on Hickam Army 
     Air Field and Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, and other targets 
     on the island of Oahu, Hawaii, on December 7, 1941, were not 
     a result of dereliction in the performance of those duties by 
     the then Lieutenant General Short.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues in again 
offering this amendment to restore the reputations of two distinguished 
military officers who have unfairly borne the sole blame for the 
success of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor at the beginning of 
World War II--Admiral Husband E. Kimmel of the United States Navy and 
General Walter C. Short of the United States Army.
  The Senate passed this same amendment as part of last year's 
Department of Defense Authorization Act, but unfortunately it was 
dropped in conference. Now, our amendment is part of this year's House 
version of the Defense Authorization Act.
  At last, we have an excellent opportunity to correct a serious wrong 
from World War II that has unfairly tarnished the reputation of our 
military and our nation for justice and honor.
  Admiral Kimmel and General Short were the Navy and Army commanders at 
Pearl Harbor during the attack on December 7, 1941. Despite their loyal 
and distinguished service, they were unfairly turned into scapegoats 
for the nation's lack of preparation for that attack and the 
catastrophe that took place.

[[Page S4741]]

  Justice for these men is long overdue. Wartime investigations after 
the attack concluded that our fleet in Hawaii under the command of 
Admiral Kimmel and our land forces under the command of General Short 
had been properly positioned, given the information they had received. 
The investigations also found that their superior officers in 
Washington had not passed on vital intelligence information that could 
have made a difference in America's preparedness for the attack. These 
conclusions of the wartime investigations were kept secret, in order to 
protect the war effort. Clearly, there is no longer any justification 
for ignoring these facts.
  Since these initial findings, numerous military, governmental, and 
congressional investigations have concluded that the blame for this 
attack should have been widely shared. This amendment, and the case for 
Admiral Kimmel and General Short, have received strong support from 
former Chiefs of Naval Operations, Army Chiefs of Staff, and Chairmen 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, including Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, 
Admiral Carlisle Trost, Admiral J.L. Holloway III, Admiral William J. 
Crowe, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, General Andrew J. Goodpaster, and General 
William J. McCaffrey.
  Our amendment recommends that the President posthumously advance 
Admiral Kimmel and General Short to their highest wartime rank in 
accord with the Officer Personnel Act of 1947. Admiral Kimmel and 
General Short are the only two officers eligible under this act who did 
not receive advancement on the retired list. The amendment involves no 
monetary compensation. It simply asks that now, at this late date, 
these two military leaders finally be treated the same as their peers.
  I first became interested in this issue when I received a letter 2 
years ago from a good friend in Boston who, for many years, has been 
one of the pre-eminent lawyers in America, Edward B. Hanify. As a young 
Navy lawyer and Lieutenant J.G. in 1944, Mr. Hanify was assigned as 
counsel to Admiral Kimmel.
  He accompanied Admiral Kimmel when he testified before the Army Board 
of Investigation, and he later heard the testimony in the lengthy 
congressional investigation of Pearl Harbor by the Roberts Commission.
  Mr. Hanify is probably one of the few surviving people who heard 
Kimmel's testimony before the Naval Court of Inquiry, and he has 
closely followed all subsequent developments on the Pearl Harbor 
catastrophe and the allocation of responsibility for that disaster.
  I would like to quote a few brief paragraphs from Mr. Hanify's 
letter, because it eloquently summarizes the overwhelming case for 
justice for Admiral Kimmel. Mr. Hanify writes:

       The odious charge of ``dereliction of duty'' made by the 
     Roberts Commission was the cause of almost irreparable damage 
     to the reputation of Admiral Kimmel, despite the fact that 
     the finding was later repudiated and found groundless.
       I am satisfied that Admiral Kimmel was subject to callous 
     and cruel treatment by his superiors who were attempting to 
     deflect the blame ultimately ascribed to them, particularly 
     on account of their strange behavior on the evening of 
     December 6 and morning of December 7 in failing to warn the 
     Pacific Fleet and the Hawaiian Army Department that a 
     Japanese attack on the United States was scheduled for 
     December 7, and that intercepted intelligence indicated that 
     Pearl Harbor was a most probable point of attack. Washington 
     had this intelligence and knew that the Navy and Army in 
     Hawaii did not have it, or any means of obtaining it.
       Subsequent investigation by both services repudiated the 
     ``dereliction of duty'' charge. In the case of Admiral 
     Kimmel, the Naval Court of Inquiry found that his plans and 
     dispositions were adequate and competent in light of the 
     information which he had from Washington.

  Adequate and competent in light of the information which he had from 
Washington.
  Mr. Hanify concludes, ``The proposed legislation provides some 
measure of remedial justice to a conscientious officer who for years 
unjustly bore the odium and disgrace associated with the Pearl Harbor 
catastrophe.''
  Last year, the Senate took a giant step toward correcting this great 
wrong by passing our amendment. I urge the Senate to support this 
amendment again this year.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in support of my colleague 
Senator Kennedy's amendment which would act on restoring the honor and 
rank of Admiral Kimmel and General Short. I have been working on this 
issue since 1985.
  In my opinion, Admiral Kimmel and General Short are the two final 
victims of Pearl Harbor. These men were doing their duty to the best of 
their ability.
  The blame directed at these two WWII flag officers for nearly six 
decades is undeserved. Neither Admiral Kimmel nor General Short was 
notified before the attack that Washington had decoded top-secret 
Japanese radio intercepts that warned of the pending attack. Despite 
the fact that the charge of dereliction of duty was never proved 
against the two officers, that charge still exists in the minds of many 
people.
  This perception is wrong and must be corrected by us now. History and 
justice argue for nothing less. Military, governmental, and 
congressional investigations have provided clear evidence that these 
two commanders were singled out for blame that should have been widely 
shared.
  The following are several basic irrefutable facts about this issue:
  The intelligence made available to the Pearl Harbor commanders was 
not sufficient to justify a higher level of vigilance than was 
maintained prior to the attack.
  Neither officer knew of the decoded intelligence in Washington 
indication the Japanese had identified the United States as an enemy.
  Both commanders were assured by their superiors they were getting the 
best intelligence available at the time.
  There were no prudent defensive options available for the officers 
that would have significantly affected the outcome of the attack.
  On numerous occasions, history has vindicated the axiom that 
``victory finds a hundred fathers but defeat is an orphan.'' Admiral 
Kimmel and General Short have been solely and unjustly rendered the 
``fathers of Pearl Harbor.'' Responsibility for this catastrophe is 
just not that simple.
  It is extremely perplexing that almost everyone above Kimmel and 
Short escaped censure. Yet, we know now that civilian and military 
officials in Washington withheld vital intelligence information which 
could have more fully alerted the field commanders to their imminent 
peril.
  The bungling that left the Pacific Fleet exposed and defenseless that 
day did not begin and end in Hawaii. In 1995, I held an in-depth 
meeting to review this matter which included the officers' families, 
historians, experts, and retired high-ranking military officers, who 
all testified in favor of the two commanders.
  In response to this review, Under Defense Secretary Edwin Dorn's 
subsequent report disclosed officially--for the first time--that blame 
should be ``broadly shared.'' The Dorn Report stated members of the 
high command in Washington were privy to intercepted Japanese messages 
that in their totality ``. . . pointed strongly toward an attack on 
Pearl Harbor on the 7th of December, 1941 . . .'' and that this 
intelligence was never sent to the Hawaiian commanders.
  The Dorn Report went so far as to characterize the handling of 
critically important decoded Japanese messages in Washington as 
revealing ``ineptitude . . . unwarranted assumptions and misestimates, 
limited coordination, ambiguous language, and lack of clarification and 
followup at higher levels.''
  They are eligible for this advancement in rank by token of the 
Officer Personnel Act of 1947, which authorizes retirement at highest 
wartime rank. All eligible officers have benefited. All except for two: 
Admiral Kimmel and General Short. This advancement in rank would 
officially vindicate them. No retroactive pay would be involved.
  The posthumous promotion of Admiral Kimmel and General Short will be 
a small step in restoring honor to these men.
  It is time for Congress and the administration to step forward and do 
the right thing.
  This year is the 59th anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack, 
providing an appropriate time to promote Admiral Kimmel and General 
Short. I urge adoption of the amendment and yield the floor.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from 
Delaware, Senator Biden, and Senator Kennedy, and Senator Thurmond to 
sponsor an amendment whose intent is to

[[Page S4742]]

redress a grave injustice that haunts us from the tribulations of World 
War II.
  On May 25 of last year, this body held an historically important vote 
requesting the long-overdue, posthumous advancement of two fine World 
War II officers, Admiral Husband Kimmel and General Walter Short. The 
Senate voted in support of including the Kimmel-Short resolution as 
part of the Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2000, but the 
provision was not included in the final legislation. This year, the 
House of Representatives had included the exact language of the Senate 
amendment adopted last year, and so we are again seeking the Senate to 
support inclusion of this important resolution.
  Admiral Husband Kimmel and General Walter Short were the two senior 
commanders of U.S. forces deployed in the Pacific at the time of the 
disastrous surprise December 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor. In the 
immediate aftermath of the attack, they were unfairly and publicly 
charged with dereliction of duty and blamed as singularly responsible 
for the success of that attack.
  Less than 6 weeks after the Pearl Harbor attack, in a hastily 
prepared report to the President, the Roberts Commission--perhaps the 
most flawed and unfortunately most influential investigation of the 
disaster--levelled the dereliction of duty charge against Kimmel and 
Short--a charge that was immediately and highly publicized.
  Admiral William Harrison Standley, who served as a member of this 
Commission, later disavowed its report, stating that these two officers 
were ``martyred'' and ``if they had been brought to trial, they would 
have been cleared of the charge.''
  Later, Admiral J.O. Richardson, who was Admiral Kimmel's predecessor 
as Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet wrote:
  ``In the impression that the Roberts Commission created in the minds 
of the American people, and in the way it was drawn up for that 
specific purpose, I believe that the report of the Roberts Commission 
was the most unfair, unjust, and deceptively dishonest document ever 
printed by the Government Printing Office.''
  After the end of World War II, this scapegoating was given a 
painfully enduring veneer when Admiral Kimmel and General Short were 
not advanced on the retired lists to their highest ranks of war-time 
command--an honor that was given to every other senior commander who 
served in war-time positions above his regular grade.
  Admiral Kimmel, a two star admiral, served in four star command. 
General Short, a two star general, served in a three star command. Let 
me repeat, advancement on the on retired lists was granted to every 
other flag rank officer who served in World War II in a post above 
their grade.
  That decision against Kimmel and Short was made despite the fact that 
war-time investigations had exonerated these commanders of the 
dereliction of duty charge and criticized their higher commands for 
significant failings that contributed to the success of the attack on 
Pearl Harbor. More than six studies and investigations conducted after 
the war, including one Department of Defense report completed in 1995 
at Senator Thurmond's request, reconfirmed these findings.

  Our amendment is a rewrite of Senate Joint Resolution 19, the Kimmel-
Short Resolution, that I, Senator Biden, Senator Thurmond, Senator 
Helms, Senator Stevens, Senator Cochran, Senator Kennedy, Senator 
Domenici, Senator Specter, Senator Enzi, Senator Murkowski, Senator 
Abraham, Senator Craig, Senator Durbin, Senator John Kerry, Senator 
Kyl, Senator Hollings, Senator Bob Smith, Senator Collins, Senator 
Landrieu, Senator Voinovich, Senator DeWine, and Senator Feinstein--a 
total of 23 co-sponsors--introduced last April. It is the same 
amendment this body adopted by a rollcall vote last May. It is the same 
amendment accepted by the House Armed Services Committee as part of 
their version of the Department of Defense authorization bill.
  The amendment calls upon the President of the United States to 
advance posthumously on the retirement lists Admiral Kimmel and General 
Short to the grades of their highest war-time commands. Its passage 
would communicate the Senate's recognition of the injustice done to 
them and call upon the President to take corrective action.
  Such a statement by the Senate would do much to remove the stigma of 
blame that so unfairly burdens the reputations of these two officers. 
It is a correction consistent with our military's tradition of honor.
  Mr. President, the investigations providing clear evidence that 
Admiral Kimmel and General Short were unfairly singled out for blame 
include a 1944 Navy Court of Inquiry, the 1944 Army Pearl Harbor Board 
of Investigation, a 1946 Joint Congressional Committee, and a 1991 Army 
Board for the Correction of Military Records.
  The findings of these official reports can be summarized as four 
principal points.
  First, there is ample evidence that the Hawaiian commanders were not 
provided vital intelligence that they needed, and that was available in 
Washington prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
  Second, the disposition of forces in Hawaii were proper and 
consistent with the information made available to Admiral Kimmel and 
General Short.
  In my review of this fundamental point, I was most struck by the 
honor and integrity demonstrated by General George Marshall who was 
Army Chief of Staff at the time of the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl 
Harbor.
  On November 27 of that year, General Short interpreted a vaguely 
written war warning message sent from the high command in Washington as 
suggesting the need to defend against sabotage. Consequently, he 
concentrated his aircraft away from perimeter roads to protect them, 
thus inadvertently increasing their vulnerability to air attack. When 
he reported his preparations to the General Staff in Washington, the 
General Staff took no steps to clarify the reality of the situation.
  In 1946 before a Joint Congressional Committee on the Pearl Harbor 
disaster General Marshall testified that he was responsible for 
ensuring the proper disposition of General Short's forces. He 
acknowledged that he must have received General Short's report, which 
would have been his opportunity to issue a corrective message, and that 
he failed to do so.
  Mr. President, General Marshall's integrity and sense of 
responsibility is a model for all of us. I only wish it had been able 
to have greater influence over the case of Admiral Kimmel and General 
Short.
  A third theme of these investigations concerned the failure of the 
Department of War and the Department of the Navy to properly manage the 
flow of intelligence. The 1995 Department of Defense report stated that 
the handling of intelligence in Washington during the time leading up 
to the attack on Pearl Harbor was characterized by, among other faults, 
ineptitude, limited coordination, ambiguous language, and lack of 
clarification and follow-up.
  The fourth and most important theme that permeates the aforementioned 
reports is that blame for the disaster at Pearl Harbor cannot be placed 
only upon the Hawaiian commanders. They all underscored significant 
failures and shortcomings of the senior authorities in Washington that 
contributed significantly--if not predominantly--to the success of the 
surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.
  The 1995 Department of Defense report put it best, stating that 
``responsibility for the Pearl Harbor disaster should not fall solely 
on the shoulders of Admiral Kimmel and General Short; it should be 
broadly shared.''
  This is an important quote. It shows that the Department of Defense 
recognizes that these two commanders should not be singled out for 
blame. Yet, still today on this issue, our government's words do not 
match its actions. Kimmel and Short remain the only two officials who 
have been forced to pay a price for the disaster at Pearl harbor.
  Let me add one poignant fact about the two wartime investigations. 
Their conclusions--that Kimmel's and Short's forces had been properly 
disposed according to the information available to them and that their 
superiors had failed to share important intelligence--were kept secret 
on the grounds that making them public would have been detrimental to 
the war effort.
  Be that as it may, there is no longer any reason to perpetuate the 
cruel

[[Page S4743]]

myth that Kimmel and Short were singularly responsible for the disaster 
at Pearl Harbor. Admiral Spruance, one of our great naval commanders of 
World War II, shares this view. He put it this way:
  ``I have always felt that Kimmel and Short were held responsible for 
Pearl Harbor in order that the American people might have no reason to 
lose confidence in their government in Washington. This was probably 
justifiable under the circumstances at that time, but it does not 
justify forever damning those two fine officers.''
  Mr. President, this is a matter of justice and fairness that goes to 
the core of our military tradition and our nation's sense of military 
honor. That, above, all should relieve us of any inhibition to doing 
what is right and just.
  Mr. President, this sense of the Senate has been endorsed by 
countless military officers, including those who have served at the 
highest levels of command. These include former Chairmen of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff Admiral Thomas H. Moorer and Admiral William J. Crowe, 
and former Chiefs of Naval Operations Admiral J.L. Holloway III, 
Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt and Admiral Carlisle A.H. Trost.
  Moreover a number of public organizations have called for posthumous 
advancement of Kimmel and Short. The VFW passed a resolution calling 
for the advancement of Admiral Kimmel and General Short.
  Let me add that Senator Robert Dole, one of our most distinguished 
colleagues and a veteran who served heroically in World War II, has 
also endorsed this sense of the Senate resolution.
  Yesterday, June 6, is a day that shall forever be remembered as a 
date of great sacrifice and great accomplishment for the men who took 
part of Operation Overload. D-Day marked the turning of the tide in the 
allied war effort in Europe, and led to our victory in the Second World 
War.
  December 7, 1941, is also a date that will forever be remembered. 
That day will continue to be ``a date which will live in infamy.'' It 
will serve as a constant reminder that the United States must remain 
vigilant to outside threats and to always be prepared.
  However, this amendment is about justice, equity, and honor. Its 
purpose is to redress an historic wrong, to ensure that Admiral Kimmel 
and General Short are treated with the dignity and honor they deserve, 
and to ensure that justice and fairness fully permeate the memory and 
the important lessons learned from the catastrophe at Pearl Harbor.
  As we commemorate another anniversary of the success of D-Day, it is 
a most appropriate time to redress this injustice. After 50 years, this 
correction is long overdue. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I and my colleagues--Senators Roth, 
Kennedy, and Thurmond--are reintroducing an amendment that the Senate 
passed last year to provide long overdue justice for the two fine 
military officers, Admiral Husband Kimmel and General Walter Short.
  Last year the Senate voted to include this amendment in the Defense 
authorization bill, but because the House had not considered such a 
provision, it was not included in the final conference report.
  This year, having had time to consider the facts, the House Armed 
Services Committee included the exact same language that the Senate 
passed last year in their fiscal year 2001 Defense authorization bill, 
which passed the full House on May 18.
  I also want to remind my colleagues that this resolution has the 
support of various veterans groups, including the Veterans of Foreign 
Wars (VFW) and the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association. It is also a 
move supported by former Chiefs of Naval Operations, including Admirals 
Thomas H. Moorer, Carlisle Trost, J.L. Holloway III, William J. Crowe, 
and Elmo Zumwalt.
  As most of you know, Admiral Kimmel and General Short commanded U.S. 
forces in the Pacific at the time of the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. 
Afterwards, they were blamed as completely responsible for the success 
of that attack.
  I will not go through an exhaustive review of this case. I think the 
amendment itself provides the facts and the record from last year's 
debate was also quite thorough. Instead, I want to review the reasons I 
think this is the right action to take.
  For me, this issue comes down to basic fairness and justice. It was 
entirely appropriate for President Roosevelt to decide to relieve these 
officers of their command immediately following the attack. Not only 
was it his prerogative as Commander in Chief, he also needed to make 
sure the nation had confidence in its military as it headed into war. 
So, I can understand the need, at that time, to make them the 
scapegoats for the devastating defeat. What I do not accept is that the 
decisions of this government in those extreme times have been left to 
stand for the past 59 years.
  To be more specific, it was a conscious decision by the government to 
actively release a finding of ``dereliction of duty'' a mere month 
after Pearl Harbor. Not one of the many subsequent and substantially 
more thorough investigations to follow agreed with that finding. Even 
worse, the findings of the official reviews done by the military in the 
Army and Navy Inquiry Boards of 1944--saying that Kimmel and Short's 
forces were properly disposed--were classified and kept from the 
public.

  Think about it. We are a nation proud to have a civilian led 
military. The concept of civilian rule is basic to our notion of 
democracy. This means that the civilian leadership also has 
responsibilities to the members of its military. The families of 
Admiral Kimmel and General Short were vilified. They received death 
threats. Yet, Admiral Kimmel and General Short were denied their 
requests for a court martial. They were not allowed to properly defend 
themselves and their honor.
  Whatever the exigencies of wartime, it is unconscionable that 
government actions which vilified these men and their families should 
continue to stand 59 years later. It is appropriate that government 
action be taken to rectify this. There are very few official acts we 
can take to rectify this. The one suggested by this amendment is to 
advance these officers on the retirement list. They were the only two 
officers eligible for such advancement after Congress passed the 1947 
Officer Personnel Act, denied that advancement.
  I also want to point out that I do not believe this is rewriting 
history or shifting blame, instead, it is acknowledging the truth. The 
1995 report by then Undersecretary Edward Dorn said, ``Responsibility 
for the Pearl Harbor disaster should not fall solely on the shoulders 
of Admiral Kimmel and Lieutenant General Short, it should be broadly 
shared.'' To say that and then take no action to identify others 
responsible or to rectify the absolute scapegoating of these two 
officers is to say that military officers can be hung out to dry and 
cannot expect fairness from their civilian government.
  Again, with civilian leadership, comes responsibility. This 
advancement on the retirement ranks involves no compensation. Instead, 
it upholds the military tradition that responsible officers take the 
blame for their failures, not for the failures of others. The 
unfortunate reality is that Admiral Kimmel and General Short were 
blamed entirely and forced into early retirement. As Members of 
Congress we face no statute of limitations on treating honorable people 
with frankness and finding out the truth so that we can learn from our 
mistakes.
  By not taking any action to identify those who Undersecretary Dorn 
says share the blame, we have denied our military the opportunity to 
learn from the multiple failures that gave Japan the opportunity to so 
devastate our fleet.
  This is not to say that the sponsors of this amendment want to place 
blame in a new quarter. This is not a witch-hunt aimed at those 
superior officers who were advanced in rank and continued to serve, 
despite being implicated in the losses at Pearl Harbor. Instead, it 
validates that the historic record, as it is becoming clearer and 
clearer, is correct to say that blame should be shared. This amendment 
validates the instincts of those historians who have sought the full 
story and not the simply black-and-white version needed by a grieving 
nation immediately following the attack.
  So, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment again this year. 
Quite simply, in the name of truth, justice,

[[Page S4744]]

and fairness, after 59 years the government that denied Admiral Kimmel 
and General Short a fair hearing and suppressed findings favorable to 
their case while releasing hostile information owes them this official 
action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3233) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, Senator Roth has worked tirelessly on the 
issue of revisiting that chapter of our history, the attack on Pearl 
Harbor. Those listening to this debate will recall that Admiral Kimmel 
was the Navy commander and General Short was the Army commander.
  There has been a great deal of controversy throughout history as to 
their role and the degree of culpability they had for the actions that 
befell our Armed Forces on that day. This is an action of some import 
being taken by the Senate. I remember a debate on the floor one night 
in the context of last year's authorization bill when Senator Roth sat 
right here in this chair for hour upon hour when we debated this issue.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I tip my hat in tribute to Senators Kennedy 
and Biden, Senator Roth and Senator Thurmond, and others, who have 
brought this to our attention repeatedly over the years. Hopefully, 
this matter can now be resolved in the appropriate way. Senator Kennedy 
and his colleagues have been absolutely tenacious in this matter. 
Hopefully, it will result in a good ending.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, 3 or 4 days ago, I received a letter from 
the grandson of Admiral Kimmel. It was a very moving letter. I wasn't 
personally familiar with this issue.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter written to me by the 
admiral's grandson be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                     May 24, 2000.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     McLean, VA.
       Dear Senator Reid: There is a matter of great interest to 
     me that I would like to bring to your attention as a member 
     of the Senate. I'm particularly interested in your opinion 
     because I know you as a man of great integrity.
       Last year, May 25th, the Senate voted (52 yeas, 47 nays, 1 
     not voting) in favor of Amendment No. 388 to the Senate 
     Defense Authorization Act of FY 2000 recommending to the 
     President that he restore the rank of Admiral for my 
     grandfather, Rear Admiral Husband E. Kimmel. Amendment No. 
     388 was subsequently deleted from the Joint Defense 
     Authorization Act for FY 2000.
       On May 18, 2000 the House voted (353 yeas, 63 nays) in 
     favor of the House Defense Authorization Act for FY 2001, 
     which contains the same rank-restoration language for my 
     grandfather that the Senate voted for last year.
       It appears that the Senate will soon be asked to again vote 
     on the rank-restoration matter for my grandfather. Since I 
     have never talked to you about this subject, I do not know 
     why you voted against the Amendment last year. I would very 
     much appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue with 
     you. My interest in this matter goes beyond the familial. I 
     spent ten years in the navy, twenty-five years in the FBI, 
     and a lifetime of study, which I believe gives me unique 
     perspective and insight into this seminal event.
       I have enclosed a copy of Admiral Kimmel's Facts About 
     Pearl Harbor, and thank you for your attention to this 
     matter.
           Respectfully,
                                             Thomas K. Kimmel, Jr.
       Enclosure (1).

                        Facts About Pearl Harbor

                         (By Husband E. Kimmel)


                                          Groton, Connecticut,

                                                     June 3, 1958.
     Hon. Clarence Cannon,
     Congressman from Missouri, House Office Building, Washington, 
         DC.
       Sir: Your remarks on the floor of the House of 
     Representatives on May 6, 1958 were recently called to my 
     attention. They included the following passages which I quote 
     from the Congressional Record of May 6, 1958.--
       ``A subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations held 
     hearings in which it was testified that at the time of the 
     attack the Naval Commander, Admiral Kimmel and the Army 
     Commander General Short were not even on speaking terms. And 
     the exhaustive investigations by the commission appointed by 
     the President and by the Joint Committee of the House and 
     Senate showed that although both had been repeatedly alerted 
     ``over a period of weeks prior to the attack'' they did not 
     confer on the matter at any time.
       ``At one of the most critical periods in the defense of the 
     nation, there was not the slightest cooperation between the 
     Army and the Navy.
       ``Had they merely checked and compared the official 
     message; received by each, they could not have failed to have 
     taken the precautions which would have rendered the attack 
     futile and in all likelihood have prevented the Second World 
     War and the situation in which we find ourselves today. . . .
       ``It was not the Japanese superiority winning the victory. 
     It was our own lack of cooperation between Army and Navy 
     throwing victory away. . . .
       ``When the Jap naval code was broken and when for some time 
     we were reading all official messages from Tokyo to the 
     Japanese fleet, much of this information came to Admiral 
     Kimmel at his Hawaiian headquarters.''. . .
       From your remarks I have learned for the first time the 
     origin of the lie that General Short and I were not on 
     speaking terms at the time of the attack. I would like very 
     much to know the identity of the individual who gave this 
     testimony before a subcommittee of the Appropriations 
     Committee.
       In regard to the alleged lack of cooperation between 
     General Short and me your statement is completely in error. 
     We did consult together frequently. As a man in your position 
     should know before making the charges you have made, the 
     Naval Court of Inquiry which was composed of Admiral Orin G. 
     Murfin, Admiral Edward C. Kalbfus and Vice Admiral Adolphus 
     Andrews, all of whom had held high commands afloat, made an 
     exhaustive investigation and reached the following 
     conclusion:--
       ``Finding of Fact Number V.
       ``Admiral Kimmel and Lieutenant General Short were personal 
     friends. They met frequently, both socially and officially. 
     Their relations were cordial and cooperative in every respect 
     and, in general, this is true as regards their subordinates. 
     They frequently conferred with each other on official matters 
     of common interest, but invariably did so when messages were 
     received by either which had any bearing on the development 
     of the United States-Japanese situation or on their general 
     plans in preparing for war. Each was mindful of his own 
     responsibility and the responsibilities vested in the other. 
     Each was informed of measures being undertaken by the other 
     to a degree sufficient for all practical purposes.''
       Your statement that the actions of the 1941 Hawaiian 
     Commanders might have prevented the Second World War and the 
     situation in which we find ourselves today is utterly 
     fantastic. The Hawaiian Commanders had no part in the 
     exchange of notes between the two governments and were never 
     informed of the terms of the so called ultimatum of November 
     26, 1941 to Japan, nor were they notified that the feeling of 
     informed sources in Washington was that the Japanese reply to 
     this ultimatum would trigger the attack on the United States. 
     To blame the Hawaiian Commanders of 1941 for the situation in 
     which we find ourselves today is something out of Alice in 
     Wonderland.
       With regard to the Japanese messages intercepted and 
     decoded, exhaustive testimony before the Naval Court of 
     Inquiry and the Joint Congressional Committee of 
     Investigation shows that none of these decoded messages 
     received after July 1941 were supplied to me and none were 
     supplied to General Short.
       My book, ``Admiral Kimmel's Story'', contains a collection 
     of documented facts which support this statement and give the 
     text of important decoded intercepts which were withheld from 
     me and from General Short. These decoded intercepts were in 
     such detail that they made the Japanese intentions clear. Had 
     they been supplied to the Hawaiian Commanders the result of 
     the attack would have been far different if indeed the attack 
     would ever have been made.
       I know of no other occasion in our military history where 
     vital information was denied the commanders in the field.
       To make unfounded charges against me and General Short to 
     support your argument is grossly unfair and a 
     misrepresentation of facts. The success of the attack on 
     Pearl Harbor was not the result of inter-service rivalries at 
     Pearl Harbor. This success was caused by the deliberate 
     failure of Washington to give the Commanders in Hawaii the 
     information available in Washington to which they were 
     entitled. This information which was denied to the Hawaiian 
     Commanders was supplied to the American Commanders in the 
     Philippines and to the British.
       I request you insert this letter in the Congressional 
     Record.
           Yours very truly,
     Husband E. Kimmel.
                                  ____



                                          Groton, Connecticut,

                                                     July 7, 1958.
     Hon. Clarence Cannon,
     House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, Eighty 
         Fifth Congress, Washington, DC.
       Sir: You have failed up to the present time to provide me 
     with the name of the individual whom you quoted in your 
     remarks appearing in the Congressional Record of May 6, 1958 
     as authority for your statement that General Short and I were 
     not on speaking terms when the Japanese attacked Pearl 
     Harbor. I know that to be wholly false and believe I am 
     entitled to the name of the person so testifying. Whether or 
     not he testified under oath and his qualifications. Moreover 
     I would appreciate a definite reference to the hearing of the 
     Sub-Committee of the appropriations Committee if printed and 
     if not a

[[Page S4745]]

     transcript of that part of the record to which you refer.
       The receipt of your remarks in the Congressional Record of 
     18 June is acknowledged. It was forwarded without 
     accompanying letter in a franked envelope bearing your name 
     and I presume sent by your direction.
       Your remarks are a continuation of the frantic efforts of 
     the Roosevelt Administration to divert attention from the 
     failures in Washington and to place the blame for the 
     catastrophe on the Commanders at Pearl Harbor. Your account 
     of the testimony that General Short and I were not on 
     speaking terms given to your committee shortly after Pearl 
     Harbor was effectively publicized though sixteen years later 
     I am still denied the name of the individual who perpetrated 
     this lie.
       For four years, from 1941 to 1945, the administration 
     supporters and gossip peddlers had a field day making 
     statements which the wall of government war time secrecy 
     prevented me from answering.
       One of the most persistent and widespread was to the effect 
     that General Short and I were not on speaking terms at the 
     time of the attack. Another was that the uniformed services 
     in Hawaii were all drunk when the attack came. This is the 
     reason the Naval Court of Inquiry investigated these charges 
     thoroughly and set forth their falsity in unmistakable 
     language.
       You still seek to sustain these charges by the simple 
     expedient of attacking the integrity of the investigators and 
     witnesses who reached conclusions or gave testimony which 
     does not suit you.
       You have slandered the honorable, capable, and devoted 
     officers who served as members of the Army Board of 
     Investigation and the Navy Court of Inquiry. You have also 
     slandered the personnel of the Army and Navy stationed in 
     Hawaii in 1941, many of whom gave their lives in defense of 
     this country.
       It is astounding to me that you should charge General Short 
     and me of falsely testifying as to our personal and official 
     cooperation even when as you phrase it ``all but life itself 
     depended on their convincing the world that they had been 
     friends when they should have been friends.''
       The testimony on this matter given before the Naval Court 
     of Inquiry was given under oath and was true to my personal 
     knowledge and is substantiated by much other testimony.
       You, yourself, refer to the statements in the Roberts 
     Report to the effect that General Short and I conferred on 
     November 27 and December 1, 2 and 3. You further state from 
     the Roberts Report--``They did not then or subsequently hold 
     any conferences specially directed to the meaning and 
     significance of the warning messages received by both.'' 
     (General Short--Admiral Kimmel).
       How ridiculous it is to assume that the Commander in Chief 
     of the Pacific Fleet is unable to understand a message sent 
     by the Navy Department without conferring with the Commanding 
     General of the Hawaiian Department to determine what the Navy 
     Department meant by the messages that were sent to him and 
     conversely that the Commanding General Hawaiian Department 
     had to confer with the Commander in Chief Pacific Fleet in 
     order for him to know what the messages sent to him by the 
     War Department meant. If the messages were so worded the 
     fault lay neither with me or General Short.
       You imply that my request to revise the transcript of my 
     testimony before the Roberts Commission is censurable and 
     completely ignore the published statement of Admiral William 
     H. Standley, USN, retired, a former Chief of Naval Operations 
     and a member of the Roberts Commission. He wrote regarding 
     Admiral Kimmel--``He was permitted no counsel and had no 
     right to ask questions or to cross examine witnesses as he 
     would have had if he had been made a defendant. Thus both 
     Short and Kimmel were denied all of the usual rights accorded 
     to American citizens appearing before judicial proceedings as 
     interested parties.'' Even communists plotting the overthrow 
     of our country are accorded far more legal safeguards than 
     were granted to me and General Short. Admiral Standley also 
     wrote, ``In spite of the known inefficiency of the 
     Commission's reporters, when Admiral Kimmel asked permission 
     to correct his testimony in which he had found so many errors 
     that it took him two days to go over it, the Commission voted 
     to keep the record as originally made although the answers 
     recorded to many questions were obviously incorrect and many 
     of them absurd. At my urgent insistences, the Commission did 
     finally authorize Admiral Kimmel's corrected testimony to be 
     attached to the record as an addendum.''
       Your remarks with regard to the conduct of both officers 
     and men on the evening preceding the Pearl Harbor attack is 
     an insult to the gallant men who died in the treacherous 
     Japanese attack and to all the members of both Army and Navy 
     stationed on the Island of Oahu. Infrequently there might be 
     an individual who overindulged in intoxicants but these were 
     promptly apprehended by the shore patrol or military police 
     and returned to their ship or station. The evidence as to the 
     sobriety of officers and men was clear in the documentary 
     evidence available to the investigation boards and yet in 
     spite of their findings you state, ``But the very fact that 
     it was considered necessary to emphasize this testimony 
     naturally gives rise to some doubt.'' You apparently are 
     quite willing to doubt the testimony given and believe the 
     worst of the fine young men in the armed forces that were 
     stationed in Hawaii.
       I was not permitted to know what testimony was presented to 
     the Roberts Commission and was never given an opportunity to 
     clarify or refute any statement made before it.
       I was not made a defendant before the Hawaii one-man 
     investigation, was not called to testify, and was not 
     permitted to have any knowledge of the proceedings. I 
     requested authority to attend this investigation and was 
     advised that time did not permit. When I repeated my request 
     the Secretary of the Navy did not even reply. Perhaps the 
     reason may be found in the testimony of Captain Safford who 
     narrated before the Joint Congressional Committee the 
     pressure to which he was subjected by the Committee Counsel 
     to make him change his testimony. All did not have the 
     strength of character of Captain Safford and some modified 
     their preceding sworn statements.
       Although I requested the Joint Congressional Committee to 
     call certain witnesses many of them were not called to 
     testify. Among these was Fleet Admiral F. Halsey, my senior 
     Fleet Air Officer at the time of the attack.
       The Navy court of Inquiry was the only investigation of 
     Peal Harbor before which I was permitted to cross examine and 
     call witnesses. You are substantially correct in your 
     statement that this inquiry ``found Admiral Kimmel as pure as 
     the driven snow.'' In more moderate language expressed by 
     Admiral Murfin, the President of the Court, years later, ``We 
     found Admiral Kimmel had done everything possible under the 
     circumstances.''
       On Advice of Counsel I declined to take part in the Hart 
     Investigation because the stipulations demanded of me would 
     have placed my fate completely in the hands of the Secretary 
     of the Navy. This I did regretfully because it was through my 
     efforts that this investigation was initiated. The 
     proceedings of the Hart Investigation were a valuable 
     contribution.
       Why were the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of War 
     so anxious to have the damaging testimony in both the Naval 
     Court of Inquiry and the Army Inquiry changed? The answer is 
     very simple, both inquiries had found that the responsibility 
     for the Pearl Harbor disaster rested in large part at the 
     Headquarters of our government in Washington. Admiral 
     Standley whom I have referred to above wrote:
       ``From the beginning of our investigation I held a firm 
     belief that the real responsibility for the disaster at Pearl 
     Harbor was lodged many thousands of miles from the Territory 
     of Hawaii.''
       Even the Hewitt Investigation found--
       ``During his incumbency as Commander in Chief Pacific 
     Fleet, Admiral Kimmel was indefatigable, resourceful and 
     energetic in his efforts to prepare the Fleet for war.''
       You refer to the information that had been forwarded to me 
     and to General Short and specifically to a message based upon 
     information from our Ambassador in Tokyo, Mr. Grew, dated 27 
     January 1941 to the effect that the Peruvian Ambassador in 
     Tokyo had heard rumors that in the event of trouble breaking 
     out between the United States and Japan, the Japanese 
     intended to make a surprise attack against Pearl Harbor but 
     you make no mention of the letter of the Chief of Naval 
     Operations which forwarded this information to me on 1 
     February 1941 to the effect that, ``The Division of Naval 
     Intelligence places no credence in these rumors. Furthermore 
     based upon known data regarding the present disposition and 
     employment of Japanese Naval and Army forces no move against 
     Pearl Harbor appears imminent or planned for the foreseeable 
     future.''
       This estimate was never changed.
       When you refer to--``A position so admirable defended as 
     Pearl Harbor with every facility, submarine nets, radar, 
     sonar, planes and ships of the line'' you create a very false 
     impression. Admiral Richardson was relieved because he so 
     strongly held that the Fleet should not be based in the 
     Hawaiian area.
       The Army anti-aircraft batteries were woefully lacking but 
     the War Department was unable to supply more.
       Of 180 long range bombing planes authorized by the War 
     Department early in 1941 only 12 had arrived and of these six 
     were out of commission as they had been stripped of vital 
     parts to enable other planes of similar type to continue 
     their flight to their destination in the Philippines.
       Of 100 Navy patrol planes authorized for the 14th Naval 
     District at Pearl Harbor not one had arrived prior to 
     December 7, 1941.
       With regard to the radar installations, these had just been 
     installed and their personnel were under training. The 
     installation of these stations had been delayed due to the 
     inability of the Army and the Interior Department to agree 
     upon the location of these stations.
       With reference to personnel for the ships there were 
     serious shortages of both officers and enlisted personnel and 
     men were constantly being detached to provide crews for ships 
     being newly commissioned.
       No one has ever explained why the weaknesses so clearly 
     described in the Secretary of the Navy's letter of 24 
     January, 1941 were permitted to continue during all the 
     months at this outlying station whose security was vital to 
     the safety of the fleet and of the United States.
       Facilities to fuel the fleet were inadequate and a severe 
     handicap to all fleet operations.

[[Page S4746]]

       The only planes in Hawaii suitable for long distance 
     scouting were the patrol planes assigned to the fleet and 
     they were totally inadequate to cover the approaches to 
     Hawaii. The only planes suitable for long range bombing were 
     the six B-17 Army planes and those attached to the two 
     carriers.
       At the time of the attack the two carriers were on missions 
     initiated by the Navy Department.
       These and other deficiencies had been repeatedly reported 
     by General Short and me as well as by our predecessors.
       The messages of October 16, November 24 and November 27, 
     1941 from the Navy Department to the Commander of the Pacific 
     Fleet and the messages of November 27 and November 29, 1941 
     to General Short from the War Department stressed sabotage 
     and that an attack if made would be directed against ports in 
     South East Asia or the Philippines. With the benefit of the 
     intercepted Japanese messages, how they arrived at this 
     conclusion will always be a mystery to me.
       To add to our difficulties the messages also directed that, 
     ``If hostilities cannot, repeat cannot be avoided, the United 
     States desires that Japan commit the first overt act. . . .''
       The message of November 27, 1941 from the War Department to 
     General Short specifically directed him to, ``Report measures 
     taken''. On the same date General Short replied, ``Department 
     alerted to prevent sabotage. Liaison with Navy.''
       Recorded testimony shows this report was read by the 
     Secretary of War, the Chief of Staff of the Army, the Chief 
     of War Plans Army, and the Chief of War Plans Navy. There can 
     be no reasonable doubt that this report was read and 
     understood by these responsible officials in Washington. For 
     nine days and until the Japanese attack the War Department 
     did not express any disapproval of this alert and did not 
     give General Short any information calculated to make him 
     change the alert.
       What was most needed at Pearl Harbor at this time was the 
     information in Washington from the Japanese intercepts that 
     indicated clearly an attack on Pearl Harbor.
       The Navy Department sent me various messages quoting from 
     intercepted Japanese dispatches. I believed I was getting all 
     such messages and acted accordingly. After the attack I found 
     that many vitally important messages were withheld from the 
     Hawaiian Commanders.
       I was never informed that Japanese intercepted messages had 
     divided Pearl Harbor into five areas and sought minute 
     information of the berthing of ships in those areas.
       A Japanese dispatch decoded and translated on October 9, 
     1941 stated,
       ``With regard to warships and aircraft carriers, we would 
     like to have you report on those at anchor, (those are not so 
     important) tied up at wharves, buoys, and in docks. 
     (Designate types and classes briefly. If possible we would 
     like to have you make mention of the fact when there are two 
     or more vessels alongside the same wharf)''.
       On October 10, 1941, another dispatch was decoded and 
     translated in Washington which described an elaborate and 
     detailed system of symbols to be used thereafter in 
     designating the location of vessels in Pearl Harbor.
       A dispatch of November 15 decoded and translated in 
     Washington on December 3, 1941 stated,
       ``As relations between Japan and the United States are most 
     critical, make your ``ships in harbor report'' irregular but 
     at the rate of twice a week. Although you already are no 
     doubt aware, please take extra care to maintain secrecy.''
       A dispatch of November 18 decoded and translated in 
     Washington on December 5, 1941 stated,
       ``Please report on the following areas as to vessels 
     anchored therein: Area N. Pearl Harbor, Mamala Bay 
     (Honolulu), and the Areas adjacent thereto. (Make your 
     investigation with great secrecy)''.
       A dispatch of November decoded and translated in Washington 
     on December 6, 1941, stated the Japanese Consul General in 
     Honolulu had reported that in area A there was a battleship 
     of the Oklahoma Class; that in Area O there were three heavy 
     cruisers at anchor, as well as carrier ``Enterprise'' or some 
     other vessel; that two heavy cruisers of the Chicago Class 
     were tied up at docks ``KS''. The course taken by destroyers 
     entering the harbor, their speed and distances apart were 
     also described.
       On December 4 a dispatch was decoded and translated in 
     Washington which gave instructions to the Japanese Consul in 
     Honolulu to investigate bases in the neighborhood of the 
     Hawaiian military reservation.
       On December 5, 1941 a dispatch was decoded and translated 
     in Washington which stated.
       ``We have been receiving reports from you on ship 
     movements, but in future you will also report even when there 
     are no movements''.
       In no other area was the Japanese Government seeking the 
     detailed information that they sought about Pearl Harbor.
       In the period immediately preceding the attack reports were 
     demanded even when there were no ship movements. This 
     detailed information obtained with such pains-taking care had 
     no conceivable usefulness from a military viewpoint except 
     for an attack on Pearl Harbor.
       No one had a more direct and immediate interest in the 
     security of the fleet in Pearl Harbor than its Commander-in-
     Chief. No one had a greater right than I to know that Japan 
     had carved up Pearl Harbor into sub areas and was seeking and 
     receiving reports as to the precise berthings in that harbor 
     of the ships of the fleet. I had been sent Mr. Grew's report 
     earlier in the year with positive advice from the Navy 
     Department that no credence was to be placed in the rumored 
     Japanese plans for an attack on Pearl Harbor. I was told 
     then, that no Japanese move against Pearl Harbor appeared, 
     ``imminent or planned for the forseeable future''. Certainly 
     I was entitled to know what information in the Navy 
     Department completely altered the information and advice 
     previously given to me. Surely I was entitled to know of the 
     intercepted dispatches between Tokyo and Honolulu on and 
     after September 24, 1941, which indicated that a Japanese 
     move against Pearl Harbor was planned in Tokyo.
       Yet not one of these dispatches about the location of ships 
     in Pearl Harbor was supplied to me.
       Knowledge of these foregoing dispatches would have 
     radically changed the estimate of the situation made by me 
     and my staff.
       General Willoughby in his book MacArthur 1941-1945 quotes a 
     staff report from MacArthur's Headquarters.
       ``It was known that the Japanese consul in Honolulu cabled 
     Tokyo reports on general ship movements. In October his 
     instructions were ``sharpened''. Tokyo called for specific 
     instead of general reports. In November, the daily reports 
     were on a grid-system of the inner harbor with coordinate 
     locations of American men of war: this was no longer a case 
     of diplomatic curiosity; coordinate grid is the classical 
     method for pin-point target designation; our battleships had 
     suddenly become targets.''
       ``Spencer Akin was uneasy from the start. We drew our own 
     conclusions and the Filipino-American troops took up beach 
     positions long before the Japanese landings.''
       If MacArthur's Headquarters which had no responsibility for 
     Pearl Harbor were impressed by this information it is 
     impossible to understand how its significance escaped all the 
     talent in the War and Navy Department in Washington.
       The dispatches about the berthing of ships in Pearl Harbor 
     also clarified the significance of other Japanese dispatches 
     decoded and translated in the Navy Department prior to the 
     attack.
       The deadline date was first established by a dispatch 
     decoded and translated on November 5, 1941 the date of its 
     origin.
       ``Because of various circumstances, it is absolutely 
     necessary that all arrangements for the signing of this 
     agreement be completed by the 25th of this month. I realize 
     that this is a difficult order, but under the circumstances 
     it is an unavoidable one. Please understand this thoroughly 
     and tackle the problem of saving the Japanese-United States 
     relations from falling into a chaotic condition. Do so with 
     great determination and with unstinted effort, I beg of you.
       ``This information is to be kept strictly to yourself 
     alone''.
       The deadline was reiterated in a dispatch decoded and 
     translated in the Navy Department on November 12, 1941.
       ``Judging from the progress of the conversations, there 
     seem to be indications that the United States is still not 
     fully aware of the exceedingly criticalness of the situation 
     here. The fact remains that the date set forth in my message 
     #736 is absolutely immovable under present conditions. It is 
     a definite deadline and therefore it is essential that a 
     settlement be reached by about that time. The session of 
     Parliament opens on the 15th (work will start on (the 
     following day?)) according to the schedule. The government 
     must have a clear picture of things to come in presenting its 
     case at the session. You can see, therefore, that the 
     situation is nearing a climax, and that time is indeed 
     becoming short . . .''
       ``Whatever the case may be, the fact remains that the date 
     set forth in my message #736 is an absolutely immovable one. 
     Please, therefore, make the United States see the light, so 
     as to make possible the signing of the agreement by that 
     date''.
       The deadline was again repeated in a dispatch decoded in 
     Washington on November 17.
       ``For your Honor's own information.
       1. I have read your #1090 and you may be sure that you have 
     all my gratitude for the efforts you have put forth, but the 
     fate of our Empire hangs by the slender thread of a few days, 
     so please fight harder than you ever did before''.
       ``2. In you opinion we ought to wait and see what turn the 
     war takes and remain patient. However, I am awfully sorry to 
     say that the situation renders this out of the question. I 
     set the deadline for the solution of these negotiations in my 
     #736 and there will be no change. Please try to understand 
     that. You see how short the time is; therefore, do not allow 
     the United States to sidetrack us and delay the negotiations 
     any further. Press them for a solution on the basis of our 
     proposals and do your best to bring about an immediate 
     solution''.
       The deadline was finally extended on November 22 for four 
     days in a dispatch decoded and translated on November 22, 
     1941.
       ``It was awfully hard for us to consider changing the date 
     we set in my #736. You should know this, however, I know you 
     are working hard. Stick to our fixed policy and do your very 
     best. Spare no efforts and try to bring about the solution we 
     desire. There are reasons beyond your ability to guess why we 
     wanted to settle Japanese-American relations by the 25th, but 
     if within the next three or four days you can finish your 
     conversations with the Americans; if the signing

[[Page S4747]]

     can be completed by the 29th, (let me write it out for you--
     twenty-ninth); if the pertinent notes can be exchanged; if we 
     can get an understanding with Great Britain and the 
     Netherlands; and in short, if everything can be finished, we 
     have decided to wait until that date. This time we mean it, 
     that the deadline absolutely cannot be changed. After that 
     things are automatically going to happen. Please take this 
     into your careful consideration and work harder than you ever 
     have before. This, for the present, is for the information of 
     you two Ambassadors alone.''
       Again on November 24, 1941, Tokyo specifically instructed 
     its ambassadors in Washington that the November 29 deadline 
     was set in Tokyo time.
       In at least six separate dispatches on November 5, 11, 15, 
     16, 22 and 24 Japan established and extended the deadline 
     finally advanced to November 29.
       After the deadline date a Japanese plan was automatically 
     going into operation. It was of such importance that the 
     Japanese Government declared: ``The fate of our Empire hangs 
     by the slender thread of a few days.''
       On December 1, 1941 Tokyo advised its ambassadors in 
     Washington:
       ``The date set in my message #812 has come and gone and the 
     situation continues to be increasingly critical.''
       A dispatch on November 28 decoded and translated on the 
     same day, stated:
       ``Well, you two ambassadors have exerted superhuman efforts 
     but, in spite of this, the United States has gone ahead and 
     presented this humiliating proposal. This was quite 
     unexpected and extremely regrettable. The Imperial Government 
     can by no means use it as a basis for negotiations. 
     Therefore, with a report of the views of the Imperial 
     Government on this American proposal which I send you in two 
     or three days, the negotiations will be de facto ruptured. 
     This is inevitable.''
       Not one of the Japanese messages about the ``Deadline'' 
     were supplied to me although the American Commanders in the 
     Philippines were supplied with this information as they were 
     also supplied with all the information in the decoded 
     Japanese intercepts that were denied to the Hawaiian 
     Commanders.
       The Commanders at Pearl Harbor were not kept informed of 
     the progress of negotiations with Japan. I was never supplied 
     with the text of Mr. Hull's message of November 26, 1941 to 
     the Japanese Government which has been referred to frequently 
     as an ultimatum. Mr. Stimson characterized it as Mr. Hull's 
     decision to ``kick the whole thing over.''
       Among other terms this note provided:
       ``The Government of Japan will withdraw all military, 
     naval, air and police forces from China and Indo China.
       ``The Government of the United States and the Government of 
     Japan will not support--militarily, politically, 
     economically--any government or regime in China other than 
     the National Government of the Republic of China with Capital 
     temporarily at Chunking.
       ``Both Governments will agree that no agreement which 
     either has concluded with any third power or powers shall be 
     interpreted by it in such a way as to conflict with the 
     fundamental purpose of this agreement, the establishment and 
     preservation of peace throughout the Pacific Area.''
       The reply to this note was delivered in Washington within 
     hours of the Japanese attack.
       My information on this and previous exchanges between the 
     two governments was obtained from newspapers and radio. I 
     believe Washington newspaper correspondents and the editors 
     of our leading newspapers were kept better informed than were 
     the Commanders at Pearl Harbor.
       After receipt by Tokyo of the American note of November 26, 
     the intercepted Japanese dispatches indicate that Japan 
     attached great importance to the continuance of negotiations 
     in order to conceal the plan that would take effect 
     automatically on November 29, as evidenced by the Japanese 
     dispatch of November 28:
       ``. . . I do not wish you to give the impression that the 
     negotiations are broken off. Merely say to them that you are 
     awaiting instructions and that, although the opinions of your 
     government are not yet clear to you, to your own way of 
     thinking the Imperial Government has always made just claims 
     and has borne great sacrifices for the sake of peace in the 
     Pacific. . . .''
       I never received this information.
       Again the dispatches from Tokyo to Washington of December 
     1, 1941:
       ``. . . to prevent the United States from becoming unduly 
     suspicious we have been advising the press and others that 
     though there are some wide differences between Japan and the 
     United States, the negotiations are continuing. (The above is 
     for only your information.)''
       I never received this information.
       Again in the transpacific telephone conversations and 
     dispatches the same theme is stressed, be careful not to 
     alarm the Government of the United States and do nothing to 
     cause a breaking off of negotiations.
       This information was decoded and translated in Washington 
     on November 30 and was never sent to me.
       The intercepted Japanese diplomatic dispatches show that on 
     and after November 29 a Japanese plan of action automatically 
     went into effect: that the plan was of such importance it 
     involved the fate of the Empire: that Japan urgently wanted 
     the United States to believe that negotiations were 
     continuing after the deadline date to prevent suspicion as to 
     the nature of the plan.
       What was the plan? Why such elaborate instructions to 
     stretch out negotiations as a pretext to hide the unfolding 
     of this plan? Anyone reading the Japanese intercepted 
     messages would face this question.
       No effort was made to mask the movements or presence of 
     Naval Forces moving southward, because physical and radio 
     observation of that movement were unavoidable. The troop 
     movements to southern Indo China were the subject of formal 
     exchanges between the Governments of Japan and the United 
     States as evidenced by the communication which Mr. Wells 
     handed to Mr. Nomura on December 2, 1941.
       Other dispatches were received in Washington which gave 
     evidence of the deepening crisis.
       On the afternoon of December 6, 1941 a Japanese intercept 
     was decoded which warned that a fourteen part message from 
     Japan was on its way to the Ambassadors in Washington. That 
     the time for presenting this message to our State Department 
     would be supplied later.
       By 3:00 p.m. December 6, 1941 thirteen of the fourteen 
     parts had been received. The decoding and translation was 
     completed by 9:00 p.m. and distributed to the most important 
     officers of the government by midnight. Nine p.m. in 
     Washington was 3:30 in the afternoon in Hawaii. At midnight 
     it was 6:30 p.m. in Hawaii.
       When the thirteen parts were delivered to Mr. Roosevelt 
     about 9:00 p.m., he remarked, ``This means war''.
       The time of delivery message and the fourteenth part were 
     decoded and translated by 9:00 a.m. December 7, 1941, the 
     time for delivery was set at 1:00 p.m. Washington time which 
     was 7:30 a.m. at Honolulu and 2:00 a.m. at Manila.
       Yet not one word of the receipt of these messages which 
     again clearly indicated an attack on Hawaii were ever given 
     to General Short and me.
       The story of the whereabouts of the Chief of Staff of the 
     Army and the Chief of Naval Operations and their 
     unaccountable lapse of memory has been publicized so much 
     that it is unnecessary for me to repeat it.
       I have written a documented account of Pearl Harbor. Other 
     accounts which also tell the true story have been published 
     by Charles A. Beard, Charles Callan Tansill, Frederic R. 
     Sanborn, Harry Elmer Barnes, Admiral Robert A. Theobald, John 
     T. Flynn, George Morgenstern, Walter Trohan, Percy L. 
     Greaves, Jr. and many others.
       I repeat to you once more Mr. Cannon, the success of the 
     attack on Pearl Harbor was not the result of inter-service 
     rivalries at Pearl Harbor. This success was caused by the 
     deliberate failure of Washington to give the Commanders in 
     Hawaii the information available in Washington to which they 
     were entitled. This information which was denied to the 
     Hawaiian Commanders was supplied to the American Commanders 
     in the Philippines and to the British.
       Finally, Mr. Congressman, the officers and men stationed in 
     the Hawaiian Islands were fine, upstanding and well 
     disciplined young Americans whom the American People should 
     ever remember with gratitude and honor. In the attack 
     launched by the Japanese they showed themselves fearless, 
     resourceful and self-sacrificing and I shall always be proud 
     of having commanded such men but I cannot forgive those 
     responsible for the death of the more than 3000 soldiers, 
     sailors and marines who died for their country on the 7th of 
     December 1941 nor accept your insinuation that hangovers from 
     intemperance ashore on the night of 6 December may have 
     contributed to the delay in opening fire on the attacking 
     Japanese planes. As a matter of fact many anti-aircraft guns 
     on the ships were manned at the time of the attack and all 
     anti-aircraft guns of the fleet were in action in less than 
     ten minutes.
       It is requested that you insert this letter in the 
     Congressional Record.
           Yours very truly,
     Husband E. Kimmel.
                                  ____



                                          Groton, Connecticut,

                                                     July 8, 1958.
     Mr. J. Edgar Hoover,
     Federal Bureau of Investigation,
     Washington 25, DC.
       My Dear Mr. Hoover: Thank you for your letter of 25 June, 
     1958, and your references to the Robert's Commission, The 
     Army Pearl Harbor Report, the Naval Court of Inquiry and the 
     Hewitt Inquiry. I am familiar with them, but all except the 
     Roberts Commission Report were long after the hearings of a 
     sub committee of the Appropriations Committee of the House of 
     Representatives in 1942. Congressman Cannon advised me the 
     information given to the Committee immediately after Pearl 
     harbor was from the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
       I judge from your letter there was no evidence in the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation in 1942 to the effect that 
     General Short and I were not on speaking terms at the time of 
     the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
       Is this correct?
       If this is not correct will you kindly cite the evidence in 
     order that I may learn the name of the individual who 
     instigated this infamous lie.
           Yours very truly,
     Husband E. Kimmel.
                                  ____

                                                  January 28 1962.
       Mr. Cannon refused to publish my letters in the 
     Congressional Record, but some Congressmen friends of mine 
     did so.
       I never received a reply to my letter of 8 July, 1958 to 
     Mr. J. Edgar Hoover and I have

[[Page S4748]]

     never been supplied with the name of the individual who is 
     alleged to have testified that General Short and I were not 
     on speaking terms.
                                                Husband E. Kimmel.

  Mr. REID. The letter was very moving, about what the whole family has 
gone through as a result of this incident. It affected the life of not 
only the admiral but his entire family. I also extend my appreciation 
to the Senators who have been so tenacious in allowing this matter to 
move forward.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
McCain be listed as a cosponsor on the amendment by the Senator from 
Georgia on the Montgomery GI bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in the context of the Kimmel/Short matter, 
recently I have had an opportunity to be visited by the former Chief of 
Naval Operations, Adm. James Holloway, who would strongly endorse the 
action that is before the Senate with regard to these two officers.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Reid 
of Nevada be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3234

   (Purpose: To require reports on the spare parts and repair parts 
             program of the Air Force for the C-5 aircraft)

  Mr. LEVIN. On behalf of Senators Biden and Roth, I send an amendment 
to the desk that would require reports on the spare parts and repair 
parts program of the Air Force for the C-5 aircraft.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Biden, for 
     himself and Mr. Roth, proposes an amendment numbered 3234.

  Mr. LEVIN. 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 378, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:

     SEC. 1027. REPORT ON SPARE PARTS AND REPAIR PARTS PROGRAM OF 
                   THE AIR FORCE FOR THE C-5 AIRCRAFT.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) There exists a significant shortfall in the Nation's 
     current strategic airlift requirement, even though strategic 
     airlift remains critical to the national security strategy of 
     the United States.
       (2) This shortfall results from the slow phase-out C-141 
     aircraft and their replacement with C-17 aircraft and from 
     lower than optimal reliability rates for the C-5 aircraft.
       (3) One of the primary causes of these reliability rates 
     for C-5 aircraft, and especially for operational unit 
     aircraft, is the shortage of spare repair parts. Over the 
     past 5 years, this shortage has been particularly evident in 
     the C-5 fleet.
       (4) NMCS (Not Mission Capable for Supply) rates for C-5 
     aircraft have increased significantly in the period between 
     1997 and 1999. At Dover Air Force Base, Delaware, an average 
     of 7 through 9 C-5 aircraft were not available during that 
     period because of a lack of parts.
       (5) Average rates of cannibalization of C-5 aircraft per 
     100 sorties of such aircraft have also increased during that 
     period and are well above the Air Mobility Command standard. 
     In any given month, this means devoting additional manhours 
     to cannibalizations of C-5 aircraft. At Dover Air Force Base, 
     an average of 800 to 1,000 additional manhours were required 
     for cannibalizations of C-5 aircraft during that period. 
     Cannibalizations are often required for aircraft that transit 
     through a base such as Dover Air Force Base, as well as those 
     that are based there.
       (6) High cannibalization rates indicate a significant 
     problem in delivering spare parts in a timely manner and 
     systemic problems within the repair and maintenance process, 
     and also demoralize overworked maintenance crews.
       (7) The C-5 aircraft remains an absolutely critical asset 
     in air mobility and airlifting heavy equipment and personnel 
     to both military contingencies and humanitarian relief 
     efforts around the world.
       (8) Despite increased funding for spare and repair parts 
     and other efforts by the Air Force to mitigate the parts 
     shortage problem, Congress continues to receive reports of 
     significant cannibalizations to airworthy C-5 aircraft and 
     parts backlogs.
       (b) Reports.--Not later than January 1, 2001, and September 
     30, 2001, the Secretary of the Air Force shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a report on the overall 
     status of the spare and repair parts program of the Air Force 
     for the C-5 aircraft. The report shall include the 
     following--
       (1) a statement the funds currently allocated to parts for 
     the C-5 aircraft and the adequacy of such funds to meet 
     current and future parts and maintenance requirements for 
     that aircraft;
       (2) a description of current efforts to address shortfalls 
     in parts for such aircraft, including an assessment of 
     potential short-term and long-term effects of such efforts;
       (3) an assessment of the effects of such shortfalls on 
     readiness and reliability ratings for C-5 aircraft;
       (4) a description of cannibalization rates for C-5 aircraft 
     and the manhours devoted to cannibalizations of such 
     aircraft; and
       (5) an assessment of the effects of parts shortfalls and 
     cannibalizations with respect to C-5 aircraft on readiness 
     and retention.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment that addresses 
a problem that I have seen directly impact the moral and readiness of 
units at the base I am most familiar with, Dover Air Force Base. First, 
I want to thank the committee for all of its hard work on this issue 
and for accepting this amendment. Despite the fact that we in Congress 
have increased the funding levels for spare parts for the past three 
years, the supply of spare and repair parts for the C-5's at Dover has 
been inadequate.
  What does this mean? It means maintenance crews must work two-to-
three times as hard because they have to cannibalize parts from other 
airplanes. It means planes that should be performing missions are being 
used for parts so that other planes may fly. It means that planes spend 
between 250 and 300 days on average in depots, waiting for regular 
maintenance, modernizations, and part replacements.
  At Dover, from 1997 to 1999, an average of 7 to 9 C-5 aircraft were 
not available because of a lack of parts. This is out of a total fleet 
at Dover of only 36 aircraft! In addition, the average manhours 
required for cannibalizations during that period was between 800 and 
1,000. Those are additional hours, above what is normally expected to 
replace a part.
  Think of that in terms of a typical 40 hour work week--that's 20 to 
25 additional weeks of work! Clearly, our maintenance teams cannot be 
expected to continue working like this. These are highly skilled 
professionals who are willing to sacrifice for this nation because they 
know how important the C-5's mission is to national security. It is 
absolutely wrong of this nation to continue to ask them to make those 
sacrifices year in and year out. We must get them the tools, and in 
this case, the parts, to do their jobs the right way.
  In his testimony March 3, 2000 before the Readiness Subcommittee of 
the Armed Service Committee, Secretary of the Air Force F. Whitten 
Peters talked about the problem, pointing out that, ``The C-5 related 
MICAP rate had increased over the last two quarters by 36 percent.'' 
Just to clarify, MICAP rate is defined by the Secretary ``as the total 
hours a maintenance technician waits for all the parts that have been 
ordered to fix an aircraft.''
  In that same testimony, the Secretary also said, ``The impact of 
these additional MICAP hours has been a decline in readiness.''
  The problem is not just a Dover problem. On March 7, 2000, Major 
General Larry D. Northington, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Budget) 
for the Air Force testified on the problem of parts shortages 
throughout the Air Force to Readiness Subcommittee. He pointed out that 
we must look at all aspects of this problem. ``We must, therefore, 
expect significant spares investments for along time to come. We also 
need to understand that mission capable rates are not a product of 
spares funding alone. It requires dollars, deliveries of the right 
parts, trained and experienced technicians, and, over time, a sustained 
effort to upgrade the fleet to achieve higher levels of reliability and 
maintainability.''
  In other words, this is not a problem that can be solved by increased 
funding alone. We must also look at the entire structure that is 
supposed to be delivering parts and making sure we have adequate 
numbers of experienced people to maintain aircraft. In addition, we 
have to look at long-term modernization.
  I am very pleased that this committee has fully supported the three 
C-5 modernization programs that are critical to improving reliability 
and maintainability--High Pressure Turbine Replacement, Avionics 
Modernization Program, and Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining 
Program.
  Already, the High Pressure Turbine replacements that have occurred 
has meant that engines stay on their wings

[[Page S4749]]

at least double the time they had in the past before needing to be 
removed for maintenance. This is an easy mid-term fix that is already 
paying for itself. For the longer term, new engines are essential. The 
Committee authorized full funding for the necessary testing and design 
to put new engines on the C-5 and to replace antiquated parts that are 
particularly prone to breaking.
  The C-5 engine was one of the first large jet engines ever made. 
Commercial planes are a good 5 generations of engines beyond the C-5. 
It is no wonder that there are no longer parts suppliers available. In 
fact, it can take up to two years to get parts because manufacturers no 
longer make those parts and so new versions must be created. Two years 
is not acceptable. With new engines, reliability will increase and 
operations and maintenance costs will go down. This not only means 
enhanced readiness, it also means that our military personnel doesn't 
have to work 20 to 25 extra weeks a year.
  In addition, the committee fully supported the Avionics Modernization 
Program. This program will ensure that C-5's can fly in operationally 
more efficient airspace under the new Global Air Traffic Management 
System. In addition, this program improves the safety of aircrews by 
installing systems like Traffic Collision and Avoidance Systems (TCAS) 
and enhanced all weather navigation systems. Clearly, as the committee 
recognized, we cannot justify delaying these important upgrades to the 
entire C-5 fleet.
  Until these modernization programs are completed though, the 
immediate problem is the day-to-day maintenance needs. Foremost among 
those needs is that parts be available to keep planes flying and that 
the cannibalization rates be reduced.
  The current situation cannot continue. It daily hurts the morale of 
our personnel and lowers the readiness of our military force. The C-5 
is the long-legged workhorse of our strategic airlift fleet. It carries 
more cargo and heavier cargo further than any other plane in our 
inventory. It is what gets our warfighters and their heavy equipment to 
the fight. It is also what gets humanitarian assistance to needy 
victims quickly enough to make a difference.
  My amendment simply requires the Secretary of the Air Force provide 
two reports to Congress, one by January 31 and one by September 30 of 
next year on the exact situation of C-5 parts shortages, what is being 
done to fix this problem, what the impacts of the problem are for 
aircraft readiness and reliability ratings, and what the impacts of the 
problem are for personnel readiness and retention. It is my hope that 
such a thorough review will allow us to take the necessary steps to fix 
this problem once and for all. I know that the Air Force is concerned 
and taking steps to improve the parts shortage problem. I want to make 
sure that those efforts are comprehensive and that the hardworking men 
and women at Dover Air Force Base get some relief.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an amendment offered by my 
colleague from Delaware, Senator Joe Biden, and myself. This amendment 
deals with the vital importance of the C-5 Galaxy to our nation's 
strategic airlift capability. No other aircraft has the capabilities of 
this proven workhorse, and as we look to prepare our military for the 
future we must not overlook the need to ensure the Galaxy has the parts 
necessary to perform safely and effectively.
  I would like to commend the chairman and the ranking member for 
accepting this very important amendment, which requires the Secretary 
of the Air Force to report on ``the overall status of the spare and 
repair parts program of the Air Force for the C-5 aircraft.''
  The C-5 is the largest cargo transport plane in our Air Force. It is 
proven, and we depend on it to perform a vital role in our nation's 
Strategic Airlift. Currently, spare parts shortages have resulted in 
the grounding of nearly one quarter of the C-5 fleet. Needless to say, 
this is a serious problem.
  The report required by this amendment will detail the funds currently 
allocated to parts for the C-5, the adequacy of those funds to meet 
future requirements for the C-5, the descriptions of current efforts to 
address short-term and long-term shortfalls in parts, an assessment of 
the effects of the shortfalls on C-5 readiness and reliability ratings, 
a description on cannibalization rates for the C-5 aircraft and man 
hours devoted to cannibalizations, and the effects of these shortfalls 
on readiness and retention.
  I believe this report will shed light on a problem of which my 
colleague from Delaware and I are painfully aware. Dover Air Force 
Base, in my state of Delaware, is home to 36 C-5 Galaxies. At Dover, 
the spare parts shortage has truly hit home.
  ``Cann Birds'', or C-5 Galaxies that have been cannibalized for their 
parts, is an unfortunate sight on the base. Men and women at Dover must 
spend long hours cannibalizing aircraft to find parts necessary for 
other C-5s. These long hours have led to increased frustration and 
lowered morale among some of the hardest working and most valuable 
people in our Air Force and civilian personnel. We are losing expertise 
in this area due to this decreased morale.
  The lack of spare parts is not the only issue. Often, when the need 
for a part is recognized, there is a long lag-time between requests for 
parts and delivery. I hope that this amendment, by shining light on 
these problems and requiring the Air Force to examine the issues, will 
result in greater understanding of how to reach a solution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3234) 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, there are several colleagues desiring to 
be recognized for debate on this bill. Senator Levin and I will proceed 
to ask of the Chair that a group of amendments be adopted en bloc.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, that is fine with this Senator.


               Amendments Nos. 3235 through 3251, En Bloc

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send a series of amendments to the desk 
that have been cleared by the ranking member and myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], proposes amendments 
     numbered 3235 through 3251, en bloc.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendments be agreed to en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon 
the table, and that any statements relating to these individual 
amendments be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 3235 through 3251) were agreed to en bloc, as 
follows.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3235

     (Purpose: To authorize a land conveyance, Fort Riley, Kansas)

       On page 539, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 2836. LAND CONVEYANCE, FORT RILEY, KANSAS.

       (a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army may 
     convey, without consideration, to the State of Kansas, all 
     right, title, and interest of the United States in and to a 
     parcel of real property, including any improvements thereon, 
     consisting of approximately 70 acres at Fort Riley Military 
     Reservation, Fort Riley, Kansas. The preferred site is 
     adjacent to the Fort Riley Military Reservation boundary, 
     along the north side of Huebner Road across from the First 
     Territorial Capitol of Kansas Historical Site Museum.
       (b) Conditions of Conveyance.--The conveyance required by 
     subsection (a) shall be subject to the following conditions:
       (1) That the State of Kansas use the property conveyed 
     solely for purposes of establishing and maintaining a State-
     operated veterans cemetery.
       (2) That all costs associated with the conveyance, 
     including the cost of relocating water and electric utilities 
     should the Secretary determine that such relocations are 
     necessary, be borne by the State of Kansas.
       (c) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal 
     description of the real property to be conveyed under 
     subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory 
     to the Secretary and the Director of the Kansas Commission on 
     Veterans Affairs.
       (d) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require such additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with the conveyance required by subsection (a) as the 
     Secretary considers appropriate to protect the interests of 
     the United States.

[[Page S4750]]

     
                                  ____
                           AMENDMENT NO. 3236

 (Purpose: To clarify the authority of the director of a laboratory to 
  manage personnel under an existing authority to conduct a personnel 
                         demonstration project)

       On page 436, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 1114. CLARIFICATION OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY OF 
                   UNDER A PERSONNEL DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.

       Section 342(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 1995 is amended--
       (1) by striking the last sentence of paragraph (4); and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) The employees of a laboratory covered by a personnel 
     demonstration project under this section shall be managed by 
     the director of the laboratory subject to the supervision of 
     the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, 
     and Logistics. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the director of the laboratory is authorized to appoint 
     individuals to positions in the laboratory, and to fix the 
     compensation of such individuals for service in those 
     positions, under the demonstration project without the review 
     or approval of any official or agency other than the Under 
     Secretary.''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 3237

 (Purpose: To authorize, with an offset, an additional $1,500,000 for 
   the Air Force for research, development, test, and evaluation on 
  weathering and corrosion on aircraft surfaces and parts (PE62102F))

       On page 34, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 203. ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION FOR RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, 
                   TEST, AND EVALUATION ON WEATHERING AND 
                   CORROSION OF AIRCRAFT SURFACES AND PARTS.

       (a) Increase in Authorization.--The amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 201(3) is hereby increased by 
     $1,500,000.
       (b) Availability of Funds.--The amount available under 
     section 201(3), as increased by subsection (a), for research, 
     development, test, and evaluation on weathering and corrosion 
     of aircraft surfaces and parts (PE62102F) is hereby increased 
     by $1,500,000.
       (c) Offset.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 201(4) is hereby decreased by $1,5000,000, with the 
     amount of such decrease being allocated to Sensor and 
     Guidance Technology (PE63762E).
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 3238

(Purpose: To state the sense of the Senate on maintaining an effective 
                        strategic nuclear TRIAD)

       On page 372, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:

     SEC. 1019. SENSE OF SENATE ON THE MAINTENANCE OF THE 
                   STRATEGIC NUCLEAR TRIAD.

       It is the sense of the Senate that, in light of the 
     potential for further arms control agreements with the 
     Russian Federation limiting strategic forces--
       (1) it is in the national interest of the United States to 
     maintain a robust and balanced TRIAD of strategic nuclear 
     delivery vehicles, including long-range bombers, land-based 
     intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and ballistic 
     missile submarines; and
       (2) reductions to United States conventional bomber 
     capability are not in the national interest of the United 
     States.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 3239

    (Purpose: To require the designation of each government-owned, 
    government-operated ammunition plant of the Army as Centers of 
                  Industrial and Technical Excellence)

       On page 72, strike line 3, and insert the following:
       ``(B) Each arsenal of the Army.
       ``(C) Each government-owned, government-operated ammunition 
     plant of the Army.''.
       On page 77, strike line 17, and insert the following: 
     ``gency.
       ``(f) Construction of Provision.--Nothing in this section 
     may be construed to authorize a change, otherwise prohibited 
     by law, from the performance of work at a Center of 
     Industrial and Technical Excellence by Department of Defense 
     personnel to performance by a contractor.''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 3240

(Purpose: To establish a commission to assess the future of the United 
 States aerospace industry and to make recommendations for actions by 
                        the Federal Government)

       On page 415, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 1061. AEROSPACE INDUSTRY BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The United States aerospace industry, composed of 
     manufacturers of commercial, military, and business aircraft, 
     helicopters, aircraft engines, missiles, spacecraft, 
     materials, and related components and equipment, has a unique 
     role in the economic and national security of our Nation.
       (2) In 1999, the aerospace industry continued to produce, 
     at $37,000,000,000, the largest trade surplus of any industry 
     in the United States economy.
       (3) The United States aerospace industry employs 800,000 
     Americans in highly skilled positions associated with 
     manufacturing aerospace products.
       (4) United States aerospace technology is preeminent in the 
     global marketplace for both defense and commercial products.
       (5) History since World War I has demonstrated that a 
     superior aerospace capability usually determines victory in 
     military operations and that a robust, technically innovative 
     aerospace capability will be essential for maintaining United 
     States military superiority in the 21st century.
       (6) Federal Government policies concerning investment in 
     aerospace research and development and procurement, controls 
     on the export of services and goods containing advanced 
     technologies, and other aspects of the Government-industry 
     relationship will have a critical impact on the ability of 
     the United States aerospace industry to retain its position 
     of global leadership.
       (7) Recent trends in investment in aerospace research and 
     development, in changes in global aerospace market share, and 
     in the development of competitive, non-United States 
     aerospace industries could undermine the future role of the 
     United States aerospace industry in the national economy and 
     in the security of the Nation.
       (8) Because the United States aerospace industry stands at 
     an historical crossroads, it is advisable for the President 
     and Congress to appoint a blue ribbon commission to assess 
     the future of the industry and to make recommendations for 
     Federal Government actions to ensure United States 
     preeminence in aerospace in the 21st century.
       (b) Establishment.--There is established a Blue Ribbon 
     Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace 
     Industry.
       (c) Membership.--(1) The Commission shall be composed of 12 
     members appointed, not later than March 1, 2001, as follows:
       (A) Up to 6 members appointed by the President.
       (B) Two members appointed by the Majority Leader of the 
     Senate.
       (C) Two members appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (D) One member appointed by the Minority Leader of the 
     Senate.
       (E) One member appointed by the Minority Leader of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (2) The members of the Commission shall be appointed from 
     among--
       (A) persons with extensive experience and national 
     reputations in aerospace manufacturing, economics, finance, 
     national security, international trade or foreign policy; and
       (B) persons who are representative of labor organizations 
     associated with the aerospace industry.
       (3) Members shall be appointed for the life of the 
     Commission. Any vacancy in the Commission shall not affect 
     its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner as the 
     original appointment.
       (4) The President shall designate one member of the 
     Commission to serve as the Chairman.
       (5) The Commission shall meet at the call of the Chairman. 
     A majority of the members shall constitute a quorum, but a 
     lesser number may hold hearings for the Commission.
       (d) Duties.--(1) The Commission shall--
       (A) study the issues associated with the future of the 
     United States aerospace industry in the global economy, 
     particularly in relationship to United States national 
     security; and
       (B) assess the future importance of the domestic aerospace 
     industry for the economic and national security of the United 
     States.
       (2) In order to fulfill its responsibilities, the 
     Commission shall study the following:
       (A) The budget process of the Federal Government, 
     particularly with a view to assessing the adequacy of 
     projected budgets of the Federal Government agencies for 
     aerospace research and development and procurement.
       (B) The acquisition process of the Federal Government, 
     particularly with a view to assessing--
       (i) the adequacy of the current acquisition process of 
     Federal agencies; and
       (ii) the procedures for developing and fielding aerospace 
     systems incorporating new technologies in a timely fashion.
       (C) The policies, procedures, and methods for the financing 
     and payment of government contracts.
       (D) Statutes and regulations governing international trade 
     and the export of technology, particularly with a view to 
     assessing--
       (i) the extent to which the current system for controlling 
     the export of aerospace goods, services, and technologies 
     reflects an adequate balance between the need to protect 
     national security and the need to ensure unhindered access to 
     the global marketplace; and
       (ii) the adequacy of United States and multilateral trade 
     laws and policies for maintaining the international 
     competitiveness of the United States aerospace industry.
       (E) Policies governing taxation, particularly with a view 
     to assessing the impact of current tax laws and practices on 
     the international competitiveness of the aerospace industry.
       (F) Programs for the maintenance of the national space 
     launch infrastructure, particularly with a view to assessing 
     the adequacy of current and projected programs for 
     maintaining the national space launch infrastructure.
       (G) Programs for the support of science and engineering 
     education, including current programs for supporting 
     aerospace science

[[Page S4751]]

     and engineering efforts at institutions of higher learning, 
     with a view to determining the adequacy of those programs.
       (e) Report.--(1) Not later than March 1, 2002, the 
     Commission shall submit a report on its activities to the 
     President and Congress.
       (2) The report shall include the following:
       (A) The Commission's findings and conclusions.
       (B) Recommendations for actions by Federal Government 
     agencies to support the maintenance of a robust aerospace 
     industry in the United States in the 21st century.
       (C) A discussion of the appropriate means for implementing 
     the recommendations.
       (f) Implementation of Recommendations.--The heads of the 
     executive agencies of the Federal Government having 
     responsibility for matters covered by recommendations of the 
     Commission shall consider the implementation of those 
     recommendations in accordance with regular administrative 
     procedures. The Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget shall coordinate the consideration of the 
     recommendations among the heads of those agencies.
       (g) Administrative Requirements and Authorities.--(1) The 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall ensure 
     that the Commission is provided such administrative services, 
     facilities, staff, and other support services as may be 
     necessary. Any expenses of the Commission shall be paid from 
     funds available to the Director.
       (2) The Commission may hold hearings, sit and act at times 
     and places, take testimony, and receive evidence that the 
     Commission considers advisable to carry out the purposes of 
     this Act.
       (3) The Commission may secure directly from any department 
     or agency of the Federal Government any information that the 
     Commission considers necessary to carry out the provisions of 
     this Act. Upon the request of the Chairman of the Commission, 
     the head of such department or agency shall furnish such 
     information to the Commission.
       (4) The Commission may use the United States mails in the 
     same manner and under the same conditions as other 
     departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
       (5) The Commission is an advisory committee for the 
     purposes of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 
     2).
       (h) Commission Personnel Matters.--(1) Members of the 
     Commission shall serve without additional compensation for 
     their service on the Commission, except that members 
     appointed from among private citizens may be allowed travel 
     expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as 
     authorized by law for persons serving intermittently in 
     government service under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 
     5, United States Code, while away from their homes and places 
     of business in the performance of services for the 
     Commission.
       (2) The Chairman of the Commission may, without regard to 
     the civil service laws and regulations, appoint and terminate 
     any staff that may be necessary to enable the Commission to 
     perform its duties. The employment of a head of staff shall 
     be subject to confirmation by the Commission. The Chairman 
     may fix the compensation of the staff personnel without 
     regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of 
     chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, relating to 
     classification of positions and General Schedule pay rates, 
     except that the rates of pay fixed by the Chairman shall be 
     in compliance with the guidelines prescribed under section 
     7(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
       (3) Any Federal Government employee may be detailed to the 
     Commission without reimbursement. Any such detail shall be 
     without interruption or loss of civil status or privilege.
       (4) The Chairman may procure temporary and intermittent 
     services under section 3109(b) of title 5, United States 
     Code, at rates for individuals that do not exceed the daily 
     equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for 
     level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of such 
     title.
       (i) Termination.--The Commission shall terminate 30 days 
     after the submission of the report under subsection (e).

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks concerning 
an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 2549) that 
would establish a commission to assess the future of the United States 
aerospace industry and to make recommendations for actions by the 
Federal Government to improve this industries global competitiveness.
  The modern aerospace industry fulfills vital roles for our nation. It 
is a pillar of the business community that employs 800,000 skilled 
workers. It is an engine of economic growth that generated a net trade 
surplus of $37 billion in 1998, larger than any other industrial 
sector. It is a working model of private-public partnership, yielding 
commercial and military benefits that have enhanced our communication 
and transportation networks while enabling the aerospace dominance 
demonstrated in both Kosovo and the Gulf War. And its well-known 
products, from the Boeing 777 to the Blackhawk helicopter to the Space 
Shuttle, serve as fitting symbols of American preeminence in an inter-
connected world that thrives on speed and technology.
  Unfortunately, this key industrial sector is facing new challenges to 
its leadership role in the global economy. Since 1985, foreign 
competition has cut the American share of the worldwide aerospace 
market from 72 percent to 56 percent. In order to remain competitive, 
we must reevaluate industrial regulations enacted during the Cold War, 
that might hamper innovation, flexibility, and growth. We must 
reconsider our defense research priorities, to counteract the 50% 
decline in domestic funding for aerospace research and development 
during the last decade. We must reexamine the rules that govern export 
of aerospace products and technologies, and develop policies that 
permit access to global markets while protecting national security. we 
must assess all of these areas in light of new trade agreements that 
may require adjustments to federal regulations and policies. 
Ultimately, we must assess the future of the aerospace industry and 
ensure that government policy plays a positive role in its development.
  To accomplish this goal, this amendment calls for the creation of a 
Presidential commission empowered to recommend action to the federal 
government regarding the future of the aerospace industry. The 
commission shall be composed of experts in aerospace manufacturing, 
national security, and related economic issues, as well as 
representatives of organized labor. The commission is directed to study 
economic and national security issues confronting the aerospace 
industry, such as the state of government funding for aerospace 
research and procurement, the rules governing exportation of aerospace 
goods and technologies, the effect of current taxation and trade 
policies on the aerospace industry, and the adequacy of aerospace 
science and engineering education in institutions of higher learning. I 
urge the Congress to support the creation of the Commission and the 
next President to support its activities and heed its counsel. By 
creating such a commission and through careful consideration of these 
complex issues, we can ensure that this valuable American industry 
soars into the 21st century, turbulence-free.


                           amendment no. 3241

(Purpose: To guarantee the right of all active duty military personnel 
merchant mariners, and their dependents to vote in Federal, State, and 
                            local elections)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Military Voting Rights Act 
     of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. GUARANTEE OF RESIDENCY.

       Article VII of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act 
     of 1940 (50 U.S.C. 700 et seq.) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following.
       ``Sec. 704. (a) For purposes of voting for an office of the 
     United States or of a State, a person who is absent from a 
     State in compliance with military or naval orders shall not, 
     solely by reason of that absence--
       ``(1) be deemed to have lost a residence or domicile in 
     that State;
       ``(2) be deemed to have acquired a residence or domicile in 
     any other State; or
       ``(3) be deemed to have become resident in or a resident of 
     any other State.
       ``((b) In this section, the term `State' includes a 
     territory or possession of the United States, a political 
     subdivision of a State, territory, or possession, and the 
     District of Columbia.''.

     SEC. 3. STATE RESPONSIBILITY TO GUARANTEE MILITARY VOTING 
                   RIGHTS.

       (a) Registration and Balloting.--Section 102 of the 
     Uniformed and Overseas Absentee Voting Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff-
     1) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) Elections for Federal Offices.--'' 
     before ``Each State shall--''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Elections for State and Local Offices.--Each State 
     shall--
       ``(1) permit absent uniformed services voters to use 
     absentee registration procedures and to vote by absentee 
     ballot in general, special, primary, and run-off elections 
     for State and local offices; and
       ``(2) accept and process, with respect to any election 
     described in paragraph (1), any otherwise valid voter 
     registration application from an absent uniformed services 
     voter if the application is received by the appropriate State 
     election official not less than 30 days before the 
     election.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The heading for title I of such 
     Act is amended by striking our ``FOR FEDERAL OFFICE''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3242

 (Purpose: To modify authority for the use of certain Navy property by 
         the Oxnard Harbor District, Port Hueneme, California)

       On page 543, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:

[[Page S4752]]

     SEC. 2855. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITY FOR OXNARD HARBOR 
                   DISTRICT, PORT HUENEME, CALIFORNIA, TO USE 
                   CERTAIN NAVY PROPERTY.

       (a) Additional Restrictions on Joint Use.--Subsection (c) 
     of section 2843 of the Military Construction Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (division B of Public Law 103-337; 
     108 Stat. 3067) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Restrictions on Use.--The District's use of the 
     property covered by an agreement under subsection (a) is 
     subject to the following conditions:
       ``(1) The District shall suspend operations under the 
     agreement upon notification by the commanding officer of the 
     Center that the property is needed to support mission 
     essential naval vessel support requirements or Navy 
     contingency operations, including combat missions, natural 
     disasters, and humanitarian missions.
       ``(2) The District shall use the property covered by the 
     agreement in a manner consistent with Navy operations at the 
     Center, including cooperating with the Navy for the purpose 
     of assisting the Navy to meet its through-put requirements at 
     the Center for the expeditious movement of military cargo.
       ``(3) The commanding officer of the Center may require the 
     District to remove any of its personal property at the Center 
     that the commanding officer determines may interfere with 
     military operations at the Center. If the District cannot 
     expeditiously remove the property, the commanding officer may 
     provide for the removal of the property at District 
     expense.''.
       (b) Consideration.--Subsection (d) of such section is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) Consideration.--(1) As consideration for the use of 
     the property covered by an agreement under subsection (a), 
     the District shall pay to the Navy an amount that is mutually 
     agreeable to the parties to the agreement, taking into 
     account the nature and extent of the District's use of the 
     property.
       ``(2) The Secretary may accept in-kind consideration under 
     paragraph (1), including consideration in the form of--
       ``(A) the District's maintenance, preservation, 
     improvement, protection, repair, or restoration of all or any 
     portion of the property covered by the agreement;
       ``(B) the construction of new facilities, the modification 
     of existing facilities, or the replacement of facilities 
     vacated by the Navy on account of the agreement; and
       ``(C) covering the cost of relocation of the operations of 
     the Navy from the vacated facilities to the replacement 
     facilities.
       ``(3) All cash consideration received under paragraph (1) 
     shall be deposited in the special account in the Treasury 
     established for the Navy under section 2667(d) of title 10, 
     United States Code. The amounts deposited in the special 
     account pursuant to this paragraph shall be available, as 
     provided in appropriation Acts, for general supervision, 
     administration, overhead expenses, and Center operations and 
     for the maintenance preservation, improvement, protection, 
     repair, or restoration of property at the Center.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--Such section is further 
     amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (f); and
       (2) by redesignating subsections (g) and (h) as subsections 
     (f) and (g), respectively.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3243

   (Purpose: To amend title 10, United States Code, to increase the 
 minimum Survivor Benefit Plan basic annuity for surviving spouses age 
                             62 and older)

       In title VI, at the end of subtitle D, add the following:

     SEC.   . COMPUTATION OF SURVIVOR BENEFITS.

       (a) Increased Basic Annuity.--(1) Subsection (a)(1)(B)(i) 
     of section 1451 of title 10, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``35 percent of the base amount.'' and inserting 
     ``the product of the base amount and the percent applicable 
     for the month. The percent applicable for a month is 35 
     percent for months beginning on or before the date of the 
     enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2001, 40 percent for months beginning after such 
     date and before October 2004, and 45 percent for months 
     beginning after September 2004.''.
       (2) Subsection (a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of such section is amended 
     by striking ``35 percent'' and inserting ``the percent 
     specified under subsection (a)(1)(B)(i) as being applicable 
     for the month''.
       (3) Subsection (c)(1)(B)(i) of such section is amended--
       (A) by striking ``35 percent'' and inserting ``the 
     applicable percent''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following: ``The percent 
     applicable for a month under the preceding sentence is the 
     percent specified under subsection (a)(1)(B)(i) as being 
     applicable for the month.''.
       (4) The heading for subsection (d)(2)(A) of such section is 
     amended to read as follows: ``Computation of annuity.--''.
       (b) Adjusted Supplemental Annuity.--Section 1457(b) of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``5, 10, 15, or 20 percent'' and inserting 
     ``the applicable percent''; and
       (2) by inserting after the first sentence the following: 
     ``The percent used for the computation shall be an even 
     multiple of 5 percent and, whatever the percent specified in 
     the election, may not exceed 20 percent for months beginning 
     on or before the date of the enactment of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, 15 percent 
     for months beginning after that date and before October 2004, 
     and 10 percent for months beginning after September 2004.''.
       (c) Recomputation of Annuities.--(1) Effective on the first 
     day of each month referred to in paragraph (2)--
       (A) each annuity under section 1450 of title 10, United 
     States Code, that commenced before that month, is computed 
     under a provision of section 1451 of that title amended by 
     subsection (a), and is payable for that month shall be 
     recomputed so as to be equal to the amount that would be in 
     effect if the percent applicable for that month under that 
     provision, as so amended, had been used for the initial 
     computation of the annuity; and
       (B) each supplemental survivor annuity under section 1457 
     of such title that commenced before that month and is payable 
     for that month shall be recomputed so as to be equal to the 
     amount that would be in effect if the percent applicable for 
     that month under that section, as amended by this section, 
     had been used for the initial computation of the supplemental 
     survivor annuity.
       (2) The requirements for recomputation of annuities under 
     paragraph (1) apply with respect to the following months:
       (A) The first month that begins after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (B) October 2004.
       (d) Recomputation of Retired Pay Reductions for 
     Supplemental Survivor Annuities.--The Secretary of Defense 
     shall take such actions as are necessitated by the amendments 
     made by subsection (b) and the requirements of subsection 
     (c)(1)(B) to ensure that the reductions in retired pay under 
     section 1460 of title 10, United States Code, are adjusted to 
     achieve the objectives set forth in subsection (b) of that 
     section.

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, last year, I introduced S. 763, a bill 
that would correct a long-standing injustice to the widows of our 
military retirees. Although my bill was accepted by the Senate as an 
amendment to the fiscal year 2000 defense authorization bill, it was 
dropped during the conference at the insistence of the House conferees.
  Today, I am again offering S. 763 as an amendment to the national 
Defense authorization bill. My amendment would immediately increase the 
minimum Survivor Benefit Plan annuity from 35 percent to 40 percent of 
the Survivor Benefit Plan for survivors over the age 62. The amendment 
would provide a further increase to 45 percent of covered retired pay 
as of October 1, 2004.
  Mr. President, I am confident that each senator has received mail 
from military spouses expressing their dismay that they are not 
receiving the 55 percent of their husband's retirement pay as 
advertised in the Survivor Benefit Plan literature provided by the 
military. The reason that they do not receive the 55 percent of retired 
pay is that current law mandates that at age 62 this amount be reduced 
either by the account of the Survivors Social Security benefit or to 35 
percent of the SBP. This law is especially irksome to those retirees 
who joined the plan when it was first offered in 1972. These service 
members were never informed of the age-62 reduction until they had made 
an irrevocable decision to participate. Many retirees and their 
spouses, as the constituent mail attests, believed their premium 
payments would guarantee 55 percent of retired pay for the life of the 
survivor. It is not hard to imagine the shock and financial 
disadvantage these men and women who so loyally served the Nation in 
troubled spots throughout the world undergo when they learn of the 
annuity reduction.
  Mr. President, uniformed services retirees pay too much for the 
available SBP benefit both, compared to what is promised and what is 
offered to other federal retirees. When the Survivor Benefit Plan was 
enacted in 1972, the Congress intended that the government would pay 40 
percent of the cost to parallel the government subsidy of the Federal 
civilian survivor benefit plan. That was short-lived. Over time, the 
government's cost sharing has declined to about 26 percent. In other 
words, the retiree's premiums now cover 74 percent of expected long-
term program costs versus the intended 60 percent. Contrast this with 
the federal civilian SBP, which has a 42 percent subsidy for those 
personnel under the Federal Employees Retirement System and a 50 
percent subsidy for those under the Civil Service Retirement System. 
Further, Federal civilian survivors receive 50 percent of retired pay 
with no offset at age 62. Although Federal civilian premiums are 10 
percent retired pay compared to 6.5 percent for military retirees, the 
difference in the percent of contribution is offset by the fact that 
our service personnel retire at a much younger age than the civil 
servant and, therefore pay premiums much longer than the federal 
civilian retiree.
  Mr. President, the bill that we are currently considering contains 
several

[[Page S4753]]

initiatives to restore to our military retirees benefits that they have 
earned, but which gradually were eroded over the past years. My 
amendment would add a small, but important, earned benefit for our 
military retirees, especially their survivors.
  Mr. President, I want to thank Senators Lott, Cleland, Cochran, 
Landrieu, Snowe, McCain, Sessions, Inouye, and Dodd for joining me as 
cosponsors of this amendment and ask for its adoption.


                           Amendment No. 3244

   (Purpose: To eliminate an inequity in the applicability of early 
  retirement eligibility requirements to military reserve technicians)

       On page 236, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:

     SEC. 646. EQUITABLE APPLICATION OF EARLY RETIREMENT 
                   ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS TO MILITARY RESERVE 
                   TECHNICIANS.

       (a) Technicians Covered by FERS.--Paragraph (1) of section 
     8414(c) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``after becoming 50 years of age and completing 25 
     years of service'' and inserting ``after completing 25 years 
     of service or after becoming 50 years of age and completing 
     20 years of service''.
       (b) Technicians Covered by CSRS.--Section 8336 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(p) Section 8414(c) of this title applies--
       ``(1) under paragraph (1) of such section to a military 
     reserve technician described in that paragraph for purposes 
     of determining entitlement to an annuity under this 
     subchapter; and
       ``(2) under paragraph (2) of such section to a military 
     technician (dual status) described in that paragraph for 
     purposes of determining entitlement to an annuity under this 
     subchapter.''.
       (c) Technical Amendment.--Section 1109(a)(2) of Public Law 
     105-261 (112 Stat. 2143) is amended by striking ``adding at 
     the end'' and inserting ``inserting after subsection (n)''.
       (d) Applicability.--Subsection (c) of section 8414 of such 
     title (as amended by subsection (a)), and subsection (p) of 
     section 8336 of title 5, United States Code (as added by 
     subsection (b)), shall apply according to the provisions 
     thereof with respect to separations from service referred to 
     in such subsections that occur on or after October 5, 1999.
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 3245

(Purpose: To provide space-required eligibility for travel on aircraft 
 of the Armed Forces to places of inactive-duty training by members of 
   the reserve components who reside outside the continental United 
                                States)

       On page 239, after line 22, insert the following:

     SEC. 656. TRAVEL BY RESERVES ON MILITARY AIRCRAFT TO AND FROM 
                   LOCATIONS OUTSIDE THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES 
                   FOR INACTIVE-DUTY TRAINING.

       (a) Space-Required Travel.--Subsection (a) of section 18505 
     of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``residence or'' after ``In the case of a 
     member of a reserve component whose''; and
       (2) by inserting after ``(including a place'' the 
     following: ``of inactive-duty training''.
       (b) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The heading of such section 
     is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 18505. Space-required travel: Reserves traveling to 
       inactive-duty training''.

       (2) The item relating to such section in the table of 
     sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended to read 
     as follows:

``18505. Space-required travel: Reserves traveling to inactive-duty 
              training.''.
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 3246

(Purpose: To provide additional benefits and protections for personnel 
  incurring injury, illness, or disease in the performance of funeral 
                              honors duty)

       On page 239, following line 22, add the following:

 SEC. 656. ADDITIONAL BENEFITS AND PROTECTIONS FOR PERSONNEL INCURRING 
 INJURY, ILLNESS, OR DISEASE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF FUNERAL HONORS DUTY.

       (a) Incapacitation Pay.--Section 204 of title 37, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (g)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D) 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) in line of duty while--
       ``(i) serving on funeral honors duty under section 12503 of 
     this title or section 115 of title 32;
       ``(ii) traveling to or from the place at which the duty was 
     to be performed; or
       ``(iii) remaining overnight at or in the vicinity of that 
     place immediately before so serving, if the place is outside 
     reasonable commuting distance from the member's residence.''; 
     and
       (2) in subsection (h)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D) 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) in line of duty while--
       ``(i) serving on funeral honors duty under section 12503 of 
     this title or section 115 of title 32;
       ``(ii) traveling to or from the place at which the duty was 
     to be performed; or
       ``(iii) remaining overnight at or in the vicinity of that 
     place immediately before so serving, if the place is outside 
     reasonable commuting distance from the member's residence.''.
       (b) Tort Claims.--Section 2671 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting ``115,'' in the second 
     paragraph after ``members of the National Guard while engaged 
     in training or duty under section''.
       (c) Applicability.--(1) The amendments made by subsection 
     (a) shall apply with respect to months beginning on or after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) The amendment made by subsection (b) shall apply with 
     respect to acts and omissions occurring before, on, or after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3247

  (Purpose: To require a study of the advisability of increasing the 
  grade authorized for the Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau to 
                          Lieutenant General)

       On page 155, line 4, strike ``(g) Effective Date.--This'' 
     and insert the following:
       ``(g) Vice Chief of National Guard Bureau.--(1) The 
     Secretary of Defense shall conduct a study of the 
     advisability of increasing the grade authorized for the Vice 
     Chief of the National Guard Bureau to Lieutenant General.
       ``(2) As part of the study, the Chief of the National Guard 
     Bureau shall submit to the Secretary of Defense an analysis 
     of the functions and responsibilities of the Vice Chief of 
     the National Guard Bureau and the Chief's recommendation as 
     to whether the grade authorized for the Vice Chief should be 
     increased.
       ``(3) Not later than February 1, 2001, the Secretary shall 
     submit in the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
     House of Representatives a report on the study. The report 
     shall include the following:
       ``(A) The recommendation of the Chief of the National Guard 
     Bureau and any other information provided by the Chief to the 
     Secretary of Defense pursuant to paragraph (2).
       ``(B) The conclusions resulting from the study.
       ``(C) The Secretary's recommendation regarding whether the 
     grade authorized for the Vice Chief of the National Guard 
     Bureau should be increased to Lieutenant General.
       ``(h) Effective Dates.--Subsection (g) shall take effect on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act. Except for that 
     subsection, this''.
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 3248

(Purpose: To exempt commanders of certain Air Force specified combatant 
  commands from a limitation on the number of general officers while 
general or flag officers of other armed forces are serving as commander 
                 of certain unified combatant commands)

       On page 155, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:

     SEC. 511. CONTINGENT EXEMPTION FROM LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF 
                   AIR FORCE OFFICERS SERVING ON ACTIVE DUTY IN 
                   GRADES ABOVE MAJOR GENERAL.

       Section 525(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) While an officer of the Army, Navy, or Marine Corps 
     is serving as Commander in Chief of the United States 
     Transportation Command, an officer of the Air Force, while 
     serving as Commander of the Air Mobility Command, if serving 
     in the grade of general, is in addition to the number that 
     would otherwise be permitted for the Air Force for officers 
     serving on active duty in grades above major general under 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(9) While an officer of the Army, Navy, or Marine Corps 
     is serving as Commander in Chief of the United States Space 
     Command, an officer of the Air Force, while serving as 
     Commander of the Air Force Space Command, if serving in the 
     grade of general, is in addition to the number that would 
     otherwise be permitted for the Air Force for officers serving 
     on active duty in grades above major general under paragraph 
     (1).''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3249

   (Purpose: To increase the end strengths authorized for full-time 
        manning of the Army National Guard of the United States)

       On page 125, line 19, strike. ``22,536'' and insert 
     ``22,974.''
       On page 126, line 10, strike ``22,357'' and insert 
     ``24,728.''

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, my amendment affects every State in the 
Nation--the Bond-Bryan amendment to S. 2549. As co-chair of the Senate 
Guard Caucus, I firmly believe that this important piece of legislation 
is critical to meeting the number one priority of the National Guard--
full-time support. As you know, the National Guard relies heavily upon 
full-time employees to ensure readiness. By performing their critical 
duties on a daily basis, these

[[Page S4754]]

hard-working men and women ensure drill and annual training remain 
focused on preparation for war fighting and conducting peacetime 
missions.
  During the cold war, Guard and Reserve forces were underutilized. 
During the 1980's, for example, they numbered more than one million 
personnel but contributed support to the active forces at a rate of 
fewer than 1 million work days per year.
  At the end of the cold war, force structure and personnel endstrength 
were drastically cut in all the active services. Almost immediately, 
the nation discovered that the post-cold-war world is a complex, 
dangerous, and expensive place. Deployments for contingency operations, 
peacekeeping missions, humanitarian assistance, disaster relief and 
counter-terrorism operations increased dramatically. Most recently, our 
forces have been called upon to destroy the capability of Saddam 
Hussein and his forces, bring peace and stability to Haiti, force 
Slobodan Milosevic and his forces out of Kosovo, ensure a safe, stable 
and secure environment in the Balkans, and rescue and rebuild from 
natural disasters at home and abroad.
  Because of the increased deployments and the reduction in the active 
force, we became significantly more dependent on the Army and Air 
National Guard. In striking contrast to cold war levels of contributory 
support, today's Guard and Reserve forces are providing approximately 
13 million work days of support to the active components on an annual 
basis--a thirteen-fold increase and equivalent to the addition of some 
35,000 personnel to active component end strength, or two Army 
divisions. For example, the 49th Armored Division from the Lone Star 
State is currently leading operations in Kosovo, and the Army just 
identified four more Guard units for deployment to Kosovo.
  With this shift in reliance from the active force to the Guard came 
the obligation to increase Guard staffing to keep pace with the 
expanded mission. The Army and Air National Guard established increased 
full-time staffing as their number one priority. We agreed with them, 
but we have not yet held up our end of the bargain. We gave them the 
mission; we must now give them the personnel resources to accomplish 
it.
  The Department of Defense has identified a shortfall in full-time 
manning of 1,052 ``AGRs'' (Active Guard/Reserves) and 1,543 
Technicians. Frankly, I agree with their numbers, but I do not see how 
we can afford immediately to increase their staffing to those levels. 
Accordingly, the Bond-Bryan amendment proposes an incremental increase 
in the number of full-time positions. We ask that S. 2549 be amended to 
provide for an additional 526 ``AGRs'' (Active Guard/Reserves) and 771 
Technicians. As you can see, this is about half of what the Guard 
requested, and far less than what was requested in the past. We believe 
these additional positions will give the Guard the minimum it needs to 
do the job, while providing the opportunity to reexamine the situation 
during the next fiscal year.
  When we expand the mission, when we increase operating tempo, and 
when we ask for greater effort; we have to realize that increased 
funding is often necessary and appropriate. In this case, we have 
attempted to provide the minimum additional personnel to accomplish a 
mission we previously assigned but did not fully resource. Your support 
for this amendment sends a strong message to your constituents and the 
Guard units in your state that you support the National Guard in its 
significant role in our Nation's defense, and that you are willing to 
give the men and women in its ranks the resources to do the job.
  Mr. President, I thank Senator Warner, Senator Levin, my co-chair, 
Senator Bryan, and our esteemed colleagues for your support of this 
critical issue.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee, as well as the distinguished ranking 
member, for agreeing to accept this critical amendment relating to 
full-time manning for the National Guard. Both of these leaders have 
been strongly supportive of our efforts, past and present, to ensure 
that the National Guard has the resources it needs to perform its dual 
missions, and I want to express my personal gratitude for their 
leadership and support of the National Guard over the course of several 
years.
  As co-chairman of the Senate National Guard Caucus, there is clearly 
no higher priority for the National Guard in this fiscal year than the 
need to provide sufficient resources for full-time operational support. 
These full-time personnel are the backbone of the National Guard, and 
make no mistake about it, if we fail to provide sufficient full-time 
support, there will be a noticeable and precipitous decline in the 
ability of the National Guard to fulfill its mission both to the states 
and as part of the National Force Structure.
  The amendment we are offering today will authorize $38 million to 
provide an additional 526 AGRs and 771 Technicians for the Army 
National Guard. Frankly, Mr. President, I would have liked to have gone 
further, and provided the Guard with the personnel they need to achieve 
the minimal personnel levels identified by the National Guard Bureau of 
23,500 AGRs and 25,500 Technicians. But like the incremental increases 
that were provided last year, this amendment represents an important 
step towards achieving that overall goal.
  Our amendment has well over 60 cosponsors from both sides of the 
aisles. Not many issues attract this much support from across the 
ideological spectrum, and I interpret that as a Senate endorsement of 
the critical missions the National Guard performs, ranging from 
providing important emergency and other support services to their 
states, to participating in international peacekeeping missions across 
the globe, including Bosnia and Kosovo. It should be noted that both 
the Senate majority leader and the Senate minority leader are original 
cosponsors, as are the chairman and ranking member of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee. The amendment is also supported by the 
National Guard Bureau, the National Guard Association of the United 
States, the Adjutants General Association of the United States, and 
other organizations.
  The National Guard represents 34 percent of our Total Force Army 
Strength and 19 percent of our Total Air Force Strength. Nearly half a 
million Americans serve in the National Guard, playing a critical 
complementary role to their active duty counterparts, and we have an 
obligation and a responsibility to make sure every Guard unit and 
armory across the country has the support personnel it requires to 
function efficiently and effectively.
  I am hopeful that with such broad, bipartisan support from the 
members of the Senate and the Armed Services Committee, we can continue 
to provide the resources required by the National Guard that will allow 
these dedicated Americans to perform their mission in support of the 
Armed Forces of the United States.
  Finally, Mr. President, I want to thank my fellow co-chairman of the 
Senate National Guard Caucus, Senator Bond, for his authorship and 
leadership on this amendment. Senator Bond continues to demonstrate an 
impassioned commitment to the National Guard, our reserve components, 
and all of our Armed Forces. I also wish to recognize and thank Mr. 
James Pitchford and Ms. Shelby Bell of Senator Bond's staff for their 
hard work on this successful, bipartisan effort.


                           amendment no. 3250

(Purpose: To provide compensation and benefits to Department of energy 
     employees and contractor employees for exposure to beryllium, 
                 radiation, and other toxic substances)

  (The text of the Amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support this important step to 
compensate workers who became sick from occupational exposure to 
beryllium, radiation, and other toxic substances as part of the Cold 
War build-up. I commend my colleagues Senator Thompson, Senator 
Voinovich, Senator DeWine, and Senator Bingaman for their leadership on 
this issue.
  During the cold war, thousands of men and women who worked at the 
nation's atomic weapons plants were exposed to unknown hazards. Many 
were exposed to dangerous radioactive and chemical materials at far 
greater levels than their employers revealed. The debilitating, and 
often fatal, illnesses

[[Page S4755]]

suffered by these workers came in many forms of cancer, as well as 
other illnesses that are difficult to diagnose. This provision brings 
long overdue relief to these workers and their families.
  The Department of energy investigated this issue. It found that 
workers who served for years to maintain and strengthen our defenses 
during the cold War were not informed or protected against the health 
hazards they faced at work. Only during the Clinton Administration has 
the government openly acknowledged that these workers were exposed to 
materials that were much more radioactive--and much more deadly--than 
previously revealed.
  I commend Secretary Richardson for his leadership in bringing this 
issue to light, and for his efforts to close this tragic chapter in the 
nation's history for the thousands of workers and their families whose 
lives were affected.
  On of the earliest instances of the health dangers of beryllium 
occurred during World War II at the Sylvania Company in Salem, 
Massachusetts. At this plant, doctors first identified cases of 
beryllium disease, an acute and often fatal lung illness that seemed 
similar to tuberculosis. At the time, the company used beryllium in 
manufacturing fluorescent light bulbs.
  Some of the earliest radiation experiments were conducted at the 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge as part of the 
Manhattan Project. Scientists at MIT were also among the first to 
conduct experiments with beryllium oxide ceramics for the Manhattan 
Project and the Atomic Energy Corporation. Many of the first cases of 
beryllium disease occurred among these scientists.
  We have an opportunity today to remedy the wrongs suffered by these 
Department of Energy workers. Our amendment creates a basic framework 
for compensation. It is the least we can do for workers who made such 
great sacrifices for our country during the cold war. They have already 
waited too long for this relief.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment along with 
a bipartisan group of Senators, including Senator Bingaman, Senator 
Voinovich, Senator Kennedy, Senator DeWine, Senator Reid, Senator 
Thurmond, Senator Bryan, Senator Frist, Senator Murray, Senator 
Murkowski, Senator Harkin, and Senator Stevens.
  Mr. President, watching President Clinton's summit meeting with 
Russian President Vladimir Putin last weekend, I think we were all 
reminded of how far our two nations have come over the past decade, 
since President Reagan implored President Gorbachev to ``tear down (the 
Berlin) Wall,'' and President Bush presided over its destruction. While 
dangerous new threats have emerged, the Cold War that dominated the 
politics of our security for four decades is over, and the United 
States won. We should be proud of that victory and we should never 
forget the strength and resolve through which it was achieved.
  But it has become clear in recent months that that victory came at a 
high price for some of those who were most responsible for producing 
it. I am talking about workers in our nuclear weapons facilities run by 
the Department of Energy or their contractors. We now have evidence 
that, in at least some instances, the federal government that they had 
dedicated themselves to serving put these workers in harm's way without 
their knowledge.
  I first became concerned about this issue three years ago when my 
hometown newspaper, the Nashville Tennessean, published a series of 
stories describing a pattern of unexplained illnesses in the Oak Ridge, 
Tennessee area. Many of the current and former Oak Ridge workers 
profiled in the stories believed that their illnesses were related to 
their service at the Department of Energy site. In 1997, I asked the 
Director of the Centers for Disease Control to send a team to Oak Ridge 
to assess the situation and to try to determine if what we were seeing 
there was truly unique. Unfortunately, in the end, the CDC did not take 
a broad enough look at the situation to really answer the questions 
that had been raised.
  And that, of course, has been a pattern at Oak Ridge and at many DOE 
sites over the years. Countless health studies have been done, some on 
very narrow populations and some on larger ones, some showing some 
correlations and some not able to reach any conclusions at all. The 
data is mixed, some of it is flawed, and we are left with a situation 
that is confusing and from which it is very difficult to draw any 
definite conclusions.
  And yet, there is a growing realization that there are illnesses 
among current and former DOE workers that logic tells us are related to 
their service at these weapons sites. For example, hundreds of current 
and former workers in the DOE complex have been diagnosed with Chronic 
Beryllium Disease. Many more have so-called ``beryllium sensitivity,'' 
which often develops into Chronic Beryllium Disease. The only way to 
contract either of these conditions is to be exposed to beryllium 
powder. The only entities that use beryllium in that form are the 
Department of Energy and the Department of Defense.
  And there are other examples, perhaps less clear cut, but certainly 
worthy of concern. Uranium, plutonium, and a variety of heavy metals 
found in people's bodies. Anecdotes about hazardous working conditions 
where people were unprotected against both exposures they knew were 
there and exposures of which they were not aware. It's time for the 
federal government to stop automatically denying any responsibility and 
face up to the fact that it appears as though it made at least some 
people sick.
  The question now is: what do we do about it? And how do we make sure 
it never happens again?
  This amendment attempts to answer the first of those two questions. 
It would set up a program, administered by the Department of Labor, to 
provide compensation to employees who are suffering from chronic 
beryllium disease, or from a radiation-related cancer that is 
determined to likely have been caused by exposures received in the 
course of their service at a DOE facility. It would also provide a 
mechanism for employees suffering from exposures to hazardous chemicals 
and other toxic substances in the workplace to gain access to state 
workers' compensation benefits, which are generally denied for such 
illnesses at present.
  Mr. President, our amendment takes a science-based approach. It is 
not a blank check. It does not provide benefits to anyone and everyone 
who worked at a DOE facility who has taken ill.
  In the case of beryllium, we can say with certainty that if someone 
has chronic beryllium disease and they worked around beryllium powder, 
their disease is work-related; there is no other way to get it.
  The same is not true of cancer, of course. A physician cannot look at 
a tumor and say with certainty that it was caused by exposure to 
radiation, or by smoking, or by a genetic disposition, or by any other 
factor. However, we do know that radiation in high doses has been 
linked to certain cancers, and we now know that some workers at DOE 
facilities were exposed to radiation, often with inadequate 
protections.
  What this amendment does is employ a mechanism developed by 
scientists at the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer 
Institute to determine whether a worker's cancer is at least as likely 
as not related to exposures received in the course of their employment 
at a DOE facility. The model takes into account the type of cancer, the 
dose received, the worker's age at the time of exposure, sex, lifestyle 
factors such as whether the worker smoked, and other relevant factors.
  In many, if not most, cases, it should be possible to determine with 
a sufficient degree of accuracy the radiation dose a particular worker 
or group of workers received. However, in some cases--because the 
Department of Energy kept inadequate or incomplete records, altered 
some of its records, and even tampered with the dosimetry badges that 
workers were supposed to wear--it may not be possible to estimate with 
any degree of certainty the radiation dose a certain worker received. 
For these workers, who are really the victims of DOE's bad behavior, 
our amendment provides an expedited track to compensation for a 
specified list of radiation-related cancers.
  Mr. President, the Governmental Affairs Committee, which I chair, 
held a

[[Page S4756]]

hearing on this issue back in March. We heard testimony from several 
workers from Oak Ridge, Tennessee and Piketon, Ohio who are suffering 
from devastating illnesses as a result of their service to our country. 
And of course, it is not just the workers who are affected--it is their 
entire family that suffers emotionally, financially, and even 
physically.
  In the end, we must remember that these workers were helping to win 
the cold war, to defend our Nation and protect our security. They were 
patriotic and proud of the work that they were doing. If the Federal 
Government made mistakes that jeopardized their health and safety, then 
we need to do what we can to make it right. That is what this amendment 
would do. I want to thank the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, 
Senator Warner, for his support, as well as Senator Levin. I urge the 
rest of my colleagues to support it as well.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator 
Thompson and others in offering this strongly bipartisan amendment. It 
addresses occupational illnesses scientifically found to be associated 
with the DOE weapons complex, that have occurred and are now occurring 
because of activities during the cold war.
  This amendment is a joint effort of a bipartisan group of Senators. 
Specifically, it has been put together by staff for myself, Senator 
Fred Thompson, Senator George Voinovich, Senator Mike DeWine, and 
Senator Ted Kennedy. We have worked with the administration, with 
worker groups, and with manufacturers. The staff have met with Armed 
Services Committee staff during the development of this amendment, and 
I want to acknowledge the chairman and ranking member of the Armed 
Services Committee for their support for this amendment.
  The workers in the DOE nuclear weapons complex, both at the 
production plants and the laboratories, helped us win the cold war. But 
that effort left a tragic environmental and human legacy. We are 
spending billions of dollars each year on the environmental part--
cleaning up the physical infrastructure that was contaminated. But we 
also need to focus on the human legacy.
  This amendment is an attempt to put right a situation that should not 
have occurred. But it proposes to do so in a way that is based on sound 
science.
  The amendment focuses federal held on three classes of injured 
workers.
  The first group is workers who were involved with beryllium. 
Beryllium is a non-radioactive metal that provokes, in some people, a 
highly allergic lung reaction. The lungs become scarred, and no longer 
function.
  The second group is workers who dug the tunnels for underground 
nuclear tests and are today suffering from chronic silicosis due to 
their occupational exposures to silica, which were not adequately 
controlled by DOE.
  The third group of workers are those who had dangerous doses of 
radiation on the job.
  These workers were employed at numerous current and former DOE 
facilities. We have included a general definition of DOE and other type 
of facilities in the legislation, in lieu of including a list that 
might be incomplete, but for purposes of helping in the implementation 
of this amendment, if enacted into law, I would like to ask unanimous 
consent that a non-exclusive list of the facilities intended to be 
covered under this amendment be printed in the Record following my 
statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  [See exhibit 1.]
  Mr. BINGAMAN. For beryllium workers, there are tests today that can 
detect the first signs of trouble, called beryllium sensitivity, and 
also the actual impairment, called chronic beryllium disease. If you 
have beryllium sensitivity, you are at a higher risk for developing 
chronic beryllium disease. You need annual check-ups with tests that 
are expensive. If you develop chronic beryllium disease, you might be 
disabled or die.
  This amendment sets up a federal workers' compensation program to 
provide medical benefits to workers who acquired beryllium sensitivity 
as a result of their work for DOE. It provides both medical benefits 
and lost wage protection for workers who suffer disability or death 
from chronic beryllium disease.
  For radiation, the situation is more complex. Radiation is proven to 
cause cancer in high doses. But when you look at a cancer tumor, you 
can't tell for sure whether it was caused by an alpha particle of 
radiation from the workplace, a molecule of a carcinogen in something 
you ate, or even a stray cosmic ray from outer space. But scientists 
can make a good estimate of the types of radiation doses that make it 
more likely than not that your cancer was caused by a workplace 
exposure.
  This amendment puts the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 
in charge of making the causal connection between specific workplace 
exposures to radiation and cancer. Within the HHS, it is envisioned by 
this amendment that the National Institute for Occupational Safety and 
Health (or NIOSH) take the lead for the tasks assigned by this 
amendment. Thus, the definition section of the amendment specifies that 
the Secretary of HHS act with the assistance of the Director of NIOSH. 
This assignment follows a decision made in DOE during the Bush 
Administration, and ratified by the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 1993, to give NIOSH the lead in identifying levels of 
exposure at DOE sites that present employees with significant health 
risks.
  HHS was also given a Congressional mandate, in the Orphan Drug Act, 
to develop and publish radioepidemiolog-
ical tables that estimate ``the likelihood that persons who have or 
have had any of the radiation related cancers and who have received 
specific doses prior to the onset of such disease developed cancer as a 
result of those doses.'' I would like to ask unanimous consent that a 
more detailed discussion of how the bill envisions these guidelines 
would be used be included as an exhibit at the end of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  [See exhibit 2.]
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Under guidelines developed by the HHS and used in this 
amendment, if your radiation does was high enough to make it at least 
as likely as not that your cancer was DOE-work-related, you would be 
eligible for compensation for lost wages and medical benefits.
  The HHS-based method will work for many of the workers at DOE sites. 
But it won't work for a significant minority who were exposed to 
radiation, but for whom it would be infeasible to reconstruct their 
dose.
  There are several reasons why reconstructing a dose might be--this 
infeasibility might exist. First, relevant records of dose may be 
lacking, or might not exist altogether. Second, there might be a way to 
reconstruct the dose, but it would be prohibitively expensive to do so. 
Finally, it might take so long to reconstruct a dose for a group of 
workers that they will all be dead before we have an answer that can be 
used to determine their eligibility.

  One of the workers who testified at my Los Alamos hearing might be an 
example of a worker who could fall into the cracks of a system that 
operated solely on dose histories. He was a supervisor at what was 
called the ``hot dump'' at Los Alamos. All sorts of radioactive 
materials were taken there to be disposed of. It is hard to reconstruct 
who handled what. And digging up the dump to see what was there would 
not only be very expensive, it would expose new workers to radiation 
risks that could be large.
  There are a few groups of workers that we know, today, belong in this 
category. They are specifically mentioned in the definition of Special 
Exposure Cohort. For other workers to be placed in this special 
category, the decision that it was infeasible to reconstruct their dose 
would have to be made both by HHS and by an independent external 
advisory committee of radiation, health, and workplace safety experts. 
We allow groups of workers to petition to be considered by the advisory 
committee for inclusion in this group. Once a group of workers was 
placed in the category, it would be eligible for compensation for a 
fixed list of radiation-related cancers.
  The program in this amendment also allows, in section 3515, for a 
lump-sum payment, combined with ongoing medical coverage under section 
8103 of title 5, United States Code. This could be

[[Page S4757]]

helpful, for example, in settling old cases of disability. It may be a 
good deal for survivors of deceased workers whose deaths were related 
to their work at DOE sites.
  The provisions of the workers' compensation program in this amendment 
are largely modeled after the Federal Employee's Compensation Program 
or FECA, which is found in chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code. 
In many parts of the amendment, entire sections of FECA are 
incorporated by reference. In other sections, portions of FECA are 
restated in more general language to account for the fact that the 
specific language in FECA would cover only Federal employees, while in 
this amendment we are covering Federal contractor and subcontractor 
employees, as well. In some instances, we modified provisions in FECA 
to address known problems in its current implementation or to reflect 
current standards of administrative law. One example of this is a 
decision not to incorporate section 8128(b) of title 5, United States 
Code, into this amendment. That section absolutely precludes judicial 
review of decisions concerning a claim by the Department of Labor. 
Since such decisions involve the substantive rights of individuals 
being conferred by this amendment, and since they are made through an 
informal administrative process, it seems appropriate to the sponsors 
of this amendment that there be external review to guard against, for 
example, arbitrary and capricious conduct in processing a claim.
  The amendment also had numerous administrative provisions to ensure a 
fair process and to guard against double compensation for the same 
injury.
  As the sponsors were developing this amendment, we received a lot of 
interest in federal compensation for exposure to other toxic 
substances. This amendment does not provide federal compensation for 
chemical hazards in the DOE workplace, but does authorize DOE to work 
with States to get workers with adverse health effects from their 
exposure to these substances into State worker compensation programs. 
It also would commission a GAO study of this approach so that we can 
evaluate, in the context of a future bill, whether such an approach is 
effective.
  We have a duty to take care of sick workers from the nuclear weapons 
complex today. It is a doable task, and a good use of our national 
wealth at a time of budget surpluses. I urge my colleagues to support 
this bipartisan amendment.

                               Exhibit 1

 Examples of DOE and Atomic Weapons Employer Facilities That Would Be 
            Included Under the Definitions in This Amendment


                 (Not an Exclusive List of Facilities)

       Atomic Weapons Employer Facility: The following facilities 
     that provided uranium conversion or manufacturing services 
     would be among those included under the definition in section 
     3503(a)(4):
       Allied Signal Uranium Hexafluoride Facility, Metropolis, 
     Illinois.
       Linde Air Products facilities, Tonowanda, New York.
       Mallinckrodt Chemical Company facilities, St. Louis, 
     Missouri.
       Nuclear Fuels Services facilities, Erwin, Tennessee.
       Reactive Metals facilities, Ashtabula, Ohio.
       Department of Energy Facility: The following facilities 
     (including any predecessor or successor facilities to such 
     facilities) would be among those included under the 
     definition in section 3503(a)(15):
       Amchitka Island Test Site, Amchitka, Alaska.
       Argonne National Laboratory, Idaho and Illinois.
       Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York.
       Chupadera Mesa, White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico.
       Fermi Nuclear Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois.
       Fernald Feed Materials Production Center, Fernald, Ohio.
       Hanford Works, Richland, Washington.
       Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho.
       Iowa Army Ammunition Plant, Burlington, Iowa.
       Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri.
       Latty Avenue Properties, Hazelwood, Missouri.
       Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, 
     California.
       Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, 
     California.
       Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, 
     including related sites such as Acid/Pueblo Canyons and Bayo 
     Canyon.
       Marshall Islands Nuclear Test Sites, but only for period 
     after December 31, 1958.
       Maywood Site, Maywood, New Jersey.
       Middlesex Sampling Plant, Middlesex, New Jersey.
       Mound Facility, Miamisburg, Ohio.
       Niagara Falls Storage Site, Lewiston, New York.
       Nevada Test Site, Mercury, Nevada.
       Oak Ridge Facility, Tennessee, including the K-25 Plant, 
     the Y-12 Plant, and the X-10 Plant.
       Paducah Plant, Paducah, Kentucky.
       Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas.
       Pinellas Plant, St. Petersburg, Florida.
       Portsmouth Plant, Piketon, Ohio.
       Rocky Flats Plant, Golden, Colorado.
       Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico.
       Santa Susanna Facilities, Santa Susanna, California.
       Savannah River Site, South Carolina.
       Waste Isolation Pilot Project, Carlsbad, New Mexico.
       Weldon Spring Plant, Weldon Spring, Missouri.

                               Exhibit 2

           Determining ``Causation'' for Radiation and Cancer

       Different cancers have different relative sensitivities to 
     radiation.
       In 1988, the White Office of Science and Technology Policy 
     endorsed the use by the Veterans Administration of the 
     concept of ``probability of causation'' (PC) in adjudicating 
     claims of injury due to exposure to ionizing radiation. Given 
     that a radiogenic cancer cannot be differentiated from a 
     ``spontaneously'' occurring one or one caused by other 
     dietary, environmental and/or lifestyle factors, the PC--that 
     is, the ``likelihood'' that a diagnosed cancer has been 
     ``caused'' by a given radiation exposure or dose--has to be 
     determined indirectly.
       To this end, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was 
     tasked to develop radioepidemiology tables. These tables, 
     which are currently being updated by the NIH, include data on 
     35 cancers compared to the 13 cancers in the original tables 
     from 1985. These tables account for the fact that different 
     cancers have different relative sensitivities to ionizing 
     radiation.
       The determination of a PC takes into account the radiation 
     dose and dose rate, the types of radiation exposure 
     (external, internal), age at exposure, sex, duration of 
     exposure, elapsed time following exposure, and (for lung 
     cancer only) smoking history. Because a calculated PC is 
     subject to a variety of statistical and methodological 
     uncertainties, a ``confidence interval'' around the PC is 
     also determined.
       Thus, a PC is calculated as a single, ``point estimate'' 
     along with a 99% confidence interval which bounds the 
     uncertainty associated with that estimate. If we have 99% 
     certainty that the upper bound of a PC is greater than or 
     equal to 0.5 (i.e., a 50% likelihood of causality), then the 
     cancer is considered at least as likely as not to have been 
     caused by the radiation dose used to calculate the PC.
       For example, for a given worker with a particular cancer 
     and radiation exposure history, the PC may by 0.38 with a 99% 
     confidence interval of 0.21 to 0.55. This means that it is 
     38% likely that this worker's cancer was caused by their 
     radiation dose, and we can say with 99% confidence that this 
     estimate is between 21% and 55%. Since the upper bound, 55% 
     is greater than 50%, this person's cancer would be considered 
     to be at least as likely as not to have been caused by 
     exposure to radiation, and the person would be eligible for 
     benefits under the proposed program.

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, 
Senators DeWine, Thompson, Frist, Thurmond, Murkowski, Bingaman, Reid, 
Bryan, Kennedy, Harkin, and Murray in support of an important amendment 
that will provide financial and medical compensation to Department of 
Energy workers who have been made ill while working to provide for the 
defense of the United States.
  Since the end of World War II, at facilities all across America, tens 
of thousands of dedicated men and women in our civilian federal 
workforce helped keep our military fully supplied and our nation fully 
prepared to face any threat from our adversaries around the world. The 
success of these workers in meeting this challenge is measured in part 
with the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union.
  However, for many of these workers, their success came at a high 
price. They sacrificed their health, and even their lives--in many 
instances without knowing the risks they were facing--to preserve our 
liberty. I believe these men and women have paid a high price for our 
freedom, and in their time of need, this nation has a moral obligation 
to provide some financial and medical assistance to these Cold War 
veterans.
  Last month, I introduced legislation, along with many of the Senators 
who have co-sponsored this amendment, that would provide financial 
compensation to Department of Energy workers whose impaired health has 
been caused

[[Page S4758]]

by exposure to beryllium, radiation or other hazardous substances. Our 
bill, S. 2519, the ``Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 
Act of 2000,'' also provides that compensation be paid to survivors of 
workers who have died and suffered from an illness resulting from 
exposure to these substances.
  Need for this type of legislation was further solidified when on May 
25th, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson released a Department of Energy 
report on safety and management practices at the Portsmouth Gaseous 
Diffusion Plant in Piketon, Ohio. The report, which was based on an 
independent investigation authorized by Secretary Richardson, 
highlighted unsafe conditions at Piketon and deemed past management 
practices as shoddy and in many cases, inadequate to protect the health 
and safety of Piketon's workforce. The report confirmed many of the 
fears that these workers have quietly faced for years, and it is why it 
is imperative that we pass legislation this year that will compensate 
these cold war heroes.
  Mr. President, the amendment that is being offered today by my 
distinguished colleague Senator Thompson is similar to S. 2519 except 
for minor differences.
  Under S. 2519, a federal program is created for all workers who are 
due compensation because of an illness suffered due to the nature of a 
person's job. This amendment creates a federal program for workers 
suffering from beryllium disease, silicosis and cancer due to radiation 
exposure. Workers suffering from illnesses due to other chemical 
exposures would be covered under state workers compensation programs. 
The Department of Energy's Office of Workers' Compensation Advocate--
created by this amendment--will help employees apply for compensation 
with their particular state's worker compensation program.
  In addition, S. 219 allows a broad burden of proof to be placed on 
the government, one that provides a greater number of Department of 
Energy workers who have cancer related to radiation exposure to receive 
federal compensation benefits. This amendment maintains that burden of 
proof for workers at the nation's three Gaseous Diffusion Plants, but, 
the amendment assumes that other workers will be able to find records 
showing whether or not their federal service made them sick. If it is 
not possible for the Department to find an employee's records, or, 
adequately estimate dose history, then the burden of proof threshold 
established for workers at the Gaseous Diffusion Plants will apply to 
that particular employee.
  Some of my colleagues may question whether or not the Federal 
Government should be making an expenditure of this amount of money. 
Some may ask how we will know which worker or family member has a bona 
fide claim for compensation. These are legitimate concerns. However, 
the nature of the illnesses involved suggests more than a coincidental 
relationship with their victims.
  For example, beryllium disease is a ``fingerprint'' disease. That 
means it is particularly identifiable and cannot be mistaken for any 
other disease, leaving no doubt as to what caused the illness of the 
sufferer. Additionally, the processing of the beryllium metals that 
cause Chronic Beryllium Disease is singularly unique to our nuclear 
weapons facilities.
  In cases of radiation exposure at DoE facilities, it is 
understandable that some may question whether a person was exposed to 
radioactive materials from another source, primarily because records 
may not reflect that an employee was exposed to such materials. The 
Department of Energy's independent investigation at Portsmouth showed 
that, in some cases, the destruction and alteration of DoE workers' 
records occurred. There have been anecdotes indicating similar 
occurrences at other DoE facilities around the nation.
  Additionally, dosimeter badges, which record radiation exposure, were 
not always required to be worn by DoE workers. And when they were 
required, they were not always worn properly or consistently. Workers 
at the Piketon plant also have stated that plant management not only 
did not keep adequate dosimetry records, in some cases, they chanted 
the dosimetry records to show lower levels of radiation exposure. There 
have been reports that DoE plant management would even change dosimeter 
badges to read ``zero''--which means the level of exposure to radiation 
would be officially recorded as zero, regardless of the exposure level 
that actually registered on the badge.
  In too many instances, records do not exist, and where they do exist, 
there is adequate reason to doubt their accuracy. The amendment 
recognizes that this is the case at the Department of Energy's three 
Gaseous Diffusion Plants--Piketon, Ohio, Paducah, Kentucky and Oak 
Ridge, Tennessee--and takes the unusual step of placing the burden of 
proof on the government to prove that an employee's illness was not 
caused by workplace hazards.
  This amendment allows for sound science where it is available, 
specifically, if it is possible to adequately and accurately estimate 
radiation doses, and scientifically assure that a worker's cancer is 
work-related or not. However, if it is not reasonably possible to 
adequately and accurately reconstruct doses, then ill workers covered 
under this amendment would be eligible for compensation that is based 
on criteria that exists for workers at our nation's Gaseous Diffusion 
Plants.
  To be clear, Mr. President, under normal circumstances, I am not one 
who would advocate a ``guilty until proven innocent'' approach. I 
firmly believe that we should use sound science to determine exposure 
levels and relationship to illness. Yet, these are not normal 
circumstances, and the reason we are offering this amendment today is 
because in too many instances, sound science either does not exist in 
DoE facility records, or it cannot be relied upon for accuracy.
  For example, in my own state of Ohio, at the Portsmouth Gaseous 
Diffusion Plant--a plant that processes high-quality nuclear material--
workers had little or no idea that they had been exposed to dangerous 
levels of radioactive material. As the Department of Energy's own 
independent investigation has shown, such exposure went on for decades.
  The independent investigation at Portsmouth, also demonstrated that 
until recently, proper safety precautions at Piketon were rarely taken 
to adequately protect workers' safety. Even when precautions were 
taken, the use of protective standards was inconsistent and in some 
instances were deemed only ``moderately effective.''
  If consistent, reliable and factual data is not available, Mr. 
President, then it will be quite difficult if not impossible to utilize 
sound science in order for employees to prove their claims.
  Similar situations like those that have been documented at Piketon 
have been reported at other Ohio facilities including the Fernald Feed 
Materials Production Center in Fernald, Ohio and the Mound Facility in 
Miamisburg, Ohio, not to mention a host of other facilities nationwide. 
At this time, the Department of Energy is only acknowledging these 
situations at the Gaseous Diffusion Plant.
  In addition to shoddy or non-existent record keeping, the DoE has 
admitted that at some facilities, workers were not told the nature of 
the substances they were handling. They weren't told about the 
ramifications that these materials may have on their future health and 
quality of life. It is truly unconscionable that DoE managers and other 
individuals in positions of responsibility could be so insensitive and 
uncaring.
  Last year, the Toledo Blade published an award-winning series of 
articles outlining the plight of workers suffering from Chronic 
Beryllium Disease (CBD). While government standards were met in 
protecting the workers from exposure to beryllium dust, many workers 
still were diagnosed with CBD. Were the standards too low? Was the 
protective equipment faulty? Whatever the cause, it is estimated that 
1,200 people across the nation have contracted CBD, and hundreds have 
died from it, making CBD the number-one disease directly caused by our 
cold war effort.
  Mr. President, there may be some who think that this amendment costs 
too much, so we shouldn't do it. I strongly disagree.
  Congress appropriates billions of dollars annually on things that are 
not

[[Page S4759]]

the responsibility of the federal government--and I have voted against 
most of the bills that include this kind of funding. Here we have a 
clear instance where the actions of the federal government is 
responsible for the actions it has taken and the negligence it has 
shown against its own people. Peoples' health has been compromised and 
lives have been lost. In many instances, these workers didn't even know 
that their health and safety were in jeopardy. It is not only a 
responsibility of this government to provide for these individuals, it 
is a moral obligation.
  My belief that we have a moral obligation to these people was 
strengthened last October when I attended a public meeting of workers 
from the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant. I learned an incredible 
amount about the integrity of the hard-working men and women and what 
they have been through.
  I heard heart-wrenching stories from people like Ms. Anita George, a 
23 year employee at Piketon who testified that ``I only know of one 
woman that works in my department that has not had a hysterectomy and 
other reproductive problems.'' Ms. George described a situation where 
she and two of her colleagues were exposed to an ``outgassing'' on a 
``routine'' decontamination job.
  After the exposure, the women started to experience health problems, 
including heavy bleeding, elevated white blood cell counts and kidney 
infections. Plant physicians told them that they should ``just lie down 
and rest'' if they had any problems while they were working. Three 
years after the exposure, all three women had had hysterectomies. The 
plant denied their workers' compensation claims.
  I also heard from people like Mr. Jeff Walburn, another 23-year plant 
employee and former councilman and vice mayor of the city of 
Portsmouth, who testified that while working in one of the buildings, 
he became so sick that his lungs ``granulated.'' When he went to the 
infirmary, they said he was ``okay for work.'' Later that day, he went 
to the hospital because in his words, ``my face was peeling off.'' 
According to Mr. Walburn, he couldn't speak, his hair started falling 
out, his lungs started ``coming out'' and his bowels failed to function 
for more than 6 days. When he went to get his records to file his 
worker's compensation claim, he was told that his diagnosis had been 
``changed, been altered.''
  The Department of Energy has held similar public meetings at 
facilities across the nation--these stories are not unique to the 
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant.
  Mr. President, it is unfortunate that this amendment is necessary in 
the first place; the compensation it will provide is little consolation 
for the pain, health problems and diminished quality of life that these 
individuals have suffered. These men and women won the cold war. Now, 
they simply ask that their government acknowledge that they were made 
ill in the course of doing their job and recognize that the government 
must take care of them.
  Until recently, the only way many of these employees believed they 
would ever receive proper restitution for what the government has done 
to them is to file a lawsuit against the Department of Energy or its 
contractors. But, in the time that I have been involved in this issue 
in the Senate, the Department of Energy has come a long way from its 
decades-long stance of stonewalling and denial of responsibility. 
Today, they admit that they have wronged our cold war heroes. Still, we 
must do more.
  I believe that all those who have served our nation fighting the cold 
war have a right to know if the federal government was responsible for 
causing them illness or harm, and if so, to provide them the care and 
compensation that they need and deserve. That is the purpose of our 
amendment, and I am pleased to join with my colleagues in support of 
its acceptance in this bill.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor in support of the 
amendment, and thank all the sponsors for their work in this area.
  The purpose of this amendment, put simply, is to provide compensation 
to workers who have gotten sick as a result of their exposure to 
hazardous materials in the course of their efforts to build and test 
nuclear weapons. We must do right by these workers. They were 
instrumental in winning the cold war. Their efforts deterred hostile 
attack and safeguarded our security.
  I want to highlight a small group of those workers who toiled on a 
remote island in Alaska to test the largest underground nuclear weapons 
test our nation ever conducted.
  Amchitka is an island in the Aleutian arc 1340 miles southwest of 
Anchorage. As I mentioned, it is the site of the largest underground 
nuclear test in U.S. history--the so-called ``Cannikin'' test of 1971. 
This 5 megaton test was preceded by two prior tests: ``Long Shot,'' an 
80 kiloton test in 1965; and ``Milrow,'' a 1 megaton test in 1969.
  According to an independent investigator, Dr. Rosalie Bertell, the 
ionizing radiation exposure above normal background levels experienced 
by Amchitka workers ranged from 669 up to 17,240 milliren/year. Workers 
exposures at Amchitka were primarily due to:
  Groundwater transport of tritium from the Longshot test;
  Radionuclides stored on site or used in the shaft, including scandium 
46, cesium 137, and other radioactive diagnostic capsuled sources;
  Radioactive thermoelectric generator (RTG) use;
  Material released from the Cannikin re-entry operations in 1972;
  Unfortunately, it appears that The Atomic Energy Commission--the 
predecessor of today's Department of Energy--did not provide for the 
proper protection of these workers. According to Dr. Bertell:

       Although the workers were apparently told that their work 
     was not `hazardous,' they were actually classified as nuclear 
     workers and were exposed to levels of ionizing radiation from 
     non-natural and/or non-normal sources, above the level which 
     at that time was permitted yearly for the general public, 
     namely 500 mrem/year . . . Doses received by the men during 
     special assignments and during the post-Cannikin cleanup, 
     exceeded the permissible quarterly dose of 1250 mrem and the 
     maximum permissible yearly dose of 5000 mrem.

  I would note that the allowable exposure standards for both workers 
and the general public are much lower today.
  The actual amount of radiation the Amchitka workers were exposed to 
is difficult to quantify, Mr. President. These workers generally did 
not have the protection of radiation safety training or instruction in 
the proper usage of Thermoluminescent Dosimeters (TLDs). To make 
matters even worse, exposure records were not kept in many cases by the 
AEC. Some of the records that were kept by AEC were later lost. While 
this was not unusual in the very early years of the nuclear age, 
radiation protection formalities were well established by the late 
1960s and 1970s at the time of the Amchitka tests. Yet the proper 
procedures were not followed and the proper records were not kept.
  So although these were some likely exposures, the records that could 
help these workers make a claim under existing authority do not exist 
through no fault of their own. That is the reason that Amchitka workers 
are included in the ``Special Exposure Cohort'' with the workers at the 
Gaseous Diffusion Plants in Portsmouth, Ohio; Paducah, Kentucky; and 
Oak Ridge, Tennessee. If a member of the special exposure cohort gets a 
specified disease listed in the amendment that is known to be 
associated with ionizing radiation, her or she is entitled to 
appropriate compensation.
  I appreciate the work of Senator Thompson and others, and the 
consideration given us by the floor managers.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                           amendment no. 3251

 (Purpose: To conform standards of judicial review of actions relating 
        to selection boards; and to make a technical correction)

       Beginning on page 144, strike line 22 and all that follows 
     through page 145, line 4, and insert the following:

     may be, only if the court finds that recommendation or action 
     was contrary to law or involved a material error of fact or a 
     material administrative error.
       On page 145, strike lines 8 through 12, and insert the 
     following:

     only if the court finds the decision to be arbitrary or 
     capricious, not based on substantial evidence, or otherwise 
     contrary to law.
       On page 148, line 24, strike ``off Defense'' and insert 
     ``concerned''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I extend my appreciation for the work done 
by the

[[Page S4760]]

managers of this bill. Also, I want to briefly focus on one amendment 
that was adopted.
  The fact that these amendments were agreed to en bloc doesn't take 
away from the importance of this legislation. We can come out here and 
talk for hours on a piece of legislation, and it has no more meaning 
than some of these that have just been adopted by the managers of the 
bill. The one I want to discuss is by Senators Thompson, Voinovich, 
Reid, and a number of other people, dealing with nuclear test site 
worker compensation.
  I had a meeting last week in Las Vegas with a woman named Dorothy 
Clayton, who, coincidentally, is in town today. Her husband was one of 
the people working at the test site for over three decades. One of his 
first duties was to go in after the blast was set off in one of these 
tunnels and bring out the devices. He had protective equipment on, but 
of course it didn't work. We didn't know that at the time.
  This man, who literally gave his life for the country, developed 
numerous cancers and died a very difficult death. This legislation 
would compensate people such as Dorothy Clayton's husband and many 
others who worked at the Nevada Test Site and other nuclear complexes 
around the country. People such as this made the cold war something we 
now look back on saying that we won.
  I want everyone to know that this legislation, which has been around 
for a long time, is now passed. Not only was the meeting in Las Vegas 
one where Mrs. Clayton talked about her husband's death, but we had 
Assistant Secretary of Energy Michaels there, who came to express his 
apologies to Mrs. Clayton and all such people who have been injured and 
died over the years. He did this by saying that we, the Federal 
Government, didn't know at the time that problems would develop. It was 
a very moving occasion, where the Federal Government--looked upon by 
many as a big brother--stepped forth and said we made a mistake.
  With this legislation, we hope to be able to compensate these people 
in a minimal way for their efforts. So the veil of secrecy in existence 
for many years is lifted. People have attempted through litigation to 
have a right to protect themselves, and they could not because it was 
against the law. Through this legislation, other things we are doing 
will be made part of the law, and through the appropriations process we 
will be able to compensate these people.
  I very much appreciate the managers agreeing to this amendment. It is 
extremely important to the thousands and thousands of people in America 
today, some of whom have lost loved ones.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank our colleague. Might I engage the Senator from 
Nevada and the Senator from Michigan in a colloquy about the procedural 
efforts. I compliment the Senator from Nevada.
  I ask the Senators to inform the managers of the amendments they 
intend to bring forward. I recognize that the text of the amendments in 
certain instances cannot be provided at this time. But we need as much 
information as possible. Hopefully, Members will provide that to the 
managers. At some point in time, I am going to urge leadership today to 
have a cutoff and that we at least have the name, the amendment, as 
much as we can know about it, so that our leadership can have some 
estimate from the managers as to the time in which this bill could be 
concluded.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I know how hard Senator Reid is working to 
put together that list. We hope we will have such a list. Senator Reid 
can comment more directly on that. I thank him for the work he is doing 
so that we can try to expedite this process.
  Mr. REID. I am happy in this instance to be Senator Levin's assistant 
to help move this legislation along. I say to the chairman of the 
committee, at noon, or thereabouts, we expect the staff will exchange 
amendments that have now been presented in the various cloakrooms to 
the managers of the bill. They will work to determine what amendments 
they want to add or subtract, and, hopefully, at 1 o'clock we will have 
a finite list of both majority and minority amendments. We can work 
from that list. As a result of the work done by the two managers, that 
list is being narrowed significantly this morning.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague.
  I assure you that on this side I have the support of my leadership, 
and we can begin to exchange the lists. I urge the leadership to come 
to the body and get unanimous consent to have some cutoff at some point 
today.
  Mr. REID. I also say to the chairman, the two leaders have been 
meeting. They have had discussions about this legislation.
  Mr. WARNER. Indeed they have. There has been strong support.
  Mr. President, I see our distinguished colleague, a member of the 
Committee on Armed Services, about to address the Senate on a subject 
on which I have been privileged to work with him for some time.
  I must say that in the many years I have been on this committee I 
have never seen a more diligent nor a more committed effort than that 
by the Senator from New Hampshire. It has been a matter of personal 
pleasure to me to work with him and to go back into the history of the 
U.S. Navy about an event of great tragedy. I think what he is proposing 
today will be well received by the Senate and, indeed, hopefully by the 
naval community which have labored with this burden for these many, 
many years since the closing days of World War II.
  I remember vividly at the time this particular ship was sunk, the 
Nation was absolutely shocked and just couldn't believe it. Indeed, a 
famous Virginian, Graham Clayton, who came along as Secretary of the 
Navy shortly after me, was the naval officer on board a ship that 
arrived first on the scene. Graham Clayton used to recount to me his 
personal recollections about this.
  I yield the floor.


                    Amendment No. 3210, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  Before addressing the Senate on the issue of the Indianapolis, I have 
an amendment to my amendment 3210 at the desk, and I ask unanimous 
consent that the modification of my own amendment at the desk be agreed 
to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this is the modification which was 
previously shared with the minority. We have no objection to the 
pending Smith amendment being modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3210), as modified, is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     ``SEC.   . PERSONNEL SECURITY POLICIES.

       No officer or employee of the Department of Defense or any 
     contractor thereof, and no member of the Armed Forces shall 
     be granted a security clearance if that person--
       (1) has been convicted in any court within the United 
     States of a crime and sentenced to imprisonment for a term 
     exceeding 1 year;
       (2) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled 
     substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled 
     Substances Act);
       (3) is currently mentally incompetent; or
       (4) has been discharged from the Armed Forces under 
     dishonorable conditions.''.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from 
Michigan for working with me. I wish to clarify that he is not 
necessarily agreeing with all of it, but he has agreed to the 
modification allowing me to modify my amendment, which he did not have 
to do. I appreciate it very much.
  Before getting into the detail of the tragedy of the U.S.S. 
Indianapolis, which happened so many years ago in 1945, I commend my 
colleague and the chairman of this committee, Senator John Warner, a 
former Secretary of the Navy. When I first approached Senator Warner on 
this topic, he was somewhat skeptical, as I was frankly, when I first 
learned of it. But he took the time to listen to the details and the 
facts that came forth. He granted a hearing at my request on the U.S.S. 
Indianapolis matter. We heard from survivors and we heard from the 
Navy. We heard from all sides. As a result of that hearing and the 
information provided, Senator Warner worked with me to draft language 
in this bill to correct an egregious mistake.
  Some have said that we are rewriting history in this debate. I am a 
history teacher. I don't believe you can rewrite

[[Page S4761]]

history. I think history is either factual or it isn't. But I think we 
can correct this. If a mistake is made, or has been made, then I think 
we have an obligation to correct that mistake. In that view, I want to 
share with my colleagues over the next few minutes what happened in 
1945.
  Senator Warner mentioned an old colleague of his, a friend of his, 
who had been one of the officers to rescue the crew of the U.S.S. 
Indianapolis. It was only 4 months before that my own father, a naval 
aviator, was killed just prior to the end of the Second World War after 
having served in that war. This incident happened just days before the 
end of the war in which over 1,200 men went down and only 300 and some 
survived.
  These tragedies happened. It is terrible. It is part of the war.
  I wish to share with my colleagues what happened and why we are doing 
what we are doing. I believe that a grievous wrong was committed 55 
years ago, and it stained the reputation of an outstanding naval 
officer. I refer to the late Capt. Charles Butler McVay, III, who was 
tried and convicted at a court-martial, unjustly I believe. I believe 
that firmly. I believe that based on the facts. He was tried and 
convicted unjustly as a result of the sinking by a Japanese submarine 
of his ship, the U.S.S. Indianapolis, shortly before the end of the 
Second World War.
  The loss of the U.S.S. Indianapolis to a Japanese submarine attack 
happened on July 30, 1945. It remains without question the greatest sea 
disaster in the history of the U.S. Navy. Eight-hundred and eighty men 
perished. Of the 1,197 men aboard, 880 died at sea. An estimated 900 
men, however, survived the actual sinking, but they were left, in some 
cases, without lifeboats, without food, and without water. And they 
faced shark attacks for 4 days and 5 nights.
  If you can, imagine the horror of that experience of being thrown 
into the sea in a matter of minutes after a torpedo attack by an enemy 
submarine and to be in the water with sharks for 4 days and 5 nights 
without lifeboats, in some cases, and without food and without water. 
Only 317 of those men remained alive when they were discovered by 
accident 5 days later, because when their ship failed to arrive on 
schedule, believe it or not, it was not missed. The ship that was 
scheduled to arrive in port 4 or 5 days before was never even missed. 
The Navy had completely lost track of this cruiser, the U.S.S. 
Indianapolis, and its entire crew. When it didn't come into port, 
nobody missed it. These men literally stayed at sea for 4 or 5 days. 
The only hope they had was the fact that an SOS had been sent out and 
somebody had heard it, and they would be found.

  This tragedy, as you might expect, was a great embarrassment to the 
U.S. Navy. It was such an embarrassment to the Navy with a ship going 
down that the news was not given to the public until the day that 
President Truman announced the surrender of Japan, thus, lessening its 
coverage by the media, and as a result its impact on the American 
people.
  Let me frame this again: In the same day's news, President Truman 
announces the surrender of Japan and then this footnote that the U.S.S. 
Indianapolis was sunk with 317 survivors.
  Today, only 130 men still live who survived from the U.S.S. 
Indianapolis. In April of 1998, I met for the first time with 12 of 
those survivors.
  I might add that, sadly, as the months go by survivors pass away. 
Most of these men are in their seventies and eighties. Every day that 
goes by and we don't get this issue resolved is another day that we 
lose survivors.
  But they were in Washington to plead for legislation for one simple 
reason: To clear their captain's name. They were accompanied by a young 
boy by the name of Hunter Scott of Pensacola, FL, whose school history 
project had led him to join their cause. I learned from those survivors 
and from this young boy, who was only 13 years old at the time, the 
story of the sinking. I had heard about it. I had read about it. But I 
didn't really know all of the facts. I learned that the survivors had 
been unanimous for over a half a century in their efforts to have their 
captain's good name restored. For 50 years, they have fought to restore 
their captain's name, saying that he was unjustly court-martialed and 
found guilty of the loss of the U.S.S. Indianapolis.
  Hunter Scott's involvement had renewed interest in their cause, and 
Hunter Scott's involvement, I think, as a young boy, came as a result 
of the book called ``Fatal Voyage: The Sinking of the U.S.S. 
Indianapolis,'' written by Dan Kurzman.
  With no financial interest in the book, I would certainly recommend 
that book to anyone who wishes to know the facts of what happened with 
the U.S.S. Indianapolis.
  But Mr. Scott had attracted the attention of the media as well as the 
attention of his Member of Congress in the House of Representatives, 
Congressman Joe Scarborough, who had already introduced legislation in 
the House which called for a posthumous pardon for Captain McVay.
  Hunter Scott can be very proud. He demonstrated that one person with 
grit and perseverance, in search of justice, can find that justice in 
the Halls of Congress. This boy, at the age of 12 or 13, brought the 
facts of this case to the Congress. As a result, language now is in 
this Defense authorization bill which will clear Captain McVay's name 
as a result of this 12 or 13-year-old boy.
  When we hear stories about young people today, we always hear the bad 
things. This is good. He is a very impressive young man. He testified 
before the Armed Services Committee. He wasn't nervous. He held his 
own. He answered tough questions. He had the answers without any 
hesitation.
  Last April, I had another meeting with a second group of survivors, 
and young Hunter Scott, who had returned to Washington once again in 
their effort to right what they believed was a wrong. In spite of the 
hearing, we still haven't gotten it done. Their story, in turn, got my 
attention and led me to introduce Senate Joint Resolution 26, which 
expresses the sense of Congress that Captain McVay's court-martial was 
morally unsustainable; that his conviction was a miscarriage of 
justice, and that the American people should now recognize his lack of 
culpability for the loss of the ship and the lives of 880 men who died 
as a result of the sinking.
  Mr. President, this language does not erase the conviction of Captain 
McVay from his record. We in Congress don't have the authority to erase 
the conviction of a court-martial. It must remain on his record. But it 
is not, in my view, a stain on Captain McVay's record. I believe it is 
a stain upon the conscience of the Navy. Until this or some future 
President sees fit to order it be expunged, we can't do that. If I 
could, I would, with the stroke of a pen. I urge President Clinton, or 
any other President in the future, to do it. But I can't do it. This 
Senate can't do it.
  This resolution does something very important. It represents 
acknowledgment from one branch of this Government, the U.S. Congress, 
House and the Senate, that Captain McVay served capably, that his 
conviction was morally wrong, and that he should no longer be viewed by 
the American people as responsible for this horrible tragedy which 
haunted him to the end of his life.
  I will take you back 55 years, the end of the Second World War, the 
late summer of 1945. After surviving a kamikaze attack off Okinawa in 
March of 1945--which killed 17 of his crew--Captain McVay returned the 
Indianapolis safely to California for repairs. For those who are 
probably too young to remember the war, a kamikaze attack was a 
Japanese aircraft that flew directly into the ship with the pilot of 
the Japanese aircraft giving up his own life to crash land the aircraft 
into the ship to blow it up. Kamikaze attacks killed a lot of 
Americans.
  McVay's ship and McVay survived, but it killed 17 of his crew. McVay 
got the ship back to shore. Remember, this ship was just hit by 
kamikaze attack, but this captain was so well respected and admired by 
his naval superiors that once the ship was repaired, they didn't even 
have time to go out and have a shake-down cruise. It was selected to 
transport components of the atomic bomb which was ultimately dropped on 
Hiroshima by the Enola Gay. They were to deliver the components for 
that bomb. McVay, among all other captains, and McVay's ship, the 
Indianapolis, was selected for that critically important duty. It 
successfully delivered the bombing parts to the island of Tinian--and, 
coincidentally,

[[Page S4762]]

setting a speed record across the Pacific for surface vessels which 
stands to this day.

  Here is a ship that was hit by a kamikaze. There was very little time 
to check the repairs, no shake down, the repairs were performed, and 
they were given the materials for the bomb and departed for the island 
of Tinian. The ship was routed on to Guam after that duty for sailing 
waters to Leyte. At Guam, Captain McVay requested a destroyer escort--
this is very important. At Guam, Captain McVay requested a destroyer 
escort across the Philippine Sea. No capital ship without antisubmarine 
detection equipment, such as the Indianapolis, had ever made that 
transit unescorted throughout World War II. No ship had ever gone from 
Guam to Leyte during the war without an escort. McVay requested one. 
McVay was denied. No escort. He was told it was not necessary.
  Navy witnesses at a hearing last September on this resolution 
conceded that this was the case. The Navy conceded that no escort was 
provided, even though it was requested. Even worse, McVay was not told 
that shortly before his departure from Guam, an American destroyer 
escort, the U.S.S. Underhill, had been sunk by a Japanese submarine 
within the range of his path. Navy witnesses in our September hearing 
on this bill conceded that this was the case. A request by McVay for a 
destroyer escort to go from Guam to Leyte. Request denied. Never 
happened before. They always had escorts.
  Second, the U.S.S. Underhill had been sunk by a Japanese submarine in 
the same sea route. They never admitted this.
  Third, U.S. intelligence furthermore broke the Japanese code and 
learned that the I-58, the Japanese submarine, the very submarine which 
sunk the Indianapolis, was operating in the path of the Indianapolis. 
So we had U.S. intelligence that had broken the Japanese code and said 
the I-58 Japanese submarine was operating in the path of the 
Indianapolis. Many responsible for routing the ship from Guam to the 
Philippines were aware of the intelligence, but McVay was not told. 
Navy witnesses at our hearing conceded that was true. That is why, to 
his credit, Senator John Warner came over to this issue.
  Mr. President, upfront I will say my duty is not to dump on the Navy. 
I am a former Navy man. My dad was a naval aviator. I love the 
Navy. But if a mistake is made, we ought to admit the mistake. When the 
Indianapolis was sunk, naval intelligence intercepted a message from 
the I-58 that it had sunk an American--they said battleship--along the 
route of the Indianapolis. That message was dismissed as enemy 
propaganda. Naval witnesses at our hearing conceded that was also the 
case.

  So after the ship was sunk, they stayed in the sea for 4 to 5 days 
because they thought it was propaganda that the Japanese said they sunk 
a ship. It was a reasonable mistake, I suppose, but maybe they could 
have checked it out.
  It should be remembered at this point that hostilities in July 1945 
had moved far to the north of the Philippine Sea. We were preparing for 
the expected invasion of Japan over 1,000 miles away. The Japanese 
surface fleet was virtually nonexistent. Only four Japanese submarines 
were thought to be operational in the entire Pacific region. It is fair 
to conclude from these facts that there was a relaxed state of alert on 
the part of naval authorities in the Marianas, and it is also fair to 
conclude, as a result that, Captain McVay and the men of the 
Indianapolis were sent into harm's way without a proper escort or the 
intelligence which could have saved the ship and the lives of the 880 
members of its crew.
  They were in a relaxed state. Captain McVay was basically given no 
reason to be alarmed about anything.
  Following the sinking, the Navy maintained the ship had sunk so fast 
it had not time to send out an SOS. For many years, this was never 
contested. But following appearances on several national TV programs, 
Hunter Scott, this 13-year-old boy, had received word from three 
separate sources, each providing details of a distress signal of which 
they were aware which was received from the ship and which, in each 
case, had been ignored. So the SOS did go out, but it was ignored.
  At the September hearing, one of the survivors who had served as a 
radio man aboard the ship testified that a distress signal did, in 
fact, go out. He said he watched the needle ``jump,'' on one of the 
ship's transmitters, signifying a successful transmission. Today, 
however, the Navy still holds to its position that a distress signal 
was never received and the truth will likely remain a mystery in this 
incredible story, never to be resolved.
  Following his rescue from the sea, Captain McVay was faced with a 
court of inquiry in Guam, which ultimately recommended a court-martial. 
Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz and Vice Adm. Raymond Spruance, who was 
McVay's immediate superior and for whom the Indianapolis served as 
flagship, both of these legendary naval heroes of war went on record as 
opposed to a court-martial for McVay--opposed. Adm. Ernest King, then-
Chief of Naval Operations, overruled both Spruance and Nimitz and 
ordered the court-martial. To the best of my knowledge, this is the 
first time in the Navy's history that the position taken by such high-
ranking officers has been countermanded in a court-martial case.
  The question has to be, Why does the Chief of Naval Operations 
overrule the two officers in command? Admiral Nimitz, one of the most 
highly respected officers in the entire war in the Navy, recommended no 
on the court-martial. He was overruled by the CNO, who was not even 
there. Why? Why?
  I believe one of our witnesses at the September hearing, Dr. William 
Dudley, Chief Naval Historian, may have given us the answer. He 
testified that Admiral King was a strict disciplinarian who, ``when 
mistakes were made, was inclined to single out somebody to blame.''

  I am forced in this instance to use the word ``scapegoat'' because I 
believe that is exactly what Captain McVay became. Brought here to the 
Washington Navy Yard to face his court-martial, Captain McVay was 
denied his choice of a defense counsel and assigned a naval officer 
who, although he had a law degree, had never tried a case before. 
Neither Captain McVay nor his counsel were notified of the specific 
charges against him until 4 days before the court-martial convened and 
the charges against him were specious at best.
  The Navy settled on two charges against Captain McVay: No. 1, failing 
promptly to give the order to abandon ship, and, No. 2, hazarding his 
ship by failing to zigzag. In other words, if you know there are enemy 
ships in the area, if you zigzag, it is harder for the enemy ship to 
get a reading on you and sink you.
  He was ultimately found innocent on the first charge, failing to 
promptly abandon ship, when it became apparent--and it should have been 
long before the charge was brought--that there was no foundation for 
such charge because he did give the order. The torpedo attack had 
immediately knocked out the ship's intercom and officers aboard the 
ship were forced to give the abandon ship order by word of mouth to 
those around them. The ship was hit and it sunk in a matter of minutes. 
The entire intercom system was knocked out and you had to give the 
order to abandon ship one person at a time.
  This charge, the second charge, failure to zigzag, including the 
phrase ``in good visibility,'' became the basis for his conviction. In 
other words, failure to zigzag in good visibility became the basis for 
his conviction, one which effectively destroyed his career as a naval 
officer.
  Let's look at the validity of that charge. Captain McVay sailed from 
Guam with orders to zigzag at his discretion. Shortly before midnight 
on July 29, 1945, the day before, with visibility severely limited--you 
zigzag in clear weather--visibility severely limited, and with every 
reason to believe the waters through which he is sailing were safe, 
McVay exercised discretion with an order to cease zigzagging and 
retired to his cabin, leaving orders to the officer of the deck to wake 
him if the weather conditions changed.
  Whether weather conditions changed is debatable. Some survivors say 
it did. Some were not sure. But survivors were unanimous in depositions 
taken shortly after their rescue that it was very dark prior to and at 
the time of the attack; that the visibility was

[[Page S4763]]

poor. Chief Warrant Officer Hines, for example, stated he could hardly 
see the outlines of the turrets on the ship. His and other similar 
depositions were not made available to Captain McVay's defense counsel.
  Again, why not? The Navy maintained, and still does today, that the 
visibility was good when the Indianapolis was spotted and subsequently 
torpedoed and sunk that night, ignoring the sworn statements of those 
who were there when it happened; ignoring them.
  Why is this important? It is important because there were no Navy 
directives in place then, or today, which either ordered or even 
recommended zigzagging at night in poor visibility. The order to zigzag 
was discretionary even if the weather was poor.
  Moreover, in voicing opposition to Captain McVay's court-martial, 
Admiral Nimitz, in charge of the Pacific Fleet, pointed out:

       The rule requiring zigzagging would not have applied, in 
     any event, since Captain McVay's orders gave him discretion 
     on that matter and thus took precedence over all other 
     orders.

  This is a point, I might add, which Captain McVay's inexperienced 
defense counsel never even addressed at the court-martial.
  To bolster its case against McVay, the Navy brought two witnesses to 
the court-martial. I have to say this has to be in the category of the 
unbelievable. One of the witnesses at Captain McVay's naval court-
martial, brought in by the U.S. Navy, was a man by the name of 
Hashimoto, who was the captain of the submarine which sank the U.S.S. 
Indianapolis. The captain of the submarine which sank the U.S.S. 
Indianapolis, the enemy sub, the captain was brought in to testify 
against a naval captain. That, my colleagues, was uncalled for. It was 
the height of insult. Imagine this captain, after losing his crew to an 
enemy torpedo, not even being told by his superiors that there were 
enemy ships in the area, has the captain of that ship testify against 
him--an outrage.
  The other witness was Glynn R. Dunaho, winner of four Navy Crosses as 
an American submarine captain during World War II. Neither helped the 
Navy's case. Both Hashimoto and Dunaho testified that, given the 
conditions that night, either one of them could have sunk the 
Indianapolis, whether it had been zigzagging or not.
  They thought Hashimoto would have helped them. He said he could have 
sunk the ship; it didn't matter whether it was zigzagging or not. 
Unbelievably this testimony was brushed aside by the court-martial 
board.
  In our hearings in the Senate this year, high-ranking Navy witnesses 
insisted Captain McVay was not charged with the loss of his ship; he 
was not even considered responsible for the loss of the ship or the 
loss of life. They insisted he was guilty only of hazarding his ship by 
failing to zigzag.
  One question they declined to answer: Would he have been court-
martialed if he had arrived safely in the Philippines but had failed to 
zigzag that night? The answer, quite obviously, is no. And the Navy's 
argument simply denies logic.
  In other words, if failure to zigzag is the problem, then you ought 
to nail an officer who doesn't do it before a tragedy, not after. If he 
had arrived in port safely, would he have been charged? The answer is 
no, of course, he wouldn't have been charged. He had an unblemished 
record as a naval officer. It defies logic, but it happened.

  In truth, McVay's orders gave him discretion to make a judgment, but 
when he relied on the best information he had, which indicated his path 
was safe, and exercised that discretion on a dark night, he ended up 
with a court-martial and humiliation.
  No intelligence was given to him. Nobody told him there were enemy 
submarines in the area. Nobody told him the Underhill was sunk days 
before. No one told him any of that. They also told him he had 
discretion to zigzag.
  In spite of all that, they court-martialed him. They humiliated him 
for making a judgment call under circumstances which any one of us 
would have done the same, including those who court-martialed him.
  Captain McVay's judgment call to zigzag was not responsible for this 
disaster, period. Other judgment calls may have been. Let's review some 
of them.
  There was a judgment that his passage was safe; to deny him destroyer 
escort; to deny him the intelligence about the sinking in his path of 
the Underhill; to ignore the Japanese submarine's report that it had 
sunk an American battleship along his route; to ignore the failure of 
the Indianapolis to arrive on schedule; if they were, indeed, received, 
to ignore the distress signals which were reported to be sent out; and 
to deny Captain McVay the vital intelligence that the Japanese 
submarine which sank his ship was operating in its path.
  Those responsible for these judgment calls were far more responsible 
for the loss of the Indianapolis and its crew than its captain. Guess 
what happened to them. Nada. No court-martial. Nothing. Nothing 
happened to those who ignored the intelligence. Nothing happened to 
those who did not tell the captain about the Underhill. Nothing 
happened to those who did not even report the loss of the ship. 
Nothing.
  Recently, my distinguished colleague and chairman, Senator Warner, 
received a personal letter from Hashimoto, the captain of the Japanese 
submarine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The Senator's 30 minutes have 
expired.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
for an additional 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I follow 
the Senator from New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, in his letter, Hashimoto 
confirmed his court-martial testimony by stating that he could have 
sunk the Indianapolis whether it had zigzagged or not. Then he went on 
to say:

       Our peoples have forgiven each other for that terrible war 
     and its consequences. Perhaps it is time that your people 
     (to) forgave Captain McVay for the humiliation of his unjust 
     conviction.

  That came from the man who sank McVay's ship. He was a dedicated, 
committed Japanese officer who, if you read Mr. Kurzman's book, was 
glad at the time he sank the ship and, in fact, was looking for a ship 
to sink.
  Hashimoto attended that court-martial. In the English translation of 
a recent interview Hashimoto gave to a Japanese journalist, here are 
some excerpts about the court-martial of McVay:

       I wonder (if) the outcome of that court-martial was set 
     from the beginning. . .because at the time of the court-
     martial, I had a feeling it was contrived. . . .

  That came from Hashimoto. There are other comments Hashimoto makes, 
Mr. President.
  There is one direct quote I want to give from his interview:

       I understand English a little bit even then, so I could see 
     at the time I testified that the translator did not tell 
     fully what I said. I mean it was not because of the capacity 
     of the translator. I would say the Navy side did not accept 
     some testimony that were inconvenient to them.

  As I conclude, I repeat, I love the Navy. I served the Navy in 
Vietnam, and I would do it again. My father was a naval aviator and a 
graduate of the Naval Academy. He was killed at the end of the Second 
World War after serving in the Pacific and in the North Atlantic. I 
have no intention of embarrassing the Navy. That is not my purpose in 
sponsoring this legislation.
  It is apparent that the old Navy made a mistake when they court-
martialed Captain McVay to divert attention from the many mistakes 
which led to the sinking of the Indianapolis, mistakes beyond McVay's 
control and responsibility.
  It is important to note that at least 350 ships were sunk by enemy 
action during World War II. No other captain was court-martialed. Only 
McVay. Tell me, after listening to this testimony, how hard and 
convincing was the evidence that he deserved to be court-martialed? The 
answer is no hard evidence that he deserved to be court-martialed.
  Captain McVay was a graduate of the Naval Academy in 1920. He was a 
career naval officer who had a decorated combat record, which included 
participation in the landings in North Africa and an award of the 
Silver Star for courage under fire earned during the

[[Page S4764]]

Solomon Islands campaign. He was a fine officer and a good captain, and 
his crew members who survived readily attest to it. To the man, to 
their dying breath, they have defended this captain after 50 years. 
What kind of a man would have that kind of capacity? What kind of man 
would have the crew 50 years later, after enduring this, and with every 
reason to be angry with him, with every reason to hate him after almost 
dying in the sea, with him?
  The court-martial board found McVay guilty of hazarding his ship by 
failing to zigzag. His sentence of a loss of grade was remitted in 
1946, and he was restored to active duty by Admiral Nimitz who replaced 
Admiral King as Chief of Naval Operations. But his naval career was 
ruined. You do not survive that stigma. He served out his time as an 
aide in the New Orleans Naval District before retiring in 1949 with a 
so-called ``tombstone promotion'' to rear admiral.
  Sadly--and this is the worst part of the story--Captain McVay took 
his own life in November 1968. Those who knew him feel strongly that 
the weight of his conviction and the blame which that conviction 
implied for the loss of the Indianapolis and the death of the crew was 
a reason for his suicide.
  Captain McVay is gone. It is too late for him to know what we propose 
to do, but the undeserved stain upon his name remains. Time is running 
out for the 130 people out of 300-some who survived, united and 
steadfast for half a century to clear his name. We owe it to them, to 
him, and to his family to clear his name.

  We have forgotten that these men survived 4 terrifying days and 5 
frightening nights in the sea, fighting off sharks, starvation, and no 
water. Let's not forget them again.
  Again, I thank Senator Warner. Without Senator Warner, we would not 
be able to make this happen. I am pleased to hear the House Armed 
Services Committee adopted the original legislation which I introduced 
in the Senate. I look forward to working out some language differences 
on this matter in conference.
  We now have the opportunity to give the remaining survivors of this 
terrible tragedy what they deserve and have fought for so hard and so 
tenaciously for so long: an acknowledgment by their Government, by 
their Navy that they made a mistake. After 55 years, we make it right 
that their captain was not to be blamed for the loss of the 
Indianapolis nor the loss of their shipmates. This is not historical 
revisionism. It corrects a longstanding historical mistake and rights a 
terrible wrong.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Minnesota is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I was not recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. I did not know that order was entered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Virginia, if 
my colleague wants the floor right now, I ask unanimous consent that 
after the Senator from Virginia, I follow him.
  Mr. WARNER. I am not hearing the Senator. The Senator is recognized, 
and that is open-ended; is that the order of the Chair? Unusual. I do 
not know how it happened, but the Senator got it. What is the Senator 
advising me?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am saying to my colleague, I am recognized. I intend 
to offer an amendment. I heard my colleague from Virginia seeking 
recognition, and if there are a few things he wants to say right now, I 
will yield for that. Otherwise, I will go forward.
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator from Minnesota advise the Chair and the 
Senator from Virginia exactly how much time he wants and for what 
purpose? The time being consumed now can be charged to the managers.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I do not intend to take a long time. I intend to lay 
out a case for an amendment. I cannot give a time. I cannot do it in 5 
minutes. There is no time limit, but I do not intend to be long.
  Mr. WARNER. I understand that. Of course, we have an order at 1 
o'clock to go straight to an amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I intend to be finished before that.
  Mr. WARNER. I am trying to finish other things from now until 1 
o'clock. This is most unusual. I do not realize how we got to this. I 
am not sure how we got here, but it is here.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes.
  Mr. REID. Would the Senator yield without losing his right to the 
floor?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield.
  Mr. REID. I want to explain to the Senator from Virginia, Senator 
Smith asked to be recognized for an additional 5 minutes. Senator 
Wellstone was standing here and said: I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized after Senator Smith. That is how it happened.
  Mr. WARNER. What is done is done. You have it open-ended, I say to 
the Senator, until 1 o'clock. What can you do to help us?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from Virginia two things. No. 1, 
there are two other Senators out here who want to speak briefly. I 
would be pleased for them to do so--but I do not want to yield the 
floor--after which I will have the floor.
  I say to the Senator from Virginia, I do not think I will take a long 
time. I will help the manager and try to do it in----
  Mr. WARNER. If you can give us a time, then we can help our 
colleagues. How about 10 minutes?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to the Senator from Virginia----
  Mr. WARNER. Ten minutes?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to the Senator from Virginia, 10 minutes will 
not be sufficient. I will try to move forward expeditiously. All of us 
think our amendments are important. I did not come out here intending 
to speak for hours, but I need to take about 20 minutes to make my 
case. I do not want to be----
  Mr. WARNER. If that is the case, it leaves very little time for the 
managers to recognize others who are waiting.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. We all come and wait, and we all seek recognition.
  Mr. WARNER. Fine. Would you settle for 20 minutes?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will not because I do not know how long it will 
take.
  Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will try to keep it in that timeframe.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me for a comment 
without he losing his right to the floor?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield to the Senators from Delaware 
and Utah, without losing my right to the floor.
  Mr. BIDEN. I say to the managers of the bill--if I can get Senator 
Warner's attention--as Senator Warner knows, the manager of the bill, 
the chairman of the committee, and Senator Levin knows, I had planned 
to offer the Violence Against Women Act as an amendment. In the 
meantime, the fellow with whom I have worked most on this legislation, 
and who has played the most major part on the Republican side of the 
aisle on the violence against women legislation has been Senator Hatch.
  He and I have been working to try to work out a compromise. We think 
we have done that on the violence against women II legislation, 
reauthorization of the original legislation. Because of his cooperation 
and his leadership, actually, I am prepared to not offer my amendment. 
But I do want the Record to show why. It is because of Senator Hatch's 
commitment and leadership for us to move through the Judiciary 
Committee with this and find another opportunity to come to the floor 
with it.

  With the permission of the managers, I will yield--without the 
Senator from Minnesota losing his right to the floor--to my friend from 
Utah to comment on the Violence Against Women Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. I join Senator Biden this afternoon. We passed the 
original Violence Against Women Act in 1994. He deserves a great deal 
of credit for that. I would like to move forward with the passage of 
the violence against women reauthorization this year.
  For almost 10 years, I have stood with my colleague from Delaware, 
Senator Biden, on this particular issue. He and I have worked for 
almost a year

[[Page S4765]]

now to try to resolve any disagreements regarding specific provisions 
in our respective bills on this issue, S. 245 and S. 51.
  What we want to do is combat violence against women. I believe we 
have a good product. It is the Biden-Hatch Violence Against Women Act 
of the year 2000.
  I have committed to Senator Biden that we plan to move this 
legislation in the Judiciary Committee. I plan to have it on the 
committee markup for next week. Now, any member of the committee can 
put it over for a week. I hope they will not. Before the Fourth of July 
recess, I hope we can pass the bill out of the Judiciary Committee. 
Hopefully, the leadership will allow us some time on the floor to 
debate it. It is a very important piece of legislation.
  Millions and millions of women, men, and children in this country 
will benefit by the passage of this bill. I am going to do everything 
in my power to help Senator Biden in getting it passed.
  Mr. BIDEN. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 30 more seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, and the 
managers for yesterday accommodating my interest in this. I thank 
Senator Hatch for his leadership and look forward to us having the bill 
on the floor in its own right in the near term.
  I yield the floor and thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                           Amendment No. 3264

  (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to 
    report to Congress on the extent and severity of child poverty)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, I wish to talk about what 
this amendment is about. Then I want to also make a couple of other 
comments. I will try to stay within a reasonable time limit.
  There have not been very many vehicles out here on the floor --if I 
say that back in Minnesota, people look for cars or trucks, but what I 
am saying is that we have not had a lot of opportunity to bring 
amendments out here that we think are important as they affect the 
lives of people we represent.
  This amendment has been passed by the Senate, but every time it gets 
passed by the Senate, it gets taken out in conference committee. This 
will be the third or fourth time. I think on the last vote there were 
over 80 Senators who voted for it.
  The amendment calls for a policy evaluation, in which I think all of 
us should be interested. We should care enough to want to know about 
the welfare bill because this is going to be coming up for 
reauthorization. In every single State in the country we are going to 
reach a drop-dead date certain where people are basically going to be 
off welfare. What this amendment calls for, and I will describe it more 
carefully in a moment, is for Health and Human Services to basically 
call on the States to aggregate the data and to get the data to us as 
to where these mothers and children are now.
  In other words, we keep hearing about how the rolls have been cut by 
50 percent and that, therefore, represents success, but we do not know 
whether or not the poverty has been cut and we need to know where these 
mothers are. We need to know what kind of jobs they have and at what 
kind of wages. We need to know whether or not the families still have 
health care assistance. There have been some disturbing reports that 
have come out within the last several weeks that in too many States 
even though AFDC families--that is, aid to families with dependent 
children families--by law should be receiving the Medicaid coverage 
even when they are now working and off welfare, they are not getting 
that coverage.
  We need to know why there has been such a dramatic decline in food 
stamp participation, which is the most important nutritional safety net 
program for children in the country. There has been somewhere around a 
20-percent cut in participation, and there has been nowhere near that 
kind of reduction in poverty. We need to understand what is happening.
  Most importantly, I would argue, although one can never minimize the 
importance of whether or not these mothers are able to obtain even 
living-wage jobs, it is the whole child care situation. I recommend to 
colleagues a study that has recently been concluded by Yale and 
Berkeley which is devastating to me as a Senator. Basically, it is a 
study of what has happened to welfare children during this period of 
reform.
  There have been 1 million more children who have now been pushed into 
child care. But the problem is that the child care is woefully 
inadequate and the vast majority of these children are watching TV all 
day, without any real supervision, without any real education, and 
therefore, not surprisingly, colleagues, they are even further behind 
by kindergarten age.
  What this amendment would do would be to require the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services to report to the Congress on the extent and 
severity of child poverty. In particular, what we are interested in is 
what is happening with the TANF legislation.
  Let me sort of summarize.
  The amendment would require the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services to submit to Congress by June 1, 2001, or prior to any 
reauthorization of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
Reconciliation Act--we ought to have this evaluation before we 
reauthorize--a report on the extent of child poverty in this country.
  The report must include, A, whether the rate of child poverty has 
increased under welfare reform; B, whether children living in poverty 
have gotten poorer under welfare reform--that deals not with the extent 
of child poverty but the severity of child poverty--and C, how changes 
in the availability of cash and noncash benefits to poor families have 
affected child poverty under welfare reform.
  In considering the extent and severity of child poverty, the 
Secretary must also use and report on alternative methods for defining 
child poverty that more accurately reflect poor families' access to in-
kind benefits as their work-related expenses as well as multiple 
measures of child poverty such as the extreme child poverty rate.
  Finally, if the report does find that the extent or severity of child 
poverty has increased in any way since enactment of the welfare reform 
legislation, the amendment requires the Secretary to submit with the 
report a legislative proposal addressing the factors that have led to 
the increase.
  Let me be clear as to what this amendment is about, why I introduce 
it to this bill, and why I hope for a strong vote.
  First of all, what is it about? It is about poor children. Why have I 
focused on poor children? Because I think that should be part of our 
agenda. What is my concern? There has been a tremendous amount of 
gloating and a lot of boasting about how successful this welfare bill 
has been. I have traveled in the country and spent quite a bit of time 
with low-income families and with men and women who don't get paid much 
money but try to work with these families. That is not the report I get 
at the grassroots level.
  What reports have come out--I won't even go through all of the 
reports today--should give all of us pause. Basically, what we are 
hearing is that there has perhaps been some reduction in the overall 
poverty rate but an increase in the poverty of the poorest families; 
that is to say, families with half the poverty level income.
  What I also found out from looking at some of the data, much less 
some of the travel, is that there are some real concerns; namely, in 
all too many cases when these mothers now leave and go from welfare to 
work, which is what this was supposed to be about, the jobs are barely 
above minimum wage. When they move from welfare to work, all too often 
they are cut off medical assistance. Families USA says there are 
670,000 fewer people receiving Medicaid coverage and health care 
coverage because of the welfare bill.
  When they move from welfare to work, they go from welfare poor to 
working poor, but they are not being told that they still have their 
right to participate in the Food Stamp Program for themselves and their 
children and, therefore, are not participating in that program. When 
they go from welfare to work, since they were single parents at home, 
the child care situation is deplorable. It is dangerous.

[[Page S4766]]

  When people keep talking about how great this bill is, and we haven't 
even done the policy evaluation, and it is coming up for 
reauthorization, I argue that it is a security issue for poor families 
in the United States of America.
  Again, what this legislation calls for is a study of child poverty, 
both to look at the extent of it and the severity of child poverty, to 
make sure we get the data, to make sure we have the policy evaluation 
before reauthorization. There should be support for this because we 
should be interested in policy evaluation.

  Again, pretty soon we are basically going to have almost everyone 
pushed off welfare. Before that happens, before a mother with a 
severely disabled child is pushed off welfare or before a mother who 
has been severely beaten and battered is pushed off welfare or before a 
mother who has struggled with substance abuse is pushed off welfare, 
and they may not be able to take these jobs--they may not find the kind 
of employment with which they can support their families--we had better 
know.
  I have quoted Gunnar Myrdal, the famous Swedish sociologist who once 
said that ignorance is never random; sometimes we don't know what we 
want to know.
  This is the fourth time I have brought this amendment to the floor. 
The first time, it was defeated by one vote, although it was a 
different formulation. The second time, it was accepted on a voice 
vote. That was my mistake. Then it was quickly taken out of conference. 
The third time, it passed by a huge vote on a bill that then went 
nowhere. This is the fourth time. The reason I keep coming back is, I 
am determined that we do this policy evaluation.
  Let me give one other example of why I will send this amendment to 
the desk in a moment.
  In focusing on this welfare bill, I know there was a conference 
committee I attended. This was all about an amendment which, again, the 
Senate passed, but it was taken out in conference committee, where I 
was arguing that right now it is wrong not to enable a mother to at 
least have 2 years of college; that she and the State in which she 
lives should not be penalized on work participation, and that if the 
State of Minnesota or California or Michigan or Virginia decided it 
makes sense to let these mothers have 2 years of higher education, that 
they and their children will be better off; they should not be 
penalized.
  I went to the conference committee; it was dropped in conference 
committee. A number of different members of the conference committee 
were saying: Wait a minute, this welfare bill is hallmark legislation. 
It is one of the greatest pieces of legislation passed in the last half 
a century. President Clinton tends to make the same kind of claim.
  We can agree; we can disagree. The point is, there ought to be a 
policy evaluation. There is a lot at stake. What is at stake is 
literally the health and well-being of poor women and poor children. We 
ought to at least have this data. We ought to at least make this policy 
evaluation. We ought to do it before we reauthorize this bill. That is 
why I introduce this amendment, and that is why in a moment I will send 
this amendment to the floor.
  Before I do, I also want to signal to colleagues that there is a 
report--I think we will have a debate; I don't know whether it will be 
today or whether it will be tomorrow or when --on missile defense.
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for a minute? We want to try to 
accommodate him. It may well be we can accept the amendment. He has not 
shown me a copy of it.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am getting ready to send the amendment to the desk.
  Mr. WARNER. We only have 21 minutes left. There is another Senator I 
would like to accommodate on a matter unrelated to the bill. Is there 
any harm in looking at it?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I just received the amendment. I will 
be pleased to send the amendment to the desk. I will say, my colleague 
has a copy.
  Mr. WARNER. I have a copy?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senator does. I will also say to my colleague, I 
am actually trying to finish up in the next 4 or 5 minutes. It is just 
sort of a bad habit I have. When I keep getting pressed in the opposite 
direction, I tend to speak longer. I am not trying to take up time, I 
am just trying to argue my case, I say to the Senator.
  Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3264.

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

       At the appropriate place add the following:

     SEC. ____. REPORT TO CONGRESS REGARDING EXTENT AND SEVERITY 
                   OF CHILD POVERTY.

       (a) In General.--Not later than June 1, 2001 and prior to 
     any reauthorization of the temporary assistance to needy 
     families program under part A of title IV of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) for any fiscal year 
     after fiscal year 2002, the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services (in this section referred to as the ``Secretary'') 
     shall report to Congress on the extent and severity of child 
     poverty in the United States. Such report shall, at a 
     minimum--
       (1) determine for the period since the enactment of the 
     Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation 
     Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193; 110 Stat. 2105)--
       (A) whether the rate of child poverty in the United States 
     has increased;
       (B) whether the children who live in poverty in the United 
     States have gotten poorer; and
       (C) how changes in the availability of cash and non-cash 
     benefits to poor families have affected child poverty in the 
     United States;
       (2) identify alternative methods for defining child poverty 
     that are based on consideration of factors other than family 
     income and resources, including consideration of a family's 
     work-related expenses; and
       (3) contain multiple measures of child poverty in the 
     United States that may include the child poverty gap and the 
     extreme poverty rate.
       (b) Legislative Proposal.--If the Secretary determines that 
     during the period since the enactment of the Personal 
     Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 
     1996 (Public Law 104-193; 110 Stat. 2105) the extent or 
     severity of child poverty in the United States has increased 
     to any extent, the Secretary shall include with the report to 
     Congress required under subsection (a) a legislative proposal 
     addressing the factors that led to such increase.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, in many ways I would have liked to have 
taken an hour to talk about this because I happen to believe that what 
is happening right now with poor women and poor children is a terribly 
important issue. I have summarized this amendment. I think about 89 
Senators voted for this amendment last time. I hope I will get a strong 
vote this time.
  By way of concluding, while I have the floor, I will mention to 
colleagues, since I know we will have a thoughtful and careful debate 
on missile defense, there is an excellent study that has come out that 
I commend to every Senator, done by the Union of Concerned Scientists 
at the MIT Security Studies Program. The title of it is 
``Countermeasures, a Technical Evaluation of the Operational 
Effectiveness of the Planned U.S. National Missile Defense System.''
  These distinguished scientists argue that any testing program must 
ensure that the baseline threat has realistically declined by having 
the Pentagon's work in that area reviewed by an independent panel of 
qualified experts; provide for objective assessment of the design and 
results of the testing program by an independent standing review; 
conduct tests against the most effective countermeasures. It is an 
excellent analysis of the whole problem of countermeasures--that an 
emerging missile state could reasonably expect to build and to conduct 
enough tests against countermeasures to determine the effectiveness of 
the system with high confidence.
  We will have an amendment that I plan on doing with Senator Durbin 
and other Senators, where we will have a very thoughtful debate about 
the whole question of the importance of having the testing. I just 
wanted to speak about this briefly.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senator 
from Minnesota will accept a voice vote. He wanted to address the 
Senate on that point. We will proceed to adopt the amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, perhaps Senator Wellstone will yield to me 
for 1 minute after he is recognized.

[[Page S4767]]

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will yield to the Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Does Senator Wellstone have the floor?
  Mr. WARNER. I have the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia and 
the Senator from Michigan for their support. We have had a resounding 
vote for this amendment before. I want to just keep this before the 
Senate. Somehow I want to get this policy evaluation done. So I think a 
voice vote, which means this passes with the full support of the 
Senate, will suffice.
  I thank my colleagues for their courtesy and graciousness. I thank 
the Senator from Virginia for allowing an unlimited amount of time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I commend our good friend from Minnesota 
not just for his good nature but also for his continuing to bring to 
the attention of the Senate and the Nation the problem addressed in his 
amendment, and his determination that he get a review of the impact of 
the actions that we have taken on poor people in this country. He has 
been in the leadership of this effort continually. He raises this issue 
with his extraordinarily powerful and eloquent voice. I commend him for 
that. We will be accepting the amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. I think we are ready to agree to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3264) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3267

  (Purpose: To establish a National Bipartisan Commission on Cuba to 
          evaluate United States policy with respect to Cuba)

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

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for himself and Mr. 
     Dodd, proposes an amendment numbered 3267.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 462, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL BIPARTISAN COMMISSION ON 
                   CUBA.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``National Bipartisan Commission on Cuba Act of 2000''.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are to--
       (1) address the serious long-term problems in the relations 
     between the United States and Cuba; and
       (2) help build the necessary national consensus on a 
     comprehensive United States policy with respect to Cuba.
       (c) Establishment.--
       (1) In general.--There is established the National 
     Bipartisan Commission on Cuba (in this section referred to as 
     the ``Commission'').
       (2) Membership.--The Commission shall be composed of 12 
     members, who shall be appointed as follows:
       (A) Three individuals to be appointed by the President pro 
     tempore of the Senate, of whom two shall be appointed upon 
     the recommendation of the Majority Leader of the Senate and 
     of whom one shall be appointed upon the recommendation of the 
     Minority Leader of the Senate.
       (B) Three individuals to be appointed by the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives, of whom two shall be appointed upon 
     the recommendation of the Majority Leader of the House of 
     Representatives and of whom one shall be appointed upon the 
     recommendation of the Minority Leader of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (C) Six individuals to be appointed by the President.
       (3) Selection of members.--Members of the Commission shall 
     be selected from among distinguished Americans in the private 
     sector who are experienced in the field of international 
     relations, especially Cuban affairs and United States-Cuban 
     relations, and shall include representatives from a cross-
     section of United States interests, including human rights, 
     religion, public health, military, business, and the Cuban-
     American community.
       (4) Designation of chair.--The President shall designate a 
     Chair from among the members of the Commission.
       (5) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the 
     Chair.
       (6) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission 
     shall constitute a quorum.
       (7) Vacancies.--Any vacancy of the Commission shall not 
     affect its powers, but shall be filled in the manner in which 
     the original appointment was made.
       (d) Duties and powers of the commission.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall be responsible for an 
     examination and documentation of the specific achievements of 
     United States policy with respect to Cuba and an evaluation 
     of--
       (A) what national security risk Cuba poses to the United 
     States and an assessment of any role the Cuban government may 
     play in support of acts of international terrorism and the 
     trafficking of illegal drugs;
       (B) the indemnification of losses incurred by United States 
     certified claimants with confiscated property in Cuba; and
       (C) the domestic and international impacts of the 39-year-
     old United States economic, trade and travel embargo against 
     Cuba on--
       (i) the relations of the United States with allies of the 
     United States;
       (ii) the political strength of Fidel Castro;
       (iii) the condition of human rights, religious freedom, and 
     freedom of the press in Cuba;
       (iv) the health and welfare of the Cuban people;
       (v) the Cuban economy; and
       (vi) the United States economy, business, and jobs.
       (2) Consultation responsibilities.--In carrying out its 
     duties under paragraph (1), the Commission shall consult with 
     governmental leaders of countries substantially impacted by 
     the current state of United States-Cuban relations, 
     particularly countries impacted by the United States trade 
     embargo against Cuba, and with the leaders of nongovernmental 
     organizations operating in those countries.
       (3) Powers of the commission.--The Commission may, for the 
     purpose of carrying out its duties under this subsection, 
     hold hearings, sit and act at times and places in the United 
     States, take testimony, and receive evidence as the 
     Commission considers advisable to carry out the provisions of 
     this section.
       (e) Report of the commission.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit a report 
     to the President, the Secretary of State, and Congress 
     setting forth its recommendations for United States policy 
     options based on its evaluations under subsection (d).
       (2) Classified form of report.--The report required by 
     paragraph (1) shall be submitted in unclassified form, 
     together with a classified annex, if necessary.
       (3) Individual or dissenting views.--Each member of the 
     Commission may include the individual or dissenting views of 
     the member in the report required by paragraph (1).
       (f) Administration.--
       (1) Cooperation by other federal agencies.--The heads of 
     Executive agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, 
     provide the Commission such information as it may require for 
     purposes of carrying out its functions.
       (2) Compensation.--Members of the Commission shall be 
     allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence at rates authorized for employees of agencies 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from their homes or regular places of 
     business in the performance of services of the Commission.
       (3) Administrative support.--The Secretary of State shall, 
     to the extent permitted by law, provide the Commission with 
     such administrative services, funds, facilities, staff, and 
     other support services as may be necessary for the 
     performance of its functions.
       (g) Applicability of other laws.--The Federal Advisory 
     Committee Act shall not apply to the Commission to the extent 
     that the provisions of this section are inconsistent with 
     that Act.
       (h) Termination date.--The Commission shall terminate 60 
     days after submission of the report required by subsection 
     (e).

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, Senator Dodd is recognized as one who has 
devoted much of his career to Central America. I have traveled with him 
in years past to those regions of the world, particularly in troubled 
times. I respect his judgment and I am pleased that he has joined on 
the Warner-Dodd amendment. It relates to Cuba.
  Senator Dodd and I, in the 105th Congress, put in legislation to 
allow the sale of food and medicine to Cuba. Unfortunately, it was not 
accepted. We renewed that effort. That was in the 105th, and we renewed 
it in the 106th. Unfortunately, it was not able to be accepted by the 
Senate.
  This Nation has experienced the Elian Gonzalez case, a most unusual 
chapter in history. I am not here to describe it because much of that 
case is clearly in the minds of Americans. But if there is some value 
out of that case, it has awakened America to the seriousness of this 
problem between the relationship of our Nation and Cuba.
  We have had various policies in effect for some 30-plus years and, in 
my judgment, those policies have not moved Fidel Castro. But Fidel 
Castro is a leader who does not have my respect, and I think many in 
this Chamber would share my view, if not all.

[[Page S4768]]

  There are certain ways we can bring to bear the influence of the 
money of America to try to help a change of the government, and to try 
to help the people to change their leadership.
  While we may have put in these series of sanctions over the years 
with the best of intentions, the simple fact is, there today Fidel 
Castro reigns, bringing down in a harsh manner on the brow of the 
people of Cuba deprivations for many basic human rights, deprivation 
from even the basic fundamentals of democratic principles of 
government.
  One only needs to go to that country to see the low quality of life 
that the people of Cuba have to face every day they get up, whether it 
is food, whether it is medicine, whether it is job opportunity, or 
whether there is any certainty with regard to their future. It is very 
disgusting and depressing.
  Referring back to the Gonzalez case again, the only point I wish to 
make is that it has opened the eyes of many in this country to the need 
for the policies of the United States of America in relationship to 
Cuba to be reexamined.
  It is my hope and expectation that the next President will take 
certain initiatives that will bring our Nation somehow into a 
relationship where we can be of help to the people of Cuba.
  All I wish is to help the people of Cuba. We have tried with food and 
medicine unsuccessfully, although through various pieces of legislation 
there is in some ways food and medicine going to those people.

  I remember a doctor. Former Senator Malcolm Wallop brought an 
American doctor to my office with considerable expertise in medicine. 
He said to me that the medical equipment available to his colleagues in 
the performance of medicine in Cuba was of a vintage of 30 years old--
lacking spare parts, almost nothing in the state-of-art medical 
equipment.
  What a tragedy to be inflicted upon human beings right here so close 
to America in Central America.
  In this amendment, Senator Dodd and I simply address the need for a 
commission to be put in place which would hopefully take an objective 
view of what we have done as a nation in the past with relation to Cuba 
and what we might do in the future. That commission would then report 
back to the next President of the United States and the Congress of the 
United States in the hopes that we can make some fundamental changes in 
our policy relationship with Cuba which would help--I repeat help--
raise the deplorable quality of life for the people of Cuba.
  I anticipate the appearance momentarily of my colleague from 
Connecticut. We weren't able to judge the exact time when he would 
arrive.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I commend Senators Warner and Dodd for 
their work on a bipartisan basis to establish a bipartisan commission 
on Cuba. It is important that we conduct a review of the achievements 
or lack thereof of the embargo. The amendment does not presume the 
outcome in any way of the commission's effort. It is not intended nor 
should it be interpreted for a substitute for any other legislative 
action that Congress might take.
  It is constructive. It is bipartisan. It is modest. I think it is, 
frankly, long overdue. I hope we can adopt this amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. Would he be kind 
enough to be a cosponsor of the amendment?
  Mr. LEVIN. I would be happy to be a cosponsor. I ask unanimous 
consent I be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, Senator Dodd and I wrote President Clinton 
in 1998--we had 22 Senators join us in that letter--recommending that 
he establish the very commission that is outlined in this legislation, 
but for reasons which are best known to him, he decided not to do it.
  Senator Dodd and I recommend this action because there has not been a 
comprehensive review of U.S.-Cuba policy or a measurement of its 
effectiveness or ineffectiveness in achieving the goals of democracy 
and human rights that the people of the United States wanted and which 
the people of Cuba deserve. We haven't had such a review in 40 years, 
since President Eisenhower first canceled the sugar quota July 6, 1960, 
and we imposed the first total embargo on Cuba on February 7, 1962. 
Most recently, Congress passed the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 and the 
Helms-Burton Act of 1996.
  Since the passage of both of these bills, there have been significant 
changes in the world's situation that warrant, in our judgment, a 
review of our U.S.-Cuba policy, including the termination of billions 
of dollars of annual Soviet economic assistance to Cuba and the 
historic visit of Pope John Paul II to Cuba in 1998.
  In addition, in recent years numerous delegations from the United 
States have visited Cuba, including current and former Members of 
Congress, representatives from the American Association of World 
Health, and former U.S. military leaders.
  These authoritative groups have analyzed the conditions and the 
capabilities on the island and have presented their findings in areas 
of health, economy, religious view, freedom, human rights, and military 
capacity. Also, in May of 1998, the Pentagon completed a study on the 
security risk of Cuba to the United States. However, the findings and 
reports of these delegations, including the study by the Pentagon and 
the call by Pope John Paul II for the opening of Cuba by the world, 
have not been broadly reviewed by all U.S. policymakers.
  We believe it is in the best interests of the United States, our 
allies, the Cuban people, and indeed the nations in the Central 
American hemisphere with whom we deal in every respect.
  We have a measure that hopefully will come through very shortly 
regarding a very significant amount of money to help Colombia in 
fighting the drug wars.
  We are constantly working with the Central American countries, except 
there sits Cuba in isolation.
  We, therefore, believe that a national bipartisan commission on Cuba 
should be created to conduct a thoughtful, rational, objective--let me 
underline objective--analysis of our current U.S. policy toward Cuba 
and its overall affect in this hemisphere--not only on Cuba but how 
that policy is interpreted and considered by the other Central American 
countries.
  This analysis would in turn help shape and strengthen our future 
relationships with Cuba. Members of the commission would be selected 
from a bipartisan list of distinguished Americans from the private 
sector who are experienced in the field of international relations. 
These individuals should include representatives from a cross-section 
of U.S. interests, including public health, military, religion, human 
rights, business, and the Cuban American community.
  The commission's tasks would include the delineation of the 
policies--specifically achievements and the evaluation of:
  No. 1, security risks, if any, Cuba poses to the United States, and 
an assessment of any role the Cuban Government may play in the 
international terrorism, or illegal drugs;
  No. 2, the indemnification of losses incurred by U.S.-certified 
claimants with confiscated property in Cuba;
  No. 3, the domestic and international impact of the nearly 39-year-
old U.S.-Cuba economic trade and travel embargo; U.S. international 
relations with our foreign allies; the political strength of Cuba's 
leader; the condition of human rights; religious freedom; freedom of 
the press in Cuba; the health and welfare of the Cuban people; the 
Cuban economy and U.S. economy and business, and how our relations with 
Cuba can be affected if we changed that.
  More and more Americans from all sectors of our Nation are becoming 
concerned about the far-reaching effects of our present U.S.-Cuba 
policy on U.S. interests and the Cuban people.
  Establishment of this national bipartisan commission will demonstrate 
leadership and responsibility on behalf of this Nation towards Cuba and 
the other nations of that hemisphere. I urge my colleagues to join 
Senator Dodd and myself.
  I ask the amendment be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Presiding Officer state the exact parliamentary 
situation.


                           Amendment No. 3214

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 hours equally divided on amendment 
No. 3214.

[[Page S4769]]

  Mr. WARNER. Do I understand that 1 hour of that is under the control 
of the Senator from Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I do not see Senator McCain here. I think 
perhaps he should lead off. Does Senator Feingold wish to lead off? 
Senator Feingold is a principal cosponsor, as I understand.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Correct.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent following the remarks of Senator 
Feingold the distinguished President pro tempore of the Senate be 
recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. President, I begin our side of the debate.
  I rise in favor of the McCain-Feingold-Lieberman amendment. I hope we 
will have an overwhelming vote later this afternoon in favor of full 
disclosure of the contributions and expenditures of 527 organizations. 
As we discussed yesterday on the floor, these organizations are the new 
stealth player in our electoral system. They claim a tax exemption 
under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, a provision that was 
intended to cover political committees such as party organizations or 
PACs. At the same time, they refuse to register with the Federal 
Election Commission and report their activities like other political 
committees because they claim they are not engaged so-called express 
advocacy.

  In other words, these groups admit they exist for the purpose of 
influencing elections for purposes of the tax laws, but deny they are 
political committees for purposes of the election laws. That, my 
colleagues, is the very definition of evading the law. If it is legal, 
it is, as some have called it, the ``mother of all loopholes.''
  I make one point crystal clear because our debates on campaign 
finance reform often get bogged down in arguments over whether someone 
is engaged in electioneering or simply discussing issues. These groups 
cannot claim that their purpose is simply to raise issues or promote 
their views on issues to the public. Why is that? They can't make that 
claim because to qualify for the section 527 tax exemption, they have 
to meet the definition of a political organization in the tax code. And 
that definition is as follows:

       The term ``political organization'' means a party, 
     committee, association, fund, or other organization . . . 
     organized and operated primarily for the purpose of directly 
     or indirectly accepting contributions or making expenditures, 
     or both, for an exempt function.

  And the term exempt function means:


       The function of influencing or attempting to influence the 
     selection, nomination, election, or appointment of any 
     individual to any Federal, State, or local public office or 
     office in a political organization, or the election of 
     Presidential or Vice-Presidential electors.

  These groups self-identify as groups whose primary purpose is to 
accept contributions or make expenditures to influence an election. 
These are by definition election-related groups. They refuse to 
register with the FEC, and they therefore can take any amount of money 
from anyone--from a wealthy patriotic American, or a multi-national 
corporation, or a foreign dictator, or a mobster.
  Indeed the groups seem to revel in the fact that their activities are 
completely secret. This chart we will be presenting in a moment shows a 
public statement by a 527 organization called ``Shape the Debate.'' 
This organization, according to news reports, is connected with our 
former colleague and the former Governor of California, Pete Wilson. On 
its webpage, Shape the Debate advertises for contributions. 
Contributions, it says, can be given in unlimited amounts, they can be 
from any source, and they are not political contributions and are not a 
matter of public record. They are not reported to the FEC, to any State 
agency, or to the IRS.
  Mr. President, the amendment we will vote on this afternoon won't 
change the fact that the contributions can be in any amount. It won't 
change the fact that the contributions can come from any source, even 
foreign contributions, even the proceeds of criminal activity. I regret 
that all it will do is address this third claim--that the contributions 
are not a matter of public record. If a group is going to accept money 
from a foreign government, the American people should know that. That's 
all we're saying here.
  This is something the Congress has to do. Now. It is clear that the 
FEC is not going to act on this issue this year. It held a meeting on 
May 25 to discuss a proposal by Commissioner Karl Sandstrom to get a 
handle on all the secret money that is now flowing into elections. The 
FEC voted to have the staff prepare a recommendation, but made it very 
clear that it is not going to act in time to have any impact on the 
upcoming elections. In fact one commissioner even said ``I want to 
speak in favor of secrecy.''

  As Commissioner Scott Thomas said recently when the FEC deadlocked on 
whether it should pursue enforcement actions against the Clinton and 
Dole presidential campaigns for their issue ads in 1996: ``You can put 
a tag on the toe of the Federal Election Commission.'' The Commission 
is moribund, it is powerless even to address the most serious loophole 
ever to arise. This is why Congress must act.
  We don't know just how big this problem will be. And we won't ever 
really know because these groups don't even disclose their existence. 
Only enterprising news reporters have been able to get information on 
these groups and their spending. Some estimate that over $100 million 
in political advertising will come from 527 groups this year.
  Here are some of the examples that we know of so far. The executive 
director of the Sierra Club admitted that a handful of wealthy 
anonymous donors have given about $4.5 million to the group's 527 
organization. Shape the Debate, the group whose website advertisement I 
cited earlier, has said it expects to raise $2 to $3 million for phone 
issue ads. It has already run ads against Vice President Gore. We know 
that Republican for Clear Air, with money from the Wyly brothers who 
are big contributors to Governor Bush ran over $2 million in ads 
attacking Senator McCain in the New York primary election earlier this 
year. And a report in Roll Call a few weeks ago indicates that a 
groupcalled Council for Responsible Government has formed a 527 and 
will raise over $2 million and target 25 races this fall.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that newspaper articles about 
527 organizations be included in the Record following my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I do want to emphasize that there is no 
constitutional problem with this bill. First, there is no 
constitutional right to a tax exemption, the Supreme Court has made 
that abundantly clear. This amendment simply requires disclosure as a 
condition of receiving a tax exemption. If a group doesn't want to make 
these disclosures, it can simply pay taxes on its income like any other 
business in the United States. Second, we don't have a problem of 
vagueness or line drawing here that might implicate first amendment 
rights. The disclosure requirements are not triggered by any particular 
action or communication that a group might make. It is triggered by its 
decision to claim a tax exemption under section 527. Thus, as I said 
before, these groups self-identify. They make the decision whether they 
are 527 and if they do, they have to disclose.
  There is a simple principle at stake here. It is a question of 
disclosure versus secrecy. I say to all my colleagues who have argued 
here on the floor that we do not need reform, we do not need a soft 
money ban, that all we need is disclosure: Now is the time to put your 
money where your mouth is. If you vote against this amendment--if you 
vote against this amendment for disclosure, you will never again be 
able to argue with any credibility that you support full disclosure. 
The time has come to put an end to secret money funding secret 
organizations. As I said yesterday, the combination of money, politics, 
and secrecy is a dangerous invitation to scandal. What these 
organizations have done so far in this election cycle, in my view, 
already is a scandal. Let's agree to this amendment and put a stop to 
it.

[[Page S4770]]

                               Exhibit 1

                [From the New York Times, Mar. 29, 2000]

The 2000 Campaign: The Money Factor; a Political Voice, Without Strings

                 (By John M. Broder and Raymond Bonner)

       Washington, Mar. 28.--The tiny remnant of the American 
     peace movement had a little money and was looking for a voice 
     in the political process. The pharmaceutical industry had a 
     lot of money and was looking for a bullhorn.
       Both found it in an obscure corner of the Internal Revenue 
     Code known as Section 527, a provision that opens the way for 
     groups to raise and spend unlimited sums on political 
     activities without any disclosure, as long as they do not 
     expressly advocate voting for a candidate. Section 527 has 
     become the loophole of choice this year for groups large and 
     small, left and right, to spread their messages without 
     revealing the sources of their income or the objects of their 
     spending.
       The provision was written into the tax code more than 25 
     years ago as a way of protecting more income of political 
     parties from taxation. But only recently, after court rulings 
     and Internal Revenue Service opinions broadened its scope, 
     has it been exploited by nonprofit political organizations 
     trying to avoid the donor disclosure rules and contribution 
     limits of federal election laws.
       Republicans for Clean Air, the group that broadcast 
     advertisements critical of Senator John McCain in several 
     states before the Super Tuesday primaries, was established 
     under Section 527 by Sam Wyly, a Texas businessman and big 
     contributor to Gov. George W. Bush.
       Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities, which is led by 
     Ben Cohen, a founder of Ben & Jerry's Homemade ice cream, has 
     set up a 527 committee to agitate in 10 Congressional races 
     for less spending on weapons and more spending on schools, 
     Duane Peterson, vice president of the group, said last week. 
     He declined to say which races the group planned to focus on.
       And on Monday, a Section 527 entity calling itself Shape 
     the Debate began running television commercials in 
     California, New York and Washington that call Vice President 
     Al Gore a hypocrite and ridicule his positions on campaign 
     finance reform and tobacco. The group, which expects to raise 
     $2 million to $3 million this year, was formed by allies of 
     Pete Wilson, the former Republican governor of California.
       Two of Shape the Debate's officers are $1,000 contributors 
     to Mr. Bush, but the group's founder, George Gorton, said the 
     organization had no ties to the Bush campaign.
       Following an I.R.S. ruling last year that essentially 
     endorsed the practice, conservative lawmakers, liberal 
     interest groups, rich individuals and large corporations have 
     begun to quietly pour tens of millions of dollars into the 
     political cauldron. The organizations say they plan to use 
     the money for advertising, polling, telephone banks and 
     direct mail appeals--all the major functions of a candidate 
     committee or a political party, but without requirements for 
     public disclosure or accountability.
       Because there is no law requiring these groups to report 
     their existence, neither the Federal Election Commission nor 
     the Internal Revenue Service can say how many are in place. 
     But lawyers who set them up and campaign finance specialists 
     say that scores of 527's exist and more are being created 
     every week.
       Their full impact will probably not be seen until the fall, 
     when the airwaves will most likely be filled with 
     advertisements from previously unknown organizations, 
     mirroring the 11th-hour attack on Mr. McCain by Republicans 
     for Clean Air.
       Citizens for Better Medicare, a group created last summer 
     under Section 527 by major drug makers and allied 
     organizations, expects to spend as much as $30 million this 
     year to oppose legislation that the industry thinks will 
     impose government price controls on medicines, the group's 
     officers say.
       The group's plans include a national campaign of political 
     advertising this fall, said Timothy C. Ryan, its executive 
     director.
       Peace Action, the antiwar group once known as SANE/Freeze, 
     created a 527 operation called the Peace Voter Fund late last 
     year to try to influence the debate this year in eight 
     Congressional races, including the Senate races in New Jersey 
     and Michigan and contests for House seats in Michigan, 
     California, Illinois, and the 3rd, 7th and 12th Congressional 
     Districts in New Jersey.
       The fund's $250,000 in seed money came from a handful of 
     wealthy benefactors who insisted on remaining in the shadows, 
     said Van Gosse, organizing director of Peace Action.
       Mr. Gosse speaks rhapsodically of Section 527. It offers 
     freedom from the requirements of Federal Election Commission 
     reporting, he noted, and relief from the Internal Revenue 
     Service rules on political activity by charitable 
     organizations.
       Mr. Gosse said he would not reveal the names of his major 
     donors. ``That's the whole point,'' he said.
       ``Unlike a PAC,'' he added, referring to political action 
     committees, which are regulated by the election commission 
     because they work directly on behalf of candidates, ``there's 
     no cap on how much you can spend or accept. There's no I.R.S. 
     gift tax or reporting. It's a thing of beauty from an 
     organizing perspective. It gives one a lot of freedom and 
     fluidity.''
       As long as a Section 527 group does not expressly advocate 
     the election or defeat of individual candidates--by using the 
     words ``vote for'' or ``vote against''--there is no 
     requirement to report to the Federal Election Commission. 
     These groups are free to engage in ``issue advocacy,'' which 
     to most voters has become virtually indistinguishable from 
     pro-candidate electioneering.
       The new Shape the Debate advertisement could pass for an 
     attack ad sponsored by the Bush campaign as it concludes with 
     the line, ``Al Gore has a lot to answer for.''
       Advocates of campaign finance reform see the 527 loophole 
     as a pernicious and proliferating vehicle for getting and 
     spending tens of millions of undisclosed dollars.
       ``The new Section 527 organizations are a campaign vehicle 
     now ready for mass production,'' Frances R. Hill, a professor 
     of law at the University of Miami, wrote in a recent issue of 
     Tax Notes, a publication for taxation specialists. The 1996 
     election was marked by concerns and scandals over the 
     unregulated contributions known as soft money, she noted. 
     ``The 2000 federal election may be equally important in 
     campaign finance history for the flowering of the new Section 
     527 organizations,'' she said.
       Mr. Gore called for disclosure of the officers and finances 
     of Section 527 organizations as part of his campaign finance 
     proposal released this week. He called such groups, ``the 
     equivalent of Swiss bank accounts for campaigns.''
       Representative Lloyd Doggett, a Texas Democrat, is 
     preparing legislation to regulate Section 527 groups, 
     requiring, at a minimum, disclosure of contributors and 
     expenditures.
       ``The problem is, our political system is being polluted 
     with substantial amounts of secret contributions and secret 
     expenditures used to attack candidates,'' Mr. Doggett said.
       Congress' bipartisan Joint Taxation Committee has 
     recommended steps to open Section 527 groups to greater 
     public scrutiny by publishing their tax returns, among other 
     things. But Congress is not likely to act quickly on any 
     proposal to rein in such groups, Mr. Doggett said.
       Representatives Tom Delay of Texas and J.C. Watts of 
     Oklahoma, both Republicans, have established Section 527 
     funds to burnish their party's image and promote conservative 
     ideas on taxation, the military and education. Former 
     Representative Pat Saiki of Hawaii has created Citizens for 
     the Republican Congress as another safe haven for anonymous 
     big donors.
       Scott Reed, who managed Bob Dole's presidential campaign in 
     1996, has established a 527 group to attract Hispanic voters 
     to the Republican Party. New Gingrich is affiliated with a 
     527 organization advocating Social Security reform and tax 
     cuts.
       Recently, attention has focused on the Section 527 
     operations of conservatives. But the Sierra Club was one of 
     the first nonprofit organizations to set up a 527 subsidiary, 
     in 1996, and the League of Conservation Voters, which is 
     generally partial to Democrats, followed a year later.
       ``We agree it's a loophole,'' said Carl Pope, executive 
     director of the Sierra Club. He said a handful of wealthy, 
     anonymous donors had given about $4.5 million to the Sierra 
     Club's 527 committee to use during this year's elections.
       Mr. Pope said that his organization would support 
     legislation to eliminate the loophole, but that until then 
     the Sierra Club intended to keep using its 527 political 
     fund.
       Karl Gallant, an adviser to Mr. DeLay, said conservatives 
     began to get into the game in a big way after a San Francisco 
     law firm that represents liberal nonprofit organizations 
     announced last April that it had been successful in setting 
     up a 527 political organization for one of its clients. Mr. 
     Gallant set up Mr. Delay's 527 group, the Republican Issues 
     Majority Committee.
       The organization has begun hiring workers and has been 
     spending to mobilize conservative voters in two dozen 
     competitive Congressional districts, Mr. Gallant said. The 
     group expects to spend $25 million this year, he said.
       Section 527 was added to the tax code in 1974, primarily to 
     clarify the tax status of purely political, nonprofit 
     organizations, including the Democratic and Republican 
     national parties and PAC's. Under the provision, they do not 
     pay taxes on contributions from donors, only on investment 
     income. But the parties and PAC's are required to report 
     donations and expenditures to the election commission. While 
     these organizations are exempt from taxation, contributions 
     are not tax deductible.
       The pure Section 527 organizations like those proliferating 
     today operate in a protected niche of the tax code governing 
     political groups, but because they do advocate on behalf of 
     an individual candidate or candidates, they fall short of 
     election-commission disclosure laws. That is what 
     distinguishes them from a political party or a PAC. Donations 
     are not tax deductible, but the groups' contributions and 
     expenditures do not have to be disclosed to the I.R.S. or the 
     F.E.C.
       By 1996, a convergence of factors caused many nonprofit 
     organizations to embrace this kind of vehicle to cover their 
     political activities, said Greg Colvin, a San Francisco 
     lawyer who set up some of the first 527 organizations, for 
     liberal groups.
       ``Donors were looking for a way to put large, anonymous 
     money into organizations that would have a political 
     effect,'' he said. He added that many groups were eager to 
     flex their political muscle beyond what was permissible under 
     their tax-exempt status

[[Page S4771]]

     without opening themselves up to a requirement to report 
     their activities to the election commission. And last year 
     the Internal Revenue Service issued an opinion in the case of 
     a group Mr. Colvin represented, endorsing the use of Section 
     527 by a wide range of political organizations.
       Another factor in prompting the interest in Section 527 was 
     a ruling last year by the I.R.S. denying tax-exempt status to 
     the Christian Coalition because of its political activities.
       Lawyers who specialize in campaign and tax law have been 
     approaching groups of all ideological stripes for several 
     months, selling them on the benefits of Section 527.
       Grover Norquist, the executive director of Americans for 
     Tax Reform, a conservative antitax group, said that a lawyer 
     had recently offered to set up a 527 arm for him for $500.
       Mr. Norquist said that at first the new structure did not 
     appear to offer any advantages over his current nonprofit 
     status. But when the law was explained to him more fully, he 
     said, ``Maybe I should have two.''
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Apr. 2, 2000]

             A New Player Enters the Campaign Spending Fray

                          (By Todd S. Purdum)

       Los Angeles, Apr. 1.--George Gorton is hardly a political 
     novice.
       For 30 years, since he was a college student supporting 
     James L. Buckley's campaign for the United States Senate from 
     New York, he has worked for candidates from Richard M. Nixon 
     to Pete Wilson to Boris N. Yeltsin. But even he had not 
     thought much about Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code--
     at least not until last year.
       ``I was walking around complaining to everybody that I 
     could find about the amount of money that organized labor was 
     spending on issue advocacy,'' said Mr. Gorton, who cut his 
     teeth as national college coordinator for Nixon's Committee 
     for the Re-election of the President in 1972.'' And somebody 
     said to me, `George that's their First Amendment right.' And 
     I decided labor wasn't wrong to do it; they were right to do 
     it, and so I decided pro-business people should do it, too.''
       So Mr. Gorton, who runs a Republican consulting business 
     based in San Diego, started Shape the Debate, a nonprofit 
     political organization that, under Section 527, can raise and 
     spend unlimited amounts of money, with no disclosure 
     requirements for donors, as long as it does not expressly 
     advocate the election or defeat of any candidate. Its 
     inaugural television advertisement, which began airing this 
     week in California and New York, accuses Vice President Al 
     Gore of political hypocrisy, in a mock game show in which 
     contestants answer questions on various topics, including Mr. 
     Gore's support for campaign finance overhaul despite his 
     appearance at an illegal fund-raiser at a Buddhist temple.
       ``Shape the Debate strongly believes that free enterprise 
     and conservative ideas are more likely to become public 
     policy when candidates and public officials honestly and 
     publicly discuss their positions on them,'' according to the 
     group's credo, which can be found on its Web site, 
     shapethedebate.com. ``Shape the Debate will therefore use 
     stinging ads of rebuke, where appropriate, or gentle praise 
     to remind leading candidates and public officials to honestly 
     discuss our issues, as a means to keep conservative and free 
     enterprise issues uppermost in the minds of the American 
     public.''
       The group is among the latest entrants in a growing field 
     of independent campaign expenditure efforts, spurred on by 
     recent court rulings interpreting the tax law. The group's 
     literature emphasizes that contributions are not a matter of 
     public record, and Mr. Gorton said that was an appealing 
     point for donors, most of them Republicans and many of them 
     Californians who supported Mr. Wilson's past campaigns for 
     governor and senator. So far the group has raised about $1.5 
     million, in chunks of multiple thousands of dollars; Mr. 
     Gorton hopes to raise another $2 million to $3 million for 
     advertising campaigns this year.
       ``In the atmosphere that's been created by the Clinton-Gore 
     administration, where the secret F.B.I. files of Republican 
     appointees turned up in White House hands, you have to wonder 
     about retribution,'' he said. ``The heart of the First 
     Amendment is that you can criticize your government without 
     fear of retribution.''
       Mr. Wilson, who was forced out of office by term limits 
     last year, has helped raise money for the group. As governor, 
     he tangled repeatedly with public employee unions that 
     undertook campaigns opposing his policies, and former Wilson 
     aides say they see the latest effort as a way of evening the 
     score a bit.
       ``Television is what really does shape the debate,'' said 
     Mr. Wilson, who since last fall has been working for Pacific 
     Capital, an investment banking concern in Beverly Hills. 
     ``The candidates certainly have that obligation, and 
     sometimes they fulfill it and sometimes they don't. But the 
     fact is, there are very definite limits on what they can 
     reasonably expect to raise through their own efforts. 
     Arguably, Bob Dole in 1996 was dead before he ever got to the 
     convention in San Diego, because of the tremendous pummeling 
     he took in the interim in independent expenditures directed 
     against him.''
       Mr. Wilson added, ``I think what you've got now is a 
     situation in which most of the spending on television on both 
     sides is going to be financed by independent groups and not 
     the candidates themselves.''
       State and national Democratic officials swiftly denounced 
     Shape the Debate's efforts as ``underground financing'' waged 
     by ``George W. Bush's ally,'' in the words of a Democratic 
     National Committee news release. In fact, Mr. Wilson's former 
     aides say, he has never had particularly warm relations with 
     Mr. Bush and has regarded him warily for years as a rival. 
     When Mr. Wilson decided last year not to pursue his own 
     presidential campaign, and Mr. Bush telephoned to wish him 
     well, at least one senior Wilson aide urged him not even to 
     return the call.
       Mr. Wilson, who battled a severe recession in his first 
     term before presiding over a sharp recovery, nevertheless 
     remains controversial in California, where his strong stands 
     against affirmative action and illegal immigration provoked a 
     backlash. Mr. Bush has not generally tapped the old network 
     of Wilson advisers in his campaign here, and Mr. Gorton said 
     he did not believe the two men had talked in months.
       ``I think Peewee's trying to find a way that George Bush 
     will give him a call,'' said former State Senator Art Torres, 
     the chairman of the California Democratic Party, using his 
     party's derisive nickname for Mr. Wilson. ``The problem is, 
     he's now created even more of a fire wall, because of the 
     sensitivity he's created with this ad. They have no sense of 
     subtlety and they never did.''
       But Mr. Wilson said: ``I have gotten into this because I 
     think George W. Bush should be president. I also think that 
     had he faltered, John McCain should have been president. And 
     I don't think the vice president should be. It's as simple as 
     that.''
                                  ____


               [From the Arizona Republic, May 11, 2000]

             Contributor ``Loophole'' Skirts Campaign Laws

                            (By Jon Kamman)

       In the frenzy of fund-raising leading to next fall's 
     elections, an old form of political organization has found 
     new life as the perfect vehicle for concealing who is giving 
     and how much.
       Variously labeled ``the mother of all loopholes'' and 
     ``black hole groups,'' the so-called section 527 committees 
     are ``the brashest, boldest'' method seen to date for 
     circumventing campaign-finance laws, Common Cause President 
     Scott Harshbarger said.
       Arizona Sen. John McCain, who made campaign-finance reform 
     the centerpiece of his bid for the Republican presidential 
     nomination, has termed the groups the ``latest manifestation 
     of corruption in Washington,''
       The Section 527 committees take their name from the section 
     of federal tax code under which they are organized, Section 
     527 dates from the early 1970s, when Congress wanted to make 
     clear that political parties, political-action committees and 
     the like needn't pay taxes on contributions they received.
       Recent court and Internal Revenue Service interpretations 
     of the law have given non-profit organizations free rein to 
     engage in political advocacy while maintaining the privacy 
     they otherwise are denied under election law.
       Activists of every hue on the political spectrum, from the 
     Sierra Club to the Republican Issues Majority Committee set 
     up by Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, have hopped on the 527 
     bandwagon.
       Among 527 committees that have revealed themselves are one 
     set up by Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream, 
     to focus on education issues, and another supported by the 
     pharmaceutical industry to protect against limits on 
     prescription prices.
       The stealth-funding groups have no obligation to reveal, to 
     the Federal Election Commission or IRS, membership, 
     contributors or expenditures. Even foreigners, otherwise 
     prohibited from making political donations, may set up a 
     secret 527 committee.
       About the only restriction on a 527 group is that it stop 
     short of using explicit terms such as ``vote for'' or ``vote 
     against'' in backing a candidate.
       Immunity from disclosure won't continue for long, advocates 
     of campaign-finance reform vow. A bipartisan group of 
     congressional lawmakers, McCain among them, joined with 
     Common Cause last month in denouncing 527 committees and 
     pledging to press for legislation to make them accountable.
       The committees are replicating at a pace that's impossible 
     to track because of their secrecy. But the ones that have 
     chosen to identify themselves are set to pour tens of 
     millions of dollars--possibly more than $100 million--into 
     political advertising this year.
       That, combined with more traditional forms of ``soft 
     money'' controlled by political parties, is sure to produce a 
     record volume of so-called issue ads, said Sean Aday of the 
     Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of 
     Pennsylvania/
       Spending for such ads ranged from $135 million to $150 
     million in the 1995-96 campaign, and the amount more than 
     doubled for the congressional elections two years ago, Aday 
     said.
       Many new 527 committees bear vague names, such as the Shape 
     the Debate group, affiliated with former California Gov. Pete 
     Wilson, that has sponsored ads attacking Vice President Al 
     Gore.
       McCain himself felt the sting of a 527 committee when $2 
     million worth of television

[[Page S4772]]

     ads paid for by ``Texans for Clean Air'' were aired just 
     before the Super Tuesday primaries in March. The ads assailed 
     McCain's environmental record and extolled that of his 
     opponent, Texas Gov. George W. Bush.
       Although nothing required them to do so, oil-rich brothers 
     Sam and Charles Wyly revealed themselves as the backers of 
     the ads.
                                  ____


                     [From The Hill, May 17, 2000]

     New VA-based ``527'' Will Target 25 Races; Starts in Idaho, NJ

                            (By John Kruger)

       The Council for Responsible Government joined the ranks of 
     new ``527'' organizations two weeks ago when it incorporated 
     in Virginia and immediately began running radio and 
     television ads in Idaho against Republican candidate Butch 
     Otter, accusing him of being soft on pornography. It also 
     commenced a direct-mail campaign in New Jersey.
       The group, based in Burke, Virginia, intends to raise $2- 
     to 2.5-million and target 25 races around the country this 
     year, according to William Wilson, the group's registered 
     agent.
       ``We want to promote free market ideas and traditional 
     moral and cultural issues,'' Wilson said. ``We want true 
     accountability to voters,'' which Wilson defined as making 
     sure voters know what a politician's true record it.
       ``They speak to different sides of an issue with different 
     audiences,'' he explained. ``That's developed a lot of 
     cynicism [among voters].''
       Wilson said the group does not engage in issue advocacy or 
     endorse candidates. ``We engage in voter education,'' Wilson 
     said.
       Section 527 of the tax code permits political committees to 
     raise and spend unlimited funds without having to disclose 
     their contributors, provided that those funds are not used to 
     expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate.
       Organizations formed under Section 527 have come under fire 
     from campaign finance groups and members of Congress for 
     eliminating the line between issue advocacy and candidate 
     support.
       One such group, the Republican Majority Issues Committee, a 
     group close to House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas), was 
     sued last month by the Democratic Congressional Campaign 
     Committee (DCCC).
       Wilson said the group registered in Virginia because 
     ``there are some of the finest federal judges in the country, 
     ``alluding to their strong record on First Amendment issues. 
     Wilson said any time a group does something the ``powers that 
     be'' don't like, they are likely to be attacked in court.
       ``I think it's wise to be afraid of the government,'' he 
     said.
       Wilson said the group would not disclose its donors.
       ``We have a lot of donors, but we want to keep that to 
     ourselves,'' Wilson said. ``We want them to be able to give 
     without the fear of retaliation.''
       The group has also started a direct mail campaign warning 
     New Jersey voters that Republican candidate Joel Weingarten 
     had cast votes in favor of tax increases.
       Weingarten's campaign has sued the group charging that the 
     council is using soft money and coordinating its mailings 
     with Jamestown Associates, a Princeton, N.J.-based media firm 
     hired by Weingarten's rival Mike Ferguson.
       Larry Weitzner, president of Jamestown Associates, denied 
     any connection with the council, dismissing Weingarten's 
     claims as coming from a campaign that is ``desperate'' and 
     ``behind in the pools.''
       Gary Glenn, director of the Accountability Project, an arm 
     of the council, also denied any coordination.
       ``I have no knowledge of the firm whatsoever,'' Glenn wrote 
     in a statement.
       Glenn is also president of the American Family Association 
     of Michigan, a Midland-based conservative organization. He 
     said the project is not a separate organization, merely a 
     ``marketing phrase.''
       Wilson said the council will also target primary races in 
     August and September, as well as several general election 
     races.
       Wilson, who is listed on FEC records as being the political 
     director for U.S. Term Limits, said the council has no ties 
     with any other group.
       ``It's a volunteer organization. We have no connection with 
     any other organizations,'' Wilson said. ``To the extent we're 
     permitted, we share ideas, sure.''
       Wilson said there is no paid staff, just a group of 40 to 
     45 volunteers around the country. He said the group does not 
     intend to hold any fundraising events, but would rely on one-
     on-one meetings ``with like-minded people.''
       Tom Kean Jr., who is running against Weingarten and 
     Ferguson in New Jersey's 7th Congressional District, decried 
     the mailing.
       ``We, as voters, deserve the right to know who is defining 
     the candidates seeking this office as well as any office in 
     this nation,'' Kean said in a press release. ``Unfortunately, 
     I fear this is only the first of many such expenditures in 
     this race.''

  Mr. WARNER. Will my colleague yield?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, a number of colleagues are present on the 
floor seeking recognition. May we alternate?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will simply say to the chairman, I 
will be happy to do that. I ask in this instance that Senator Schumer 
go next because the understanding last night was that he start the 
process, and then after that alternate.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator from Virginia inquires as to the amount of 
time the Senator from New York wants.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I inform the Senator I will take 
approximately 10 minutes. Will the Senator from Virginia yield?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I recognize there is a unanimous consent 
agreement in effect, but I am trying as best I can to work this in a 
fair and equitable manner.
  It is important, in your judgment, that Senator Schumer follow you 
for a period of 10 minutes?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. It is not, in my view, essential.
  Mr. SCHUMER. If somebody else has a pressing need and will speak for 
less than a half hour or so, I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. WARNER. I did put in a request, of which I thought he was aware, 
that the President pro tempore will follow.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I am happy to yield and thank the Senator from 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. WARNER. We will proceed under the unanimous consent agreement, 
after the Senator from South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon not to speak about 
the specifics of the National Defense Authorization Bill, but to speak 
to the importance of the Senate passing a defense authorization bill. I 
am very concerned that this bill will be so burdened with non-germane 
amendments that our House colleagues may challenge it on constitutional 
grounds--the so-called Blue Slip. If the Senate persists with these 
type of non-germane amendments there is the strong possibility that for 
the first time in my 41 years on the Armed Services Committee there 
will not be a National Defense Authorization Bill.
  Mr. President, if there is no authorization bill we will deny the 
following critical quality of life and readiness programs to our 
military personnel, both active and retired, and their families:
  No 3.7 percent pay raise;
  No Thrift Savings Plan;
  No concurrent receipt of military retirement pay and disability pay;
  No comprehensive lifetime health care benefits; and
  No military construction and family housing projects.
  Mr. President, it is ironic that two days ago, members were 
commemorating D-Day and the sacrifices of the thousands of men who 
charged across the beaches of Normandy. Now only two days later, the 
Senate is jeopardizing the bill that would ensure that a new generation 
of soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines have the same support as those 
heroes of World War II and the Korean War whose 50th anniversary we 
will be celebrating. I urge my colleagues to carefully consider the 
impact of their votes on this strong bipartisan defense authorization 
bill. We must not jeopardize our 40 year record of providing for the 
men and women who proudly wear the uniforms of the Nation and make 
untold sacrifices on a daily basis to ensure the security of our great 
Nation.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 3214

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin yields. How much 
time does the Senator from Wisconsin yield?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Ten minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for 
yielding this time and for the leadership on this issue. I also praise 
my friend from Arizona who has, throughout, been courageous on this 
issue as on many others, as well as the Senator from Connecticut, whose 
proposal it is and who has stood as a beacon, in terms of reform.
  If you wanted to design a corrupting statute that would blow over our 
body politic, you would come up with a statute like 527. Although it 
was inadvertently drafted, and was never intended for this purpose, its 
effect eats at the very core of our Republic.

[[Page S4773]]

  Imagine if someone came to you and said: Let's make political 
contributions tax deductible, unlimited, and secret. Most people, if 
they were given that case de novo, would say: What? We could not do 
that. That would be the most pernicious violation of the kinds of 
things we stand for in this democracy that one could imagine.
  Yet that is where we stand today. If this statute is not changed, 
anyone can give unlimited amounts of money and get tax deductions for 
them.
  Organized crime could contribute to a candidate--not to a candidate, 
but organized crime could contribute to one of these funds, put ads on 
the air, and dramatically influence elections. Drug dealers, criminals, 
could set up funds and affect candidacies. Foreign governments, people 
from afar, could do this, and there would be no way to track them down 
or find it out. If the American people knew with some degree of 
precision what is happening with these accounts, these 527 accounts, 
they would be shocked. Again, if you were to choose a way of corrupting 
this democracy, you would design a system similar to these accounts.
  Here we are with the Senators from Arizona, Wisconsin, and 
Connecticut. Their amendment and mine and others simply says: Don't 
limit the amount of money--although I would like to do that; don't take 
away the tax deductibility--although I find it absurd that you should 
get a tax deduction for this but the person who gives $25 aboveboard to 
the candidate he or she believes in gets no tax deduction, but a large 
special interest does and influences an election just as profoundly. 
But we are not doing that. All we are saying is disclose.
  I am looking forward to hearing from my colleague from Kentucky. I 
respect his view on the first amendment, which is, frankly, at least in 
this area, more absolute than mine, but he put his money where his 
mouth is when he opposed, for instance, the flag burning amendment.
  But disclosure does not violate free speech in any way. If it did, 
all the disclosure regulations that we have should be abolished. Why is 
it that, for these accounts which benefit politicians and political 
parties, there should be secrecy, but for any other kind of account 
there should not? It is clearly not a first amendment argument.
  Mr. President, today is the 211th anniversary of the Bill of Rights. 
It is the most farsighted document dedicated to freedom and humanity 
that has been created. We should consecrate that birthday by cleaning 
up one part of the campaign finance system that would offend the 
Founding Fathers.
  When we see what these accounts do, imagine a Jefferson or a Hamilton 
or a Madison looking down and saying: These accounts are being defended 
in the name of the Constitution and of free speech?
  Just when we think our campaign system could not possibly get any 
worse, along comes the discovery of this new loophole, section 527. 
Section 527 is the largest, most disturbing, and most pernicious 
loophole in a system rife with backdoor ways to influence Government 
through hidden money. Mark my words, I say to my colleagues, if we do 
not close this loophole, or at least expose it to the sunlight of 
disclosure, the 527 accounts will dominate our elections. The so-called 
hard money will become unimportant. Even the disclosed soft money will 
become unimportant. All kinds of people, none of whom we would want to 
see contributing to campaigns and influencing elections, will come 
above ground. The effects on our democracy will be profound and 
profoundly disturbing.
  The upshot of the crazy system we have, done by accident almost, is 
that any group can spend any amount on ads that anyone can see are 
designed to sway elections, all without disclosure of any kind.
  The Judiciary Committee spent months examining whether the Chinese 
Government improperly funneled money into the 1996 elections. Many of 
my colleagues on the other side are saying this was improper. If they 
had used one of these accounts, they never would have known about it, 
and it would have been perfectly legal. The 527 loophole is an open 
invitation to foreign governments, or anyone else, to secretly pump as 
much money as they want into this election. To me, it would be 
contradictory--no, hypocritical--for those who correctly inveigh 
against the abuses of the 1996 election not to support the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Arizona because if my colleagues want to 
stop foreign government influence and have contributions open and not 
secret, we must close this loophole.
  The amendment offered yesterday would end the system of secret 
expenditures, hidden identities, and sullied elections. It would 
prevent not only foreign governments but organized crime, money 
launderers, and drug lords from contributing.
  When this election is over, the sad fact of the matter is that we 
will not even know if the Chinese Government sought to influence our 
elections through 527 accounts unless this amendment is adopted because 
there is no disclosure at all. All we want to do is let the people see 
the groups, who is paying the tab, and how the contributions are being 
spent.
  The Supreme Court, on this anniversary of the Bill of Rights, has 
said the right to vote is the most important right we have because in a 
democracy, the right to vote guarantees all other rights. That basic 
freedom is tarnished when we prevent the American people from seeing 
who is trying to influence their vote and how.
  One of our great jurists, Justice Brandeis, wrote famously that 
sunlight is the best disinfectant. The bottom line is simple: Do we 
want to disinfect a system which has become worse each year, or do we 
want to, under some kind of contrived argument, keep the present system 
going for someone's own advantage?
  Finally, I stress this amendment is not an attempt to advance the 
fortunes of one party or another. It is bipartisan, and it is far more 
important than that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 10 minutes have expired.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask for an additional 30 seconds to 
finish my point.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield 30 seconds.
  Mr. SCHUMER. This is not a liberal or conservative amendment. All 
groups have availed themselves of this kind of loophole. All groups 
must be stopped. This is basic information that the people of America 
have a right to know, and we have a duty to see that they get it. I 
thank the Chair, and I thank the Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I seek recognition and charge it to the 
time under my control.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have listened to the interesting 
introductory remarks by our two distinguished colleagues, and 
momentarily we may receive the remarks of another distinguished 
colleague associated with this amendment.
  I tell my colleagues straightforward, they have my vote. I support 
them, but I ask them to address the question of the matter that is 
pending before the Senate: The annual Armed Forces bill. This is a list 
that goes back to 1961. The Senate of the United States unfailingly has 
passed an authorization bill for the men and women of the Armed Forces. 
I say to my dear friend and colleague, a former distinguished naval 
officer, this amendment will torpedo this bill and send it to the 
bottom of the sea where only Davy Jones could resurrect it.
  To what extent have my colleagues who are proposing this thought 
about breaking 40 years of precedent of the Senate by sinking the 
annual authorization bill at a time when the threats facing the United 
States of America are far more diverse, far more complicated than ever 
in contemporary history; when the men and women of the Armed Forces of 
the United States are absolutely desperate in terms of pay and benefits 
to keep them in the jobs as careerists?
  We now have one of the lowest retention rates ever. There are no 
lines of young men and women waiting to volunteer to be recruited. This 
bill goes a long way. This bill helps with the benefits they rightly 
deserve. For the first time in the history of the United States of 
America, we have provisions caring for the medical assistance of the 
retirees. First time, Mr. President. It is the first time in the 
history of this

[[Page S4774]]

country, and add on the ships and the aircraft.
  I read the Constitution of the United States. What are the 
responsibilities of the Congress as delineated by our Founding Fathers? 
``To declare War . . . To raise and support Armies . . . To provide and 
maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the 
land and naval Forces . . . .''
  That is what this bill does. That is our constitutional fulfillment.
  Yet my colleagues who are proposing this know full well this bill is 
subject to what is known as the blue-slip procedure if it leaves this 
Chamber with this amendment and goes to the House of Representatives. 
The House will blue slip it, and this bill is torpedoed.
  I await reply of the sponsors of the amendment to the points I have 
raised and how it could jeopardize and end the fulfillment of the 
obligation of the Senate under the Constitution of the United States. I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield to no one in my concern for the 
men and women in the military in defense of this Nation. I yield to no 
one in this body.
  I deeply regret that the distinguished chairman of the committee 
would be part of this red herring which has been raised so Members on 
both sides of the aisle who oppose disclosure, who have publicly stated 
time after time they are in favor of full disclosure--I see the Senator 
from Colorado on the floor. Senator Wayne Allard stated, in reference 
to campaign finance reform:

       I strongly believe that sunshine is the best disinfectant.

  That is from the Congressional Record, page 145, Monday, October 18, 
1999. He will now be on the floor, I believe, in trying to cover up for 
that statement. I tell you what, I say to the distinguished chairman. 
Right now I will ask him to agree to a unanimous consent agreement--
right now--that if this provision causes the House, the other body, to 
blue-slip this, on which they have no grounds to do so, the next 
appropriate vehicle that the Parliamentarian views is appropriate, this 
amendment will be made part of. I ask unanimous consent.
  Mr. WARNER. I have to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thought the Senator from Virginia would object. So I 
will ask another unanimous consent agreement, that in case this 
amendment does cause it to be blue-slipped, it be in order on the next 
appropriate vehicle, as determined by the Parliamentarian, that a vote 
be held on this amendment with no second-degree amendments. I ask 
unanimous consent.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I object. I object, Mr. President, on 
behalf of the leadership of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCAIN. I have the floor, Mr. President.
  Mr. ALLARD. Will the Senator from Arizona yield to me for a point of 
order?
  Mr. McCAIN.. I will not yield to the Senator from Colorado until I 
have finished my statement.
  Mr. ALLARD. I just resent the fact that the Senator suggests in some 
way----
  Mr. McCAIN. I have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. The Senator from Arizona has the floor.
  The Senator from Colorado said, on October 18, 1999:

       I strongly believe that sunshine is the best disinfectant.

  Mr. ALLARD. That is correct.
  Mr. McCAIN. Concerning campaign finance reform. So if the Senator 
from Colorado and the Senator from Virginia are basing their objections 
to this amendment on the grounds that it would harm the Defense 
authorization bill, then they should have no objection--no objection--
to the unanimous consent agreement that this amendment be placed on the 
next appropriate vehicle by the Parliamentarian.
  But instead, the Senator from Virginia is objecting--I take it the 
Senator from Colorado would object--clearly revealing that the true 
intentions here have a lot more to do with this amendment than with the 
defense of this Nation.
  So the fact is, on blue slips, all revenue bills must originate in 
the other House. The precedents of the Senate on pages 1214 and 1215 
know eight types of amendments. I ask unanimous consent that this be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                Revenue

       See also ``Constitutionality of Amendments,'' pp. 52-54, 
     683-686.

                   Constitution, Article I, Section 7


                      [Proposals To Raise Revenue]

       All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House 
     of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with 
     Amendments as on other Bills.
     Bills Raising Revenue Originate in the House
       The House on various occasions has returned to the Senate 
     bills which the Senate had passed which the House held 
     violated its prerogatives to originate revenue measures.
       The following types of proposals originating in the Senate 
     were returned by the House or decided by the Senate to be an 
     infringement of the House's constitutional privilege with 
     respect to originating revenue legislation:
       (1) Providing for a bond issue;
       (2) Increasing postal rates on certain classes of mail 
     matter;
       (3) Exempting for a specific period persons from payment of 
     income taxes on the proceeds of sales of certain vessels if 
     reinvested in new ship construction;
       (4) Providing for a tax on motor-vehicle fuels in the 
     District of Columbia and other District of Columbia tax 
     measures;
       (5) Agricultural appropriation bill in 1905 with a 
     particular amendment on revenue thereto;
       (6) Repealing certain provisions of law relative to 
     publicity of income tax rates, with an amendment increasing 
     individual income tax rates;
       (7) Concurrent resolution interpreting the meaning of the 
     Tariff Act of 1922 with respect to imported broken rice; and
       (8) The Naval Appropriation bill for 1918 amended to 
     provide for a bond issue of $150,000,000.
     Constitutionality of Amendments or Bills--Question of Passed 
         on by Senate
       See also ``Constitutionality of Amendments,'' pp. 52-54, 
     683-686.
       Under the precedents of the Senate, points of order as to 
     the constitutionality of a bill or amendments proposing to 
     raise revenue will be submitted to the Senate for decision; 
     the Chair or Presiding Officer has no power or authority to 
     pass thereon.
       A point of order on one occasion was made against a bill 
     that it was revenue raising; it was submitted to the Senate, 
     and subsequently laid on the table by voice vote.

  Mr. McCAIN. There are eight types of amendments that have been 
offered in the Senate in the past that were returned by the House after 
the House decided that the Senate's action was an infringement on the 
House's constitutional privilege with respect to originating revenue 
legislation.
  In each of the eight noted examples in the precedents, it is clear 
that the Senate was seeking to raise revenue of one sort or another, 
from increasing postal rates to raising bonds or taxing fuel.
  This amendment in no way raises any revenue nor does it change in any 
way the amount of revenue collected by the Treasury pursuant to the Tax 
Code. It is simply a clarification in what information must be 
disclosed by entities seeking to claim status under section 527 of the 
Tax Code.
  I say to my friend from Virginia, the American people will see 
through this. The American people will understand what is being done 
here--an effort to contravene what literally every Member of this body 
has said, that we need full disclosure of people who donate to American 
political campaigns. And if that were not the reason--if that were not 
the reason--then the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from 
Colorado would agree to my unanimous consent agreement, which I repeat.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on the next appropriate 
vehicle that is viewed appropriate by the Parliamentarian, this 
amendment be made in order for an up-or-down vote with no second-degree 
amendments.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCAIN. We have just totally disclosed what this is all about. 
This is not about the defense of the Nation. This is a defense of a 
corrupt system which, in the view of objective observers, has made a 
mockery of existing campaign finance laws, which has caused Americans 
to become alienated from the system.
  We were worried about Chinese money in the 1996 elections. Under the

[[Page S4775]]

present system of 527, Chinese money, drug money, Mafia money, 
anybody's money can come into American political campaigns, and there 
is no reason to disclose it.
  So now here we are with 100 Members of this Senate all saying we need 
full disclosure, using a constitutional facade which is not correct as 
a reason to vote against this amendment and vote it down.
  I say again, for the third time, if it is a constitutional objection, 
and that objection is legitimate, then the Senator from Virginia and 
the Senator from Colorado have no reason to object to this amendment 
being made part of the next appropriate vehicle which is deemed 
appropriate by the Parliamentarian. And by so objecting to that 
unanimous consent agreement, their defense or their argument that 
somehow we are harming the Defense authorization bill does not have 
credibility.
  Mr. President, I do not want to yield all the time. I would be glad 
to engage in this. But I wondered what would happen last night after we 
proposed this amendment for full disclosure. I wondered. I wondered 
what the defense against cleaning up at least to some degree, allowing 
the American people to know who are contributing to American political 
campaigns in unprecedented amounts of money, would be.
  I repeat, one more time, I yield to no one in this body as to my 
advocacy for our Nation's defense and the men and women in the 
military. But if we want to give these men and women in the military 
confidence in their Government, we should have fully disclosed who it 
is that contributes to the political campaigns.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Arizona and 
I go back a very long way. When I was Secretary of the Navy, he was 
incarcerated as a consequence of his heroic service in Vietnam. His 
father was among if not the most valued adviser I had during the 
turbulent period of that war when I had the responsibility for the 
Department of the Navy. That was for over 5 years, 1969 through 1974.
  I have the highest personal regard for my friend and my colleague, 
whom I have worked with from the day he returned to the United States 
of America to be welcomed quite properly as a hero.
  I know for a fact that he has always foremost in his mind, every day 
that he draws a breath, every day the great Lord of ours gives him the 
strength to take up his responsibilities, the welfare of the men and 
women of the Armed Forces. I find it very awkward to be in a position 
to be in opposition to my friend, but the rules are quite clear of the 
House that it is a matter of privilege of the House regarding the 
constitutional provision as it relates to taxation.
  It has been a matter of privilege since the inception of this 
Republic. That privilege is determined by the House in the course of 
resolutions. If this bill goes over, then they adopt a resolution. We 
know from consultation there are Members of the House who will 
absolutely take that resolution to the floor, and there is no doubt 
that this bill will be blue-slipped, and it will be torpedoed and go to 
the bottom of Davy Jones' locker.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Arizona to require the disclosure of donors 
to tax-exempt groups who engage in political activities. These groups 
use an obscure provision of the Tax Code--section 527--to shield the 
identity of contributors and use the funds to make anonymous attacks on 
candidates for public office.
  Section 527 organizations represent the latest attempt to bypass 
campaign finance laws and pour undisclosed money in the electoral 
process. There is no official public information about the number of 
such groups, who their officers are, where the money is coming from, 
and how it is being spent.
  Section 527 of the Tax Code was enacted to provide candidates, 
political parties, and PAC's with special tax treatment. These groups 
are required to register with the Federal Election Commission and 
disclose contribution and expenditure information.
  In recent years, however, the IRS has ruled that organizations which 
intend to influence the outcome of an election but do not expressly 
advocate the election of a candidate qualify as a political 
organization but are not required to file with the FEC. These groups 
can raise and spend as much money as they want to influence an 
election, but the public has no information on who or what they are.
  This is precisely the sort of activity that makes the political 
process appear corrupt and undemocratic. The American public is 
becoming increasingly disenchanted and uninterested in electoral 
process because they feel their voices are being drowned out by soft 
money donations to political parties.
  In the case of soft money, however, at least the amount of the 
contribution and the name of the group or person who is making the 
donation must be registered with the Federal Election Commission. These 
groups spend unlimited amounts of money and none of it has to be 
disclosed. This insidious hijacking of the campaign finance system must 
be corrected.
  It is a simple fact that the American public believes that large 
contributions are made to influence decisions being made in Washington. 
They are becomingly increasingly cynical of the process and fewer and 
fewer people are participating in elections.
  In 1996, voter turnout was 48.8 percent--the lowest level since 1924. 
Turnout for the 1998 mid-term election was 36 percent--the lowest for a 
nonpresidential election in 56 years. Congress has a responsibility to 
take steps to reverse this trend.
  The first step should be to require the disclosure of contributors to 
tax-exempt organizations. The Senate must act to close this loophole 
and we must do it now. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield such time as my distinguished 
colleague desires.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. President, I came to the floor to talk about the importance of 
the authorization of the Department of Defense. This is an important 
piece of legislation. I am not here to impugn the motives of some of 
the other Members of the Senate or to try to mischaracterize what their 
reasons might be for coming to the floor.
  This is a good piece of legislation. Senator McCain from Arizona is 
certainly a hero in my mind; he continues to be that. I know he is 
trying to do what he thinks is best for this country. I respect that. I 
think we have before us a very important piece of legislation. We 
should not put it at risk.
  This is an authorization bill that increases, by some $4.5 billion, 
defense spending over what the President proposed. It is a 4.4-percent 
increase in real terms over what we spent last year. If there is 
anything we have neglected over the last several years in the budget, 
it is our defense.
  We have been obligating our troops overseas. In fact, if we look at 
the record, between 1956 and 1992, our troops were deployed some 51 
times. Between 1992 and today, we had the same number of deployments. 
At the same time we are increasing our reliability on our fighting men 
and women, we are cutting their budget. I think that is inexcusable.
  It is time Congress recognized what the problem is that the President 
of the United States in particular recognizes: We are not appreciating 
the service of our men and women in the Armed Forces.
  With this legislation, we begin to appreciate the dedication and hard 
work of the men and women who have been serving us in the Armed Forces. 
Again, I thank Chairman Warner for allowing me another opportunity to 
speak in strong support of this essential bill for our men and women in 
the Armed Forces.
  This bill is a fitting tribute for those who served, are serving, and 
will serve in the armed services in the future. The defense bill is 
simply too important to be mired in political goals but should show 
them respect and provide them the best defense authorization bill we 
possibly can.

[[Page S4776]]

  The fiscal year 2001 Defense Authorization Act is a bipartisan 
effort. For the second year in a row, we have reversed the downward 
trend in defense spending by increasing this year's funding by $4.5 
billion over the President's request for a funding level of $309.8 
billion.
  As the Strategic Subcommittee chairman, we held four hearings. The 
first hearing was on our national and theater and missile defense 
programs. The second hearing was on our national security space 
programs. We had a third hearing, the first congressional hearing on 
the newly-created and much-needed National Nuclear Security 
Administration, NNSA, and we had a fourth hearing on the environmental 
management programs at the Department of Energy.
  In response to the needs we have heard during the hearings, the 
Strategic Subcommittee has a net budget authority increase of $266.7 
million above the President's budget. This includes an increase of 
$503.3 million to the Department of Defense account and a decrease of 
$263.3 million to the Department of Energy accounts.
  There are two provisions I will highlight which pertain to the future 
of our nuclear forces. The first relates to the great debate we had on 
Tuesday and Wednesday regarding the amendment by Senator Kerrey and the 
second degree by Senator Warner. The original provision requires the 
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, to 
conduct an updated Nuclear Posture Review. It was in 1994 that we had 
the last Nuclear Posture Review. However, with the adoption of the 
Warner amendment, there is not in place a mechanism by which the 
President may waive the START I force level requirements.

  The second provision requires the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the Secretary of Energy, to develop a long-range plan 
for the sustainment and modernization of U.S. strategic nuclear forces. 
We are concerned that neither Department had a long-term vision about 
their current modernization efforts. Both of these provisions are 
important pieces of the puzzle for the future of our nuclear weapons 
posture.
  A few budget items I will highlight include an increase of $92.4 
million for the airborne laser program that requires the Air Force to 
stay on the budgetary path for a 2003 lethal demonstration and a 2007 
initial operational capability; an increase of $30 million for the 
space-based laser program; a $129 million increase for national missile 
defense risk reduction; an increase of $60 million for Navy 
theaterwide; and an extra $8 million for the Arrow system improvement 
program; and for the tactical high energy program, an increase of $15 
million.
  For the Department of Energy programs, we increase by $87 million a 
program within the NNSA, which is an increase of $331 million over last 
year. In the Department of Energy's environmental management account, 
we decrease the authorization by $132 million. However, I will stress 
that this bill still increases the environmental management account by 
more than $250 million over last year's appropriated amount.
  Again, I will mention a few important highlights of the authorization 
bill outside of the Strategic Subcommittee. There are many significant 
improvements to the TRICARE program for active-duty family members. The 
bill includes a comprehensive retail and national mail order pharmacy 
program for eligible beneficiaries, no enrollment fees or deductible, 
resulting in the first medical entitlement for the military Medicare-
eligible population. I am very happy with the extensions and expansions 
of the Medicare subvention program to major medical centers and the 
number of sites for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Demonstration 
Program. Yesterday, the Senate, by a vote of 96-1, supported Warner-
Hutchinson, which eliminated the law that forced military retirees out 
of the military health care system when they became eligible for 
Medicare. Now they have all the rights and benefits of any other 
retiree.
  With regard to the workers at the Department of Energy, we provide 
employee incentives for retention and separation of Federal employees 
at closure project facilities. These incentives are needed in order to 
mitigate the anticipated high attrition rate of certain Federal 
employees with critical skills. Just today, we accepted a very 
important amendment which established an employee compensation 
initiative for Department of Energy employees who were injured as a 
result of their employment at Department of Energy sites.
  As the Strategic Committee chairman, I believe this bill is the only 
vehicle to provide such an initiative for these workers and their 
families. I think that is very important. This bill is the only vehicle 
to provide such initiative for those workers and their families who 
work at the Department of Energy sites.
  On Tuesday, this bill added an additional piece of funding for a 
memorial which should have already been built. The amendment added $6 
million for the World War II memorial.
  I will include for the record a copy of the opinion editorial I wrote 
concerning the World War II memorial. I ask unanimous consent that that 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    Time Has Come To Honor the ``Greatest Generation'' With a Great 
                                Memorial

                       (By Senator Wayne Allard)

       June 6 marked the 56th Anniversary of D-Day, the greatest 
     battle fought by what has become known as the ``greatest 
     generation''--the men and women who served our country in 
     World War II.
       Although it might seem incredible, there is no national 
     monument to recognize those who served our country in Second 
     World War. The Iwo Jima sculpture near Arlington Cemetery is 
     sometimes thought as holding that distinction, but it 
     actually commemorates the Marine Corps alone. There has long 
     been an effort to build something to serve as a focal point 
     dedicated to the memory of what our entire country and its 
     armed forces went through--the memory of what was lost and of 
     what was won--and this project is finally nearing the 
     construction phase.
       I had the honor of listening to former U.S. Senator Bob 
     Dole recently talk about his life and service in the 10th 
     Mountain Division during World War II. To the many roles this 
     undeniably great man has had over the years--Senate Majority 
     Leader, president and vice president nominee, Congressman, 
     and W.W.II platoon leader--he has added fundraiser for the 
     national World War II Memorial. As we remember those who 
     sacrificed to make D-Day a success, I think it is entirely 
     appropriate to pass along his request to me for support from 
     my fellow Coloradans in raising the needed funds to complete 
     this most worthy memorial.
       Construction on the memorial is scheduled to begin soon on 
     the National Mall in a powerful location between the 
     Washington Monument and Lincoln Memorial on Veterans Day, 
     2000. But the $100 million goal has still not quite been 
     reached, and that money needs to be raised to complete the 
     memorial project.
       The memorial was conceived to be privately supported. This 
     is how many other monuments that line the Washington Mall--
     the Vietnam and Korean War memorial, and the Washington and 
     Lincoln memorials, for instance--were financed. The 
     government has given support in the form of land and will 
     contribute operation and maintenance requirements as well, 
     but the remaining funding still needs to be found.
       The preliminary design features a lowered plaza surrounding 
     a pool. The amphitheater-like entrance will be flanked by two 
     large American flags. Within two granite arches at the north 
     and south ends of the plaza, bronze American eagles hold 
     laurels memorializing the victory of the W.W.II generation. 
     Fifty-six stone pillars surrounding the plaza represent the 
     48 states and 8 territories that comprised the U.S. during 
     W.W.II; collectively, they symbolize the unit and strength of 
     the nation.
       If we look closely, everyone of us knows someone who served 
     our country during World War II. Be it a father, uncle, 
     brother, sister, neighbor or friend, I encourage you to 
     contribute to this cause in their honor. It is time the 
     ``great generation'' had a great memorial to honor their 
     sacrifice and service to our country.
       Information on the project can be obtained through the 
     National World War II Memorial, 2300 Clarendon Blvd., Suite 
     501 Arlington, Virginia 22201 or at wwiimemorial.com and 1-
     800-639-4WW2.

  Mr. ALLARD. Finally, I want to mention my strong support for the 
Smith amendment, of which I am a cosponsor. This amendment would 
prohibit the granting of security clearances for DOD or contractor 
employees who have been convicted and sentenced for a felony, an 
unlawful user or addict to any controlled substance, and any other 
criteria. To be brief, our U.S. national security is too important to 
risk by granting clearances to felons. We are all concerned about 
personal rights, but when it comes to security issues, these must 
override all others.

[[Page S4777]]

  Mr. President, I thank Chairman Warner for the opportunity to point 
out some of the highlights in the bill which the Strategic Subcommittee 
has oversight of and to congratulate him and Senator Levin for the 
bipartisan way in which this bill was developed. I ask all Senators to 
strongly support S. 2549. One of Congress' main responsibilities is to 
provide for the common defense of the United States. I am proud of what 
this bill provides for our men and women in uniform.
  We must not be blinded by political motives when it comes to our men 
and women in the armed services. All of the issues that come before the 
Senate are critical, but I hope that when it comes to this bill, we 
will remember why we are doing this. This bill is not for us and our 
political goals, but for our young men and women in the armed services.
  I see this bill as a tribute to the dedication and hard work of these 
young men and women--the same men and women I had the opportunity to 
visit a few weeks ago on the U.S.S. Enterprise.
  At this time, I ask unanimous consent that a piece I wrote regarding 
that visit and dedication be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    Armed Forces Day 2000--A Tribute To Our Men and Women In Uniform

                     (By U.S. Senator Wayne Allard)

       Saturday, May 20th was Armed Forces Day and I can think of 
     no better time to honor those who serve this great country in 
     the United States military. The millions of active duty 
     personnel who have so unselfishly dedicated their lives to 
     protecting freedom deserve the highest degree of respect and 
     a day of honor.
       I recently had the privilege of being invited to tour the 
     U.S.S. Enterprise during a training mission off the Florida 
     coast. My experience aboard Enterprise reminded me of the 
     awesome power and strength of the United States military. But 
     more importantly it reminded me of the hard work and 
     sacrifice of the men and women serving in our armed forces.
       The U.S.S. Enterprise was commissioned on Sept. 24, 1960 
     and was the world's first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. 
     This incredible ship is the largest carrier in the Naval 
     fleet at 1,123 feet long and 250 feet high. While walking 
     along the 4.47 acre flight deck with Captain James A. 
     Winnefeld, Jr., Commanding Officer, it was amazing to learn 
     that ``The Big E'' remains the fastest combatant in the 
     world.
       Spending two days touring the Enterprise showed me what a 
     hard working and knowledgeable military force we have. As I 
     moved through the ship I was greeted with enthusiasm, as 
     sailors explained the ship's equipment and their role as part 
     of the Enterprise crew. At full staff, the ``Big E'', as it 
     is affectionately known, has over 5,000 crew members from 
     every state of the union, most of whom are between 18 and 24 
     years old. These young adults are charged with maintaining 
     and operating the largest air craft carrier in the world and 
     guiding multi million dollar airplanes as they land on a 
     floating runway. I was in awe of these men and women who work 
     harder and have more responsibility than many people do in a 
     lifetime.
       ``The Big E'' is a ship that never sleeps, it operates 
     twenty four hours a day, a seven days a week. I watched as a 
     handful of tired pilots sat down for `diner' at 10:30 p.m. on 
     a Sunday night. Hungry and tired, they wanted it no other 
     way. I had the privileged of joining Captain Winnefeld in 
     honoring the `Sailor of the Day,' Machinist Mate 1st Class 
     Michael Gibbons, for spending three conservative days 
     repairing the main condensation pump which is critical to the 
     propulsion plant, taking only a few 30 minutes breaks to 
     sleep. I witnessed the same degree of commitment in a 
     separate part of the ship as Aviation Boatswains May 2nd 
     Class Andre Farrell showed me how the a cables on the flight 
     deck operate and are maintained below. His task for the past 
     two days was to create the metal attachment which holds the 
     one of the four arresting tailbook cables together and his 
     voice was filled with pride as explained the entire 8 hours 
     process. Between giving orders to his crew, he pointed out a 
     few tiny air bulles that formed during the cooling process of 
     the metal attachment. Although he started his shift at 4:30 
     a.m. and probably won't sleep for the next 24 hours, he 
     smiles and tells me it will be redone, that it must be 
     perfect--lives of our pilots are at risk if it is not. The 
     amazing thing is, they all do it with a smile.
       When I think about Armed Forces Day, I think about two 
     events I experienced on the Enterprise. First, are the 
     sailors from across Colorado who has down for breakfast with 
     me in the enlisted mess hall, who gleamed with pride for the 
     job they do and the important role they play in our nations 
     defense. Second, was the ``Town Hall meeting'' I held, where 
     I responded to questions and concerns ranging from military 
     health care to social Security, from members of the crew. 
     These one on one interactions were extremely valuable to me 
     and I learned as much from these events as the crew did.
       I have never witnessed a more dedicated or hard working 
     group of people than the draw of the U.S.S. Enterprise. It 
     makes me proud when I realize that the ``Big E'' crew is 
     representative of the millions of American military personnel 
     throughout the World. Never-mind that many of them could be 
     paid more money for less work work in a civilian job, may not 
     get eight hours sleep each night or see their for weeks at 
     the time--they have those sacrifices for the country they 
     love.
       I hope that Coloradan's joint me join me in using Armed 
     Forces Day to thank those who are serving in the best 
     military force in the world.

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask for a strong vote on this bill in 
order to get the much needed and well-deserved resources to our 
military personnel.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Reid of Rhode Island be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from 
Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair and my friend from Wisconsin. I ask 
unanimous consent that Senator Feinstein of California be added as a 
cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, we have watched the steady 
deterioration of the vitality of our democracy under assault not from 
the kinds of foreign enemies that the Department of Defense 
authorization bill is aimed at protecting us against, but in some 
senses, an assault from ourselves. We have allowed our political 
system--particularly the post-Watergate reforms that were adopted to 
put limits on how much people could give to campaigns, to require full 
disclosure of those contributions--to be evaded, eroded, made a mockery 
of. The result is that the people of this country rightly conclude that 
money buys access and influence and affects our Government, and it 
turns millions of them off from the process.
  The vitality of this democracy, which is the pulsating virtue and the 
essence of America that generations of our soldiers have fought and 
died for, is under attack domestically.
  The question is whether we will respond, whether we will defend our 
democracy. We have had terrible controversies here on the floor over 
this question, focused particularly in recent months and years on the 
work that the Senators from Arizona and Wisconsin have done--Senators 
McCain and Feingold--particularly trying to focus in on soft money. The 
controversies have not produced yet the 60 votes we need to adopt a 
change. But even in the case of soft money, though it clearly violates 
the intention of the law, which is to limit contributions, there is 
disclosure. So that part of the post-Watergate reform is still honored.
  Now we have the appearance of these 527s, stealth PACs--spending 
enormous amounts of money in advertising, buying time for what has 
become ``Big Brother'' propaganda over TV to influence voters, without 
letting them or those who are the targets of those advertisements or 
the opponents of those for whom they are being placed know who is 
paying for them, how much are they paying, and where is the money 
coming from. Is it coming from America? Is it coming from abroad?
  So a bipartisan group of us--breaking through the division on party 
lines that has characterized too much of this debate about campaign 
finance reform and too much debate here generally--earlier this year, 
proposed two responses. The amendment before the Senate now is the 
second of those responses. It simply requires disclosure. It doesn't 
end the mockery of saying one thing to the Federal Elections Commission 
and another to the IRS--yes, I am in the business of influencing 
elections, so I deserve the tax exemption; or, no, I am not, so I don't 
have to register under the campaign finance laws. All this amendment 
does is ask for disclosure.

  Where is the money coming from? Who is giving it? Who is running 
these organizations? Who is coming in to try to influence the sacred 
right of voting--the franchise that is at the heart of our democracy? I 
had hoped that this amendment, which is reasonable,

[[Page S4778]]

moderate, and only invoking the ideal of the right to know, would not 
evoke controversy on the floor.
  So I am disappointed at the response today and disappointed 
particularly that it comes from those who apparently support the 
essence of the amendment. I understand this question of an objection--
the so-called blue-slip objection being raised in the House because, 
technically--though really in a very minimal way, if at all--this may 
affect revenue. This is about political freedom, about electoral 
reform, about disclosure to the public. It is hardly at all, if at all, 
a revenue measure.
  I understand the fear that if this amendment passes, it may be 
objected to in the House, and as my distinguished chairman from 
Virginia, who I dearly love and respect, said before, it could sink 
this bill, which I enthusiastically support, to the bottom of the 
ocean, such that hardly Davy Jones could rescue it. Here is my response 
to that, respectfully: I hope not. I say that this amendment is so 
important and gives us such a unique opportunity in the recent history 
of this body to come together across party lines and to do something in 
the direction of campaign finance reform that it is worth putting it on 
the bill. I say, as one of the proponents of this amendment, that if, 
in fact, the fears expressed here are realized, which is that in the 
House the bill is blue-slipped, objected to on constitutional grounds 
that it is a revenue-raising measure and should start in the House, 
then we can do what has been done with many bills, including the DOD 
authorization bills, in past years--bring it back here under unanimous 
consent. Who would object to bringing it back? Take this amendment off, 
send the bill back, and play the role.
  They may continue referring to the metaphor of Davy Jones rescuing 
the bill, but let's not, on a technical basis, miss the opportunity to 
take one significant step to defend our democracy against the insidious 
forces of unlimited, secret cash that are corrupting it and distancing 
millions of our fellow citizens from the process itself.
  Mr. President, how much time remains on the time yielded to me?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute of his 8 minutes.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Some may ask why disclosure is so 
important. Well, the Supreme Court has spoken about the appearance of 
corruption. Here, there is the profound suspicion of corruption; but 
without information, we don't even have the ability to know whether 
there is corruption, let alone to have the appearance of corruption--
big money, secret money, perhaps not even American money, raised by 
elected officials, raised by left-leaning, right-leaning ideological 
groups, raised by political groups, and trade and economic groups, do 
nothing but undermine our system. The least that we can ask is for 
disclosure.
  Mr. President, I appeal to my colleagues, let's break the reflex 
action and let's rise to the moment. Let's do something correct and 
courageous here. Let's adopt this amendment and agree together, arm in 
arm, that if the House refuses to take the bill with this amendment on 
it, we will strip it off and find the next appropriate vehicle, having 
spoken for this amendment to attach this principle and to advance the 
health and vitality of our democracy. No less than that is at stake 
here.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to ask a question of my 
colleague. I will charge the time of the entire colloquy to that under 
my control.
  As always, the Senator from Connecticut is fair and straightforward, 
and clearly in his dissertation to the Senate he said, yes, there is a 
vestige that this blue-slip procedure could send it to the bottom to 
Davy Jones' Locker, which I accept.
  I read from Descher's House Precedents, which is the ``bible'' that 
guides the House.
  This is fascinating. Listen to the title: ``Invasion of House 
Jurisdiction or Prerogatives.''
  Isn't that interesting?

       Invasion of the House prerogative to originate revenue-
     raising legislation granted by article I, section 7, of the 
     Constitution raises a question of privilege of the House.

  I have studied all of this very carefully. Once that question of 
privilege is raised, the Senate is left to their interpretation.
  Colleagues are clearly putting forward this amendment with the best 
of intentions. I said I would support the amendment in any other venue 
but this. It does raise it, and the House will not allow it. I can 
recite dozens of precedents. A year or two ago, they sent a blue slip 
to us on S. 4, the thrift savings accounts for sailors, soldiers, and 
marines.
  I am saying to my dear friend: Why should we take the risk, given the 
few legislative days left, and given all the work? It is interesting. 
Our committee has had 50 committee hearings and 11 markup sessions. 
That is a year's work by 20-plus members of our committee and by the 
staff, paid for by the Senate, out of taxpayers' funds. All of that is 
for naught if this bill goes down. It would be the first time in 40 
years.
  I say to my colleagues: No matter how strongly you feel about the 
merits of this bill, consider our own constitutional responsibility to 
provide under the Constitution for the men and women of the Armed 
Forces.
  I say to my colleague: I would like to know what his reasoning is to 
take this risk. The Senator from Connecticut is not known as a risk 
taker.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I will not respond to the description 
of the Senator from Connecticut. But let me say, if there is a risk, 
here is a risk that has a remedy. The reason the Senator from 
Connecticut is prepared to take the risk is the balance of equities 
involved and the balance of interests involved.
  I am so incensed by the proliferation. We are using military terms, 
quite appropriately, on this campaign finance amendment. I note the 
House chose to use appropriately a militaristic term--``invasion''--
when talking about their privileges.
  But our democracy is so much under threat from the corrosive spread 
of money in our system that I think we have a moment of opportunity 
here to get together to pass this amendment and make the statement; in 
other words, a procedural vote on this. My dear friend and chairman in 
the House on this very matter on another bill a week or so ago fell 
short of passage on a motion to recommit, I believe, by barely 10 
votes.
  I am not prepared to make a judgment about how the House will vote on 
this matter. But I think we have a chance to speak.

  I pledge to the Senator from Virginia, the distinguished chairman of 
the Armed Services Committee, under whose leadership this committee on 
which I am honored to serve had a very busy and productive year 
resulting in this bill. I can't imagine that any Member of this Chamber 
would deny a unanimous consent request. If, in fact, the House saw this 
as an invasion of their privilege and stopped the Department of Defense 
authorization bill, we would come back here and take this amendment 
off, and find another vehicle for it.
  I appeal to my chairman just finally on this point. I appreciate very 
much his statement that he supports the substance of the amendment. If 
he proceeds on the course of a constitutional objection based on House 
prerogatives, I appeal to him to find a way to join with us, since we 
agree on the merits of this amendment, to get a guarantee that the 
Senate will be able to speak as soon and as clearly as possible on the 
next available bill to at least require disclosure of contributions and 
sources of contributions to these 527 stealth PACs.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. When I regain the 
floor later I will talk about how long 527 has been around. The Senator 
from Connecticut sounds as if it has just come on the horizon. It has 
been around. I don't know why we are taking it up today when it has 
been around for some time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield such time as my colleague from New 
Hampshire may require.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from 
Virginia, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. The ``U.S.S. 
Warner'' has been under siege on the floor for the last few days, but, 
as usual, he

[[Page S4779]]

holds up well under hostile fire and keeps his ship on course.
  If anyone needs to be reminded, this is a debate supposedly about the 
bill to fund the operation of our armed services. It is a good bill for 
our military. It doesn't do everything we would like, but it certainly 
makes a vast improvement over what we have been doing.
  I rise to show support for that bill. As a member of the committee, I 
helped to write it, and also to show support for my chairman who has 
endured some hostile fire, I think, unfairly.
  During the recess last week, the Members had the opportunity to 
remember those who fought for the freedom that we enjoy in this Nation, 
and remember those who paid the ultimate price in giving their lives. 
That was the Memorial Day recess.
  I think in deference to those and to those who now serve us, I think 
we ought to stay focused, as the chairman has tried to do here, on the 
issue at hand. This is not a debate about campaign finance, nor should 
it be. We owe it to the soldiers, sailors, and airmen who serve today, 
who will serve in the future, and to those who have already served, to 
get this bill passed, and to do so quickly.
  I think we should be reminded that this bill authorizes over $300 
billion in defense spending--a 4.4-percent real increase--reversing 
some 14 years of neglect.

  You can go down the list: But aircraft, helicopters, submarines, 
surface ships, many other weapons systems, and missile defense, on and 
on--not to mention addressing some real critical needs in readiness.
  The bill adds about $1.5 billion for key programs in readiness, 
including ammunition, spare parts, maintenance, operation, and 
training. This is very important.
  I think it is below the dignity of those who have served and will 
serve and who are serving to reduce this debate to something other than 
what the issue is at hand. That is what disturbs me.
  I understand and fully respect the right of any colleague to offer an 
amendment that is within the rules, and I respect it. But I also don't 
think it is good judgment to do it.
  This bill is going to modernize our forces. It will allow us to 
develop the technologies that we need to address the threats that we 
face in the coming century in areas such as missile defense.
  My colleague, Senator Allard, who chairs the subcommittee I used to 
chair on strategic forces, has done an outstanding job in addressing 
that, as have so many of my other colleagues. This will allow us to 
address the quality of life of our service men and women and their 
families. There is a 3.7-percent pay raise in this bill.
  I am not commenting on the importance or lack of importance of the 
other issues that we debate here. But it is not the appropriate place 
to do it. Is it within the rules of the Senate to do it? Yes. In that 
sense, I suppose you can say it is appropriate. But is it the right 
thing to do on a military budget and on the defense budget of the 
United States? I don't think so. I think it does not dignify the 
debate. I think it reflects badly on the Senate. That is my honest 
opinion.
  I know the frustrations. We have had debates on campaign finance and 
the proponents of campaign finance reform have lost, repeatedly. I 
understand the frustration. I have been on the losing side on many of 
debates many times. I look forward to the day some of the debates will 
have a majority to win.
  Maybe that is the approach we ought to take, rather than, with all 
due respect, dragging this defense bill into this debate.
  I will highlight a couple of other things. As chairman of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, this bill has $1.27 billion for 
environment restoration. I thank the chairman for his outstanding 
leadership in putting this together, as well as Senator Levin.
  The bill also authorizes additional funds for programs important to 
New Hampshire and the Nation. These programs address unfunded military 
requirements, continue or enhance current promising Department of 
Defense programs, or support the technology base needed for future 
military systems. Inclusion of these additional funds is testament to 
the technical expertise and successful competition for DOD contracts of 
defense companies and institutions in my home State of New Hampshire.
  In addition to authorizing a $350 million increase for important 
missile defense programs that I support, this bill provides important 
funds that the President neglected in his budget that are important for 
the U.S. to maintain its leadership in military space power. It 
authorizes $25 million for the Kinetic Energy Anti-Satellite (KE-ASAT) 
program that will provide a last-resort ``hard-kill'' capability for 
the U.S. to protect our troops from enemy surveillance. It authorizes 
an additional $15 million for the Space Maneuver Vehicle to leverage 
the NASA X-37 investment in an area that also holds great promise for 
military applications. It also authorizes an additional $12 million for 
micro-satellite technology that demonstrates key future space-control 
concepts.
  The bill also pays a fitting tribute to our former President Ronald 
Reagan and his vision for our nation's missile defense by renaming the 
Kwajalian missile test range in his honor--a facility we use to test 
and refine our missile defense concepts making an NMD deployment 
possible today.
  Finally, it includes additional tasks for the Space Commission which 
is just getting started not only to assess the organizational and 
managerial changes needed to ensure U.S. space power in the years ahead 
but also address the cultural issues in the military that dampen our 
ability to become a true space power.
  I will mention one other item before I yield the floor. I have an 
amendment I have offered that has not yet been voted on. I will 
highlight it for a minute. The amendment was modeled on the 
restrictions which have been placed on gun ownership. It says if you 
are a felon, you don't get a security clearance. That is the essence of 
it. It is pretty well refined. The language is a little tighter than 
that so the definition of ``felon'' is restricted.
  It is very interesting that under current law you can have access to 
some of the highest ranking military secrets, about some of the biggest 
weapons in America's arsenal, but you can't buy a handgun. What does 
that say about the security clearances we are issuing, if you can't 
have access to a pistol or rifle, but you can have access to the most 
lethal weapons in America's arsenal? It is happening now. Murderers, 
robbers, and pedophiles are getting security clearances, and they 
couldn't have access to a handgun. I think it is pretty interesting 
that we are in this situation.
  My amendment, which, hopefully, will be added to the bill, prohibits 
security clearances for persons actually sentenced to over a year--in 
essence, a felon. If you plead, bargain down a sentence to under a 
year, you can still never own a firearm but you could, without my 
amendment, get a security clearance.
  I hope we will pass my amendment. I look forward to a vote on that 
amendment. If it is accepted, that will be fine. If it is not accepted, 
I look forward to the vote.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, to refrain from the 
debate that might delay the passage of this legislation, and send a 
message to our troops that we care about them, we are ready to help 
their readiness, we are ready to help with the new weapon systems they 
need, and we are ready to give them the pay raise they deserve.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent Senators Durbin, Bryan, and 
Boxer be added as cosponsors to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield to the Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I state my regret over the position in 
which we find ourselves with Senator Warner. There is no one in this 
institution more committed to the Armed Forces. His legislation 
deserves being supported.
  I regret this amendment has become a complication. However, it is a 
necessity. This is an extraordinary moment in the national political 
process. Make no mistake, if this Senate fails to deal

[[Page S4780]]

with the problem of 527 organizations and their influence in the 
American political process, what little remains of campaign finance 
laws in this Nation will collapse before our eyes.
  The Justice Department may be investigating foreign contributions and 
the media may be discussing soft money, but the Members of the Senate 
know that the newest and largest challenge to the integrity of the 
American political financial system are the 527 organizations. It would 
be difficult for most Americans to even believe the scale of the 
problem. It is not a new problem. In 1996, $67 million was introduced 
to the American political systems through these organizations; 2 years 
ago, it was $250 million. It could easily be hundreds of millions of 
dollars in the ensuing months if the Senate does not act.
  It is a contradiction with everything this Congress on a bipartisan 
basis has attempted to do to preserve some integrity in the American 
financial political system in the last 30 years. The donors to these 
organizations are secret. They are not necessarily American. They use 
tax deductions. They distort the national political debate. Everything 
we are now investigating is legal if they are done through these 
organizations: foreign governments, illegal organizations, individuals 
who simply want to distort the system through the exclusive use of 
their own money.
  Some of these organizations may not be organizations at all. It could 
be a single individual writing $1 million or a multimillion-dollar 
check in the disguise of an organization. Compounding the problem, 
adding insult to injury, they are reducing it from their taxes.
  Only a few days ago, in the State of New Jersey, two Republican 
primaries were influenced by these organizations. Candidates were 
campaigning, raising funds, gaining support, and these organizations 
with secret donors began their advertising campaigns. Not a single 
voter knew who they were, where they came from, what the moneys were 
about. They only heard the advertisements.
  In some respects, this is not a policy question; it is a law 
enforcement problem. If these organizations coordinate with candidates 
and their campaigns, it already violates laws. It is incumbent upon the 
Justice Department to investigate them and prosecute them if necessary.
  I trust on this day while the Senate debates this issue, the Justice 
Department will meet its responsibilities. But if they are not 
coordinated, they are legal. That burden falls on us.
  I regret the difficulty this causes for Senator Warner on this very 
important piece of legislation. His constitutional argument may be 
sound regarding the reaction of the House of Representatives. But the 
consequences of not acting are enormous. As chairman of the Democratic 
Senatorial Campaign Committee, I have urged every Democratic senatorial 
candidate in the Nation not to engage in this practice of 527s, not to 
coordinate with them, because it is unethical and it is illegal--
denounce them.
  If we have learned anything by the soft money example and other 
exceptions that have been taken to the prevailing campaign finance 
laws, it is when a precedence is established and a campaign expenditure 
enters the political culture, it expands exponentially. This may be our 
last opportunity before the 2000 elections to close this new avenue of 
expression through large, unregulated, undisclosed political 
contributions.
  Make no mistake, if we fail to do so, we do not simply invite the 
abuses of the last few elections, we may create a political system 
where we return to the type of campaigns before Watergate, where no one 
knew where the money was coming from, who was providing it, and what 
was being spent.
  What little remains of this campaign finance system will collapse 
before our eyes, not in future years, but in future weeks. This Senate 
has failed to agree upon comprehensive campaign finance reform. While I 
regret that failure, I at least understand it. There are legitimate 
constitutional arguments, differences in philosophy and politics.
  There can be no legitimate differences on outlawing these 
undisclosed, unregulated 527 organizations. This should be bipartisan 
and it should be a deep commitment upon which we act immediately.
  I am proud to join with Senator Lieberman in his amendment as a 
sponsor. I urge the Senate to act before it is too late. The 
consequences of inaction are enormous, and reconstructing this system, 
if indeed these organizations proliferate in the ensuing months, will 
be extremely difficult to impossible. I urge the Senate to act.
  I thank the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin for the time and for 
his support for our amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I regret we are doing this today. I can 
only speak for myself and not others, but if you wanted to do away with 
527s for everybody and not leave anybody out, I would do it and do it 
in a heartbeat. But not on this bill. Everybody knows the consequences 
of putting something such as this on this bill. I hope in this very 
brief period of time --I was hoping to have more time--to at least 
address how significant this thing really is and what we are talking 
about.
  Mr. President, I have said this since 1995. Our country is facing the 
greatest threat it has faced in its entire history. But it is not just 
me saying this. Now we have George Tenet, who is the Director of 
Central Intelligence and an appointee of President Clinton, agreeing, 
in my committee, that we as a Nation are in the most threatened 
position we have been in in the history of America. So we need to turn 
this thing around. This is the first year in 14 years we are able to 
start turning the corner and rebuilding a deteriorated system.
  At the National Training Center-Ft Irwin, units coming to the NTC 
today have not had enough time to train at their home stations to allow 
them to maximize the training opportunities. This means that the units 
are leaving the NTC less proficient than those who went thru the 
rotations in previous years.
  At Ft. Bragg, according to the base commander, O&M funds have never 
been so tight. Commanders are being forced to make choices and trade-
offs that their predecessors never faced. Insufficient Base-Ops funding 
has forced commanders to rob from training accounts. Insufficient RPM 
funding has resulted in the degradation of facilities in which the 
military personnel work and live.
  Maintenance on barracks is so bad that every time it rains, one 
building leaks into the rooms where the troops sleep, and even into the 
armory where their weapons are stored which damages those weapons.
  At the Norfolk Naval Base, the Navy is experiencing an increase in 
the cross decking of equipment and munitions as less modern systems are 
available to outfit all the hulls. In addition, supplies and spare 
parts are insufficient to support the surging of the Navy to meet its 2 
MTW requirements.
  Insufficient steaming days and flying hours are amongst the biggest 
readiness concerns within some Navy units.
  At the San Diego Naval Base, on average, 20 percent of the deployed 
planes on the carriers are grounded awaiting parts or other maintenance 
requirements. Furthermore, the cannibalization of aircraft has gone up 
by 15% over the last three carrier deployments.
  There have been notable reductions in the mission capability and the 
full mission capability rates of Naval aircraft over the past 4 years. 
This is true for the deployed and the non-deployed squadrons.
  At the Nellis Air Force Base, reduction in Red Flag exercises from 6 
to 4 means that fewer pilots can participate each year. The new goal is 
to move pilots thru Nellis once every 18 months vs. once every year. 
The high OPTEMPO of the forces--deployments are up fourfold while the 
force is down by a third--has been the principle reason for the 
reduction in exercises.
  Regarding Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center-29 Palms, conditions 
at 29 Palms and the Marine Corps in general: money is low; ammo is 
short; and spare parts are scarce. ``The level of training and 
readiness has diminished, it is not what it was in Desert Storm.''
  At Camp Lejuene, modernization delays have a serious readiness 
impact.

[[Page S4781]]

Equipment is more costly to maintain, less capable, and spare parts 
cannot always be obtained. In particular, the CH-46 is wearing thin. 
Some replacement parts are no longer available. One Marine officer 
estimated that if a Gulf War size operation erupted today, only about 
50 percent of Marine units would be qualified to deploy.
  I can tell you, the problems are in all these areas. We have 
retention problems because we do not have adequate accounts being 
funded. The various military installations are taking money out of one 
account and putting it in another account. So at Fort Bragg, for 
example, they have not been able to maintain their barracks. When it 
rains, the troops have to lie down on the equipment to keep it from 
rusting. We have a crisis in terms of cross-decking at Norfolk as well 
as on the west coast.
  So we have very serious problems, and these problems can only be met 
with this bill. I will just quote one thing out of the DOD Quarterly 
Readiness Report:

       Readiness deficiencies are most readily visible in the 
     later deploying and non-deploying forces, some forward 
     deployed and first-fight-forces are also experiencing these 
     difficulties.

  What they are saying is, for several years we are able to take all 
our assets and concentrate them in areas that are behind the lines in 
favor of the forward deployed. Now even the forward deployed are having 
a problem.
  I can remember in our committee, the committee I chair, the Readiness 
Subcommittee, we had the four chiefs in there. I asked them the 
question: If you were going to have to take a reduction someplace to 
increase your modernization or some other accounts, would it be in 
force strength, modernization, quality of life, and so forth?
  Up until a couple years ago, the Marines would always say ``quality 
of life, because the Marines don't need quality of life.'' Now we are 
not even hearing that from them. We are facing a crisis at a time when 
this country is in the most vulnerable position in which it has ever 
been.
  I think we should really be looking at the overall picture and the 
fact we have something very serious going on right now. We need to 
address it with this bill. This defense authorization bill turns the 
corner for the first time in 14 years. It is being held hostage right 
now on a matter that has nothing to do with defending America.
  Mr. President, I think we need to get on with the bill and away from 
extraneous, nongermane amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we normally rotate and I was prepared so 
to do. Does the Senator wish to speak? If not, I will ask my colleague 
from Kentucky some technical questions on my time. I yield myself such 
time as I need.
  There are several technical issues relating to this amendment.
  I say to colleagues, 527 has been on the books since 1975 and here we 
are dealing with it today:

       Organizations presently exempt from tax on exempt function 
     income, which includes contributions for political purposes.

  The McCain amendment would lift this exemption for 527 organizations 
which do not provide certain information to the Secretary of the 
Treasury. Thus, a 527 organization which elects not to disclose would 
be taxed.
  So it is a revenue measure. There is no doubt about it. It would be 
taxed on previously exempt income, thus raising revenue. I do not know 
what more clear example can be made, how this thing will be blue-
slipped by the House. The Senate is invading.
  I yield to the Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Virginia, he is 
entirely correct. This is the wrong place for this amendment. But for 
those Senators who are not persuaded that the fact that this is the 
wrong place for this amendment is enough to vote against it, I think it 
is important to understand that this is a rather limited disclosure 
amendment. Among the groups that are not covered in the 527 amendment 
the Senator from Virginia and others have been discussing are groups 
such as the Sierra Club and the AFL-CIO.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, let's clarify this. The Senator is talking 
about the McCain amendment now?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I am, indeed. I am talking about the McCain amendment. 
The Senator from Virginia was making the point that even if it were 
otherwise a desirable thing to do, this is the wrong place to do it and 
runs the risk of having this bill blue-slipped in the House.
  On the substance of the McCain issue, virtually everybody in the 
Senate is in favor of enhanced disclosure, greater disclosure. That is 
hardly a controversial subject. But to single out 527s only, I would 
say to my colleagues--to single out 527s only leaves out such groups as 
the Sierra Club and the AFL-CIO, which do not operate under section 
527.
  I have long believed we ought to have broad, comprehensive 
disclosure. I would be in favor of addressing this issue this year. But 
we ought to do it in a comprehensive way, I say to my friend from 
Virginia, not leave out some of the major players on the American 
political scene, many of whom are on the airwaves right now, beating up 
Republican candidates for the Senate.
  From the more comprehensive approach, it is my understanding the 
Senator from Virginia may well have an alternative to offer that would 
give all of us an opportunity to go on record in favor of a more 
evenhanded, comprehensive, across-the-board disclosure provision that 
would not eliminate some of the principal players on the American 
political scene--ironically, most of whom are hostile to Republicans.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to inform all Senators I have 
submitted an amendment to the desk. I cannot bring it up as a second-
degree amendment at this point in time, but I have submitted the 
following amendment. I represent, as manager of this bill, at the first 
opportunity when this bill resumes, I will put this amendment on. I 
read it:

   (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that all tax-exempt 
organizations engaging in campaign activities, including organizations 
   organized under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 
     should make meaningful public disclosure of their activities)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING DISCLOSURES BY TAX-
                   EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) disclosure of political campaign activities is among 
     the most important political reforms;
       (2) disclosure of political campaign activities enables 
     citizens to make informed decisions about the political 
     process; and
       (3) certain tax-exempt organizations, including 
     organizations organized under section 527 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986, are not presently required to make 
     meaningful public disclosures.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that all tax-exempt organizations engaging in political 
     campaign activities, including organizations organized under 
     section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, should be 
     held to the same standard and required to make meaningful 
     public disclosure of their activities.

  That will be before the Senate hopefully before the day is out.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask what force of law that sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment will have and what the prospects are that these organizations 
that are currently engaged in these activities will be motivated by a 
sense-of-the-Senate amendment?
  Also, will the Senator from Virginia be willing to add to that sense-
of-the-Senate amendment that on the next appropriate vehicle, as deemed 
appropriate by the Parliamentarian, the McCain-Feingold-Lieberman 
amendment be made in order for a vote with no second-degree amendments?
  I ask that question because we clearly know that, without the force 
of law, there is no way these people are going to comply with a sense-
of-the-Senate amendment.
  I hope the Senator, to give it any meaning whatsoever, will at least 
have that same sense-of-the-Senate amendment state unequivocally that 
we intend to enact this sense-of-the-Senate amendment into law, because 
that is the only way we can force these people to comply. I am sure the 
Senator from Virginia understands and appreciates that.
  My question is, Will the Senator be willing to modify his sense-of-
the-Senate amendment to make it in order

[[Page S4782]]

that on the next appropriate vehicle, as deemed by the Parliamentarian, 
there will be an up-or-down vote on the McCain-Feingold-Lieberman 
amendment without any intervening amendments or second-degree 
amendments?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, as my colleague knows full well, it will 
not have the force of law, but it is an expression by this body. I have 
consulted with the majority leader. He will address the issue. It is 
within his prerogative to determine at what time matters of this import 
are brought up. I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 30 seconds. The majority 
leader is well known for his advocacy for campaign finance reform. I 
doubt seriously if anyone believes that the Senator from Virginia, by 
propounding a sense-of-the-Senate amendment that is not binding legally 
in any way and will disappear in the mist of time as a myriad of other 
sense-of-the Senate amendments have--I think it is time the Senator 
from Virginia got candid with this body. The Senator from Virginia 
should either come on board and stop this egregious violation of 
everything in which we believe or state his opposition to it. Please do 
not think anyone--anyone--will believe that a sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment will have any impact on the present practices which most 
observers in America believe are corrupt.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the section 527 loophole is driving 
elections and their financing deeper and deeper into the muck. We 
cannot stand by with the values we hold as Americans and watch 
elections driven deeper and deeper into the muck. That is what is 
happening with this 527 loophole. It is tearing this system to shreds. 
The soft money loophole has already cut a huge hole in the campaign 
finance system. This section 527 loophole just simply tears this system 
to shreds. It allows unlimited contributions and, even worse than the 
soft money loophole, it allows undisclosed unlimited contributions, 
stealth contributions, and the press reports already tens of millions 
of dollars of these contributions are totally off the campaign finance 
radar screen.
  The only way people can use this is by trying to take inconsistent 
positions on two laws. The Internal Revenue Code defines an 
organization subject to tax exemption under section 527 as an 
organization which influences or attempts to influence the election of 
any individual to any Federal office.
  That seems pretty clear. The Federal Election Campaign Act defines a 
political committee which is subject to regulation by the Federal 
Election Commission as an organization that spends or receives money 
for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.
  People are creating these 527 organizations because, and only 
because, they influence or attempt to influence an election. That is 
why they are exempt but then ignore the FEC's requirements that people 
who organize for the purpose of influencing an election have to 
disclose.
  We cannot in good conscience stand by and permit this process, this 
charade, which is doing so much damage to the public, to continue.
  On this so-called blue-slip question, first, the Senate should not 
agree to a House interpretation that something like this is a revenue 
raiser when it is not a revenue raiser. We should not simply accede to 
that, No. 1. That is a broad interpretation which the House uses to 
have a larger prerogative than the Constitution provides.
  Secondly, we do not know that there is going to be a blue slip. We do 
not know that. The House, I believe, has to adopt a position. This is 
not something which is done informally.
  Thirdly, if the House does blue-slip this matter, there is plenty of 
precedent for the matter then coming back to the Senate and the Senate 
removing the language in question.
  This is being used as an excuse not to adopt a critically essential 
amendment if we are going to even begin to restore public confidence in 
the elections in this country.
  This last suggestion by our good friend, the chairman, that there 
could be, instead of a law being passed, sense-of-the-Senate language 
which is not law, is not binding, does not have the force of law, but 
even in its own language simply suggests to organizations that they 
adopt some meaningful disclosure of activity, is meaningless, not 
meaningful. We should not stand by and permit this charade to go on any 
longer.
  While we do not know the universe of these organizations, because 
they do not even have to register with the Internal Revenue Service, we 
do know that this is a bipartisan problem that requires and deserves a 
bipartisan solution.
  Section 527 was created by Congress in the 1970s to provide a 
category of tax exempt organizations for political parties and 
political committees. While contributions to a political party or 
political committee are not tax deductible, Congress did provide for a 
tax exemption for money contributed and spent on political activities 
by an organization created for the purpose of influencing elections. At 
the time Congress established the tax exemption, it assumed that such 
organizations would be filing with the FEC under the campaign finance 
laws for the obvious reason that the language for both coverage by the 
IRS and coverage by the FEC were the same--``influencing an election.'' 
Consequently, it was assumed that section 527 did not need to require 
disclosure with the IRS, since the FEC disclosure was considerably more 
complete.
  The amendment before us would require section 527 organizations to 
file a tax return, something they are not required to do now, and 
disclose the basic information about their organization as well as 
their contributors over $200.
  In late January of this year, the staff of the Joint Committee on 
Taxation released a study of the Disclosure Provisions Relating to Tax-
Exempt Organizations. In that study, the bipartisan staff addressed 
section 527 organizations, and the JCT staff recommended adoption of an 
amendment to section 527 similar to the language we now have before us. 
The JCT staff specifically recommended:
  1. That 527 organizations be required to ``disclose information 
relating to their activities to the public . . .''
  2. And that 527 organizations ``be required to file an annual return 
even if the organizations do not have taxable income and that the 
annual return should be expanded to include more information regarding 
the activities of the organization.
  The JCT report said, ``This recommendation is consistent with the 
recommendation that all tax returns relating to tax-exempt 
organizations should be disclosable.''
  As the 2000 campaign evolves that we get closer to November, the 
American public is going to be seeing the consequences--the real life 
consequences of this loophole in our campaign finance laws. Candidates 
from both parties are going to be hit with ads by groups with names 
that sound like civic organizations but which in reality are nothing 
more than well-financed political opponents whose sole purpose is to 
influence an election. But the public will not be able to determine who 
the people are behind the organizational name. It could be one person, 
one union, one corporation, or an association of unions, interest 
groups, or corporations. An organization with a name like Citizens for 
Safety could have as its sole contributor a leader of organized crime. 
We would never know. The examples are endless.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Unfortunately, it 
does not stop the unlimited aspect of these secret contributions, but 
it does bring these contributions out in the open.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I strongly oppose this amendment for two 
reasons: No. 1, on its substance. If everyone is concerned about the 
damage to the political system and the damage to the public and the 
violation of things in which we believe, of organizations running 
independent expenditures, then cover everybody who does it. If my 
colleagues are only concerned about certain political groups and not 
concerned about other political groups

[[Page S4783]]

that may happen to favor their political position, then this is all 
about politics and not about reform.
  Let's be clear. This is a rifle shot on this bill. This does not 
cover labor unions, this does not cover the Sierra Club, this does not 
cover the trial lawyers, all of which are the major funders of the 
other side of the aisle.
  I am one of those Senators up for reelection who is going to be at 
the butt end of the expenditures of those very same groups, and no one 
over there will be outraged by the ``damage to the public,'' these 
groups do. They are only concerned about the damage to the public that 
groups that do not favor them do.

  We heard so much: We need to talk honestly with the public. Let's 
talk honestly with the public. We are rifle shooting here. We are 
killing the American political process by picking winners and losers.
  At the same time, the second reason I oppose this bill is because we 
are killing the Defense authorization.
  So we have two losers here. We have the political process--the big 
loser--because here we are in Congress picking winners and losers. And 
the second, we have the Defense authorization process, which I, as a 
subcommittee chairman, and like my colleague from Arkansas, a 
subcommittee chairman, we put a lot of time and effort into this bill 
because we understand, as the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, 
Jim Inhofe, said, we put in a lot of effort trying to craft a 
bipartisan bill.
  We don't have too many coming to the floor these days. It is a 
bipartisan bill. I have worked with my ranking member, Joe Lieberman. 
We have worked together in concert to put together a bill we can all 
support--and we all did support in committee --that really meets the 
needs of our military, that addresses some of the critical issues we 
had in our subcommittee. We had to deal with the transformation of the 
Army. I know everybody in this Chamber is concerned about how we 
transform the Army.
  There are some very critical decisions we made in this bill that 
affect the future of our armed services, and particularly the Army, 
that I don't believe will be made correctly if we do not pass this 
bill.
  There are some critical issues in the area of the Joint Strike 
Fighter. We made tough decisions that will not be met if we do not pass 
this bill.
  A lot of people say we can wait. The House may not blue-slip this. 
The House voted on this issue. They voted it down. We know what they 
will do on this issue. The fact is, even if that is not the case, this 
is not the right amendment. This is not the right way to address this 
issue.
  If you care about the ``corruption of the system'' that these 
organizations do, cover everybody. If you care about gaining political 
advantage, vote for this amendment because you will gain political 
advantage. You will put a chilling effect on some groups and ``Katie 
bar the door'' on the others. If that is what you want, if what you 
want is political advantage, you got it. Vote for it and kill both 
fairness in public discourse and disclosure, which I am for.
  I will vote for an amendment--but not on this bill because I think it 
will hurt this bill--at some time. I hope the leader brings up this 
issue. But make sure we cover everybody. Make sure we do not pick our 
friends: You don't have to say anything. You don't have to disclose 
anything. And by the way, you guys who we really don't like, we are 
going to get you. We are going to chill your contributions. We are 
going to make you report everything.
  That is what this is about, folks. If we are talking about honesty 
here, tell the truth. What does your amendment do? That is the truth. 
So I am happy to debate the truth. The truth is, I will support an 
amendment that is broad. I will support an amendment that provides 
disclosure for everybody who engages in political campaigns but not 
pick my friends over my enemies.
  I would not vote for a bill that just picks my friends. Even you said 
we are not going to cover those organizations, Senator, that help you; 
we are just going to cover the guys who do not help you, I would vote 
against it. Do you know why? Because we should not be doing that. That 
is wrong. You want to talk about breeding cynicism? Bring up an 
amendment that calls for disclosure which excludes the groups that 
favor you and punishes the ones that don't, that brings cynicism to the 
process.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. McCAIN. Can I engage the Senator for 30 seconds?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Yes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, apparently the Senator from Pennsylvania 
does not agree with the Bush campaign, in which, according to an AP 
story, Bush says:

       Plenty of left-leaning groups led by the AFL-CIO help 
     Democrats.

  The AP goes on to say:

       So far for Gore, the Sierra Club, an environmental group 
     and one of the first to create a 527 spin-off, is in the 
     midst of an $8 million ad campaign aiding Democrats running 
     for Congress and attacking Bush on the environment.

  I don't know where the Senator from Pennsylvania has been, but I will 
be glad to show him ample testimony that this comes from both the left 
and right equally. So the evidence is obviously contrary to that.
  I would also hope that the Senator from Pennsylvania would join the 
Senator from Wisconsin and me where the next amendment would be one 
that included all organizations.
  Would the Senator from Wisconsin be willing to do that as well? The 
fact is, this is most egregious, because there is no reporting 
whatsoever in this newfound cornucopia, which would allow the Mafia, 
drug money, Chinese money, any other kind of money, to come into 
American political campaigns undisclosed. If that is what the Senator 
from Pennsylvania believes is honesty, then I plead guilty.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. In response to the question of the Senator from 
Arizona, the Senator from Pennsylvania, fortunately, is plain wrong 
about the issue of whether this covers other groups. As the Senator 
from Arizona said, in my opening remarks, I say to the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, I pointed out that this doesn't just cover the Sierra 
Club. The Sierra Club has said it has a 527 organization to use very 
large donations from wealthy individuals totaling $4.5 million.
  How can the Senator from Pennsylvania even begin to say that we have 
not included groups on both sides? The amendment is evenhanded.
  As the Senator from Arizona has pointed out, there were reports of 
groups from both the right and the left using this loophole. Any group 
claiming this loophole would have to disclose. So it is simply false 
that it would not include them.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. We have limited time.
  I also point out that the AFL-CIO has also said it is willing to make 
further disclosure itself as long as business is willing to do the 
same. I would invite the other side to actually offer a real 
amendment--not a sense of the Senate, but a real amendment--to try to 
address this.
  It is simply untrue that we are not covering groups on both sides. I 
specifically mentioned the Sierra Club and $4.5 million to cover that.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I ask the Senator from Kentucky, does the Sierra Club 
run some of their campaign expenditures through their (c)(4), not 
through their 527 group?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, if this bill 
passed, 527s that do only issue advocacy would have to publicly 
disclose their donors. But other tax-exempt groups that do exactly the 
same kinds of issue ads, such as 501(c)(4)s, such as the Sierra Club, 
and 501(c)(5)s, such as the AFL-CIO, would not have to publicly 
disclose their donors.
  So the problem is, if the idea is to have comprehensive disclosure, 
we have left out a huge percentage of those who are involved in 
political activity. The two that I mentioned happen to almost always be 
in support of candidates on the other side of the aisle. It would also 
not include the American Trial Lawyers Association.

[[Page S4784]]

It would not include groups such as Public Citizen, and environmental 
groups. As I mentioned, organized labor, all of whom would be exempt.
  As I understand, the point of the sense-of-the-Senate amendment of 
the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee which would 
be offered, as I understand it, after a motion to table the McCain 
amendment is approved, would call for a comprehensive approach. The 
majority leader is going to address the issue of when to do that. It is 
my opinion--I know he will announce it is his opinion--we ought to do 
that this year in this session because disclosure is, as the Senator 
from Arizona has pointed out, an area where we have been largely in 
agreement. It is a question of making sure that this is the right kind 
of disclosure and not a kind of selected partial disclosure which 
happens to have the practical effect of leaving out, in my view, most 
of the major players who engage in issue advocacy in this country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I yield 2 or 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the 
chairman of the Finance Committee.
  Mr. ROTH. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee for this grant of time.
  I rise today to make two announcements about the proposed amendment.
  The first announcement is that the Department of Defense 
authorization bill is not the proper vehicle for the issue raised by 
raised by this amendment.
  The second announcement is that there will be a proper vehicle for 
the issue.
  Let's explore my first point, that is, whether this defense bill is 
an appropriate vehicle for this amendment.
  This amendment increases the amount of disclosure that certain tax 
exempt organizations that are organized under section 527 of the 
Internal Revenue Code have to make if they are not subject to the 
disclosure requirements under the Federal Election Campaign Act.
  To do this, the amendment will subject these tax exempt organizations 
to tax on the contributions they receive if they do not follow 
disclosure requirements similar to the disclosure requirements set out 
in the Federal Election Campaign Act.
  While the objective of the amendment is increased campaign finance 
disclosure, the amendment is framed in the context of a Tax Code 
change, which is a revenue measure.
  Under the Constitution, all revenue measures must originate in the 
House of Representatives. If the revenue measure did not originate in 
the House, then any member could subject the bill to a ``blue slip,'' 
thereby voiding the entire bill, not just the part of the bill that is 
a revenue measure.
  Make no mistake, regardless of its merits, this amendment will kill 
this bill. If adopted, this amendment would mean that the Senate would 
be originating a piece of tax legislation. This is in direct violation 
of the Constitution. Rest assured, the House will not accept it and 
will refuse the bill when we seek to send it to them. Hence, the 
adoption of this amendment will kill this Defense bill just as 
assuredly as if we voted it down.
  We must not lose sight of the fact that there is no higher priority 
than our nation's defense. This bill provides much-needed funds for it. 
It gives a deserved pay raise to our armed forces--allowing them to 
enlist and retain the all-volunteer force that stands on perpetual 
watch over our nation. It provides for spare parts that will keep our 
Armed Services in service.
  Now, I'd like to move to my second point, provision of the proper 
vehicle.
  The House has passed a tax bill that deals with taxpayer rights and 
disclosure of information for tax-exempt organizations. That bill, 
known as the ``Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2000,'' is in the Finance 
Committee.
  The taxpayer rights legislation will be the vehicle for proposals to 
curtail corporate tax shelters, which both the majority and the 
minority staffs of the Finance Committee have been working to draft. 
The taxpayer rights legislation will be the appropriate vehicles for 
this amendment. I support increased disclosure. Section 527 needs to be 
amended. It is my intention to move such legislation later this year.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, may we have the time allocation remaining 
between the proponents of the amendment and the Senator from Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has 5\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this amendment is not about politics. I 
assure my colleagues, this amendment covers all groups regardless of 
their politics. Not only do we not cover the AFL-CIO, we don't cover 
the Chamber of Commerce. The National Right to Life, as with those 
aspects of the Sierra Club that are 501(c)(4), has to publicly disclose 
through a tax return whether they are constituted in that manner. The 
argument and the attempt to somehow suggest that the rules will be one 
way for some groups rather than others is simply false, as were the 
other points made by the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  This is an appropriate place to raise this issue.
  Let me take a moment to respond to the trumped up charge that the 
Senate cannot consider this amendment because the House might blue-slip 
the bill. I think some people are trying to use this charge as a fig 
leaf for voting against campaign finance disclosure. My first response 
to my opponent's attack is that this is not a bill for raising revenue. 
The McCain-Feingold-Lieberman amendment is merely a reporting 
requirement. It requires that those with a certain status report 
specified actions.
  Second, the House's decision to blue-slip a bill, to refuse to 
consider a bill, is an act of discretion on the part of the House of 
Representatives. It does not happen automatically. It requires the 
House to pass a resolution to put this blue-slip into place, and the 
House can choose to consider this measure if it wants to.
  Third, the Senate can and must be its own judge of what it considers 
to be ``bills for raising revenue'' within the meaning of the 
Constitution. The Senate does not have to adhere slavishly to the most 
wildly blown interpretation of what somehow constitutes bills for 
raising revenue, or else in the end the Senate would never be able to 
send to the House of Representatives any bill the House didn't favor. 
Someone in the House, anyone, could raise a charge, however baseless, 
that the bill was a bill for raising revenue and then just somehow stop 
it dead in its tracks.
  In this regard, I note it is deeply ironic that some in this majority 
are suddenly becoming so zealous about enforcing the House's 
prerogatives to originate bills for raising revenue. The House has a 
longstanding tradition of considering all appropriation bills to be 
bills for raising revenue within the meaning of the Constitution. If 
the Senate were to send the House an S-numbered appropriations bill, 
the House could blue-slip that bill as well. Of late, the majority has 
shown a great enthusiasm for taking up S-numbered appropriation bills 
notwithstanding this threat. The majority cannot have it both ways on 
this point.
  I ask unanimous consent that a listing of instances when the Senate 
has considered such bills that the House would have considered ``bills 
for raising revenue'' be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Finally, Mr. President, the most powerful argument 
against the opponents' attempt to hide behind the fig leaf of this sham 
constitutional objection is that their famed concern for the 
prerogatives of the House of Representatives will not fool anyone. This 
is a vote on campaign finance reform, pure and simple. In the end, when 
colleagues go back home and when a constituent asks them why they 
opposed campaign finance reform, if they answer, Well, it might have 
had a blue-slip problem, I don't think the explanation is going to work 
very well. That is not cover. The fig leaf is transparent, and the 
people will see right through it.
  This is a vote about campaign finance reform, pure and simple. I urge 
my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment, and I yield the 
floor.

[[Page S4785]]

                               Exhibit 1

   Instances When the Senate Has Considered Bills That the House of 
      Representatives Would Consider ``Bills for Raising Revenue''

       S. 2603, Legislative Branch Appropriations Act 2001, 
     considered May 24-25, 2000.
       S. 2522, Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
     Programs Appropriations Act, 2001, motion to proceed 
     considered May 18, 2000.
       S. 2521, Military Construction Appropriations Act, 2001, 
     considered May 11 and 15-18, 2000.
       S. 625, Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999, with amendment 
     number 2547 proposed by Senator Domenici to increase the 
     Federal minimum wage and protect small business considered 
     November 8-10, 16-17, and 19, 1999, and January 26 and 31 and 
     February 1-2, 2000.
       S. 1650, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, 
     and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000, 
     considered September 29-30 and October 1 and 6-7, 1999.
       S. 1283, District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2000, 
     considered July 1, 1999.
       S. 1282, Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
     Act, 2000, considered June 30 and July 1 and 13, 1999.
       S. 1234, Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
     Programs Appropriations Act, 2000, considered June 30, 1999.
       S. 1233, Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
     Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     2000, considered June 21-22, 24, 28-29 and August 2-4, 1999.
       S. 1217, Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 
     Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000, 
     considered July 21-22 and 26, 1999.
       S. 1143, Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2000, motion to proceed considered June 
     24 and 28, 1999.
       S. 1206, Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2000, 
     considered June 16, 1999.
       S. 1205, Military Construction Appropriations Act, 2000, 
     considered June 16, 1999.
       S. 1186, Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 
     1999, considered June 14-16, 1999.
       S. 1122, Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2000, 
     considered June 7-8, 1999.
       S. 544, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1999, considered March 18-9, 22-23, 1999.
       S. 2237, Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1999, considered September 8-10 and 14-
     16, 1998.
       S. 2334, Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
     Programs Appropriations Act, 1999, considered September 1-2, 
     1998.
       S. 2159, Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
     Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     1999, considered June 18 and July 13-16, 1998.
       S. 1768, 1998 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for 
     Recovery From Natural Disasters, and for Overseas 
     Peacekeeping Efforts, considered March 23-26, 1998.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I pick up on my distinguished colleague's 
statement. This is a bill about campaign finance reform. What relevance 
is that? What germaneness is that to the armed services? I read from 
the Congressional Record of May 18 of this year when the Byrd-Warner 
bill was put on the MILCON bill. The Senator from Arizona said:

       Its inclusion in the military construction appropriations 
     bill is highly inappropriate.

  Rather interesting.
  Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to each of my colleagues, the Senator 
from Arkansas and the Senator from Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am for campaign finance reform. I 
voted for cloture on the McCain-Feingold bill, and I would do it again.
  I think this has merit, but it is the wrong time, the wrong vehicle, 
the wrong scope. If this is the U.S.S. Warner, this is the torpedo that 
could sink it. That is wrong.
  There are too many important things in the bill to destroy it. There 
is health care for our military retirees forever. By a 96-1 vote 
yesterday, we put that in. There are retail and mail order pharmacy 
prescription benefits. I don't want to face those military retirees and 
say: We thought this was a good vehicle for campaign finance reform. 
There is the thrift savings plan, TRICARE remote, a 3.7-percent pay 
raise.
  It is wrong to kill this bill for a nongermane campaign finance 
provision. There will be an opportunity. We should do it, but we should 
not put a nongermane provision such as this on an important DOD bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have worked with Chairman Warner for 
nearly a year on this bill. It is time to pass this bill. If we put 
this nongermane Internal Revenue Code amendment on it, it will be blue-
slipped by the House as a revenue bill. It will come back like a rubber 
ball off the wall.
  This is not what we are here for. This is not a campaign finance 
vote. It is a vote involving the defense of these United States of 
America. That is what we need to do. I support the chairman. I believe 
this is a good bill.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the 
McCain amendment on Section 527 organizations. I would first like to 
thank Senator Lieberman and Senator McCain for their work in focusing 
the attention of the nation on the problems Section 527 organizations 
are creating in our campaign finance system.
  Most people don't know what a Section 527 organization is, and that 
is understandable, it is a highly complex issue. But what many people 
do understand is that our campaign finance system is broken and that we 
must do something to fix it.
  A recent report by Common Cause reinforces the point that there are 
serious loopholes in our campaign finance system.
  We must close the loophole allowing so-called ``Stealth PAC's'' 
organized under Section 527 of the tax code, to hide their donors, 
activities, even their very existence from public view.
  Many years ago, James Madison said, ``A popular government without 
popular information is but a prologue to a tragedy or a farce or 
perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance and a people who 
mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which 
knowledge gives.''
  In clearer terms, Francis Bacon conveys the same principle in the 
saying, ``Knowledge is Power.''
  Mr. President, the passage of this amendment would help arm the 
people with the knowledge they need in order to exercise their civic 
duty and sustain our popular government.
  I have also long believed in Justice Brandeis' statement that, 
``Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.'' People deserve to 
know before they step into the voting booth which individuals or 
organizations are sponsoring the advertisements, mailings, and phone 
banks they may see or hear from during an election. We need to shine 
some sunlight on these secretive Section 527 organizations so that 
people will know who or what is trying to influence their vote.
  I have watched with growing dismay the increase in the number of 
troubling examples of problems in our current campaign finance system. 
These problems have led to a perception by the public that a disconnect 
exists between themselves and the people that they have elected. I 
believe that this perception is a pivotal factor behind the 
disturbingly low voter turnouts that have plagued national elections in 
recent years.
  It is time to restore the public's confidence in our political 
system. It is time to increase disclosure requirements and ban soft 
money. It is time to work together to pass meaningful campaign finance 
reform.
  I urge my colleagues to support the McCain amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, is there any time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has 30 seconds 
remaining, and the Senator from Arizona has 2 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. I will let the Senator from Arizona proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will quote from the Washington Post on 
June 4, this Sunday:

       Both parties use these section 527 committees. Failure to 
     disclose is the insidious, ultimate corruption of a political 
     system in which offices, if not the officeholders themselves, 
     are increasingly bought. At least they could vote for 
     sunshine, or is the truth too embarrassing for either donors 
     or recipients?

  Mr. President, we have heard some very interesting arguments and 
discussions about whether it is appropriate, as to whether it favors 
one side or another. There isn't an American who is well informed who 
does not know that this system has lurched completely out of control, 
when people are allowed to engage in the political system and give 
unlimited amounts of money and have it undisclosed.
  The reason this is on this bill, I say to the chairman of the Armed 
Services

[[Page S4786]]

Committee, is that we have been unable to propose an amendment on any 
bill so far.
  This has been the first opportunity. I regret doing so. But I was 
willing to enter into a time agreement to get this done. I must tell my 
friend we will continue on this issue until we resolve the objections 
that may exist concerning it. It is too important. If we are concerned 
about these men and women in the military--and he and I share that 
concern--then we should also be concerned about giving them the kind of 
Government and political system they can be proud of. Today, if they 
are informed about it, they are ashamed.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The Senator from Virginia is 
recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for the courtesies he 
has extended me. I said clearly, given the opportunity, I would vote 
with him. But this time I say to my old sailor friend, man your battle 
station, torpedoes are on the horizon headed for the port bow of the 
armed services annual authorization bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask my friend from Virginia, may we enter 
into a unanimous consent request that the time on the next amendment 
not start running until the leader, who will be here, finishes his 
work?
  Mr. WARNER. That is in order. I ask that the time consumed by the 
quorum call not be borne by the next amendment coming up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. 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. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I know we are now prepared to go to the 
debate on the next amendment. But I do have a unanimous consent request 
to make and some brief comments.
  For the information of all Senators, the two managers have previously 
exchanged amendment lists on each side of the aisle. Senator Daschle 
and I have talked about the need to get some finite list identified so 
that our whips and the managers can begin to work through the lists and 
see which can be accepted and which ones are a problem, or maybe will 
not be offered, and which ones will have to have debate or votes.
  I ask unanimous consent that the list I now send to the desk be the 
only remaining first-degree amendments in order for the DOD 
authorization bill other than second-degree amendments which must be 
relevant to the first degree.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The list of amendments is as follows:
       Stevens: Environmental fines.
       B. Smith: Security Clearances.
       B. Smith: Relevant.
       Crapo: DOE Construction.
       Chafee: UUV's.
       Thomas: Transferring of Veterans' Memorials.
       Jeffords: National Guard Education.
       Brownback: NCAA gambling.
       DeWine: TARS.
       DeWine: Air Force Technology Institute.
       DeWine: Air Force Museum.
       DeWine: Air Force planning.
       Stevens: Increase funding for FUDS.
       Fitzgerald: overhead out of arsenal bids.
       Murkowski: payment rates for doctors.
       Gramm: relevant.
       Gramm: export controls.
       Gramm: relevant.
       Bennett: transfer of Naval Oil Shale Reserve #2.
       Enzi: export controls.
       Helms: 3 relevant.
       Gorton: relevant.
       Thompson: Information Management.
       Thompson: Gov. contracts.
       Thompson: Export Admin. efficiencies.
       Domenici: nuc. cities.
       Domenici: directed energy.
       K. Hutchison: uniform services health care systems.
       K. Hutchison: access to health care.
       K. Hutchison: Balkans.
       K. Hutchison: DoD Schools.
       Inhofe: DoD to review qui ram cases.
       Bennett: Computer export controls.
       Domenici: Melrose and Yakima ranges.
       Domenici: R&D Projects (4).
       Enzi: Control tower, Cheyenne, WY.
       Gramm: Retransfer of former naval vessels.
       Grams: Land conveyance, Winona, MN.
       Grams/Sessions/et al: Military Reserve Equity.
       Inhofe/Robb: Apache Readiness.
       Inhofe/Nickles: Industrial Mobilization Capacity.
       Kyl: NIF funding.
       Lott: Concurrent Service--CNR/CTO.
       Lott: Acoustic mine detection technology.
       Santorum: Funding for AV-8B.
       Hatch: HI-B's.
       Hatch: FALN.
       Hatch: Hate crimes.
       Lott: 2 relevants to any amendment on list.
       Warner: Marine Corps Heritage Center.
       Warner: Indemnification of transferees of closing defense 
     properties.
       Warner: National Commission on Cuba.
       Warner: Report on bioterrorism.
       Warner: NIMA/technical.
       Warner: Technology for mounted maneuver forces.
       Warner: APOBS.
       Warner: Agreed-to package of provisions with Govt. Affairs 
     Committee.
       Warner: MK-45 maintenance and the MUCT site.
       Warner: Land conveyance, LA Air Force Base.
       Warner: USMC Procurement.
       Warner: Close in weapons system.
       Warner: Close in weapon system modifications.
       Warner: Gun mount modifications.
       Warner: A-76 Study.
       Warner: Anti-personnel obstacle breaching system.
       Warner: Info Security Scholarship.
       Warner: Future years defense budget (DOE).
       Warner: 12 Relevant.
       T. Hutchinson: Revise BAH.
       T. Hutchinson: Uniform Resource Process.
       Stevens: Alaska Territorial Guard.
       Snowe: Amend Sec. 2854 to authorize interim lease.
       Roberts: DOE Computer Export Controls.
       Snowe: NMCI.
       Inhofe: Relevant.
       Inhofe: Air Logistics Technology.
       Inhofe: Ammo Risk Analysis Capability Research.
       Lott: Keesler Hospital Repairs.
       Bennett: Altas uranium milling site.
       Lott: Weather proofing.
       Bennett: Critical Infrastructure Protection.
       McCain: 2 Relevant.
       McCain: 1 Gambling.
       McCain: Internet.
       McCain: 5 Campaign Finance.
       McConnell: 3 Campaign Finance.
       Grams: Reserve Grade Level Exemptions.
       Voinovich: Workforce Realignment.
       Mack: U.S. Foreign Policy.
       McCain: Assistance to Service Members in Claims Process.
       Johnson/Sarbanes: Export Administration.
       Johnson: Genetic Pharmaceutical Access.
       Johnson: Medical Prescription Drugs.
       Johnson: Livestock Packers.
       Kerrey: Missile Defense.
       Kerrey: National Guard.
       Cleland: Plaid.
       Cleland: Relevant.
       Feingold: National Guard/Reserve Duty Pay.
       Feingold: Trident Missiles.
       Feingold: McCain-Feingold CFR.
       Feingold: McCain-Feingold-Lieberman 527.
       Feingold: Extension of Law Enforcement Public Interest 
     Conveyance.
       Feingold: McCain-Feingold CFR.
       Durbin: Missile Defense Testing.
       Durbin: Registration Deadline in OPM re: Student Loan 
     Repayments.
       Murray: Abortion in the Military.
       Murray: Air National Guard.
       Feinstein: Relevant.
       Feinstein: Relevant.
       Robb: Land Conveyance for the National Guard Intel Center.
       Robb: Resource Management Program.
       Kennedy: School Hate Crimes.
       Kennedy: Environmental UXO Detection Technology.
       Kennedy: HMO.
       Kennedy: Minimum Wage.
       Lautenberg: Safe Streets & Schools.
       Reid: Relevant.
       Reid: NCAA Gambling.
       Reid: NCAA Gambling.
       Reid: NCAA Gambling.
       Reid: NCAA Gambling.
       Reid: NCAA Gambling/Civil Rights.
       Reid: Date of Registry.
       Daschle: Relevant.
       Daschle: Relevant to Any on List.
       Daschle: Immigration, Technology Job Training.
       Daschle: Immigration, Technology Job Training.
       Daschle: Immigration, Education Access.
       Daschle: Immigration, Education Access.
       Wellstone: CFR.
       Wellstone: Ag. Concentration.
       Wellstone: Domestic Violence.

[[Page S4787]]

       Wellstone: Welfare Tracking.
       Wellstone: States Rights to Enact Public Financing.
       Wellstone: Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act.
       Wellstone: Relevant.
       Wellstone: Relevant.
       Kerry: Environmental and Public Health Compliance.
       Dorgan: SoS Air at'l Guard F 16A.
       Dorgan: B 52.
       Dorgan: Cuba Ag. Sanctions.
       Dorgan: Relevant.
       Schumer: Money Laundering.
       Schumer: Critical Infrastructure.
       Conrad: EB 52 Aircraft.
       Conrad: Global Missile Early Warning.
       Conrad: Relevant.
       Bryan: National Guard.
       Bryan: Relevant.
       Harkin: WIC Troops Families.
       Harkin: Generals Jet Procurement.
       Harkin: Secrecy Policy.
       Harkin: Health Care.
       Boxer: Executive Planes.
       Boxer: Transfer Amendments.
       Boxer: Use of Pesticides on Bases.
       Boxer: Privacy of DoD Medical Records.
       Torricelli: Relevant.
       Torricelli: Relevant.
       Bingaman: Education Partnerships.
       Bingaman: Labs.
       Bingaman: Relevant.
       Levin: Organ Transplant.
       Levin: Relevant.
       Levin: Relevant.
       Reed: Date of Registry.
       Lieberman: Campaign Finance/Criminal Enforcement.
       Dodd: Veterans Gravemarkers.
       Dodd: Firefighter Support.
       Dodd: Cuban Commission.
       Byrd: Bi-Lateral Trade.
       Edwards: SoS Special Pay.
       Edwards: SoS Hurricane Floyd.
       Landrieu: Study of Deep Submergence Submarine System.
       Landrieu: Special Assault Aircraft and Inflatable Boats.
       Landrieu: Relevant.
       Landrieu: Relevant.
       Landrieu: Relevant.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, there are almost 200 amendments, I think, on 
this list. A large number of them are not related to the national 
security of our country. They are not related to the Defense 
authorization bill. There are two amendments now pending that are not 
related to national security.
  I am very concerned about how long this could go on and what these 
amendments are. They do run the usual range, from the HMO amendment, to 
campaign finance amendments, to minimum wage, and a whole long list of 
unrelated or nongermane amendments.
  I knew when we moved to this legislation this would be possible. I 
wanted to see how we could do, see if progress could be made, see if a 
little steam perhaps could be let off here. This is important 
legislation, so we are going to have to work through these amendments 
and cut them down to a reasonable number. Senator Daschle and I have 
discussed the possibility, after we get these amendments and see how we 
are doing, that we set the bill aside and go to the Department of 
Defense appropriations bill, with the understanding that when that was 
completed, we would come back to the authorization bill, and then we 
would have some idea of what amendments we would have to take time on.
  This is not part of the unanimous consent request. We are not locking 
in on that--neither I nor Senator Daschle. But we have to find some way 
to try to work through this list and, hopefully, be able to conclude 
this bill. I know Senator Warner would like to do that.
  I wanted to make those observations. I ask Senators on both sides to, 
if you can, withhold your amendment if it is not essential. Please do 
that, because there is no way we can do 200, or 100, or 50 amendments 
and complete this work.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me second what the majority leader 
has just said. I appreciate the fact that he has taken this bill to the 
floor under the regular order. I have indicated a desire to work with 
him to complete work on this bill under regular order. Again, as I 
always do, I thank the assistant Democratic leader for his efforts in 
trying to narrow the scope and the list.
  We have to start here. Now we know what the universe is. 
Unfortunately, I think the universe includes the ``kitchen sink'' in 
this case. I think it is important to try to eliminate the ``kitchen 
sink'' and other matters that may or may not be essential to take up. I 
think there are nonrelevant matters that could be taken up under very 
short time constraints, as we are about to do. We need to finish the 
bill as well. I certainly plan to work with the majority leader to see 
that we accomplish that over the course of the next couple of days.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our two distinguished leaders. No 
matter how diligent the managers are--there is this question, 
particularly historically, on this bill that Senator Levin and I have 
worked on for some 22 years--only the leadership can come down and get 
that list of amendments. I thank them very much for that.
  We will now deal with that as expeditiously and as fairly as we can.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 3 p.m. 
having arrived, the Democratic leader is recognized to offer an 
amendment relevant to HMOs on which there will be 2 hours of debate 
equally divided.
  The Democratic leader.


                           Amendment No. 3273

    (Purpose: To amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee 
 Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code 
  of 1986 to protect consumers in managed care plans and other health 
                               coverage.)

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

       The Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3273.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is with some reluctance that I come to 
the floor this afternoon--reluctance because we had hoped that this 
would not be necessary. We had hoped that the action taken by the 
Senate--now almost a year ago--would have provided us with an 
opportunity to have finished by now the work begun more than a year 
ago. The Senate acted in a way that we felt was not as acceptable as we 
would have liked. The House acted in a way that met the expectations of 
many of us. On a bipartisan basis the House passed a bill to protect 
patients' rights in ways that I think lives up to the expectations not 
only of those of us who have advocated this legislation but of the 
American people and many others who care deeply about these 
circumstances.
  It was our hope that the conferees, over the course of the last 12 
months, could have resolved differences and we could have sent this 
legislation to the President by now. That has not happened.
  Under the circumstances, we are left with no choice but to come to 
the floor and once again have the debate and press the issue--to try to 
say with as much definition as we can that this legislation must pass; 
that this legislation must be sent to the President; that this 
legislation must be signed into law.
  The urgency of our effort could not be better represented than by 
what we see on the charts immediately behind me. The first chart shows 
what is happening to patients day by day as this Congress fails to act. 
The Patients' Bill of Rights affects thousands and thousands of people 
on a daily basis--thousands of people who go into hospitals and clinics 
hoping that they might be able to get the care they so desperately 
need.
  This chart says it all when it comes to what happens to patients as a 
result of our inaction.
  Thirty-five thousand Americans on a daily basis fail to get the kind 
of care they absolutely have to have to restore their health.
  Thirty-five thousand people are denied specialty care in instances 
when doctors have prescribed it.
  Thirty-one thousand are forced on a daily basis to change doctors--we 
are not talking about what has happened over the course of the last 12 
months. We are saying every single day in the United States of America 
that 31,000 people are forced to change doctors, against their will in 
many cases.
  Eighteen-thousand are forced to change medication.
  Fifty-nine thousand a day, as a result of the inaction in the 
Congress--a number exceeding the second largest city in

[[Page S4788]]

the State of South Dakota--are subjected to more pain and suffering and 
a worsening of their condition.
  Those aren't our figures. Those are figures from the California 
Managed Care Improvement Task Force and other reputable organizations 
that have analyzed the cost of the inaction in the Congress over the 
course of the last year.
  A second way to look at this issue is doctors' perceptions of our 
inaction.
  The number of doctors each day who see patients with a serious 
decline in health as a result of health plan abuse is striking.
  Fourteen-thousand people are denied coverage of recommended 
prescription drugs as a result of our inaction.
  Ten-thousand are denied coverage of needed diagnostic tests.
  Seven-thousand are denied referral to needed specialty care.
  Six-thousand are denied overnight hospital stay, and 6,000 are denied 
referral to mental health and substance abuse treatment.
  One could just sit down after that and say the Senate must act. Let's 
vote. I think those numbers are as compelling a reason as I have heard 
about the importance of this body acting on this legislation, as we 
should have acted now more than 12 months ago. We have not acted. And 
tens of thousands of people are paying a price that they shouldn't have 
to pay because we have not acted.
  I have been encouraged by correspondence that we have been sent just 
in the last few hours: One from the sponsors of the legislation on the 
House side, Congressman Charlie Norwood, and Congressman John Dingell.
  I will simply read an excerpt, and ask unanimous consent the entire 
letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                         House of Representatives,


                                        Committee on Commerce,

                                     Washington, DC, June 8, 2000.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Tom Daschle,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Kennedy and Daschle: We are pleased that you 
     are bringing the bipartisan compromise bill that we passed 
     overwhelmingly in the House last October to the Senate floor 
     today. We appreciate your willingness to fix a technical 
     drafting error in the point of service provision.
       The change we have requested is a technical correction to 
     ensure that all individuals covered by employer-sponsored 
     health insurance plans, including self-insured plans, would 
     be able to choose a point of service option. This option 
     would allow patients to choose the doctor who best met their 
     medical needs. This change would not otherwise affect what we 
     believe is an important provision. As you know, the point of 
     service provision in the Norwood-Dingell bill clearly states 
     that the patient, not the employer or the health plan, would 
     bear any extra cost associated with this provision. 
     Additionally, point of service is not required to be offered 
     in instances where enrollees have a point of service option 
     through another health insurance issuer or group health plan.
       We thank you for making this technical change. We hope that 
     this important legislation enjoys as much bipartisan success 
     on the Senate floor today as it did on the House floor last 
     year.
       With every good wish.
           Sincerely,
     John D. Dingell.
     Charlie Norwood.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the letter simply calls upon the Congress 
to act. It says:

       We are pleased that you are bringing the bipartisan 
     compromise bill that we passed overwhelmingly in the House 
     last October to the Senate floor today.

  They want us to act.
  That is from the sponsors of the House-passed legislation.
  The doctors so directly involved in our critical health care needs 
are also asking the Senate to act today.
  I ask unanimous consent that a statement released by the American 
Medical Association be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 American Medical Association,

                                                     June 8, 2000.

 AMA Calls on Senate to Pass Norwood-Dingell Patients' Rights Bill as 
                    Amendment to DOD Reauthorization

       ``The Senate must give Americans the patient protections 
     they want and need now.''--Thomas R. Reardon, MD, AMA 
     President.
       ``The AMA strongly supports attaching the Norwood-Dingell 
     patients' rights bill to the DoD reauthorization bill. 
     Patients and physicians have worked for more than half a 
     decade on a bill to protect patients--and now is the time to 
     make that bill a law.
       ``Patients and their physicians have waited too long. The 
     Senate must give Americans the patient protections they want 
     and need now--not just a bill, but a real law that protects 
     patients.
       ``Patients and physicians are frustrated with the lack of 
     progress in the House-Senate Conference committee. We will 
     aggressively pursue all opportunities until meaningful 
     patients' rights legislation is signed into law.
       ``A Republican staff counterproposal put forward June 4 is 
     unacceptable, making it little better than the HMO Protection 
     Act passed by the Senate last summer. That bill was a sham. 
     Now the Senate has a chance to make it right.
       ``A May NBC/WSJ poll found that patients' bill of rights 
     was the most important health issue among registered voters. 
     A recent Kaiser/Harvard poll found that an overwhelming 80% 
     of Americans support patients' rights legislation, including 
     the right to sue health plans.
       ``The AMA-endorsed Norwood-Dingell bill, overwhelmingly 
     approved by the House on a bipartisan basis last fall, 
     acknowledges the people's clear call for meaningful 
     protections. Patient protections should not be a partisan 
     issue. Republicans and Democrats must work together to 
     address well-documented problems.
       ``Rhetoric is not enough. The Senate must do the right 
     thing and pass the Norwood-Dingell provisions.''

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this is an excerpt from the statement:

       Rhetoric is not enough. The Senate must do the right thing 
     and pass the Norwood-Dingell provisions.

  You can't say it any more directly nor any more powerfully than 
that--whether it is the sponsors of the House-passed bipartisan bill, 
or whether it is those in the trenches on a daily basis who recognize 
the importance and the urgency of this issue and have asked us to 
address it posthaste, or whether it is the thousands of people out 
there being denied health care on a daily basis. The commitment we must 
make to those who are left in the lurch must be restated and 
reemphasized. The only way to restate and reemphasize our commitment to 
their need is to pass this bipartisan bill this afternoon as part of 
this vehicle.
  I share the view expressed by some that we don't want to slow down 
this bill. We just had that discussion on another amendment. I 
recognize that. It is for that reason that we have expressed a 
willingness to limit the debate on this amendment to no more than 2 
hours, with an hour on each side.
  We want to move this legislation. But we also want to move the 
defense bill. We can do that by limiting the amount of time, and we 
have voluntarily accommodated those who wish to move this legislation 
quickly by allowing the time limit on this amendment.
  I think it is very clear why we are offering this amendment, when you 
look at what it does and why it is so important and the pressing need 
for it. Again, I emphasize it was passed on a strong bipartisan vote in 
the House of Representatives.
  When you look at this chart, it lays out in a very short and succinct 
manner the differences between what--on a bipartisan basis the House 
has supported and many of us now support in the Senate--versus what our 
Republican colleagues in the Senate have advocated as their response to 
the need for a Patients' Bill of Rights for the country today.
  First and foremost, protecting all patients and making sure that 
everybody has access to protections is a fundamental difference between 
the bipartisan plan and the Republican plan. We protect all patients; 
they don't.
  Holding plans accountable is the second criteria by which we judge 
whether or not we are truly interested in solving this problem.
  Accountability has to be the first or second priority if we are truly 
going to resolve these problems and address the concerns raised by 
millions of Americans.
  The bipartisan plan holds insurance companies accountable. 
Unfortunately, the Republican plan does not.
  Definitions of medical necessity are a very complex and increasingly 
disturbing way with which the insurance companies eliminate access to 
good quality care.
  We ensure unfair definitions of ``medical necessity'' used by 
insurance companies don't prevent patients from getting needed care. 
Our bipartisan plan

[[Page S4789]]

addresses that issue. The Republicans do not.
  Guaranteed access to specialists is also an issue that so many people 
believe needs to be resolved. We address it. The Republicans barely 
address it at all.
  We can go down the list. Access to OB/GYN, access to clinical trials, 
access to nonphysician providers, choice of providers, point-of-
service, emergency room access, prohibition of improper financial 
incentives. On all of these issues and many more, there is a clear 
choice between what the Republicans have proposed and what the 
bipartisan plan adopted in the House requires.
  Time is running out. We have about 21 legislative days between now 
and the August recess. We have about 15 legislative days when we come 
back from the August recess. We have fewer and fewer days with which to 
resolve these differences. The time has come now to simply take what 
has been passed in theHouse, pass it in the Senate, add it to this 
bill, get it to the President, and send a clear message that our 
commitment to resolving these issues could not be stronger.
  Our commitment has not eroded. We are determined to deal with this 
issue this year on a bipartisan basis. We join with our House 
colleagues in addressing the issue in a comprehensive way. That is what 
this amendment does. That is why we hope on a bipartisan basis we can 
make an unequivocal statement about our commitment for resolving this 
matter first and foremost in this context today.
  I am deeply appreciative of the extraordinary leadership provided, 
once again, by the senior Senator from Massachusetts. No one has 
committed more time and effort and has demonstrated more leadership on 
an issue than he. On behalf of the entire Democratic caucus, I am 
extraordinarily grateful to him, appreciative of his leadership and his 
determination to resolve this matter in a successful way before the end 
of this session of Congress.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would yield time?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield such time as the Senator from Massachusetts 
desires.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 12 minutes.
  At the outset of this debate, I express my sincere appreciation to 
the leadership on both sides, particularly on our side, Senator 
Daschle, as well as to Senator Lott, to permit an opportunity to vote 
on a matter which I think is of central concern and importance to 
families all across this country. I think the timing of this is 
enormously significant for the reasons we will point out in the time 
available this afternoon.
  The American people have waited more than 3 years for Congress to 
send the President a Patients' Bill of Rights that protects all 
patients and holds all HMOs and other health plans accountable for 
their actions. Every day that the conference on the Patients' Bill of 
Rights fails to produce agreement on meaningful patient protections, 
60,000 more patients endure added pain and suffering, and more than 
40,000 patients report a worsening of their condition as a result of 
health plan abuses.
  For more than 3 months, we have participated in a charade of a 
conference that refuses to make progress on these basic issues. We have 
tried to reach agreement with the Republican leadership on the specific 
patient protections that are critical to ending abuses by HMOs and 
other managed care plans. But the Congress has failed to guarantee 
patients even the most basic protections. This is not rocket science. 
It is long past time for this Congress to stop protecting HMO profits 
and start protecting patients' health.
  The House passed a strong bipartisan bill last year to give patients 
the rights they need and deserve. It has the support of more than 300 
leading organizations representing patients, doctors, nurses, working 
families, small businesses, religious organizations, and many others.
  The House bill has overwhelming bipartisan support. One in three 
House Republicans voted for this legislation. President Clinton would 
sign that bill today, this afternoon. Unfortunately, the Republican 
leadership in Congress and the Republican conferees appear to have no 
intention of reaching a conference agreement that can be signed into 
law.
  We have repeatedly asked the Republican conferees to produce an offer 
on the critical issues that need to be resolved such as whether all 
patients will be protected by the reforms and whether patients can sue 
for injuries caused by HMO abuses. Republican staff submitted a 
document on Sunday night which they claim is a starting point, but it 
falls far short of what is needed to start a serious discussion. That 
isn't only our opinion. That happens to be the opinion of the principal 
Republican sponsors in the House of Representatives.
  We continue to hope that the conference can be productive, but so far 
it has been an endless road to nowhere. The clock is ticking down on 
the current session of Congress. It is time to take stronger action. 
Make no mistake, we want a bill that can be signed into law this year. 
There is not much time left. We need to act and act now.
  The gap between the Senate Republican plan and the bipartisan 
legislation enacted by the House in the Norwood-Dingell bill is wide. 
And the intransigence of the Republican conferees is preventing quality 
progress. The protections in the House-passed bill are urgently needed 
by patients across the country, yet the Republican leadership is 
adopting the practice of delay and denial that HMOs so often use 
themselves; delay and deny patients the care they need.
  It is just as wrong for Congress to delay and deny these needed 
reforms as it is for HMOs to delay and deny needed care. It is wrong 
for HMOs to say that a patient suffering a heart attack can't go to the 
nearest hospital emergency room. It is wrong for Congress not to take 
emergency action to end this abuse. It is medical malpractice for HMOs 
to say that children with rare cancers can't be treated by a qualified 
specialist. And it is legislative malpractice for Congress not to end 
this abuse. It is wrong for HMOs to deny access to patients to clinical 
trials that could save their lives. And it is wrong for Congress not to 
guarantee that the routine costs of participating in these lifesaving 
trials are covered.

  The Clinton administration announced yesterday that Medicare will 
cover the medical costs for senior citizens participating in clinical 
trials. Congress should demonstrate equal leadership and do the same 
for all patients.
  The House-Senate conference has made almost no progress on issues of 
vital importance to patients across America. The slow pace is 
unacceptable. After many weeks, despite the rhetoric from the 
Republican conferees, only two issues have been settled. They were 
virtually identical in both bills. While there seems to be conceptual 
agreement on a few more provisions, we have yet to reach agreement on 
the actual legislative language. The critical issues of holding health 
plans responsible for their actions and assuring that every American 
with private insurance is protected have not even been discussed 
seriously.
  Staff of the Republican conferees have provided proposals that they 
portray as a step towards consensus. Those who support genuine patient 
protections on both sides of the aisle are committed to making real 
progress towards a successful resolution of the differences between the 
Senate bill and the bipartisan House bill. However, the GOP proposals 
fall far short of what is needed to give patients the protections they 
need. With a minor exception, their proposal would essentially maintain 
the current gaping loophole that allows so many health plans to escape 
responsibility when they make decisions that cause injury or death of 
the patient.
  The Republican author pretends to indicate a sudden willingness to 
hold health plans accountable in some circumstances, but the American 
people would be shocked to see the details of this proposal. It is a 
sham. It is little more than a slap on the wrist for HMOs that refuse 
to comply with the law. It does nothing to address the vast majority of 
cases in which patients are injured or killed because of the health 
plan abuses that arbitrarily deny or delay needed care.
  It is riddled with restrictions and limitations. It would protect 
employers

[[Page S4790]]

from liability when they were the ones who made the decisions that led 
to injury or death. In countless cases where persons were injured or 
even killed by the wrongful actions of their health plan, there would 
be no remedy.
  It would force patients to go through an external appeals process, 
even if the disputed benefit could no longer help the patient because 
the injury was irreversible or because the patient has died.
  Our amendment requires patients to exhaust the external appeals 
process before turning to the courts, but there is a key exception that 
allows patients who have already been harmed, or the family members of 
those who are killed, to go directly to the court. Few, if any, 
patients would ever be helped by the Republican proposal. It gives the 
appearance of a remedy without the reality.
  The Republican proposal on the scope of the patient protections is 
another smokescreen. It does nothing to provide realistic guarantees 
for any individual not covered by the original Senate Republican bill. 
In fact, the proposal would reduce current protections for millions of 
Americans in many HMOs by explicitly preempting State laws. The result 
is that teachers, farmers, firefighters, police officers, small 
business employees, and many others would be turned into second-class 
citizens with second-class rights.
  Here is the list: 23 million to 25 million State and local employees. 
These are the teachers, these are the firefighters, these are the 
police officials, these are the nurses, these are the doctors. They are 
effectively excluded from the GOP coverage. Not so under the Norwood-
Dingell proposal. I don't know why they want to have second-class 
citizens with second-class rights for those individuals. All Americans 
deserve protection against HMO abuses. No patient should be denied 
adequate protection because of where they live or where they work.
  The Republican claim that they have offered a serious compromise 
rings hollow for the millions of patients across this country who 
deserve protection for their rights, their health, and their lives. We 
are committed to passing a bill that protects all patients. At this 
point, the conference does not seem to be willing to produce a bill 
that will do the job, so we intend to pursue other options to enact 
these critical protections.
  President Clinton has repeatedly urged the conference to complete 
work on a strong bill he can sign into law. That bill should include 
the key provisions of the Norwood-Dingell measure. It should not be 
delayed by controversial and unrelated tax or other proposals.
  Our amendment contained the House-passed bipartisan consensus reforms 
written by Georgia Republican Charlie Norwood and Michigan Democrat 
John Dingell. It says we are putting patients first, not HMO profits. 
It says medical decisions will be made by doctors and patients, and not 
insurance company accountants.
  The amendment establishes important protections for all patients, 
including coverage for emergency care at the nearest hospital, access 
to needed specialty care, transitional care for certain patients, 
direct access to obstetrical and gynecological care, coverage for 
routine costs of life-saving clinical trials, prohibition of improper 
HMO financial incentives and HMO gag clauses on physicians, and many 
other protections.
  It establishes a fair, prompt, independent appeal process for all 
decisions involving medical judgments. It holds health plans 
accountable by holding them liable in cases where patients are injured 
or killed by HMO abuses. It protects employers from liability, with an 
exception only if they actually participate in the decision that 
results in injury or death in the particular case. It prohibits 
punitive damages if the HMO follows the recommendation of the 
independent reviewers.
  The Senate stands, today, at a major crossroad for millions of 
patients across this Nation. We have an opportunity to provide long-
overdue protections for all Americans in managed plans. We have an 
opportunity to hold HMOs accountable for their abuses. For the first 
time, the Senate has the opportunity to vote on the bipartisan 
compromise that passed the House overwhelmingly last year.
  Last October, the House passed the Patients' Bill of Rights. Month 
after month after month, the Senate has refused to give patients across 
the Nation the protections they deserve. Today, at long last, the issue 
is out of the back rooms where it has been stalled for so long. The 
issue is in the open, and it is time for the Senate to vote.
  I withhold the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The minority has used 24 minutes.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I designate the distinguished Senator 
from Massachusetts as my designee for purposes of managing the 
remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to respond to my colleague, first 
to say I very much regret our colleague from Massachusetts is bringing 
this amendment to the DOD authorization bill. I heard the minority 
leader say we want to pass the DOD bill, but there is certainly no 
evidence of that when you introduce this bill, totally extraneous to 
DOD, campaign finance, and other unrelated matters. It appears as if 
defense doesn't matter. We have an unaccomplished agenda.
  Have we voted on these matters before? Yes, we have. Senator Kennedy 
is basically saying let's pass the House-passed bill. We are now in 
conference. I am somewhat resentful of some of the statements that were 
made by our colleagues. They said the conference was a charade. Tell 
that to the members of the conference who have worked, Members and 
staff, over 400 hours this year--probably more time spent in this 
conference than any other conference, maybe, in years.
  They said there is intransigence on the part of the Republicans. Not 
so. Republicans have made significant compromises and adjustments in 
willingness to try to see if we cannot close the gap on two extremely 
different bills. The House passed a bill called the Norwood-Dingell 
bill. Now we have Senator Kennedy saying, we don't care what is going 
on in the conference, let's just pass the House bill. He tried to pass 
it before in the Senate. It was not successful. I doubt he will be 
successful today. As a matter of fact, if he did not have this 
amendment on the floor today, we would probably be in conference, 
trying to work out some of the differences.
  So we really have to ask ourselves, are the Democrats interested in 
an issue or political theater--and that is exactly what this is. This 
does not change a thing. Senator Kennedy a couple of weeks ago said, 
``I am just going to warn you, maybe I'll have to take it to the 
floor.'' I said, fine, you are going to find out the House can probably 
pass Norwood-Dingell again and it will not pass the Senate. Does that 
help resolve the differences? I don't think so.
  We made an offer. I heard some comments made: Well, that offer was a 
charade; or it wasn't any good, or didn't mean anything. We made some 
compromises. The only thing we have heard back--we didn't get a written 
response. All we heard is verbally, it did not do very much.
  Wait a minute, we have done a lot. If you are interested in patient 
protection, we have done a lot. We have agreed that everybody who has 
an employer-sponsored plan would have an external appeal. If they are 
denied health care by their HMO, they have an external appeal, an 
independent appeal decided by physicians, that would be binding. If for 
some reason the HMO would not agree to that binding decision, they 
could be sued.
  Let me read to you Senator Kennedy's comments in the beginning of the 
discussion. This is Senator Kennedy:

       I think the overriding issue--and others have spoke about 
     it, is really whether we are ultimately going to have the 
     important medical decisions which affect families in this 
     country made by the doctors and by the families and the 
     medical professionals, or whether they will be made by a 
     bureaucrat. That is really the heart of it. There are other 
     provisions that are relevant to that and to making the basic 
     and fundamental right a reality, but that is really the heart 
     of the whole situation.

  We have done that. Senator Kennedy said we haven't agreed upon 
anything.

[[Page S4791]]

But we have agreed that doctors will have the ultimate decision.
  An independent appeals process, independent of any plan? We have 
agreed upon that. He says that is the main thing. Now he is saying that 
is not good enough.
  I am just very displeased, I guess, that language be used that there 
is intransigence, we had no choice but to bring this to the floor. If 
anybody wanted to pass a bill and have it become law, this is the last 
thing they should do. And have press conferences blasting the process. 
This process has been open. This process has been bipartisan. This 
process has tried to reach across and bridge differences and 
compromise. Yet they say, we don't care what you have done. As a matter 
of fact, did they offer the compromise, an appeals process that has 
been agreed to by Democrats and Republicans? No, they came back and 
said, we want the House bill, an inferior product compared to what we 
have agreed to in the appeals process, far inferior.
  It is the same with some of the patient protections. We have 
strengthened patient protections upon which we have agreed. Did they 
offer that? No. They want to go back to the House. It is an insult to 
the Senate to say: We have a conference, but we are not going to take 
anything from the conference; we will disregard the Senate; we are just 
going to take the House position.
  Any chairman of any committee should think about that: Yes, you are 
working on a conference; we will insist we adopt the other body's 
position, as if it is superior. What about the other body's position? 
What about the Norwood-Dingell bill? That is bipartisan; people know it 
has unbelievable unlimited liability.
  We are criticized because we want to exempt employers.
  I yield myself an additional 4 minutes.
  In the Senate bill, we have liability against HMOs, but we protect 
employers. Senator Kennedy says that is not good enough; we want to be 
able to sue employers.
  As a former employer, if we make employers liable for unlimited 
punitive damages, class action suits, the whole works, we are going to 
have a lot of employers saying: I don't have to provide health care; I 
will drop it. Employees, here is some money; I hope you will buy health 
insurance.
  Some employees will and, unfortunately, a lot of employees will not. 
We will have a dramatic, draconian increase in the uninsured.
  The Norwood-Dingell bill, by CBO estimates--and I think it is grossly 
underestimated--increases health care costs, one estimate, by 4.1 
percent; another estimate of the Democrat bill is over 6 percent. 
Health care costs are already going up 10, 12, 14 percent. Add another 
4 or 6 percent on top of that. We are talking about a 16-, 18-percent 
increase in health care costs, and we will have millions more join the 
ranks of the uninsured.
  We absolutely, positively should draw the line and say: Let's not do 
anything that does damage to the good health care system we have. It is 
not perfect, but we should not be passing legislation that is going to 
increase the number of uninsured. We should not be passing legislation 
that is going to dramatically increase the cost and make it 
unaffordable for a lot of Americans.
  We passed legislation in this body and the House that makes health 
care more affordable. We passed tax provisions giving every American, 
not just those who work for a large corporation, tax benefits, tax 
deductions. That is positive. That is the reason we called our bill 
Patients' Bill of Rights Plus.
  We want to make health care more affordable for all Americans. We 
want to increase the number of insured Americans. Unfortunately, the 
Kennedy bill, the Norwood-Dingell bill will do the opposite; it will 
increase the number of uninsured. We do not want to do that. We want to 
do the opposite. We want to help people get insurance.
  The legislation before us has no provision to help finance health 
care costs for those people who do not have it. We did in our bill. We 
had it in the House bill that passed the House.
  I have one other comment. The President said he would veto the bill 
that passed the House and he would veto the bill that passed the 
Senate. People say: The President will sign this bill. The President 
stated he would veto the bill that passed the House, and the President 
said he would veto the bill that passed the Senate. Unfortunately, a 
lot of people are more interested in politics and maybe political 
theater and seeing if they can scare people. Maybe they think that will 
be to their political advantage. I very much resent that.
  I want to pass a good, constructive Patients' Bill of Rights bill 
this session, this year. The sooner the better. Keep out the politics. 
Let's see if we can pass a bill that has a good external appeals 
process; a bill that does keep HMOs accountable. Let's protect 
employers. Let's not do something that will increase the number of 
uninsured. Let's not do something that will damage the system. I am 
afraid the process our Democratic colleagues are pulling right now is 
going to be very disruptive to the conference.
  I am going to pledge we will pass a bill out of conference this year, 
and I hope it is one both Houses will pass and the President will sign 
that will increase patient protections for all Americans and also keeps 
health care affordable and attainable for millions of Americans.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that of the time 
Senator Daschle used--he used 12 minutes--10 of the 12 minutes be 
considered leader time.
  Mr. NICKLES. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. Who yields time?
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, under the very able leadership of Senator 
Nickles we have worked on this conference report more than 400 hours 
with more intense effort than any conference of which I have ever been 
part. From time to time many of our colleagues have said to Senator 
Nickles: The Democrats do not want a bill; they want a political issue. 
Why don't we write a bill and pass it with Republican votes?
  Our dear colleague and leader, Senator Nickles, has said: No, I want 
to try to do this on a bipartisan basis.
  I think what Senator Kennedy has proven today in a cynical political 
act is that no good deed ever goes unpunished. We are not here today 
because we are not making progress. We are here today because we are 
making too much progress. We are here today because we are on the verge 
of writing a bill, but it is a bill that Senator Kennedy is not for.
  Senator Kennedy has said: If you will just let lawyers get into the 
patient treatment room and, if you will just let people file lawsuits, 
he will be happy. We want to put the focus on getting health care, and 
one gets that from doctors and not lawyers.
  In an effort to accommodate and reach a bipartisan compromise, 
Senator Nickles proposed allowing HMOs to be sued. What does Senator 
Kennedy say? It is not enough. Senator Kennedy does not just want to 
sue HMOs, he wants to sue employers. To that we say no, we are not 
going to sue employers. Health insurance is provided on a voluntary 
basis, and we do not want employers to drop their health insurance for 
their workers. We are worried about millions of Americans losing their 
health insurance. Senator Kennedy is not worried about that; the 
Democrats are not worried about that because they have their plan.
  And here it is. Do my colleagues remember this, the Clinton health 
care bill? Do my colleagues remember what they wanted to do? They 
wanted the Government to take over and run the health care system. 
Today, Senator Kennedy is very worried about HMOs, but let me read 
something about how their health care purchasing collectives would work 
in his bill with President Clinton.
  If a patient went to a doctor and asked for treatment for your sick 
child, and the doctor thought your child should have it, under the 
Clinton plan if the Government health board ruled no, the doctor could 
be fined $50,000 for providing that health care to your sick child.
  If you said: My baby is sick, I want the health care but the 
Government will not pay for it, their health care bill said if the 
doctor provided it and

[[Page S4792]]

you paid him, he went to prison for 15 years. That is their idea of 
HMOs they like, one HMO run by the Government.
  That is not our idea. We reject it, and we will fight it until it is 
dead. They will never give up on it. They do not care if they destroy 
the health care system of this country. They do not care if millions of 
people are uninsured because they know how to insure them: Insure them 
by having the Government take over the health care system. We say no.
  In our bill, we expand coverage. We gave tax deductibility to the 
self-employed. We want to give tax deductibility for buying health 
insurance if a company does not provide it. Why should General Motors 
get a tax deduction for buying health care but your family does not? We 
try to encourage people to buy long-term care insurance, so we make it 
tax deductible.
  We want to give people choices, so we have medical savings accounts. 
Yet in this legislation before us, there is not one mention of tax 
deductibility for health insurance, not one mention of expanding 
coverage, not one mention of expanding freedom by letting people use 
tax-free money to buy health insurance. Why not? What does Senator 
Kennedy have against the self-employed getting the same treatment as 
General Motors, or people who do not work for an employer that can 
provide health insurance getting a tax deduction? We know why he has 
against it. He does not want people to spend their money on health 
care. He wants the Government to spend the money for them. That is what 
this issue is about.
  As much as we have tried to write a bipartisan bill, unfortunately, 
this is an election year. We are proving it right here on the floor of 
the Senate. We are going to reject this amendment, and I hope we will 
come to our senses. I hope that we will go back into conference and 
write a bill and bring it to the floor, a bill that does not allow 
employers to be sued, a bill that holds HMOs accountable, a bill that 
lets people buy health insurance with tax-free dollars, and then let 
Senator Kennedy vote no. But I believe that America will vote yes. And 
this is about choices.

  Senator Kennedy protests that we are not making progress. We are not 
making progress in the wrong direction. That is what Senator Kennedy is 
unhappy about. We are not going to sue employers. We are going to 
provide tax relief to people to buy health care. We are going to hold 
HMOs accountable. We are not going to let the Government take over and 
run health care.
  As for the principle of compromise, I am willing to compromise and go 
part way, as long as we are going in the right direction. But I do not 
have any interest in compromising, in going part way in the wrong 
direction because that means we have further to go in going in the 
right direction.
  I congratulate the chairman of this conference. He has done a great 
job. He has provided the best leadership on any conference that I have 
seen since I have been in Congress. He deserves better treatment. I 
believe Republicans ought to be outraged about this. And I am outraged. 
I have worked hard on this conference.
  We are going to produce a good product. I am happy to have people 
judge me at the polls on it. I believe when you ask people do they want 
employers to be sued, I think they are going to say no. Senator Kennedy 
wants them to be sued. I say no. Let the American people decide in 
November.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself half a minute.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the minority 
leader's statement be charged against his leadership time, and I ask 
that my statement be charged against our leader's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 30 seconds, and then 5 minutes to Senator 
Mikulski.
  Mr. President, we know a stall when we see one. This conference is a 
stall. And we know when we are on an endless road to nowhere. That is 
where we are. It isn't the Senator from Massachusetts saying it. It is 
here. It is the Republican principal leader in the House of 
Representatives, Charlie Norwood, I say to the Senator. He is the one 
who is saying it:

       ``The Senate had eight months to develop a concise 
     alternative to the House liability proposal,'' says Norwood, 
     ``and if all they have to show is a three page staff-level 
     letter that could mean anything and everything, it's 
     impossible to take this conference process seriously.''

  Dr. Norwood is trained in the right profession. He is a doctor and he 
is a dentist; and he knows how hard it is to pull teeth around here. 
That is what we have been trying to do with our Republican conferees.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield myself 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. For the information of my colleague, Dr. Norwood is not 
on this conference. Dr. Norwood may or may not know that we worked very 
hard to come up with the appeals process to which we basically have 
agreed. Dr. Norwood may or may not know that we agreed basically on a 
lot of patient protections. He may not know we spent weeks on the 
appeals process. We negotiated in a bipartisan fashion.
  I think to refer to somebody outside the conference trashing the 
conference is a little extraneous. The conferees know that we worked in 
a bipartisan way to come up with the appeals process.
  Ask Dr. Frist. Ask other people who participated in the conference. 
To have an outsider say, ``Oh, we haven't done much, it is time to pass 
the House bill,'' I think is disingenuous.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. NICKLES. Not on my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Chair could, just to remind the Members 
of the Senate, the time is controlled by the Senator from Massachusetts 
and the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to support Senator Kennedy and my 
colleagues in moving forward on this issue on a very strong Patients' 
Bill of Rights.
  In the debate the question was, Do you remember the Clinton plan? I 
sure do. I remember it with fondness. I wish we had passed it because 
we would not be in this mess that we are in today.
  When the Clinton plan was before the Senate, they said: We can't pass 
it. It is going to create a big bureaucracy. It is going to shackle the 
decisionmaking by physicians. And it is going to lead to rationing by 
proxy.
  What do we have now with this mess that we are rendering in the 
delivery of health care? This plan, the way health care is being given 
in this country now, was created by a group called the Jackson Hole 
group. It might have been created by the Jackson Hole group, but for 
most patients they go through a black hole trying to get the medical 
treatment they need.
  Where do we find ourselves? Doctors unionizing, hospitals closing, 
and the American people up in arms. There is a reason for this. This is 
because our delivery system has turned into a bureaucratic-rationing-
by-proxy nightmare.
  This is why we are trying to move this legislation.
  This legislation we are talking about--Norwood-Dingell--passed the 
House in October 1999 by a vote of 275-151. That is bipartisan. The 
Senate moved quickly to have conferees in October. The House did it in 
November. But we did not have our first bipartisan meeting until 
February 23. The first Members' meeting wasn't until March. So I am 
very frustrated by the slow and stodgy pace of these deliberations.
  Our progress has been minimal and meager. The snail's pace of the 
conference leads me to conclude that unless we act quickly, we are not 
going to have time in this session.
  It is high time we deal with this issue. No more delays. No more 
parliamentary derailment. It affects the

[[Page S4793]]

health care of every American who is in a managed care plan. They want 
us to take action. They want us to take it now.
  But while this is not about political posturing, this is about people 
in pain: the 57-year-old man with prostate cancer whose HMO denies him 
access to a Government-approved clinical trial; the 35-year-old mom who 
had a stroke and whose employer switched plans in the middle of her 
rehab so she cannot get back on her feet and back with her family and 
back on her job. Think about the woman who has to talk to three 
insurance gatekeepers before she gets to see her OB/GYN.
  When we embarked upon this, I said I wanted to fight for patients, 
not profits. Health care decisions should be made in the consulting 
room by a doctor, not in the boardroom by insurance executives. 
Patients need continuity of care. They should have the right to receive 
treatment that is medically necessary and medically appropriate, using 
the best practices and, yes, holding their health insurance plans 
accountable with the right to sue, if necessary.
  The Norwood-Dingell plan essentially gives us an external appeals 
process before you get into court. This would resolve this.
  It has been 8 months since the Norwood-Dingell bill passed the House 
of Representatives. I think it is high time we move on this. I say to 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we have worked so closely 
together in expanding the opportunity for medical breakthroughs. I 
could name names as we go around in which I worked with each and every 
one of you to really be able to enhance and improve NIH, and even 
double the funding in certain areas--certainly Dr. Frist in his work 
there; Senator Sue Collins and her wonderful work on diabetes; and we 
could go around; the leadership that Senator Jeffords has had even in 
conducting hearings.

  Why can't we come together to push for the breakthroughs, where we 
have had more scientific and medical breakthroughs in our country, so 
people have the health care they need, to have access to the very 
breakthroughs that the American people paid for and was invented in 
their own country?
  If we are going to make the 21st century a real century of 
opportunity, then I think we need to start now with ensuring that every 
single American has access to the health care that is medically 
necessary or medically appropriate as mandated by their physician.
  This is really a life and death decision. The clock is ticking. This 
session of Congress is closing. I hope when it is over that we can have 
a bipartisan legacy where we have passed a Patients' Bill of Rights.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator and 
doctor from Tennessee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Daschle-Kennedy 
amendment for a number of reasons, but basically it has been already 
debated and defeated by this body after a week of discussion and 
debate. And it will be defeated today.
  I do wish to make three points over the next several minutes. No. 1, 
the offering of this amendment today, I do believe, all of a sudden, 
puts it in political theater, almost in a stunt-like environment as an 
election issue. No. 2, this amendment is underlying, I believe, a bad 
bill that could very negatively influence the quality of care in this 
country, and for sure it will drive people to the ranks of the 
uninsured. No. 3, the bill is inadequate, as has already been 
mentioned.
  It doesn't address the basic rights of patients. The right of access 
to care is not addressed.
  First, I hope this is not just political theater, but I tend to think 
it is. It makes me believe some people simply don't want a bill. They 
want to politicize it by introducing today an amendment on a totally 
unrelated, underlying bill. We will see how it plays out over the next 
couple of hours.
  To me personally, as a physician, as a Senator, as one who believes 
we must, can, and will, because the American people expect us to, 
produce a strong Patients' Bill of Rights, what is most disappointing 
to me is I am afraid what is happening is the good faith efforts being 
made by this Congress, where we are spending, as Senators, hours every 
day, not just over weeks but months on this bill, that this is going to 
destroy, poison, the good-faith efforts and progress that are being 
made in the conference where we take a Senate bill that has already 
passed through this body and a House bill that has passed that body 
and, in a bipartisan, bicameral way, develop a bill that can and will 
be passed this year by the Congress.
  We are making real progress in merging a 250-page bill on this side 
and a 250-page bill on the House side. I am afraid today's action, the 
introduction of this bill, is playing politics with an issue that, to 
me, as a physician, translates down to affecting the care of 
individuals, of children, of families. By doing so, we are gambling 
with the lives and the health of those individuals, many of whom are 
barely scraping by, barely able to afford the insurance they have, much 
less able to afford increased premiums which this bill, the amendment, 
will clearly do. Our goal must be, ultimately, when someone needs care, 
to get the care they need and deserve in a timely way.
  A second goal, a goal in the conference that we discuss in each of 
our meetings, is to get the HMOs out of the business of practicing 
medicine; with a third goal being a corollary of that, to have the 
decisionmaking back in the hands of physicians working with their 
patients. That can be achieved in the very near future if we forget 
this stunt, this political theater of introducing amendments to be 
debated over a couple of hours that we already debated with the bill 
already defeated 6 months ago.
  Why is this bill so bad? Why is the amendment before us so 
disappointing to me? There are many reasons; I will address two.
  No. 1, let's come back to the individual patient. It just may be that 
you fall into that category where your chances of getting your 
hypertension treated are less under this bill or your diabetes managed 
or your cancer diagnosed or the leukemia of your child treated. Why? 
Because under this amendment, under this bill which has been introduced 
today, probably somewhere around a million people are likely to lose 
their health insurance today by this single amendment. Will it be you, 
or will it be a constituent back home? We need to look them in the eye 
and say: Are you going to be one of those million people who, because 
of the amendment voted upon today, are going to lose their health 
insurance?
  How can I say that so definitively? Because we know this amendment 
will cost four times what the Senate-passed bill will cost in terms of 
an increase in premiums. The estimated increase in premiums under the 
bill which passed this body is about 1 percent. Under the bill that was 
initially proposed by Senator Kennedy, it would go up around 4 percent, 
four times what is provided in the underlying bill. Ask your 
constituent back home: How do you feel about possibly being one of 
those people who no longer can afford their insurance and, therefore, 
go without health care?

  No. 2, if you think your child is getting the care he or she deserves 
today and if you decide that they are not, what do you really want? 
What you want is to be able to take that child to a doctor and have 
them say, yes, we will treat the child now. If they say, no, you want 
to go to a quick appeals process, not in some courtroom 3 years later 
but today, shortly. If you disagree, then you want to go to another 
physician unaffiliated with the plan. That is what our underlying 
conference bill does.
  Unfortunately, the bill being introduced today by Senators Daschle 
and Kennedy has these perverse incentives that, instead of going 
through that process of internal appeals and external appeals and an 
independent physician making a final decision, you are encouraged, 
through incentives, to go directly to the courtroom and file a lawsuit. 
We need to ask: Do you want the care you deserve when you need it or 
when your child needs it or would you rather spend your time in a 
courtroom weeks, months or years later?

[[Page S4794]]

  In the conference bill, we have strong internal appeals, strong 
external appeals, an independent physician making a final decision. We 
address quality of care for you and your family right now. We address 
access to the care you need now. We address timely decisionmaking in 
the underlying conference bill. We have those disputes settled by 
independent physicians, doctors making the final decision. They are the 
ones with the best science, the best medical evidence out there 
deciding medical necessity, not what is in the original plan.
  My third and final point is that this bill is inexcusably and 
embarrassingly inadequate. It does not cover the provision which will 
be in the conference bill, and that is access. Right now, there are 44 
million people without health insurance. Since President Clinton has 
been in office, 8 million people have lost their health insurance net. 
It has gone from 36 million to 44 million while President Clinton has 
been in office. We must address that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield the Senator an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. FRIST. The underlying conference bill addresses many issues which 
go well beyond the amendment being introduced today. By voting for the 
Daschle amendment today, we are basically saying these issues, which 
are in the original Senate bill and are being discussed in conference 
today, are not important: Access; provisions such as the above-the-line 
deduction for health care insurance costs; accelerating the 100-percent 
self-employed health insurance deduction; expansion of medical savings 
accounts; a new above-the-line deduction for long-term care insurance; 
a new additional personal exemption for caretakers, all of which make 
those 44 million people more likely to have insurance in the future.
  Genetic discrimination: The prohibition of having genetic testing be 
used against you when you apply for insurance, it is not in the 
Daschle-Kennedy bill today. It is in the conference bill, the 
underlying bill passed by the Senate.
  We have heard over the last several months that 80,000 people a year 
die because of medical errors or lack of patient safety concerns. That 
is going to be in the conference bill because it was in the underlying 
Senate bill which did pass this body. A vote for the amendment today is 
a vote that these issues should not be part of the basic Patients' Bill 
of Rights.

  Let us not play politics. Let us continue to do what we have been 
doing over the last several weeks and months; that is, advance, taking 
the 250-page bill passed here, the 250-page bill passed in the House of 
Representatives, bringing them together in a bipartisan, bicameral 
approach that comes back to looking that patient in the eyes and 
saying: We are going to improve the quality of care you receive, not 
decrease that quality of care.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Tennessee, I 
am glad to hear him talk about increasing the number of people who are 
uninsured. With all due respect, I don't hear a lot from Senators on 
the other side about the need to have health security for all 
Americans. That, truly, is the unfinished agenda.
  Secondly, on the playing politics of it, I don't want to turn around 
and say he is playing politics with it, but people in the country are 
wondering how long they are supposed to wait.
  This is all about quality health care. All of our citizens want to be 
covered, not just the small number in the Republican bill. All of the 
citizens in our country want to make sure that the doctors are making 
the decision and there is independent review of their decisions. That 
is not in the Republican bill. All of the people in our country want to 
make sure that when they need to purchase prescription drugs or they 
need to see a specialist, a doctor who can give them and their children 
the best quality care possible, they will be able to do so. That is not 
in the Republican bill.
  We have been waiting and waiting--3 months, 4 months, I don't know 
how many months--for the conference committee to act. With all due 
respect, people in Minnesota and people in the country want to bring 
some balance back into this health care system. They don't want it run 
by the big insurance companies.
  They don't want it just run by the big managed care companies. They 
want us to be responsive to their concerns. This is a vote about who we 
represent. Do we represent these large insurance companies and large 
managed care companies, the vast majority owned by just a few large 
insurance companies, and increasingly corporatize, industrialize, and 
insensitive medicine or do we support a health care system that is 
responsive to the people we represent--the people back home, the 
mothers, fathers, and children who want good quality health care, who 
want to be able to go to the doctor that will help them, who want good 
quality treatment when they need it.
  That is what this is all about--patient protection and protection for 
the caregivers, the providers, the doctors. Demoralized caregivers are 
not good caregivers. The reason the AMA and other professionals support 
this is they want to be able to practice the kind of medicine they 
thought they would be able to practice when they went to nursing school 
or medical school.
  Really, this is a real simple proposition: Are we on the side of the 
consumers and people back in our homes? Or do we represent just a few 
large insurance companies who only control most of these big managed 
care companies? I think we should be on the side of the consumers and 
families.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. I yield 6 minutes off of the manager's time. Mr. 
President, I will start by commending the conferees on this legislation 
for their tremendous hard work. They have worked very hard to resolve 
many of the issues involved in this very complex bill, and they have 
made tremendous progress. I find it incredible that we are not allowing 
the conference time to complete its work when they have, indeed, made 
such progress.
  The Senate-passed bill accomplishes three major goals: First, it 
would protect patients' rights and hold HMOs accountable for providing 
the care they promise. As Senator Frist says, our legislation would get 
people the care they need when they need it. You should not have to 
hire a lawyer and file a lawsuit and wait years in order to get the 
health care you need. Instead, our bill has a quick appeals process to 
help people get the care they need when they need it, without resorting 
to an expensive lawsuit.
  Second, our legislation would improve health care quality and 
outcomes.
  Third--and this is the critical difference between the two approaches 
being discussed today--our legislation would expand, not contract, 
access to health care. The fact is that costs matter. We cannot respond 
to the concerns about managed care in a way that resorts to unduly 
burdensome Federal controls and excessive lawsuits that drive up the 
cost of insurance so that we cause people to lose access to health care 
altogether. That is the crux of this debate.
  We have a growing number of uninsured Americans in this country. 
There are 44 million uninsured Americans--the highest number in a 
decade. In my home State of Maine, 200,000 Mainers are without 
insurance. I have met with so many employers who have told me that if 
the Kennedy legislation passes, they will drop their health care plans. 
They simply cannot afford to be exposed to endless costly lawsuits in 
return for providing a health care benefit.

  Just yesterday, I met with a manufacturer from Maine who has 130 
employees. He is a good employer. He provides an excellent health care 
plan. But he told me that if he is going to be exposed to endless 
liability and endless lawsuits, then he will no longer provide that 
health insurance to his employees. Many other employers will respond 
the same way.
  So the problem is, if we pass the Kennedy bill, we will drive up the 
cost of health insurance that will make it further out of reach for 
those uninsured

[[Page S4795]]

Americans who already can't afford health insurance, and we will add to 
the number of uninsured Americans because of employers being forced to 
drop coverage. I can't imagine that that is a result we want. We should 
be seeking ways to expand access to health insurance, not imposing 
additional costs and new burdens that make it even more difficult for 
employers--particularly small businesses--to provide this important 
benefit.
  Mr. President, let me also comment on the scope of this bill. Time 
and time again, I have heard our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle say, oh, this bill doesn't protect millions of Americans. The 
fact is that every single American who is under an employer plan, under 
our legislation, would have the right to an appeals process as set 
forth in this bill. And that applies whether or not the plan is under a 
State regulation or in a State self-funded plan. That appeals right--
which is the heart of our legislation, the single most important reform 
to ensure that people get the care they need when they need it--applies 
across the board.
  Where the legislation differs is on the question of whether we should 
preempt--just wipe out--the good work that State governments have done 
in the area of patient protection. States have acted to provide 
specific consumer protections without any prod or mandate from 
Congress. In fact, 47 States have already passed legislation 
prohibiting gag clauses from being included in health insurance plans.
  Why do we need to preempt that good work? We should recognize that it 
isn't a one-size-fits-all approach, that, indeed, a health insurance 
mandate in one State may not be appropriate in another. For example, 
the State of Florida, which has a high rate of skin cancer, provides 
for direct access to a dermatologist. That isn't a big problem in my 
State. Yet we have other needs. Each State has been able to tailor its 
health insurance plan.
  Indeed, it has been States that have been responsible for the 
regulation of insurance for over 50 years. I daresay they have done a 
far better job in protecting the consumers of their States than we 
would have if we turned over the regulation of insurance to the Health 
Care Finance Administration. Do we really want to have Washington 
regulating health insurance in each of the 50 States? That is what the 
Kennedy bill would do.
  There is a better way. We should enact a Patients' Protection Bill of 
Rights this year. We should protect a bill that is like the Senate 
bill. I am confident that, given time, the conferees will accomplish 
that goal.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from 
Massachusetts. Mr. President, the significance of this debate, in my 
view, is this: The Norwood-Dingell bill--the Daschle amendment here--is 
a good bill. It would provide coverage for 161 million Americans, as 
opposed to the 48 million Americans covered by the Republican Senate 
bill. The beauty of what is happening here today is that if the Senate 
were to enact this bill, to pass this bill, we would have health care 
reform in the United States. The bill would go directly to the 
President, it would be signed, and the job would be done.
  Instead, the concern of many of us is that this is simply not going 
to happen. And we have a chance to make it happen today. I contend that 
no one should go out there and say they are for health care reform and 
not vote for a bill that has the opportunity to become a reality. That 
bill is the House-passed Norwood-Dingell bill, and we have that chance 
today.
  After the consideration of the bill on the floor last year, I went to 
California. California has the largest penetration of managed care in 
the Nation. I called together the CEOs of the big managed care 
companies and the California Medical Association. We proposed four 
things to them--four very simple things. One of them was the definition 
of ``medical necessity.''
  The Senator from Tennessee just said: It is important to get the HMOs 
out of the business of practicing medicine. That is what I tried to do 
in the debate on the floor when the Senate bill was up--to change the 
medical necessity provisions to make sure doctors decide what is 
medically necessary, not insurance companies.
  So I thought I would go to them and ask them to voluntarily make 
changes in how medical necessity is determined, in medically necessary 
drugs and in two other areas. There was a lot of discussion and several 
meetings. The bottom line is that they are unwilling to change. The 
bottom line is that they did not come forward with a plan.
  The bottom line is I believe we are going to be in this situation 
where Americans are dissatisfied with the level of managed care 
provided to them by their plans until we pass a basic law.
  What law could be more basic essentially than Norwood-Dingell? Let's 
look at what it does.
  It assures nearby emergency room treatment for emergencies. That is 
common sense.
  It provides access to specialists for patients needing specialty 
care.
  In my view, that is a no-brainer. If you need it, you should get it.
  It provides access to drugs not on the plan's formulary, if medically 
necessary.
  It provides the ability to stay with your physician at least 90 days 
or until treatment is complete if a doctor terminates his/her contract 
with your plan and you require specialized care.
  It provides coverage of the routine costs of clinical trials.
  It provides access to a clear internal and external review process 
for denial of benefits.
  It holds plans accountable in the event of death or injury.
  A key issue in this debate and reflected in several parts of the 
Daschle amendment is who decides: Is it the doctor in consultation with 
the patient or is it an HMO bureaucrat, a green eyeshade? Under this 
amendment it is the medical expert who knows the patient and who 
decides, not the plan. This means that doctors decide which drug works 
best; doctors decide which treatment is appropriate; doctors decide 
when specialty care is needed; doctors decide how long someone will 
stay in the hospital.
  For example, this amendment requires health plans that have 
formularies to cover drugs that are not on a plan's formulary, if the 
doctor believes the non-formulary drugs are medically necessary. It 
also requires plans to refer patients with a serious or complex illness 
to a specialist for care. If a patient's condition requires the use of 
a specialist that is not available through the health plan, this 
amendment requires that plans cover services, at no additional cost, 
through a non-participating specialist. Both provisions are essential 
for persons living with a life-threatening or chronic illness.
  Restoring medical decision-making to those trained to make medical 
decisions is at the heart of this debate. Doctor after doctor in my 
state talks about how their decisions are challenged, countermanded, 
second-guessed, and undermined by HMOs, to the point that they can 
hardly practice medicine.
  Another important provision says that patients can continue treatment 
with their doctors for at least 90 days if plans have terminated their 
contract. A plan must continue to cover treatment for pregnancy, life-
threatening, degenerative or disabling diseases and diseases that 
require special medical care over a prolonged period of time with the 
terminated provider.
  The amendment also requires plans to cover the routine costs of 
clinical trials, costs like blood work, physician charges and hospital 
fees. Clinical trials are research studies of new strategies for 
prevention, detection and treatment of diseases for which patients 
volunteer. These trials often involve analyzing new treatments, like 
promising new drugs, for diseases such as cancer. This provision is 
needed because a major deterrent to participation in trials is that 
insurers refuse to cover the day-to-day costs. For example, in the case 
of cancer, only 3-4 percent of adult cancer patients (40,000 people out 
of 1.2 million diagnosed) are enrolled in cancer trials.
  Another provision of the amendment would allow patients to go to the 
closest emergency room during a medical emergency without having to get 
a

[[Page S4796]]

health plan's permission first. Emergency room staff could stabilize, 
screen and evaluate patients without fear that plans will refuse to pay 
the costs.

  According to the University of California, Los Angeles, Health 
Insurance Policy Program: ``Californians are confused about where they 
should turn for help in resolving their problems and most are not 
satisfied with the resolution of their problems. There is a need for a 
clear grievance procedure and independent review of health plan 
decisions to try to prevent adverse health outcomes to the extent 
possible.''
  The Daschle amendment requires plans to have both an internal and 
external review for benefit denials. The review must be conducted and 
completed by a medical professional within 14 days or 72 hours in the 
case of an emergency. For external reviews, the reviewer must have 
medial expertise and a determination must be made within 21 days after 
receiving the request for a review. In the case of an emergency, that 
decision must be made within 72 hours.
  Senator Daschle's amendment would also allow patients to sue health 
insurance plans in state courts for denials or delays in coverage if 
the internal and external review process has been exhausted first, 
unless injury or death has occurred before the completion of the 
process. Plans complying with an external review decision would not be 
subject to punitive damages. Additionally, employers who were not 
involved in a claim decision would be exempt from such legal action. 
This provision helps patients keep their health plan accountable for 
the decisions made about their health.
  Another key issue before us is who is covered. Under this bill, all 
161 million insured Americans would be protected. This is a vast 
improvement over the Senate bill which only covers 48 million 
Americans. How can we say one group deserves protections and another 
does not?
  The words of this Californian provide an accurate and poignant 
summary of the problem. Kit Costello, president of the California 
Nurses Association, said:

       Most Americans see a confusing, expensive, unreliable and 
     often impersonal assembly of medical professionals and 
     institutions. If they see any system at all, it is one 
     devoted to maximizing profits by blocking access, reducing 
     quality and limiting spending . . . all at the expense of the 
     patient. . . . Who's in charge of my care? The average 
     American believes that health insurance companies have too 
     much influence and exert too much control over their own 
     personal care--more than their doctor, hospital, the 
     government or they themselves, sometimes more than all of 
     them combined.

  Mr. President, people should not have to fight for their health care. 
They pay for it out of their monthly paycheck. It should be there for 
them when they need it.
  Last fall, after the Senate completed consideration of the HMO bill, 
I convened a group of HMO officials and health care providers in an 
effort to address some of the complaints we were hearing from patients 
and doctors in California. They met several times early this year.
  I asked them to try to reach agreement on at least four issues.
  One, medical necessity: Include clear language in contracts between 
plans and providers on medical necessity. I suggested the language like 
that that I proposed in the Senate which defined ``medically necessary 
or appropriate'' as ``a service or benefit which is consistent with 
generally accepted principles of professional medical practice.''
  Two, payment of claims: Because at the time, 50 percent of physicians 
and 75 percent of California medical groups were reporting serious 
delays in payments by plans, I asked them to agree on a system for 
promptly notifying doctors when patients' leave plans and an assurance 
of prompt payment of claims.
  Three, low premium rates: According to a 1999 Price Waterhouse Study, 
California has one of the lowest average per member premium rates per 
month in the country ($120 monthly) in the commercial managed care 
marketplace. Of this, doctors receive around $35 for actual patient 
care. Payments in California are 40% less than those in the rest of the 
country. Over 75% of medical groups are in serious financial trouble in 
my state.
  I suggested that they develop payment rates to providers that are 
sufficient to cover the benefits provided in an enrollee's contract, 
rates that thus are actuarially sound.
  Four, formularies: Finally, physicians were telling me that it is 
difficult to find out which drugs are and are not on plans' formularies 
and that it was difficult to get exceptions from formularies for 
patients when drugs not on the formulary were medically necessary and 
more effective than those on the formulary.
  I had hoped they could work out better methods for letting doctors 
know which drugs are on the plans' formularies and to agree on a 
uniform method for allowing exceptions to formularies when nonformulary 
drugs are medically necessary.
  There were several meetings in January and February. It is now June. 
Even though there were several constructive discussions, little 
resolution was reached.
  And so, without voluntary action by the industry, legislation is all 
the more necessary.
  I hope the Senate passes this amendment today and sends it to the 
President for signature.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, what is the time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has 37 minutes; the 
Senator from Massachusetts has 34.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Vermont 7 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have been in Congress now for 25 
years. During that period of time, I have sat on dozens of conference 
committees. I am, as most people know, somewhat towards the middle of 
the political spectrum. Thus, I am trying to make sure we don't do 
something which I think would be so counterproductive to the progress 
we want to make in the health care area if we pass this amendment.
  We have made substantial progress in this conference committee. We 
are near agreement on all of the critical issues: Access, liability, 
and scope. It has not been an easy process.
  Under the guidance of Bill Frist and others, we have established for 
the first time a principle that every American is entitled to the best 
medicine. That is a new standard. It is a high standard. It is 
guaranteed when it is most needed through the process we have set up 
while the patient is ill. It is not as Norwood-Dingell would provide, 
and that is the best lawsuit after the patient is dead or suffering 
from ineffective care. Ironically, that standard which they would use 
for that is a lower standard than certainly best medicine but one which 
is generally practiced in the area.
  Those who are looking at it from a legal perspective should recognize 
that a higher standard is going to be more protective than the standard 
that is being advocated by the other side. Yet we reasonably establish 
in the present draft reasonable availability of liability through the 
courts, including even, under certain circumstances, punitive damages 
when appropriate. That is a step we have somewhat reluctantly taken, 
but we have done it in a way that I don't think in any way interferes 
with what we want to do in the bill.
  Finally, which is very important before I go into some other aspects, 
the cost of the bill that we had will be very small relative to that 
which is proposed by the opponent. It would be probably less than 1 
percent. For every 1 percent that we increase the cost over $300,000--
this came from the AFL-CIO--people lose their health insurance. We are 
looking at alternatives that go up as high as 6 percent on the other 
side, meaning almost 2 million people would lose their health care.
  I will strongly support Senator Nickles' motion to table the 
amendment offered by Senator Daschle. Under the able leadership of our 
chairman, Senator Nickles, I am committed to working with the other 
conferees from the Senate and the House of Representatives to find 
agreement on responsible legislation to regulate managed care plans. 
But any new protections cannot significantly increase the cost of 
health coverage and cause more Americans to become uninsured.
  The House-passed legislation, which Senator Kennedy is attempting to 
add to the Department of Defense reauthorization bill, mandates that 
the Health

[[Page S4797]]

Care Financing Administration enforce the new insurance standards in 
those States that decide not to adopt the Federal laws. To date, 23 
States have refused to enact one or more of the provisions contained in 
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and its 
amendments. For almost half the country, HCFA is the agency that 
consumers must turn to for help in enforcing these new Federal 
insurance mandates. The House-passed bill would continue this pattern 
and accelerate the creation of a dual system of overlapping State and 
Federal health insurance regulation that will only cause confusion for 
consumers and inefficiency for plans.
  The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) agrees with me 
on this important point. In NCSL's action policy on managed care, they 
state:

       [T]he Senate-passed version of the ``Patients' Bill of 
     Rights'' generally preserves the traditional role of States 
     as insurance regulators, and focuses most of its attention on 
     the federally regulated, self-funded ERISA plans.

  In sharp contrast to their support for the Senate bill's 
applicability, they believe the Norwood/Dingell bill: ``[W]ill largely 
preempt these important State laws and replace them with Federal laws 
that we submit the Federal Government is ill prepared to monitor and 
enforce.'' The National Conference of State Legislators goes on to say: 
``[T]he Federal Government will not be able to deliver on the promise 
and may very well prevent States from delivering on theirs regarding 
patient rights.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the full text of the 
National Conference of State Legislatures policy statement be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   Action Policy, Managed Care Reform

       NCSL supports both the establishment of needed consumer 
     protections for individuals receiving care through managed 
     care entities. We also support the development of public and 
     private purchasing cooperatives and other innovative ventures 
     that permit individuals and groups to obtain affordable 
     health coverage. We strongly oppose preemption of state 
     insurance laws and efforts to expand the ERISA preemption. 
     The appropriate role of the federal government is to: (1) 
     ensure that individuals in federally-regulated plans enjoy 
     protections similar to those already available in most 
     states; (2) establish a floor of protections that all 
     individuals should enjoy; and (3) to provide adequate 
     resources for monitoring and enforcing federally-regulated 
     provisions. The Senate-passed version of the ``Patient Bill 
     of Rights,'' generally preserves the traditional role of 
     states as insurance regulators, and focuses most of its 
     attention on the federally regulated, self-funded ERISA 
     plans. Individuals who receive their health care through 
     these plans have not benefited from the state laws enacted to 
     provide needed protections for individuals who receive care 
     through managed care entities. It is appropriate and 
     necessary for the Congress to address the needs of these 
     individuals.
       States have taken the lead in providing needed regulation 
     of managed care entities. The reforms at the state level have 
     enjoyed bi-partisan support and have been successful. If 
     states had the ability to provide these protections to people 
     who receive their health care benefits from self-funded ERISA 
     plans, we would surely have done so. We have asked for the 
     privilege on many occasions.
       Today we see federal legislation that will largely preempt 
     these important state laws and replace them with federal laws 
     that we submit the federal government is ill-prepared to 
     monitor and enforce. None of them would provide additional 
     resources to the U.S. Department of Labor or to the U.S. 
     Department of Health and Human Services to hire and train 
     staff to implement the many complex provisions of these 
     bills.


 preemption of state laws and state regulation of managed care entities

       It is widely believed that the pending legislation creates 
     a federal floor and would not preempt state laws that are 
     more protective of consumers. We are not certain that is 
     true. Unless state legislatures adopt legislation that 
     mirrors the federal legislation, state insurance 
     commissioners would not be authorized to continue to regulate 
     managed care entities under any preempted state laws. In come 
     cases ironically, state insurance commissioners would be 
     unable to enforce existing state law that would have afforded 
     these same individuals needed protections. As a result, after 
     passage of the federal legislation, the regulation of managed 
     care entities could be largely a federal affair. Again, we 
     believe the current federal infrastructure for the oversight 
     and enforcement of health insurance regulations is 
     inadequate. The federal government will not be able to 
     deliver on the promise and may very well prevent states 
     from delivering on theirs regarding patients rights.


                  access to health insurance proposals

       NCSL strongly opposes proposals that exempt association 
     health plans (AHPs), Health Marts and certain multiple 
     employer welfare arrangements (MEWAs) from critical state 
     insurance standards. These proposals would permit more small 
     employers to escape state regulation and oversight through an 
     expansion of the ERISA preemption. States have tailored their 
     health care reforms to fit local health insurance markets and 
     to address the concerns of local consumers.
       The impact on federal insurance reforms. The federal 
     government, through the enactment of the Health Insurance 
     Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), made an 
     effort to stabilize and improve consumer protections (through 
     state regulation) of these markets. Enactment of AHP/MEWA 
     provisions in any form would undermine these efforts. We are 
     particularly concerned about: (1) the impact on state small 
     group and individual insurance markets; and (2) the 
     opportunity inadequate regulation provides for fraud and 
     abuse. These concerns are in addition to our larger concerns 
     about the ability of the federal government to adequately 
     regulate an expanded health insurance market.
       The impact on state insurance markets. Recent state reforms 
     have guaranteed small employers access to health insurance 
     and have made coverage more affordable for many small 
     businesses by creating large insurance rating pools. These 
     large pools assure that all small firms can obtain coverage 
     at reasonable rates, regardless of the health of their 
     employees. The success of these state small group reforms, 
     however, depends on the creation of a broad base of coverage. 
     By expanding the exemption provided in ERISA, the House-
     passed bill would shrink the state-regulated insurance market 
     and threaten the viability of the markets and any reforms 
     associated with these markets. These proposals undermine 
     HIPAA by creating incentives for healthy groups to leave the 
     state-regulated small group market, only to return when 
     someone becomes ill. This incentive for adverse selection 
     would be disastrous, compromising state reforms and raising 
     health care costs for many small firms and individuals.
       Fraud and abuse. MEWAs have become notorious for their 
     history of fraudulent activities. The House-passed bill would 
     undermine federal legislation that specifically gave states 
     the authority to oversee MEWAs. A policy adopted because 
     federal regulation had proven ineffective in preventing 
     abuses. Under the proposed legislation, many MEWAs could 
     become exempt from state regulation by becoming federally 
     certified as Association Health Plans (AHPs). The proposal 
     does not provide sufficient protections for employees and 
     employers against victimization by unscrupulous plan 
     sponsors.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, Vermont has passed many of the consumer 
protections contained in the two bills. However, it has not enacted 
all. As Vermont's employers struggle with 20-percent to 30-percent 
premium increases, and the State adjusts to the departure of a major 
carrier, the Governor and the State legislature have agreed to a 
moratorium on the passage of additional consumer protections. Under the 
House approach, the Vermont legislature's decision would be overridden, 
and they would be forced to pass additional congressional insurance 
mandates. We in Congress cannot be working at cross-purposes with 
respect to our States, which are best positioned to understand the 
needs of the local health care markets. This is not an issue of States' 
rights--it is an issue of who is best situated to determine what's 
right for our States.
  On Sunday, House and Senate Republican staffers offered new proposals 
on managed care legislation in the key areas of liability, scope, and 
access. The offer would provide for a new Federal cause of action in 
ERISA to allow for lawsuits for failure to comply with the decision of 
the independent medical reviewer.
  On the issue of scope, the Republican conferees offer the new 
protections would be extended to ``all 193 million Americans covered by 
health insurance.'' We believe that this should be achieved through a 
combination of Federal and qualified State protections that takes into 
account a consideration of market composition and fee for services 
issues. We have yet to hear back from the Democrats on our offer.
  I don't underestimate the difficulty of our task--especially in the 
three critical areas of the external appeals process, the appropriate 
remedies when the external appeals process fails, and the scope of the 
legislation.
  Fortunately, we can, I believe, provide the key protections that 
consumers want at a minimal cost and without disruption of coverage--if 
we apply these protections responsibly and where they are needed--
without adding significant new costs, increasing litigation, and micro-
managing health plans.

[[Page S4798]]

  Our goal is to give Americans the protections they want and need in a 
package that they can afford and that we can enact. This is why I hope 
we will be successful in our efforts to develop a conference committee 
report that provides a true Patients' Bill of Rights, which can be 
passed and signed into law by the President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from West Virginia 
3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from 
Massachusetts. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  The American Medical Association says:

       The AMA strongly supports attaching the Norwood-Dingell 
     patients' of rights bill to the DOD reauthorization bill. 
     Patients and physicians have worked for more than half a 
     decade on a bill that protects patients. Now is the time to 
     make it law.

  They further say:

       The Republican counterproposal put forward on June 4 was 
     unacceptable making it little better than the HMO protection 
     act passed by the Senate last summer. The bill was a sham.

  That is the American Medical Association.
  I listened to my colleagues, all of whom I have enormous affection 
for, and they know I respect them. I work with them on many things. As 
they describe the conference process, I can't really believe what I am 
hearing, because I have been in that conference. What I am hearing on 
the floor and what I heard in the conference is two entirely different 
worlds.
  I would like to expand on that, but I don't have the time. But we 
have asked for proposals. We haven't gotten proposals. We should not be 
in the business of suing HMOs or corporations. We said we wouldn't do 
that. Senator Kennedy said it many times. Congressman Dingell said it 
many times. If you want to write the language which says that 
corporations cannot be sued under this bill, we will accept the 
language. We don't want to sue corporations unless they themselves 
intervene in the decision which produces death or injury. What could be 
clearer than that?

  To listen to the argument from this side, one would think it was 
something entirely different. This is reduced to a political 
discussion. As Democrats, we feel passionately about the Patients' Bill 
of Rights and want 161 million Americans or more to be covered by this, 
rather than the 48 million which would be covered by the present Senate 
bill. We want them, first, to have coverage if the bill passes; and 
second, if the bill doesn't pass, to know so that there could be 
created a ground swell for future action over who is accountable. It is 
accountability not only for HMOs, but it is accountability for 
Congresspeople on both sides.
  Our Patients' Bill of Rights--basically, the one that has been 
introduced which I urge my colleague to support--is incredibly sound 
and sensible. It gives people the kind of protection they want.
  Senator Frist understands well that a child needs a pediatric 
cardiologist; an adult needs an adult cardiologist. An adult's fist is 
not the same as a child's fist. They require different kinds of 
surgery. In the bill the other side proposes, that would not be 
possible. They could not go out of their plan to get that kind of help. 
In our bill they could.
  That is an example of the kind of attention we placed in this 
amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill we have before the Senate. 
It is much better for the American people.
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Wyoming, a member 
of our conference who also has additionally been a small businessman 
and former mayor.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am disturbed at this attempt to derail a 
conference committee that has been working months on end. If this bill 
were easy, we would have done it in a few minutes. If this bill were 
easy, both versions would be the same.
  We have a system of government that is based on both bodies 
considering, to their greatest capability, every problem. When 
legislation is different on one side from legislation on the other 
side, there is a conference committee. This conference committee has 
probably put more time into trying to resolve the issues, rather than 
to jam one side against the other, trying to get an understanding of 
what is trying to be achieved and reach a conclusion that incorporates 
both bills. There has been a lot of progress.
  The amendment before the Senate does not include the compromises that 
have been made to date, some very important ones. This bill has a big 
city approach to it. Wyoming doesn't have any big cities. Our biggest 
city is 50,008 people. I have one city in Wyoming, the biggest city in 
a county the size of Connecticut, and they don't have a hospital or 
emergency facilities. They drive themselves in an emergency an hour to 
get to a doctor.
  What works in Massachusetts won't work in Wyoming. The bill has to 
serve both areas. It has to serve the cities and the rural areas. We 
have to have compromises to do that. We can't force one method on 
everybody. That is what happens if we go to the bill that the House 
passed. We have been getting some things in that meet the needs of the 
small retailer, that meet the needs of the small communities that are 
isolated. We have some things in the bill that take care of the 
patients.
  It isn't just going to effect the small businesses. My staff was 
talking to Pitney Bowes. Their health care person is not just an 
average guy. He was the personal physician to President Ford. Now he is 
administering one of their numerous health plans. He has said if the 
Norwood-Dingell version passes, they will have to eliminate the kind of 
health care they have. That is a big employer with a lot more 
capability than the small employers.
  We cannot derail a process that is working, a process that worked for 
our country for years and years and years, one that solves difficult 
problems such as this, one that brings into consideration all of the 
parts of this vast country--not just a solution that a few people in 
Washington came up with. We have to get the opinions of the people of 
this country included in the bill.
  Mr. President, I'm more than a little surprised that in response to a 
first-time-ever Republican offer on a Patients' Bill of Rights to 
expand liability and scope, the Democrats have walked away from the 
table. That's an incredible counter-productive reaction to a giant step 
towards compromise. This conference has been long and time-consuming, 
but it is working. There is not a single reason why we should abandon a 
process that is working. Yet, politics is being invited in, and I think 
the majority of us are here to highlight why that's such a terrible 
mistake. Conference committees are an important part of process--for 
our country. It should be. For example, the biggest town in just one 
Wyoming county--which is the size of Connecticut--doesn't have a 
hospital, doesn't have an emergency room.
  Among the handful of principles that are fundamental to any true 
protection for health care consumers, probably the most important is 
allowing states to continue in their role as the primary regulator of 
health insurance.
  This is a principle which has been recognized--and respected--for 
more than 50 years. In 1945, Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 
a clear acknowledgment by the Federal Government that States are indeed 
the most appropriate regulators of health insurance. It was 
acknowledged that States are better able to understand their consumers' 
needs and concerns. It was determined that States are more responsive, 
more effective enforcers of consumer protections.
  As recently as last year, this fact was re-affirmed by the General 
Accounting Office. GAO testified before the Health, Education Labor, 
and Pensions Committee, saying, ``In brief, we found that many states 
have responded to managed care consumers' concerns about access to 
health care and information disclosure. However, they often differ in 
their specific approaches, in scope and in form.''
  Wyoming has its own unique set of health care needs and concerns. 
Every state does. For example, despite our elevation, we don't need the 
mandate regarding skin cancer that Florida has on the books. My 
favorite illustration of just how crazy a nationalized system of health 
care mandates would be comes from my own time in the Wyoming 
Legislature. It's about a mandate that I voted for and still support 
today. You see, unlike in Massachusetts or California, for example, in 
Wyoming we

[[Page S4799]]

have few health care providers; and their numbers virtually dry up as 
you head out of town. So, we passed an any willing provider law that 
requires health plans to contract with any provider in Wyoming who's 
willing to do so. While that idea may sound strange to my ears in any 
other context, it was the right thing to do for Wyoming. But I know 
it's not the right thing to do for Massachusetts or California, so I 
wouldn't dream of asking them to shoulder that kind of mandate for our 
sake when we can simply, reasonably, apply it within our borders.
  As consumers, we should be downright angry at how some of our elected 
officials are responding to our concerns about the quality of our 
health care and the alarming problem of the uninsured in this country.
  It is being suggested that all of our local needs will be magically 
met by stomping on the good work of the states through the imposition 
of an expanded, unenforceable federal bureaucracy. It is being 
suggested that the American consumer would prefer to dial a 1-800-
number to nowhere versus calling their State Insurance Commissioner, a 
real person whom they're likely to see in the grocery store after 
church on Sundays.
  As for the uninsured population in this country, carelessly slapping 
down a massive new bureaucracy on our states does nothing more than 
squelch their efforts to create innovative and flexible ways to get 
more people insured. We should be doing everything we can to encourage 
and support these efforts by states. We certainly shouldn't be throwing 
up roadblocks.
  And how about enforcement of the minority's proposal?
  Well, almost one year ago this body adopted an amendment that stated, 
``It would be inappropriate to set federal health insurance standards 
that not only duplicate the responsibility of the 50 State insurance 
departments but that also would have to be enforced by the Health Care 
Financing Administration if a State fails to enact the standard.''
  Yet here we are one year later where, not only is it being suggested 
that we trample the traditional, overwhelmingly appropriate authority 
of the states with a three-fold expansion of the federal reach into our 
nation's health care, they still insist on having HCFA be in charge. 
HCFA, the agency that leaves patients screaming, has doctors quitting 
Medicare, and, lest we not forget, the agency in charge as the Medicare 
program plunges towards bankruptcy.
  And guess what, it looks even worse for consumers under HCFA's 
``protection,'' according to a new report released by GAO on March 31st 
of this year. The model the Democrats are supporting for implementing 
the Patients Bill of Rights is the Health Insurance Portability and 
Accountability Act, affectionately known as HIPAA. I quote from the 
report: ``Nearly four years after HIPAA's enactment, HCFA continues to 
be in the early stages of fully identifying were federal enforcement 
will be required.'' Regarding HCFA's role in also enforcing additional 
federal benefits mandates that Congress has amended to HIPAA, the GAO 
states, ``HCFA is responsible for directly enforcing HIPAA and related 
standards for carriers in states that do not. In this role, HCFA must 
assume many of the responsibilities undertaken by state insurance 
regulators, such as responding to consumers' inquiries and complaints, 
reviewing carriers' policy forms and practices, and imposing civil 
penalties on noncomplying carriers.'' And then, the GAO report reveals 
that HCFA has finally managed to take a baby step: ``HCFA has assumed 
direct regulatory functions, such as policy reviews, in only the three 
states that voluntarily notified HCFA of their failure to pass HIPAA-
conforming legislation more than 2 years ago.''
  Is this supposed to give consumers comfort? First we should usurp 
their local electoral rights or their ability to influence the 
appointment of their state insurance commissioner and then offer up 
this agency as an alternative? I'm not sure I could find a single 
Wyomingite to clap me on the back for this kind of public service.
  I could go on at length about the very real dangers of empowering 
HCFA to swoop into the private market, with its embarrassing record of 
patient protection and enforcement of quality standards. Such as how it 
took 10 years for HCFA to implement a 1987 law establishing new nursing 
home standards intended to improve the quality of care for some of our 
most vulnerable patients. But I think the case has already been 
crystallized in the minds of many constituents: ``enable us to access 
quality health care, but don't cripple us in the process.''
  The next, equally important issue is that of exposing employers to a 
new cause of action under a Patients' Bill of Rights. Employers 
voluntarily provide coverage for 133 million people in this country. 
That will no longer be the case if we authorize lawsuits against them 
for providing such coverage. This is basic math. If you add 133 million 
more people to the 46 million people already uninsured, I'd say we have 
a crisis on our hands. In my mind, a simpler decision doesn't exist. We 
should not be suing employers.
  Mr. President. Let me close by saying that the conference has worked 
in incredible good faith, logging more than 400 hours and counting. We 
have come to conceptual agreement on a bipartisan, bicameral basis on 
more than half of the common patient protections. We have come to 
bipartisan, bicameral conceptual agreement on the crown jewel of both 
bills--the independent, external medical review process. Most 
dramatically, the bicameral Republicans have offered a compromise on 
liability and scope, to which the Democrats have given no formal, 
substantive response, just rhetoric and political jabs in the press. It 
is absolutely bad faith to have done so. I think it would be 
regrettable if these continued public relations moves torpedo what, so 
far, has produced almost everything we need for a far-reaching, 
substantive conference product. I encourage all of my colleagues to 
take the high road and support the legislative process our forefathers 
had in mind, versus a public relations circus.

  Let me share an employer story. Here's another employer ``real life'' 
story. Within the last hour, my staff was on a conference call with the 
Medical Director of Pitney Bowes, a large employer that self-insures 
and self administers a Cadillac-style health plan for more than 23,000 
employees and retirees. All of my colleagues should take note that this 
is not just any private citizen. Dr. Mahoney was the personal physician 
to President Ford. Now he's administering one of numerous health plans 
that this amendment threatens to disolve.
  Everything from on-site medical centers to on-site fitness centers to 
the educational seminars on skin cancer and stress management that 
Pitney Bowes currently offers would be jeopardized. They've said the 
worst case result would be terminate the employer plan altogether. That 
sentiment has been echoed from countless other employers, from IBM to 
caterpillar to mom-and-pop shops.
  I urge my colleagues not to crush plans like Pitney Bowes over 
politics.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I thank all of my colleagues who are 
involved in this conference and thank them for their hard work and 
certainly defer to all of them about the specifics of what has occurred 
in the conference and the work they have done there.
  There are some specific issues about which I am concerned. First, it 
is important for the American people to understand that the Patients' 
Bill of Rights means nothing unless those rights are enforceable. Under 
any of these bills that are being considered, there are only two 
enforcement mechanisms. Without those mechanisms working, without them 
being effective, the rights don't exist because the insurance companies 
can do anything they want and can never be held responsible for what 
they do.
  There are two enforcement mechanisms. First, if we have a real and 
meaningful independent appeals process, that is an enforcement 
mechanism. Second, we do for health insurance companies the same thing 
we do for every single American listening to this debate--when they 
hurt somebody, we hold them responsible.
  There has been a lot of argument about lawyers, lawsuits, and HMOs. 
Why in the world are HMOs and health insurance companies entitled to be 
treated any differently than the rest of

[[Page S4800]]

us? When we walk out the door and with our automobile or some other way 
cause injury or death to somebody, we are responsible for that. 
Everybody listening to this debate can be held responsible. Why is the 
health insurance company entitled to be treated differently? Are they a 
special cut above the rest of us?
  We need real and meaningful enforcement mechanisms. The appeals 
provision that came out of the Senate was not truly independent because 
the insurance company had control over the people who made the appeals 
decision. Something has to be done about that; Otherwise, there is no 
independent appeal. That issue, as I understand it, has not been 
resolved. If it is not resolved, the appeals process means nothing. It 
is not independent.
  The other issue I want to talk about is holding HMOs accountable for 
what they do or do not do, treating them as every other American 
citizen, every other American business. It is important to not pay too 
much attention to the rhetoric. There is lots of rhetoric in this 
debate. We are creating a cause of action, a right to sue, and we just 
want to exempt employers from that.
  Unfortunately, the use of language makes a huge difference in whether 
the patient really has a right or not. Let me give an example. This is 
language that was proposed recently in the conference from the 
Republicans about creating a cause of action:

       A new Federal statutory cause of action would be created in 
     ERISA to allow for lawsuits for failure to comply with the 
     decision of the independent medical reviewer.

  In other words, no matter what the insurance company does, as long as 
they do what the independent reviewer says they have to do, they can 
never be held responsible.
  Here is the problem with that: A patient goes to the hospital. They 
need emergency medical care. They call the HMO. The HMO says we will 
not cover it; we will not pay for it. The patient dies as a result or 
is seriously injured for the rest of their life. Three days later, 
after an appeal is filed, some independent reviewer says, of course 
this was covered by the policy. So the insurer says: Now I will comply; 
I will do what the independent reviewer says.
  As long as they do that, under this provision, they cannot be held 
responsible.
  The problem is they did the damage when they made the initial 
decision. If they make an absolutely egregious decision, for whatever 
reason, no matter how bad their conduct, we are not going to cover this 
care. Then, if 4 or 5 days later they are reversed by an independent 
review, they cannot be held responsible for that original decision no 
matter what the damage is, no matter how irreversible it is.

  It also creates a natural incentive to deny coverage, because, No. 1, 
if they deny coverage, the chances are the patient won't appeal; No. 2, 
if they deny coverage and they are reversed 4 days later, there are no 
consequences. There is absolutely no reason, no financial reason 
whatsoever, for the insurance company to do anything other than, when 
in doubt, deny coverage because we can never be held responsible for 
that decision.
  Let me give a couple of very specific examples. A patient with adult 
onset diabetes has been on insulin, injectable insulin, his entire 
life. The insurance company--this is a real example, real-life 
example----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time yielded to the Senators has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 2 more minutes.
  Mr. EDWARDS. The insurance company says: You can take oral 
medication; you don't need insulin. He appeals. During the time the 
appeal is being considered, 3, 5, 7 days, he has a stroke and goes 
blind.
  Then the independent review says: Of course, he was entitled to keep 
his insulin. So the insurance company says: All right, we will provide 
insulin now.
  Now we have a 55-year-old man who has had a stroke; he is blind; he 
cannot work anymore; he cannot care for his family. Where does he go? 
Who is going to help his family? The insurance company cannot be held 
responsible for what they did, not under this proposal. This language 
matters. It is critically important, what the language says.
  A young boy, Ethan Bedrick, with cerebral palsy, 5 years old, all his 
doctors say he needs to have physical therapy, every one of them. The 
insurance company says he doesn't need it. They appeal. The independent 
reviewer happens to be somebody who has absolutely no experience with 
children with cerebral palsy. This is a real-life example. So he says: 
The insurance company is right; we are not going to give this 5-year 
old child with cerebral palsy physical therapy.
  Where does he go? The independent reviewer, who knows nothing about 
children with cerebral palsy, has denied coverage. The insurance 
company has denied coverage, coverage for which his parents have been 
paying for 20 years. So where does he go? For the rest of his life he 
has cerebral palsy. He is contracted, bound up, can't get the daily 
physical therapy he needs, and he has nowhere to go. There is 
absolutely no remedy for Ethan Bedrick.
  I say to my colleagues in the Senate, what happens to this little 5-
year-old boy when this happens? He cannot go to court, not under this 
proposal. He cannot go anywhere. The insurance company has cut him off, 
and he has been cut off from the care he needs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remain 27 minutes to the Senator from 
Oklahoma, 24 to the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the Senator from North Carolina is 
certainly one of the finer trial lawyers who has come to this body in a 
long time. I simply note, on at least two of his examples, they were 
inaccurate. First, if it was an emergency-room situation, there could 
be no denial because under our bill emergency rooms have to be covered; 
and second, in the instance he just described about the child, which 
was a compelling incident, unfortunately he failed to mention in our 
bill we require that the reviewer be a medical person who has expertise 
in the discipline and in the area where the person is claiming to have 
received injury.
  The point I do think has been made by the Senator from North 
Carolina, and has been made by a number of other Senators on the other 
side of the aisle, is that employers will be sued. Employers will be 
sued under the bill that is being brought forward by the Democratic 
membership. That is a serious problem.
  We put an offer out, an offer to the other side, which was fairly 
substantive. It may have been two pages, but the other side understood 
there was a lot of documentation behind it, and in fact there were 
actually months of negotiation relative to the appeal process behind 
that offer. In that offer, we said employers cannot be sued. Why? 
Because when you start suing employers, employers drop out. They start 
creating uninsured individuals. We have already heard from a number of 
major employers, and testimony has been given here today by Senators 
who represent States where major employers have informed them that they 
are going to drop insurance if they start being sued. We know small 
employers will do that in droves because they cannot afford the risk of 
putting their businesses through a lawsuit over medical insurance.
  So this is not about suing HMOs, I say to those on the other side of 
the aisle, this is about opening up lawsuits to everybody, not only 
against HMOs, which by the way we allow to occur in our bill which was 
admitted to by the sign that was put up--we allow HMOs to be sued--but, 
more important, it is about suing employers.
  Look at this chart. This chart is a reflection of the various 
elements of what is essentially the bill the Democratic Party has 
brought to the floor today. It is so convoluted and so complex that, 
literally, you would have to spend probably a month just figuring it 
out, just to figure out what it all means.
  That is one of the reasons this conference has taken so long, because 
we have been trying to sort through all the different complications. I 
point out, at almost every element in this chart, every one of these 
white lines, every one of these crossing lines, every

[[Page S4801]]

one of these agencies that is being created, every one of these 
decision processes being placed upon the community, there is a lawsuit 
waiting to happen under the Democratic bill.
  This is the attorneys annuity act. The direction the trial bar is 
going to go is to go after the employers; they are the ones who will be 
at risk. As a result, you will drive many people into an uninsured 
status because employers will stop running their insurance programs in 
droves. I mean literally millions of people.
  Why would you want to do that? I hate to be cynical about this, but I 
honestly think, if you look at the process this administration has 
pursued over the last 8 years, they are trying to continually raise the 
cost of insurance, health insurance, in this country and make it less 
and less affordable, so more and more people become uninsured, so at 
some point they can make an argument--which they have already made--
that they have to nationalize the health care system in order to pick 
up all the people they have created as uninsured.
  It is the old orphan argument. You know, the person who killed his 
parents goes to court and claims he should receive clemency because he 
is an orphan.
  The fact is, what the Democratic proposal does, and what the result 
of the administration proposal has been consistently, is to create more 
and more uninsured and then claim: Oh, my goodness, look at all these 
uninsured. We have to nationalize the system so we can cover them all. 
In the context of this bill specifically, however, the game plan is to 
create a whole new activity for the bar association, suing employers 
left and right.
  There is a law firm up in New England which represents Car Talk. They 
are called Dewey, Cheatum and Howe. Today, they have about three people 
working for them, according to Click and Clack, the Tappet brothers, 
who work at Car Talk Plaza. But I will tell you something. If this bill 
passes, they are going to give up automobile insurance and they are 
going to go into suing companies, suing businesses, suing employers who 
happen to supply health insurance to their people. They are going to 
add probably 20 or 30 or 40 new attorneys.
  So Dewey, Cheatum and Howe is going to just keep on going and going 
and expanding, because they will have received an annuity under this 
bill--not an annuity to sue HMOs, because that is not really in contest 
anymore; we have already put that on the table. It will be an annuity 
to sue employers. As a result, not only will there be a heck of a lot 
of lawyers working at Dewey, Cheatum and Howe; there will be a lot more 
people in this country who don't have insurance, and then we will hear 
from this administration, from Vice President Gore: My goodness, look 
at all the uninsured--who were created by this bill we just passed--we 
will have to nationalize the system. And then we will end up with a 
system that really doesn't work.

  We put on the table some fairly substantive and very good proposals 
which have come from months of work. I hope the other side, rather than 
try to politically posture during this period, will take a hard look at 
them, in the area of scope, the area of access, the area of appeals, 
and in the area of lawsuits and liability, and that we can get back to 
the business of negotiating this conference rather than to the politics 
of this debate.
  Mr. President, I yield any time I have remaining back to the 
Republican leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield to the Senator from North Carolina 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I say to my colleague who just argued 
about employers, that is another example it is so critical we look 
specifically to the language and not the rhetoric.
  Our bill at page 245 specifically exempts employers from any 
liability unless they intervene in the process of making decisions 
about claims. Period. If all they do is buy health insurance, which is 
what 99 percent of certainly small employers do, they cannot be held 
responsible. On the other hand, if they decide they are going to engage 
in the business of deciding what claims are going to be denied, like 
General Motors or a big company that runs its own plan, then they ought 
to be held responsible. The majority of employers cannot be held 
responsible at all unless they intervene.
  Second, Ethan Bedrick, a 5-year-old boy, is a real-life example. His 
claim was denied by the independent reviewer. If the language we have 
been talking about becomes law, we will not have a real Patients' Bill 
of Rights, and Ethan has nowhere to go. He cannot go to court. He does 
not have any other appeal. The reality is people make mistakes. A 5-
year-old boy who has a lifetime of needed care needs a place to go.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time yielded to the Senator has expired. 
Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if this was a dance contest, I say to the 
majority party: You win. I have never seen a shuffle like this. We are 
not stalling, they say, and yet this conference committee has had more 
than six months to reach an agreement and there has been no movement. 
Do not take it from me, take it from Dr. Norwood, a Republican 
Congressman from the State of Georgia. He says:

       It is impossible to take this conference process seriously.

  That is from a Republican.
  While this Congress fiddles, people die. Yes, they die. Senator Reid 
and I had a hearing in Nevada. A mother named Susan Roe spoke up at 
this hearing about her 16-year-old son, Christopher. Christopher is now 
dead. He died October 12, 1999. He had leukemia. Chris's pediatric 
oncologist recommended that he receive a bone marrow transplant, his 
only hope for long-term survival. But before Chris could receive a bone 
marrow transplant, his cancer needed to go into remission. Chris's 
oncologist felt that the only drug available that would help him 
achieve remission was a Phase III investigational drug known as B43-
PAP. However, this treatment he needed for a chance at life was denied 
him.
  At the hearing, Susan held up Christopher's picture and told us, 
through tears, how, as her son lay gravely ill, he looked at her and 
said: Mom, I just don't understand how they could do this to a kid.
  Yes, people die while this Congress fiddles. This debate is about 
whether there should be a Patients' Bill of Rights. This amendment 
says, among other things, that every patient has a right to know all of 
their medical options, not just the cheapest. If you need to go to an 
emergency room for care, you have a right to get it.
  If you stand with patients, you will support this amendment. This 
legislation ought to have been passed last year, but the fact is, it is 
locked in conference. There is a giant stall going on. The only 
difference between this conference and a glacier is that a glacier at 
least moves an inch or two a year. The Senator from South Dakota and 
the Senator from Massachusetts and others have every right and 
responsibility to bring this proposal to the floor of the Senate 
because we insist that this Congress take seriously the need to pass a 
Patients' Bill of Rights.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Arkansas 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, as a member of the Armed Services 
Committee, I am deeply disappointed that this nongermane amendment is 
being offered on this very important bill. As a member of the 
conference committee, I am very disappointed it has been described and 
depicted in the way it has by the Democrats today.
  I have never seen a group of my colleagues work as hard as the 
members of this conference committee have for the last few months. Over 
400 hours have been logged by staff and members in meetings trying to 
negotiate very tough and very difficult issues. These are tough issues, 
and there are big differences between the House and the Senate. There 
has been enormous

[[Page S4802]]

movement, and most of the movement has been on behalf of Republican 
Senators who have made compromises and concessions to move this bill 
forward. There has been no stall. One does not stall a bill by spending 
the kind of time and energy we have seen expended on this bill.
  In reference to the Kennedy amendment that has been offered today, we 
spent a week debating this issue. One of the biggest problems I see 
with the Kennedy bill is that all of the access provisions have been 
removed. Even the access provisions we saw in the Dingell-Norwood bill 
have been removed. There are none of the means by which more people can 
get insurance.
  The only access left in this bill is access to the lawyer, and there 
is plenty of access to the lawyer and plenty of access to lawsuits. 
That is the real purpose of why we have seen this brought forward, to 
provide a whole new realm of litigation for trial lawyers.
  I want to give one particular example, a company in my State. I do 
not mention it particularly because it is from my State, but it happens 
to be the largest employer in America, and that is the Wal-Mart 
Corporation. It sounds good: Let's sue Wal-Mart, big, bad Wal-Mart; 
let's sue corporations.
  Let's put it in practical terms. They have 900,000 employees in the 
United States. Forty percent of them chose voluntarily to go under the 
Wal-Mart health plan. There are about 10 percent in HMOs and many are 
insured by their spouses who are employed in other places.
  Those 40 percent represent 700,000 Americans in this one company who 
receive their health care through Wal-Mart. The 10 percent who are in 
HMOs pay three to four times more in premiums. It costs three to four 
times more than those who are under the Wal-Mart plan.
  Recently, they surveyed all the employees in the Wal-Mart plan. 
Ninety-five percent expressed satisfaction, but more significant, not 
one of them mentioned they wished they had a right to sue their 
employer. Not one of them.
  I want to read what they said in a letter. We met with them off the 
floor a few moments ago. This is what they said in a letter:

       Our concern is that unavoidable litigation costs will 
     increase health care costs and in turn increase health care 
     premiums.

  There is no doubt about that.

       Depending upon cost, we will be forced to increase health 
     insurance premiums, reduce benefits, or shift associates in 
     health maintenance organizations.

  They are going to take care of their associates. Frankly, they said 
most are going to be forced into HMOs that cost three to four times 
more than the Wal-Mart health plan. If it costs three to four times 
more, literally hundreds of thousands of employees in this one company 
alone will be faced with making the decision they cannot pay the 
premiums or a portion of their premiums and will be pushed into the 
ranks of the uninsured. That is going to be the intended or unintended 
consequence of the Kennedy bill if it is adopted.
  The plain truth is, Democrats want to get rid of employer-sponsored 
health insurance. Mr. President, 103 million Americans receive health 
care through their employers, and it will take one lawsuit with an 
egregious award to force employers to drop their health care and add 
their employees to the ranks of the unemployed.
  Senate Republicans are dead serious about producing a bill out of 
this conference and one that puts patients first, not trial lawyers 
first.
  The Kennedy amendment is in bad faith. The question is, Do you want 
an issue or do you want a law? We can produce a bill that can become 
law and protect millions of Americans, but this is too important to do 
it quickly instead of doing it right. We want to do it right. I reserve 
the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, it is with mixed feelings that I stand in 
support of this amendment. I am a member of the conference committee on 
the Patients' Bill of Rights. When we began the conference, I had high 
and great hopes for this because my colleagues on the Republican side 
told us how committed they were to meaningful HMO reform. Let us look 
at the history and the record.
  This passed the Senate almost a year ago, in July of 1999. It passed 
the House in October. The first meeting we had was on March 2 of this 
year, and we conducted no business. Then there was another meeting on 
March 9 that lasted a little while. Not much was done. Then we had two 
more reduced meetings, not of the entire conference but just a few 
members of the conference behind closed doors in Senator Nickles' 
office off the floor. There were four meetings. We have heard about 400 
hours and all this hard work. Four meetings? That is tough work.
  Maybe they have been talking with each other for 400 hours. I do not 
know. It reminds me of a story about a car stuck in a snowbank. The guy 
spends 10 hours in the car spinning the wheels going nowhere. Someone 
shows up and he says: I spent 10 hours trying to get my car out of the 
snowbank. He is sitting there gunning the gas pedal, spinning the 
wheels, and going nowhere. If he had just gotten out of the car with a 
shovel, he would have been out of there.
  That is what this conference committee is doing; it is spinning its 
wheels. Since we started meeting, we finalized agreement on two 
provisions--out of 22 in disagreement, 2 provisions.
  These were noncontroversial provisions to which both sides easily 
agreed. The first was on access to pediatric care. That took about 30 
seconds to decide. The next issue was provider nondiscrimination. That 
was identical in both the House and the Senate bills. That is what we 
have agreed on. That is all we have to show for 400 hours? Four hundred 
hours, that is what we have to show for it?
  As I said, we are spinning our wheels. Slowly, over time, I have come 
to the reluctant conclusion that our Republican Senate colleagues are 
not serious. They do not truly want a Patients' Bill of Rights. But I 
believe it is critical that we pass meaningful, bipartisan legislation 
this year. They did it in the House, and they showed it can be done in 
a bipartisan fashion.
  Mr. President, 160 million of our family members, friends, neighbors, 
and children are paying good money for health care with no guarantee of 
proper and appropriate treatment. We all know too many stories about 
patients who cannot see their doctor in a timely manner, who cannot get 
access to the specialists they need, patients who could not get the 
coverage for the type of care they thought was covered under their 
plan.
  It is very simple: Insurance either fulfills its promises or it 
doesn't. We are hearing enough to know in too many cases it does not. 
Employers and patients pay good money for health care coverage, only to 
find that the expected coverage evaporates at the time they need it.
  So we have a choice to make here, a choice between real or illusory 
protections, a choice between ensuring care for millions of Americans 
or ensuring the profit margins of the managed care industry.
  The Norwood-Dingell bill, the amendment before us, passed on a 
bipartisan vote in the House. It is commonsense patient protections by 
which the managed care plans must abide. Over 300 organizations 
representing patients, consumers, doctors, nurses, women, children, 
people with disabilities, and small businesses support the Norwood-
Dingell bill.
  Unfortunately, I cannot help but think that if Members of Congress--
Senators sitting right here in this room today--were in the same health 
care boat as the average American family, this bill not only would have 
been made law, it would have been made law years ago.
  We have all the protections that are in the Patients' Bill of Rights. 
It is good enough for us, but it is not good enough for the American 
people, according to my friends on the other side of the aisle.
  The Senate majority pretends their bill offers real protections. But 
when you read everything below the title, the bill offered by the 
Senate Republicans sounds more like an ``Insurers' Bill of Rights'' 
than a Patients' Bill of Rights.
  It is my hope that this amendment will spur our colleagues on the 
other

[[Page S4803]]

side of the aisle to renew their commitment to this conference 
committee and to do it in a bipartisan fashion. Spinning your wheels 
for 400 hours is not getting the job done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I would like to inform my colleague, he 
is incorrect. He said, if we gave every other employee what the Federal 
employees have. Federal employees cannot sue their employer. Federal 
employees don't have a right to appeal. Federal employees, if they 
appeal, they appeal to the OMB, their employer. Federal employees, 
including Senators, do not have the right to sue. You cannot sue. To 
say, if we just give everybody else what we have, is factually 
incorrect.
  When my colleague said we have had all these meetings and we only 
agreed to two things, one of the reasons people say the conference did 
not go anywhere is that our Democratic colleagues never say yes--even 
if we give them a yes. We have not quite got around to agreeing.
  But, frankly, in conference, I might say, we agreed to access to 
emergency room care, direct access to pediatricians, provider 
nondiscrimination, direct access to specialists, continued care from a 
physician. We have agreed almost entirely--maybe not to the last 
dotting of the ``i'' or crossing of the ``t''--to the appeals process, 
to an independent physician, which is really the whole crux of the 
bill, the most important thing.
  Why did that take so long? Because we negotiated it. We negotiated 
with the Senator from Massachusetts. We negotiated with Congressman 
Dingell. We negotiated with their staffs. We went over every single 
letter, every single word, every single paragraph. And then people say: 
Oh, we have not agreed to anything. Maybe that is the reason we don't 
have a conference--because you won't agree to anything.
  Who is not agreeable? Who is not moving? It is a little bit 
frustrating, a little bit disingenuous to say: Oh, nothing is 
happening. Where did those 400 hours go? I will tell you, there were 
hundreds of hours--and 400 is conservative--time spent by staff and by 
Senators trying to come up with a positive agreement.
  Some people do not want one. I think the very fact that we are here 
today means people do not want one. They would rather have theater. 
They would rather have an issue. I was planning on having a bipartisan, 
bicameral conference this afternoon--on Thursday, as we have done for 
the last several Thursdays--to work on these very issues.
  The people say, oh, some people want to have an issue on the floor, 
as if they think that is going to help the progress. It is not going to 
help the progress. That is unfortunate.
  I am going to continue to try to see if we cannot pass a positive, 
bipartisan, bicameral bill. But, frankly, I do not think the efforts 
that have been made today are helpful to the process. I think it 
undermines the process.
  Again, I tell my colleagues, I cannot think of any other instance 
where you have had an ongoing conference where people said, oh, let's 
just adopt the House bill, even though we made significant concessions. 
We worked and we have negotiated. They say, oh, let's just pull out and 
adopt the House bill. That is a real slap on the Senate, not just the 
Republicans in the Senate, but that is a real slap on the entire 
Senate.
  It is going to be interesting to see how committee chairmen vote. Two 
people can play this game. Maybe there will be a conference in the 
future where it is said: Oh, let's just adopt the House bill. We like 
it better. I think that undermines the whole nature, frankly, of the 
legislative process.
  I again urge my colleagues to vote to table the Kennedy amendment.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in supporting 
this important amendment. For months we have been bogged down in a 
conference without real progress, and without hope of concluding the 
conference and bringing this bill to the floor for a final vote in the 
last days of this Congress.
  I think we have to move forward. I think we have to move forward, 
particularly when it comes to access to health care for children in 
this country. I know there has been some discussion that progress has 
been made in terms of allowing access to a pediatrician. But there are 
other important aspects of health care for children included in the 
context of the Norwood-Dingell bill that have not been agreed to yet by 
the conference committee.
  For example, ensuring that an appeals process is sensitive to the 
particular needs of children, the developmental needs of children that 
do not exist for adults; and also ensuring that there are quality 
assurance provisions for outcomes that are tied to the particular 
concerns of children.
  If we do not do these things, then we are not only missing an 
opportunity, we are also disregarding our obligation to aid the 
children of this country.
  We have all heard stories today about lawyers and stories about HMOs. 
Let me tell you a story about one child. It is a story I heard down in 
Atlanta with Senator Max Cleland. Lamona Adams, the mother of James 
Adams, was concerned about her child. He had a fever. He was ill. She 
did what she was told to do by her HMO; that is, to call up and get 
advice over the phone about what she should do. She desperately pleaded 
for help for her child.
  She was told to go 42 miles to a hospital because the HMO had a 
contract with the hospital to receive their patients. While driving 42 
miles to a hospital on the other side of Atlanta, an area she didn't 
know anything about, the child became so ill that the father just saw a 
sign that said ``hospital,'' went there, and they treated the child. 
They saved the child's life. However, they could not save the child's 
hands or his feet. They had to be amputated. That is what HMOs have 
done in too many cases in this country.
  We have the power to stop the practices. We have the power to do it 
today. We should do it today, on behalf of not just James Adams but so 
many children throughout this country.
  The fact that we have delayed action on this issue, I think, is 
inexcusable. Now we have to act. In a way, this whole episode is like a 
popular film a few years ago called ``Ground Hog Day,'' where every day 
the character woke up, and it was the same day over and over again. It 
is not only the same day this year but, as I look at some of the charts 
on the Senate floor, it seems to be the same day 6 years ago. The same 
arguments were trotted out about health care reform 6 years ago, as 
were the same dire predictions about more and more Americans losing 
their coverage if we pass this legislation.

  We didn't pass health care reform legislation years ago. Guess what. 
More and more Americans have lost their insurance coverage. We can do 
something now--limited, purposeful, appropriate--make sure that HMOs 
treat people as patients, not as objects of economic profit on their 
balance sheet. We can do it. We should do it.
  Today should not be Groundhog Day. It should be D-Day. We should 
seize the initiative and pass this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, first, I want to make it perfectly clear 
that I strongly support reforming the managed care system. I was an 
original cosponsor of S. 300, the Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act of 
1999 and voted in favor of S. 326, the Patients' Bill of Rights which 
was approved by the Senate last July.
  The House-Senate conference committee is currently working out the 
differences between the managed care bills passed by the House and the 
Senate. I believe this conference committee is making significant 
progress. So, not only is it premature for us to vote today on the 
House-passed managed care bill in the midst of these negotiations. I 
also do not feel that the DOD authorization debate is the appropriate 
time for us to be considering such important health care legislation.
  We are all aware of the public's frustration and the need for 
effective legislation to guarantee that those enrolled in managed care 
plans receive quality health care. Over the years, the Congress has 
held numerous hearings exposing story after story regarding people 
receiving insufficient medical treatment from their managed care

[[Page S4804]]

plans. And let me assure you that these stories are deeply troubling to 
me--that's why Congress is addressing this important issue. We are 
listening to our constituents and we are taking action.
  There is one point where all of us agree--people deserve to receive 
the best care possible when they are sick. I believe that when the 
conference committee has completed its work, this important goal 
will become a reality. None of us think that someone should be turned 
away from medical treatment because his health plan won't cover it. Our 
legislation provides patients the ability to appeal these types of 
decisions, quickly, by offering both internal and external appeals 
processes. It is my hope that by providing these options, people will 
receive quality health care, in a timely fashion, when they need it the 
most.

  All of us in this chamber know very well there are numerous competing 
bills that have been introduced over the years that provide a variety 
of legislative remedies to address this issue. In many respects, these 
bills have common components intertwined with similar, and, in some 
cases, identical provisions. Approximately 47 bills were introduced in 
the Senate and the House last year to provide patient protections to 
managed care enrollees.
  So it is obvious that we all are concerned about this issue--we all 
want patients to receive the best care possible.
  However, for Congress to pass responsible managed care legislation, 
we must come together and put forth the best bill for the American 
people. We have done this many times before on health care legislation, 
and there is no reason why we cannot do this again.

  The Senator from Massachusetts is trying to preempt this process. He 
has offered an amendment that flies in the face of every effort we have 
made to achieve that consensus.
  There can be nothing more to this amendment than its public relations 
value, since it surely will not pass in the Senate. We have spent hours 
and hours and hours on the Senate floor, in conference, and in the back 
rooms of the Capitol on this legislation.
  The Senator knows well why the Dingell-Norwood approach will not 
pass. He knows it is likely to cause health insurance premiums to rise 
and, as a direct result, cause employers to drop their health plans. He 
knows this will lead to higher numbers of uninsured Americans. And, he 
knows that this is an unacceptable outcome.
  I remain hopeful that, in the end, we will reach consensus on this 
bill. I commend senator Nickles for his fine work and leadership as 
chairman of the House-Senate conference committee and urge my 
colleagues to support the conferees and let them continue their work.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirteen minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, in another 15 or 20 minutes we are going to 
be voting on this amendment. We have some 30 working days, the way I 
calculate, maybe 40 legislative days remaining in this session of 
Congress. Probably the only vote we're going to have on this issue this 
year will occur in just a few minutes.
  I don't like to count noses at this particular juncture, but I 
suspect, based on what I have heard so far, that my good friends on the 
Republican side will probably prevail politically. I say to them with 
great respect and affection that while they may win politically today, 
there are an awful lot of people all across the country who will lose.
  I have been in Congress 25 years. I have been in conferences, a lot 
of them. Every now and then, conferences just don't move. I am not 
going to engage in the debate back and forth about whether or not this 
conference has actually resolved some particular issue or not. Enough 
has been said about it. The fact is that occasionally things just don't 
move. There are just too many differences of opinion. That's all there 
is to it and that is what has happened here.
  It doesn't make anyone comfortable to have to deal with this issue on 
the Department of Defense authorization, but we find ourselves in a 
situation in which it is probably the only chance we are going to have 
to do something about patient protections this year.
  Despite the way our colleagues have portrayed this amendment, the 
kinds of protections that we want to provide to the American people are 
not radical ideas. This is not about destroying the insurance industry 
and enriching trial lawyers. If it were, I wouldn't be a part of it. My 
colleague knows that as a Senator from Connecticut I represent more 
insurance companies than any other Member except my colleague, Joe 
Lieberman. And, I think I would be recognized as someone who has taken 
on the trial bar when it was warranted. I've worked with my friend, 
Phil Gramm, on securities litigation reform. We did uniform standards. 
We did Y2K legislation. I am a cosponsor of tort reform. I don't take a 
back seat to anyone on these issues.
  But, I also happen to believe, as strongly as I feel about the good 
work of many of the insurance companies in my state, that when they 
make a medical decision or when a business makes a medical decision, 
just as when a doctor makes a medical decision, they ought to be held 
accountable. I don't think that is a radical idea. Others may think so; 
I don't think so. The idea that we should provide basic protections to 
all Americans with private health insurance, that patients should have 
access to emergency care, that women should have access to their Ob-
Gyn, these are not groundbreaking ideas. These ideas are pretty 
straightforward. In fact, a third of the Republicans in the other 
Chamber thought so too and voted for the Norwood-Dingell bill. The 
author of the bill, Dr. Norwood, is a Republican. This is not some 
great partisan battle except here in the US Senate. Across the country 
it is not a partisan issue. When people get sick and families are 
hurting, they don't talk about themselves as Democrats or Republicans 
or conservatives or liberals or independents, they talk about 
themselves as individuals who need help.
  I hope enough of our colleagues on the other side will join with the 
minority here in voting for this, voting for the very same bill that an 
overwhelming majority of Democrats and Republicans supported in the 
House almost a year ago.
  Again, I respect my good friend and colleague from Oklahoma for his 
efforts. It has not been an easy job. It is a complicated bill and it 
is a complex issue. But, we have come to a point, with the few days 
left in this session, that if we don't try to do something about this 
here, I am convinced nothing will happen in this Congress on this 
issue. Every now and then you begin to read the tea leaves. It is like 
the student who didn't get the homework done. First the dog ate it. 
Then somehow it ended up in the garbage. Then their computer crashed. 
After a while, you have to say maybe the student just isn't going to 
get the homework done. In a sense, that is what has happened here.
  In the 3\1/2\ months since conferees began working on this bill, 
essentially almost nothing has happened. We simply have not moved 
forward. So, with 40 days left, we are put in the position of asking 
colleagues to join us in supporting a bill that has already passed the 
House, that the President said he would sign, that would leave this 
Congress with a mark of achievement, even if we did nothing else in the 
next 40 days.
  Can you imagine in future years how this Congress would be recognized 
if we were to pass a Patients' Bill of Rights that said all Americans 
ought to have access to basic patient protections, that doctors ought 
to be able to make medical decisions for their patients, that 
businesses and insurance companies that make health care decisions 
ought to be held responsible when they make a decision that affects the 
lives of others? There is not a single citizen in this country who, if 
they make a decision that causes harm to another, can avoid the 
responsibility of paying a price. Why should insurance companies be 
exempt?
  That is what this bill of ours tries to do, along with ensuring 
access to clinical trials, providing access to emergency care, and 
ensuring that patients can receive needed prescription drugs. These 
ideas are not radical or extreme. This is what an overwhelming majority

[[Page S4805]]

of people in this country would like to see us achieve.
  In the next 15 minutes we will have a chance to do it. I hope some 
brave souls on the other side will join us and make a record of this 
Congress, something all of us can be proud of for years to come.
  I yield back to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts whatever 
time remains.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has 9 minutes. The 
Senator from Massachusetts has 8 minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield to the Senator from Tennessee 3 minutes.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, over the last hour and a half, we have been 
talking about the issue of the Patients' Bill of Rights. It comes down 
to a question of should we allow the normal course of events in this 
body and in the House of Representatives to proceed--the conference 
report, which is our challenge. It is a challenge because we are taking 
a 250-page bill passed in the Senate and merging it with a 250-page 
bill passed in the House of Representatives on issues that will affect 
the quality of care of millions of people. Our challenge is to allow 
that process to continue.
  How much progress has been made? Clearly, from the other side of the 
aisle, an attempt has been made over the last hour and a half to say 
that progress is not being made, that there is a stalemate, that we 
won't see a bill. In 1 minute, let me review what has happened.
  On July 15, the Senate passed a bill. The amendment being proposed 
today is looking backward because that is the very bill we defeated 
last year on this floor for very good reasons, and it will be defeated 
again today. On October 6, the House of Representatives passed a 
Patients' Bill of Rights which included some very important access 
provisions. Conferees were named and we have addressed it as conferees, 
and we essentially have agreement on many of the issues we have talked 
about. That is progress.
  Access to emergency care: If you are injured, you can go to the 
closest emergency room.
  Direct access to a pediatrician: If you have children, they have a 
right to have access to somebody who specializes in that care. That has 
been agreed to. That is progress.
  Direct access to specialists: An example was given about a pediatric 
cardiologist, or a cardiac surgeon. You will have access to those 
specialists. That has been agreed to.
  Continued care from a physician: In the event there is a pregnancy 
and there is a loss of your insurance plan, you can continue with that 
physician through your pregnancy, or with a terminal illness.
  Direct access to obstetricians and gynecologists.
  That is true progress. A Democratic offer was made to the Republican 
conferees on May 23. That is progress--the fact that the proposal has 
been made.
  I should say that very few concessions were made from the original 
bill. That is progress, though. A Republican response was given and a 
Republican proposal on June 4. That is progress. Again, as has been 
pointed out, a number of concessions, trying to pull those two bills 
together, have been made. Again, that is progress.
  The sponsors of the amendment today again are taking a bill that was 
introduced 6 or 7 months ago, debated on the floor, and they are 
looking backward. That bill has been debated and defeated in this body 
after careful deliberation. We are looking forward with the progress 
that we have put out.
  I urge defeat of the proposed amendment so the conference can 
continue with the underlying business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand it, we have 7 or 8 
minutes left. Usually, the proponents have the opportunity to do the 
final summation. I wonder if my friend and colleague from Oklahoma is 
willing to do that.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the 
time not be charged to either side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. 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. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, this has been a long debate and, I think, a 
good debate. It has proven once again that this is an election year. I 
am not going to insult everybody's intelligence by telling them that I 
am shocked that Senator Kennedy is engaged in partisan politics this 
afternoon. This is an election year. We are politicians. This is a 
political act to basically try to win, again, what Senator Kennedy lost 
when we had the debate on the floor of the Senate.
  Senator Nickles won. We are in conference trying to work out an 
agreement, and Senator Kennedy doesn't like the way the agreement is 
going; he is unhappy about it. But rather than get into all this ``who 
shot John,'' I have tried to come up with a simple example for somebody 
back home who is trying to figure out what this is all about, and let 
me try to give it to you as succinctly as I can.
  Somebody goes into the treatment room and the doctor comes in there 
and they have their stethoscope and they tell him to take off his 
shirt. In comes somebody else. They say: Well, who is that in this 
room? And that is the gatekeeper for the HMO. Now, what the patient 
wants is to get that gatekeeper out of the examining room so it is them 
and their doctor. Senator Kennedy says he has the answer. His answer 
is: Well, keep the gatekeeper but here is how we will fix it. We will 
bring in a lawyer to sue the HMO, the insurance company, and the 
employer that bought the insurance. So we have the lawyer there and he 
gets part of the stethoscope. And then we bring in a bureaucrat to 
regulate it. So Senator Kennedy's answer is, rather than getting the 
HMO out of the examining room, bring in a lawyer and a bureaucrat; and 
here is the poor patient with his heart at the end of the stethoscope 
and now four people are listening to the heart.
  Now, what we are trying to do here is simple. We are trying to 
empower the American health care consumer to fire the HMO. We give them 
the ability to have innovative ways of financing health care, such as 
medical savings accounts, so if they don't like the way the HMO is 
treating them, they don't go see a lawyer, or a bureaucrat, or they 
don't see Senator Kennedy; they simply call up their HMO and say: You 
are fired. They go out through a medical savings account, and they have 
their credit card or their checking account through their medical 
savings account, and they pick up the phone and they don't say: Are you 
a member of our HMO? My baby is sick and needs care. Will you see him? 
They simply say: Will you take a check? ``Do you take MasterCard or 
Visa?'' If they do, they are in.

  In reality, that is what this debate is about. Do you believe in 
bureaucrats, or do you believe in freedom?
  Senator Kennedy, in all his heart, believes--and he is sincere, and I 
admire him for it--that having a lawyer there and having a bureaucrat 
in there improves the system.
  He supported a health care bill where if a doctor provided you health 
care that an advisory panel appointed by the Government didn't support, 
they could be fined $50,000. He supported the Clinton bill where if 
your baby is sick and the Government said this child doesn't need 
treatment, and you said to the doctor, treat my child and I will pay 
for it, if the doctor took the money he could be sent to prison for 15 
years.
  That is what their alternative was.
  What we want to do is give people freedom. One of the freedoms under 
our bill is to say to your HMO: You are fired.
  If you think having a lawyer and a bureaucrat is good, then you are 
for Senator Kennedy. But if you believe in freedom and what is right 
for you and your family, what we are trying to do is the right way to 
go.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, my good friend from Texas--he is my good 
friend--talks about freedom. He has put his finger on an issue. He 
wants to

[[Page S4806]]

give freedom to the HMOs and not provide the important services to 
patients. That is his kind of freedom.
  I always enjoy listening to the Senator from Texas. I remember 
listening to him in 1993 when we had President Clinton's economic 
program. The Senator from Texas, I remember--someone can correct me--
said: If we pass President Clinton's economic bill, we are going to 
have unemployment all around the nation, all around the nation. If we 
pass President Clinton's bill, we are going to have interest rates 
right up through the top of the roof.
  We heard that speech. Phil Gramm was wrong then, and he is wrong 
tonight.
  This issue is very basic and fundamental. It is an important one. 
This bill should have passed and become law in the last Congress. The 
first HMO bill to make sure that patients' rights were going to be 
protected was in 1997. It took us 2 years to get this legislation out 
of our committee. It took months of delay to get it before the Senate. 
It was passed almost a year ago. We still have not been able to have an 
agreement that will protect patients.
  That is what is at issue, when you come right down to it. As much as 
Phil Gramm might like to say it, it isn't just Senator Kennedy saying 
it. It is the fact that 300 organizations--representing the doctors and 
nurses in this country and every other health and medical group--
support our position today. Two Republican leaders on this issue in the 
House of Representatives stood before their constituency earlier today 
and said that they believed we ought to take this action this 
afternoon.
  I ask my friends from Oklahoma and Texas: What particular rights 
don't you want to provide to the American people who are included in 
our Patients' Bill of Rights?
  What about the ability to hold plans accountable? Is that 
unacceptable?
  What about making sure that children get specialists? Is that 
unacceptable?
  What about having clinical trials? Is that unacceptable?
  What about guaranteeing women access to an OB/GYN? Is that 
unacceptable?
  What about having the right to get prescription drugs? Is that 
unacceptable?
  What about prohibiting gag rules? Is that unacceptable?
  What about independent external appeals? Is that unacceptable?
  When you cut through the rhetoric--and we welcome the opportunity to 
cut through the rhetoric--you tell us that you are going to vote 
against this this afternoon. You spell out for us those agreements made 
in conference. We challenge you to lay out on the floor of the Senate 
this afternoon these various agreements that were made. The last 
agreement that was made was in March of this year. That was the last 
one in open session. We want to know what kind of protections you are 
not prepared to give the American people. We stand to protect the 
consumers, protect the patients, protect the children, protect the 
women, and protect the disabled in this country. That is what this is 
about.
  In the movie ``As Good As It Gets'' last year, that wonderful picture 
for which Helen Hunt won the Oscar, there was a wonderful scene that 
everyone remembers. Helen Hunt starred as a mother whose child was not 
being provided needed care by her HMO. And every parent across this 
Nation laughed as they commiserated and said that is the way it is.
  The consumers of America understand what is going on here. The 
question is whether the Senate of the United States is going to 
understand.
  We have an opportunity to do something about it. I hope the Senate 
will vote for the Daschle amendment.
  I withhold the remainder of my time.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I oppose Senator Kennedy's amendment. 
Introducing this amendment at this time is a clear statement that 
Democratic leaders want an election issue, not a Patients' Bill of 
Rights. It is a cynical ploy, made in bad faith, and they ought to be 
ashamed of themselves.
  The Senate voted on this bill last year, after full debate, and 
rejected it in favor of a better product. Since that time, the 
conferees have been working on a compromise. In the past week, 
Republican negotiators made an offer with major new concessions. Was 
this greeted with a Democrat counteroffer that moved toward the middle? 
No, it's answered with this attempt to blow up those negotiations. If 
my colleagues don't want to legislate, if they just want to create 
election issues, they don't deserve to be here.
  Let me be specific. Republican negotiators have made an offer to 
their Democrat counterparts that would allow lawsuits to be brought if 
a health plan has rejected the decision of an independent reviewer and 
the enrollee has fully utilized the plan's appeal mechanism. Full 
economic damages could be sought, and punitive damages would be 
available, subject to limits. Employers, however, would be expressly 
protected from lawsuits, addressing a key concern of those who provide 
coverage to workers. These are major, major concessions. That's 
obvious.
  In my view, this offer reasonably balances the need for fairness to 
consumers who are wronged with the need to keep health insurance costs 
low so that employers continue to offer coverage. But it was dismissed 
without even a serious response by the other side. If no agreement is 
reached this year, let everyone understand who will be to blame. It is 
the Democrats who have decided that they're better off with no bill 
than with a bill.
  After this stunt fails, I hope that the President and Congressional 
Democrats will change their obstructionist strategy so that the 
Patients' Bill of Rights can become a reality, this year. In the 
meantime, I am voting against Senator Kennedy's attempt to short-
circuit our legislative process.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the nation has been patiently waiting for 
far too long for Congress to pass a Patients' Bill of Rights that will 
grant American families enrolled in health maintenance organizations 
(HMOs) the health care protections they deserve, including the right to 
remedy insurance disputes through the courts if all other means are 
exhausted.
  For far too long, achievement of this vital reform has been 
frustrated by special interest gridlock, principally the trial lawyers 
who insist on the ability to sue everyone for everything, and the 
insurance companies who simply want to protect their bottom line, even 
at the expense of fairness. Both sides hope to continue affecting their 
agenda with the ``soft money'' contributions they hand over to the 
political parties, while neither represents the hopes, expectations and 
best interests of the American people.
  Today's debate is further evidence of how politicized this issue has 
become. Once again this debate is being governed by special interests 
and partisan politics. This is no longer a debate about how we can work 
together in the best interest of the American people. Nor is this a 
debate about providing affordable access to quality health care for all 
Americans.
  Instead it is a contest--a contest between the political parties and 
special interests. This is a contest between the interests of trial 
lawyers versus the interests of insurance companies. This is a contest 
that no one not Republicans, not Democrats, certainly not the American 
people wins, except, of course, the special interests who are only 
concerned about their financial well-being, rather than the physical or 
financial well-being of every American. It is a shame that this body is 
so controlled by special interests that we cannot even put the health 
of the American people ahead of politics.
   Under today's medical system too many Americans feel powerless when 
faced with a health care crisis in their personal life. Many feel as if 
important, life-altering decisions are being micro-managed by business 
people rather than medical professionals, and too many Americans 
believe they have no access to quality care or cannot receive the 
necessary medical treatment recommended by their personal physician.
  Many Americans work hard and live on strict budgets so they can 
afford health insurance coverage for their family. Then, the moment 
they need health care, they are confronted with obstacles limiting 
which services are available to them: confronted by frustrating 
bureaucratic hoops; and confronted by health plans that provide little, 
if any, opportunity for patients to redress grievances.

[[Page S4807]]

  While I appreciate the important contributions of managed care, we 
must protect the rights of patients in our nation's health care system. 
Too many Americans feel trapped in a system which does not put their 
health care needs first. They believe that HMOs value a paper dollar 
more than they do a human life. It is time for us to finally help these 
fine Americans and begin working together to get safe, quality health 
care for Americans.
  As my colleagues know, last summer I reluctantly voted for the Senate 
version of the Patients Bill of Rights. At that time I made it known 
that my vote for passage was contingent on a strong conference 
agreement with a higher standard for protecting the needs of patients 
than those contained in the Senate bill. I supported the Senate bill 
because it was important to move forward and send legislation for 
strengthening in conference with the House. It was my strong hope that 
the House would pass stronger, more reasonable health care reform 
similar to the Norwood/Dingell legislation that honestly puts the needs 
of patients first. Then we could work together for a practical and fair 
compromise during conference.
  Mr. President, I am voting today in support of the proposed Norwood/
Dingell amendment before the Senate because I share the frustration of 
millions of Americans who are waiting for the conference to begin 
making substantial efforts towards reaching a viable agreement 
providing patient protections. This conference has had more than four 
months to work on reaching an agreement and yet they are not even close 
to finding a solution. And I am concerned that once again, partisan 
politics and special interests are blocking us from enacting meaningful 
health care reform for our constituents.
  It is time for all of us to finally put aside partisanship and the 
influence of special interests to work together for what is needed and 
wanted by our constituents-safe, quality, affordable health care. This 
is too important an issue to allow the influence of special interests 
to prevent us from doing what is right for all Americans.
  While I am supporting this amendment I would like to make clear that 
I believe that there is still work that must be done in conference 
before it is enacted into law. I support the intentions of the Norwood/
Dingell bill but there are areas that need to be strengthened and 
improved before it becomes law, including the liability provisions. 
Real patient protection must permit individuals to resolve insurance 
disputes through the courts but it must also place common sense limits 
on excessive non-economic damage awards and ban punitive judgements 
that make health care more costly. This must be structured in a manner 
that does not encourage frivolous law suits, unnecessarily make health 
insurance more costly or make employers vulnerable for health care 
decisions they are not making.
  In addition, I do not support extending U.S. Customs Service user 
fees to pay for this proposal. Before agreeing to this amendment I was 
assured that the extension of the user fees was merely a tactical move 
to help prevent this amendment from being defeated by partisan 
parliamentary procedures. I have been assured that if this amendment 
were to pass that an alternate means of paying for it--one that does 
not undermine Customs operations or constrain international commerce--
would be incorporated. It is important that US Customs continue having 
adequate funding for conducting their programs including implementing a 
new automation system for reducing backlogs at ports of entry to help 
facilitate the dramatic expansion of commerce that has helped fuel our 
strong economy. Let me reiterate in no way does my vote for strong 
patient protections in any way provide an endorsement for extending 
user fees and placing a further burden on businesses and our economy.
  It is my strong hope that today's vote will provide the impetus for 
the conference to finally work together on finding a viable and real 
solution for providing Americans with the health care protections they 
deserve.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Texas 30 
seconds.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, in 1992 and 1993, when Senator Kennedy and 
the Democrats were trying to raise taxes, which, unfortunately, they 
succeeded in doing, and when they were trying to have the Government 
take over the health care system, which, thank God, they failed to do, 
I said people would lose their jobs if they were successful. And they 
did. Democrats lost their jobs. Not one Republican was defeated as an 
incumbent in 1994. We won nine seats in the Senate. And we are in the 
majority.
  Some people did lose their jobs, because Americans did not want the 
Government to take over and run the health care system. I say to 
Senator Kennedy that, as sad as I know it makes him, they still don't, 
and they never will.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, could I ask the Senator a question on my 
time?
  Does that stethoscope show any beating hearts over there on that side 
of the aisle?
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, if I might respond on Senator Kennedy's 
time, talking slowly as I do, this stethoscope picks up a strong 
heartbeat that believes in freedom, and that believes in the right of 
consumers--even health care consumers--to fire an HMO rather than call 
in a lawyer or a bureaucrat.
  That is what we call freedom. That is what we are for.
  We disagree, and that is what makes democracy work.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. NICKLES. I ask the Senator: Did he conclude his remarks? I am 
getting ready to move to table.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am prepared to yield whatever time is going to be 
yielded. I am prepared to yield. If Senators reserve some time to 
speak, I will reserve time.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has approximately 1 minute.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank Senators Frist, Gramm, 
Hutchinson, Enzi, Gregg, and Jeffords for serving on this conference 
committee, and also Senator Collins who worked with us on the task 
force. I also very much appreciate the work they have done today on the 
floor.
  If we don't table the Kennedy amendment, there will be millions of 
people who will be without health insurance. That is because it will 
dramatically increase the price of health care. There are results from 
actions. If we act to open up all health care plans and all employers 
to unlimited liability with punitive damages and class action lawsuits, 
we are going to have a lot of people dropping health care plans.
  Those are just the facts.
  The GAO says there is going to be a 4, 5, or 6-percent increase on 
top of the 10 or 12 percent that is already occurring. A lot of people 
can't afford it. They will drop their health care--plus the fact that 
the Norwood-Dingell bill, and the Kennedy bill they are trying to pass 
right now, have unlimited punitive damages.
  I have letters from Ford, Wal-Mart, from IBM, big companies with some 
of the best health care plans in America, saying they will cut benefits 
or reduce the benefits to individuals, maybe even drop coverage, if we 
pass that bill. We shouldn't do it. We shouldn't do things that will 
cause harm. We should not pass legislation that will increase costs. We 
should not pass legislation that will increase the number of uninsured 
by 2, 3, or 4 million. That will be a serious mistake.
  We should give the legislative process a chance to work. It is not 
working by saying we will pass the House bill.
  I move to table the Kennedy-Daschle amendment, and 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 the motion to table the amendment No. 
3273.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Conrad) 
is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 121 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine

[[Page S4808]]


     Domenici
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--48

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Conrad
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 4 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to the second vote in the 
series.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3214

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I call to my colleagues' attention the fact 
that the McCain amendment will be a killer amendment to this Defense 
authorization bill. It will be blue-slipped. I have discussed this with 
Chairman Archer. He assured me, after reviewing the way the amendment 
is written, that he will have no choice but to blue-slip it. I also 
discussed it with Senator Moynihan from New York. He has concerns about 
the constitutionality of this revenue amendment being added to the 
Defense authorization bill.
  I want to make that perfectly clear and add to that, this compounds 
our problem. We are dealing with a very important bill, the Defense 
authorization bill. We are talking about national security. We need to 
find a way to come to a conclusion. We have 11 appropriations bills 
remaining, and we have to find time to act on the China PNTR and other 
issues.
  If we continue to work in good faith trying to find a way to get 
votes on amendments and complete the Defense authorization bill and 
then we face, on top of everything else, a blue-slip problem in the 
House, we have done ourselves damage.
  I think full disclosure is the way to go. I have been quoted to that 
effect. I still think that is the way to go. There is a bill that has 
been drafted, I understand after talking with a number of Senators, 
including the chairman of the Finance Committee and others, that would 
achieve this goal and, in fact, would be a broader bill in its 
application.
  As this is drawn, I understand it would not apply to a number of 
groups, including the trial lawyers, Sierra Club, and others. We ought 
to make sure it is broad and applies to everybody. We ought to have 
full disclosure, and do it so it is not a technical problem on a bill 
such as the Defense authorization bill.
  I urge my colleagues to think about this very carefully and support 
the Warner point of order that will be made with regard to the blue-
slip problem. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Wisconsin has 1 minute.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, very simply, this is a vote on campaign 
finance reform. The question is whether this body will take the 
opportunity, offered by this amendment, to shine some sunlight on the 
secret money that these 527 organizations are pouring into our 
elections.
  Here it is on this chart, in black and white, from the web site of 
one of these groups. The contributions can be given in unlimited 
amounts. They can be from any source. And they are not political 
contributions and are not a matter of public record.
  All this amendment does is make it a matter of public record. The 
American people have a right to demand this information from any 
organization that is given tax exemption.
  The blue-slip argument is a figleaf. It is an excuse made up for 
those who oppose reform but have said they support disclosure.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the point of order and for the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, just to repeat, this amendment would 
mandate disclosure of all contributors to, and expenditures by, 527 
organizations--a new phenomenon in American politics, with unlimited 
amounts of money from any source. China, the Mafia, and drug dealers 
can be part of our political campaigns, and we will never know who they 
are.
  It affects both parties and all ideologies. For the benefit of my 
friends on this side of the aisle, it was the Sierra Club that first 
began the 527 new gimmick example of corruption in American politics.
  It will not harm the defense bill. If the defense bill is blue-
slipped, I will be the first to say that bill, when it comes back, 
should have no amendments on it, and I would work as hard as I can to 
get it done.
  Please, do not believe that the defense bill would be harmed or blue-
slipped. The fact is, every Member on both sides of the aisle of this 
body has said they are for full disclosure. Now we are going to find 
out whether we are for disclosure or we will continue to allow the 
corruption of American politics.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to make a constitutional point of 
order.
  I raise a point of order that the pending McCain amendment violates 
the U.S. Constitution in that it is clearly a revenue-raising measure 
that is initiating in the Senate, not the House of Representatives, as 
provided for in our Constitution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question before the Senate is, Is the 
point of order well taken?
  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 clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Conrad) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 57, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 122 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--57

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Conrad
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is not well taken.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3214) was agreed to.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

[[Page S4809]]

  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, before I move to proceed to the DOD 
appropriations bill, let me say that we have a problem now with this 
amendment, the way the language is written, in terms of a blue slip, if 
and when it gets to the House of Representatives.
  I have discussed this with Senator Daschle and Senator McCain and 
others who are concerned about the underlying Defense authorization 
bill and those who are concerned about the disclosure amendment.
  During the period of time that we are going to be working on the DOD 
appropriations bill, we will work to see if we can come up with some 
sort of agreement or some sort of procedure that would get this 
amendment off of the Defense authorization bill and onto some other 
bill--perhaps some revenue bill that we will have before us; perhaps 
even the repeal of the telephone tax that the House has acted on; and 
also give us an opportunity to work with Senator McCain and others to 
see if we can broaden the application.
  But, for now, we need to go ahead and proceed with the DOD 
appropriations bill. We will work together to see if we can find a way 
to resolve this issue.
  Does the Senator from Arizona have any comment?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for pursuing 
this issue. I would like to broaden it as well. I think it is a fair 
agreement. I would like to try to move forward, meanwhile, having 
adopted this amendment, and the President to sign the bill.
  I thank the majority leader and the Democratic leader.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of this 
year's National Defense Authorization Act. Senator Warner and Senator 
Levin, along with the entire committee, have my deepest thanks for 
their tremendous work with respect to this country's national defense. 
Their hard work and dedication on behalf of our servicemen and women is 
evident throughout the entire Act. Senator Warner, in particular, has 
been instrumental in bringing to the floor a bill that provides our 
country with the national defense it desperately needs and deserves.
  To the Committee's credit, this Act continues the trend, begun with 
last year's Authorization Bill, of providing a real increase in the 
authorized level of defense spending. The Committee has once again 
recognized that people are the most important aspect of our military 
and our troops must be treated accordingly. This Act authorizes, among 
other things, a well-deserved 3.7 percent pay raise for military 
personnel, important quality of life provisions, and addresses several 
important health care concerns to ensure our active-duty and retired 
personnel have the medical care they justly deserve.
  Mr. President, although people make our military the best in the 
world, our troops must have the superior equipment to ensure continued 
success in every conflict. We must not send our sons and daughters into 
war without the right tools for victory. To this end, I would like to 
thank Senator Warner specifically for his support of a very important 
project--the extended-range conventional air-launched cruise missile 
project (CALCM-ER). In addition to Senator Warner, I would also like to 
thank Senator Bond, Senator Conrad, Senator Landrieu, and Senator 
Breaux for their work in support of this important project, in the 
Defense Authorization Act.
  The Conventional Air-Launched Cruise Missile, or CALCM, is a 
converted nuclear cruise missile that is launched from a B-52. This 
invaluable weapon is the Air Force's only conventional air-launched, 
long-range, all-weather precision weapon. Fired more than 600 nautical 
miles from its target, this missile can strike strategic targets deep 
inside enemy territory without significant risk to our pilots or 
planes.
  General Mike Ryan, the Air Force Chief of Staff, praised the CALCM's 
invaluable capabilities when he said in a written statement dated 
February 10, 2000 that ``CALCM continues to be the Commander in Chief's 
first strike weapon of choice during contingency operations, as 
demonstrated by its superb performance during Operations Desert Fox and 
Allied Force.''
  Due to the weapon's great performance and subsequent heavy demand, 
the number of CALCMs in the Air Force inventory dwindled to below 70 
last year. Through continued conversion of the nuclear cruise missiles, 
the current number is around 200, but the Air Force has concluded that 
this is simply not enough to meet our military's need. And due to the 
limited number of convertible nuclear cruise missiles, the Air Force 
needed to search out additional avenues of creating an extended range 
cruise missile with similar capabilities of the CALCM.
  Mr. President, the Air Force has identified a suitable solution. In a 
study commissioned in last year's Defense Authorization bill to deal 
with this problem, a commission concluded that, and I quote, ``Of 
specific interest to the Air Force is the need for an extended range 
cruise missile in the midterm that would be a modification to an 
existing cruise missile in the inventory. This option meets the Air 
Force's two-fold requirement of increasing the inventory of cruise 
missiles as quickly as possible and providing an extended range missile 
capability to protect our aging bomber force from current and mid-term 
threats while long range cruise missile requirements are studied.''
  In order to see these conclusions become a reality, I, together with 
Senators Bond, Conrad, Landrieu, and Breaux, have worked to see the 
addition of $86.1 million in the Air Force's Research and Development 
account for the extended range conventional air-launched cruise missile 
program. The Armed Services Committee has graciously agreed with us and 
authorized this amount in the Defense Authorization Act--and I thank 
the Committee, and particularly Senator Warner, for their assistance.
  In the upcoming Defense Appropriations bill, Senator Stevens has been 
particularly understanding of the Air Force's need of the Extended 
Range Cruise Missile and has worked with me to provide appropriations 
for this program. I want to offer him a personal thanks for his support 
of this vital program. I truly appreciate his efforts.
  However, I have been informed that in order to start the process and 
see these important weapons are in the hands of our troops, additional 
funds will be needed. In order to rectify this problem, I plan on 
offering an amendment to increase the available funds for the Extended 
Range Cruise Missile program by $23 million so that work can begin on 
the new cruise missile. This will bring the total amount to $43 
million, which is half of the authorized amount and enough to start 
development on this important missile.
  Mr. President, again I want to thank Senator Warner and Senator 
Stevens for their continued and tireless service to our nation's 
defense.

                          ____________________