Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 72 (Monday, June 12, 2000)

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 72 (Monday, June 12, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4946-S4950]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 4576) making appropriations for the Department
of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and
for other purposes.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I rise to remind Senators that there is
an order that requires amendments to this bill be filed by 3 p.m. We
have been notified there are about 41 amendments that may be offered.
Senator Inouye and I are prepared to deal with these.
If Members have amendments and desire to have a vote sometime
tomorrow, please take time this afternoon to initiate that debate.
There is no time limit on amendments yet, but we do intend to reach a
time limit agreement on amendments later this afternoon. If Members
have amendments and desire to have a considerable amount of time to
present to the Senate, this is a great time to do that.
We will be working up a managers' package of amendments that we
believe we can take to conference and work out. Senators may want to
identify those amendments and present them. We would be pleased to
consider them now and determine if we will put them in the managers'
package so we can move the bill forward.
It is our hope we will finish this bill tomorrow afternoon. That is
complicated a little bit by the fact we have a full Appropriations
Committee meeting tomorrow afternoon to report out the Transportation
appropriations bill. That may not take very long. It is our intention
to keep working on the Defense bill, notwithstanding the fact we will
be in committee on the Transportation bill. I urge Senators to
introduce and possibly present amendments to the Senate so we can
determine whether they should be included in our managers' package,
which will be accepted by unanimous consent.
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.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.

Amendment No. 3308

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for the preventative application
of dangerous pesticides in areas owned or managed by the Department of
Defense that may be used by children)

Mrs. BOXER. I send an amendment to the desk. I ask for its immediate
consideration. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], for herself and
Mr. Reid, proposes an amendment numbered 3308.

Mrs. BOXER. 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 109 of the substituted original text, between lines
11 and 12, insert the following:

SEC. 8____. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR PREVENTATIVE
APPLICATION OF PESTICIDES IN DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE AREAS THAT MAY BE USED BY CHILDREN.

(a) Definition of Pesticide.--In this section, the term
`pesticide' has the meaning given the term in section 2 of
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7
U.S.C. 136).
(b) Prohibition Use of Funds.--None of the funds
appropriated under this Act may be used for the preventative
application of a pesticide containing a known or probable
carcinogen or a category I or II acute nerve toxin, or a
pesticide of the organophosphate, carbamate, or
organochlorine class, in any area owned or managed by the
Department of Defense that may be used by children, including
a park, base housing, a recreation center, a playground, or a
daycare facility.

Mrs. BOXER. I will do my best to describe my amendment in about 10
minutes, if I might.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator is recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
Mrs. BOXER. I say to the Senator from Alaska, I am asking for the
yeas and nays on my amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. I will agree to that.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if I may be recognized, I ask that it be
scheduled for sometime tomorrow at a time to be agreed upon between the
Senator from Hawaii and myself.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the Senator's unanimous
consent request?
The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. I want to clarify with my friend from Alaska and my
friend from Hawaii that we will have an up-or-down vote on this
amendment and not a second degree? We can have a vote up or down.
Mr. STEVENS. We have no problem with agreeing that the amendment not
be subject to a second-degree amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
The Senator is recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend from Alaska and my friend from Hawaii
for agreeing to my request. I hope we will not have much opposition
because I believe that this amendment is, in fact, consistent with the
stated policy of the Department of Defense. I will explain what my
amendment does.
My amendment would prohibit the routine use of particularly harmful
pesticides on Department of Defense property or grounds where children
may be present.
I was stunned to learn, about a year after I got to the Senate--so it
must have been about 1984--that the way the laws were written and the
way they applied across the Government was that our environmental laws
were set to protect essentially 155-pound men.
Now, that is fine, if you are in that category, but what we find out
is that people of a lesser weight, a different gender, pregnant women,
the elderly, people who are ill, and little children, react very
differently to that amount of pollution or pesticide, as the case may
be. So I wrote a bill called the Children's Environmental Protection
Act. I am very much hopeful that we can get it passed as sort of an
omnibus bill that takes care of all of our laws in every Department to
make sure that children, in particular, are protected.
So far we have not had much luck moving that bigger package, so what
I have done is, on every bill that has come before this body, I have
offered an amendment that would lower the risk for our children. In
this particular case, we are saying to the Department of Defense: You
have been good about putting the policy forward; we want to codify it
and make sure that you do not use a pesticide containing a probable
carcinogen or a known carcinogen, an acute nerve toxin or other toxins
that would in fact harm our children.
Why is it important to limit the use of these pesticides around
children? Clearly, by definition, pesticides are meant to kill living
things. Exposure to pesticides has been linked to cancer,

[[Page S4947]]

neurological disorders, and learning disabilities. For example, common
insecticides that schools spray on baseboards and floors to kill
cockroaches and ants include an active ingredient--chlorpyrifos--that
is classified by the EPA as a nerve toxin. And I compliment Carol
Browner over at the EPA because she just held a press conference
announcing that this particular ingredient will be banned. However, it
is important to note it is going to take at least 6 months for that
ban, and we do not want that kind of toxin being sprayed around
children. That is why it is important to include it in this amendment.

We know that potential chronic effects from exposure to these kinds
of harmful toxins, we know we see a decrease in neurological
performance.
Are these risks any different for children in relation to adults? The
answer is yes. I would like to refer you to the 1993 National Academy
of Sciences report, ``Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and
Children.'' We know that children are at greater risk to experience the
harmful effects of pesticides exposure than adults. In other words,
children are not just little adults. They are changing; they are
growing. I often say that I am a little adult but I am not a child; I
have grown to my maximum potential. But the fact is, kids at a certain
age, before they reach maturity, are very susceptible to having adverse
reactions to the chemicals that I would not have, nor Senator Inouye,
nor Senator Stevens, nor our Presiding Officer, Senator Roberts; we are
stronger, although I would say they are much stronger than I am because
they are being protected because of a rule that says if you are a 155-
pound male, you will be OK.
So it is important to bring this issue to the Senate as often as I
can, and I am very pleased with the response I have gotten from
colleagues thus far because we have been able to change the rules as
they apply to safe drinking water; we recently had some luck on an
education bill; and we have had some luck with the Superfund in
committee. We make sure that when the Superfund sites are cleaned up--
these are the terrible dumps that include so many harmful toxins--they
are cleaned up to protect children, not just the 155-pound adults.
We know that pound for pound of body weight, children eat more food;
they drink more water; and they breathe more air than adults so they
are vulnerable. They are rapidly growing; their developing systems are
vulnerable.
I want to show you this picture in case you are wondering what all
this means because I think it is extremely interesting and it is also
extremely disturbing.
This picture is from a study, ``Showing the Effects of Pesticide
Exposure on Young children.'' One group of children in this study was
from a region where pesticide use was high, both in the home and
outdoors. The other group in the study was the same as the first group:
same age, same ethnicity, except the second group of children was from
regions where pesticides were not used--the same group of children,
except for pesticide exposure. The two groups of children were asked to
draw a person to test their cognitive ability, their ability to learn
and understand. These are the results, results which show an unsettling
picture.
These are the pictures that were drawn by the kids who were exposed
to pesticides. You can see you don't even see a resemblance of a
person. And clearly where there was very little exposure, you are
getting a much more appropriate type of drawing. This isn't something
that we are making up. We are seeing this response.
The kids who grew up without exposure to pesticide use in significant
proportions did far better. They had better hand-eye coordination, and
you could see it so clearly; they had better memory and their brain
skills were so much sharper.
The study's authors also observed that children from the area with
little pesticide use--and again that is clearly this group shown here--
engaged in more group play; they were more creative with their
activities; they were less aggressive than the children from the area
with the high pesticide use. This is a study that is considered one of
the first in this particular area.
This was done by Professor Elizabeth Guillette who is affiliated with
the University of Arizona. This study clearly shows what many of us
have suspected for a long time. It is a fact in evidence that our kids
are damaged when they are exposed to dangerous pesticides and toxins.
The point I want to make about the amendment is that while we
prohibit the routine use of these dangerous pesticides, we certainly do
not prohibit the Department of Defense from using common and less toxic
pesticides.
Under the amendment, DOD could still use synthetic pyrethroid
insecticides to control insects. These insecticides are among the most
common used today.
And, DOD could still use copper sulfate, a very common pesticide used
today.
DOD also could still use ``biopesticides''--there are some 50 of
these type pesticides in use today.
DOD could also use pheromone traps and baits--which are used heavily
today to control termites and carpenter ants.
Finally, DOD could still use insect growth regulators, which help
control insects.
I was asked when putting this amendment together: Suppose there is an
absolute emergency and we have an encephalitis epidemic break out on a
military base. We make an exception for that in this amendment. We
agree, if we have to go to these harsher toxins to fight a health
hazard. Of course. We have an exception in this amendment. By the way,
that exception is part of the DOD guidelines.
We are only banning as a routine method the known carcinogens, the
probable carcinogens, the nerve toxins from regular use.
This is a very disturbing study that was done by someone who is
considered a leader in this field of understanding children and their
brain development at the University of Arizona. We know for a fact that
kids are adversely impacted by these toxins. I would be very pleased to
see the Senate act to put on the record and put into law the official
banning of these very harmful pesticides.
I again thank my colleague, the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, for
his help on this. I ask unanimous consent that Harry Reid be added as a
cosponsor to this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I particularly thank Senator Stevens for
his graciousness in not only allowing me to go forward with this
amendment today but agreeing to have a vote directly on the amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, may I ask a question of the author of the
measure?
Mrs. BOXER. Certainly.
Mr. INOUYE. Is the Senator satisfied that her amendment does not
violate provisions of rule XVI?
Mrs. BOXER. Yes, we have been told it is drawn in such a fashion that
it simply says no funds may be used for these pesticides and toxins on
a regular basis.
Mr. INOUYE. It is limited only to the Department of Defense.
Mrs. BOXER. That is correct. I would love to do much more, I say to
my friend, but we are following rule XVI.
Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senator.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendments Nos. 3317 through 3320, En Bloc

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have four amendments at the desk; three
are technical in nature and one is substantive. I ask unanimous consent
they be presented at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes amendments
numbered 3317 through 3320, en bloc.

The amendments are as follows:

[[Page S4948]]

amendment No. 3317

(Purpose: To provide research and development funds for the Information
Technology project)

In the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following
new section:
``Sec. . In addition to funds made available in Title IV
of this Act under the heading ``Research, Development, Test
and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', $20,000,000 is hereby
appropriated for Information Technology Center.
____

amendment no. 3318

(Purpose: To make a technical correction to Sec. 8083 of the bill)

On page 83, line 26 of the bill after the comma strike the
following text: ``1999 (Public Law 105-262)'', and insert the
following text: ``2000 (Public Law 106-79)''.
____

amendment no. 3319

(Purpose: To make a technical correction on Section 8014)

On page 47, at line 21, strike the words ``Native American
ownership'' and insert in lieu thereof ``ownership by an
Indian tribe, as defined in 25 U.S.C. 450b(e), or a Native
Hawaiian organization, as defined in 15 U.S.C. 637(a)(15)''.
____

amendment no. 3320

(Purpose: To make a technical correction on Section 8073)

On page 79, insert the words ``Increase Use/Reserve support
to the Operational Commander-in-Chiefs and with'' after the
words ``to be used in support of such personnel in connection
with''.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would have been pleased to have had the
amendments read, but they are technical. They have been cleared by my
good friend from Hawaii. I ask unanimous consent the amendments be
adopted en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 3317 through 3320), en bloc, were agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I now send to the desk a series of
amendments. Normally, it would be shown that I have offered them for
these Senators. I ask unanimous consent they be shown to have been
submitted by the Senators whose names have been shown as sponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from West
Virginia and I have just discussed an amendment he has filed. He is
prepared to modify that amendment but wishes a little bit more time. I
ask unanimous consent that the amendment that has been filed by Senator
Byrd be subject to his modification notwithstanding the present order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator.
Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3328

(Purpose: To adjust the cash balances available under the ``Foreign
Currency Fluctuations, Defense'' account)

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

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes an amendment
numbered 3328.

Mr. STEVENS. 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 90, line 14, strike Section 8091 and insert the
following new section:
Sec. 8091. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act,
the total amount appropriated in this Act is hereby reduced
by $789,700,000 to reflect savings from favorable foreign
currency fluctuations, and stabilization of the balance
available within the ``Foreign Currency Fluctuation,
Defense'', account.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment changes one figure in the
bill. It is cleared by Senator Inouye.
Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3328) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am filing an amendment for myself and
Senators Roth and Biden. In their absence, I am submitting this
amendment probably as an alternative to an amendment they have filed. I
want it on the record just to avoid any problems in the future. I ask
that it be filed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be filed.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am also filing an amendment for myself
and Senator McCain.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be filed.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that another
amendment for Senator McCain be printed in the Record.
There is one other.
These may have been already filed. If so, I ask that they just be
withdrawn as a redundancy. But we are not certain they have been filed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be filed.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, has time passed for the filing of
amendments?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on
the Boxer amendment occur at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow with 2 minutes of
debate equally divided prior to the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, can we withhold that just for a moment?
Mr. STEVENS. Yes. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The distinguished Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I have sought recognition at this time to address some
remarks to the Department of Defense appropriations bill.
I commend the managers of the bill, Chairman Stevens and Senator
Inouye, for their work on this measure. These two Senators have a vast
knowledge, and it goes all across the areas of the Defense Department.
They have been at this work a long time. Their hearts are in it, and
they are highly dedicated to it. Their combined efforts are always
evident in the annual DOD appropriations bill. This year's bill is

[[Page S4949]]

no exception--it is a well-balanced and comprehensive measure.
In recent years, the committee has had to provide for ever-increasing
demands on our military--primarily in peacekeeping activities around
the world. Our military personnel are scattered around the world--they
are skilled and dedicated men and women, ever vigilant in their duty--
charged with the responsibility of protecting the security of our
country and its citizens. But they have in more recent times also been
charged with the responsibility of acting as peacekeepers in many
troubled areas around the globe.
Under these circumstances, it is very difficult to craft Defense
appropriations bills. It has been nearly impossible to determine just
how long and to what extent our military personnel might be needed in
some of these peacekeeping operations, and what the estimated costs
thereof might be. That situation exists today, for example, in Bosnia.
It exists in southwest Asia, in Kosovo, and even in Haiti.
So I take my hat off to our managers for their dedication, not only
this year but for many previous years, in working through these
challenges to provide the funding necessary to carry out these efforts.

The bill before us today clearly addresses the most critical needs of
our military personnel and their families. The 3.7-percent pay raise
recommended by the Senate Armed Services Committee is fully funded in
this bill. Sufficient resources are also included to improve the health
care benefits of our military retirees. And more than $96.7 billion is
provided for the readiness of our military forces.
It is imperative that Congress provide funding for these important
programs to demonstrate to the men and women in uniform who are serving
our country throughout the world our strong and unwavering support for
them.
Furthermore, this bill does not neglect our necessary defense
modernization requirements. It provides funding for all of the highest
priority programs identified by our military leaders and requested by
the administration.
So I congratulate Senator Stevens, chairman of the appropriations
subcommittee--he is also chairman, of course, of the full
Appropriations Committee--and Senator Inouye for their dedication and
hard work, and I know that my colleagues will support passage of the
bill.
I also take this opportunity to recognize in a very special way our
ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator
Daniel Inouye, who will be honored next week, at which time he will
receive the Nation's highest military award for valor--the
Congressional Medal of Honor.
How proud it makes all of us feel that we have someone like Daniel
Inouye here as a Senator in our midst as we think of the sacrifices
that he made.
Senator Inouye was first elected to the Senate in 1963 from our 50th
State.
Mr. President, I am proud to say that I am one who voted for
Statehood on behalf of both Alaska and Hawaii. I believe that I am the
only Senator left remaining here who voted for statehood for both of
these States. I am proud of having done that.
He was first elected, as I say, to the Senate in 1963 from Hawaii,
the 50th State. I think I am correct in saying that I am only one of
three Members of today's Senate who were also here when he joined this
body.
When I first came to the Senate, there were 96 Members of the Senate.
Upon my being sworn in, the two new Senators from the new State of
Alaska were sworn in with me, making a total of 98 Senators. Later in
the year, Hawaii, the new State, the 50th State, sent two Senators, two
new Senators to the Senate, making a total of 100 Senators to comprise
this body.
I have had the pleasure of working with Danny Inouye on many
occasions over the years. I have found him to be a man of the utmost
integrity, who has worked tirelessly in the Senate on behalf of his
constituents and on behalf of the Nation.
He was a Senator who was extremely supportive of me when I was the
majority leader of this body. He was supportive of me when I was
minority leader. He was very supportive of me when I was chairman of
the Appropriations Committee of the Senate. He is certainly a Senator
on whom one can rely for truth, for integrity, for steadfastness, for
forthrightness, and as one who is extremely and highly dedicated to his
work.
Like many others in this body, I view Senator Inouye as a national
hero. I know of his wartime heroics in France and in Italy. I read
about how he fought to protect the troops with whom he served without
regard for his own life. He doesn't talk much about it, but we know
about it. He was gravely wounded in serving his country, yet he
continued to fight. I am immensely proud of this outstanding American
in our midst.
For many in Congress, in our hearts we have felt that Danny Inouye
richly deserves the special recognition he earned in those bloody
battles some 55 years ago. We are deeply moved and so proud that he is
now to receive the highest military honor that can be bestowed upon any
American citizen, the Congressional Medal of Honor.

It isn't enough to say in our hearts
That we like a man for his ways;
It isn't enough that we fill our minds
With psalms of silent praise;
Nor is it enough that we honor a man
As our confidence upward mounts;
It's going right up to the man himself
And telling him so that counts.

If a man does a work that you really admire,

Don't leave a kind word unsaid.
In fear to do so might make him vain
And cause him to lose his head.
But reach out your hand and tell him, ``Well done.''
And see how his gratitude swells.
It isn't the flowers we strew on the grave,
It's the word to the living that tells.

Well done, our friend, our colleague, our hero.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, at this moment I find that mere words are
inadequate to express my deep gratitude. Aloha to the senior Senator
from West Virginia. May I just simply say I thank him very much.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I share the feelings of the Senator from
Virginia concerning the statement of the distinguished Senator from
West Virginia. Those are wonderful words to say about our colleague,
and every one of them was well deserved.
I ask unanimous consent that the Parliamentarian review the
amendments filed on this bill prior to 3 o'clock and inform the
minority and majority managers of the bill whether any of those
amendments are subject to rule XVI.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that second-
degree amendments be in order to the filed amendments, and that they be
relevant to the first-degree amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the managers
of the bill may, with the consent of the sponsor, modify amendments so
they could be included in the managers' package.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

health care management demonstration program

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished
managers of the bill in a brief colloquy on the issue of the health
care management demonstration program recommended by the Armed Services
Committee in S. 2549, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2001.
Section 740 of S. 2549 would direct the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a test of two models to improve health care delivery in the
Defense Health Program: one model would study alternative delivery
policies, processes, organization and technologies; the second would
study long term disease management. This section would also

[[Page S4950]]

authorize $6 million within the total of $11.4 billion authorized for
the Defense Health Program in FY2001 to carry out these demonstration
programs. The Armed Services Committee believes that these two models
have the potential to improve significantly the delivery of health care
in the military medical system.
I would like to ask the distinguished managers of the bill if the
FY2001 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill currently before the
Senate includes the resources in the Defense Health Program to conduct
the health care management demonstration program directed by section
740 of S. 2549?
Mr. STEVENS. I support the health care demonstration program directed
by section 740 of S. 2549, and I assure my good friend from Michigan
that the FY2001 Department of Defense appropriations bill before the
Senate includes sufficient funding in the Defense Health Program to
carry out this important effort.
Mr. INOUYE. I agree with the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee, and I thank the Senator from Michigan for bringing this
matter to our attention.

____________________