[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the quorum call be rescinded.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.

                          ____________________