[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 127 (Thursday, October 12, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10334-S10394]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




THE FLOYD D. SPENCE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 
                        2001--CONFERENCE REPORT

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

       The Committee of Conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate on the bill H.R. 
     4205, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for 
     military activities of the Department of Defense, for 
     military construction, and for defense activities of the 
     Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for 
     such fiscal year and for the Armed Forces, and for other 
     purposes, having met, have agreed that the House recede from 
     its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate, and agree to 
     the same with an amendment, and the Senate agree to the same, 
     signed by a majority of the conferees on the part of both 
     Houses.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will proceed to the consideration 
of the conference report.
  (The report was printed in the House proceeding of the Record of 
October 6, 2000.)
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is my privilege as chairman, together 
with my distinguished friend and ranking member, Mr. Levin, the Senator 
from Michigan, to at long last bring to the Senate the annual 
conference report from the authorizing committee in the Senate and the 
authorizing committee in the House.
  To refresh the recollection of Senators, I will read the time 
agreement: 2 hours under the control of the chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee, Mr. Warner; 2\1/2\ hours under the control of the 
ranking member, Mr. Levin; 1 hour under the control of Senator Gramm; 
30 minutes under the control of Senator Wellstone. Following the debate 
just outlined, Senator Robert Kerry will be recognized to make a point 
of order. The motion to waive the Budget Act will be limited to 2 hours 
equally divided in the usual form.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. We hope to yield back some time because I know many of 
our colleagues are anxious to make commitments, but this is a very 
important piece of legislation. I am certain the Senators who are going 
to participate, whom I have identified, will do so in a manner that 
fits the importance of this annual piece of legislation.
  This is the 39th consecutive authorization bill passed by the 
Congress, assuming it passes this Chamber. It passed the House by a 
vote of 382-31. That will give some clear indication of the importance 
of the legislation and the strong support that it merits and has 
merited in the House of Representatives.

  Mr. President, the Senate, as I have been with my colleagues here for 
the past hour or so for the voting, reflects a very somber note on this 
sad day for America--indeed, for all those who, throughout the world, 
stand guard for freedom. We have suffered a tragic loss to the U.S. 
Navy. This is in parallel with frightful losses taking place elsewhere 
throughout the Middle East. It brings to mind that this is a most 
dangerous world that faces us every day. Men and women in the Armed 
Forces of the United States go forth from our shores, serving in 
countries all over the world. They, of course, now are on a high alert 
because of the tragic terrorist act inflicted upon one of our 
destroyers, the U.S.S. Cole.
  First in mind are thoughts for our sailors who have lost their lives, 
and most particularly their families and the families who, at this 
hour, are still waiting definitive news with regard to the crew of that 
ship. The casualties number four dead, approximately 12 missing, and 
some 35 to 36 suffering wounds. Still the facts are coming in.
  This clearly shows the danger; it shows the risks the men and women 
of the Armed Forces are taking--not only in the Middle East region. 
This, of course, happened in a port in Yemen. The ship was on a routine 
refueling, a matter of hours, as it worked its way up towards the 
Persian Gulf to take up its duty station in enforcing the United 
Nations Security Council sanctions against Iraq. Because of the 
smuggling that is taking place in violation of those sanctions, those 
are dangerous tasks and they are being performed every day by men and 
women of the U.S. Armed Forces, Great Britain, and other nations. Air 
missions are being flown over Iraq every day, and often those missions 
are encountering ground fire and other military activity directed 
against them. We must be a grateful nation for the risks that are 
constantly assumed by the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces and 
their families.
  The Senate will have an opportunity to get further facts in the 
course of the day.
  I will now direct my attention to this particular bill, and I see the 
distinguished President pro tempore, the former chairman of the Senate 
Armed Services Committee. It is my privilege to succeed him. As an 
honor to our distinguished former chairman, I ask he lead off the 
debate on this bill today.
  Mr. THURMOND. Thank you very much. I appreciate your fine work as 
chairman.

[[Page S10335]]

  Mr. President, before I discuss the conference report on the Defense 
authorization bill, I want to join my colleagues in expressing my 
condolences to the families of the sailors killed and wounded in this 
morning's attack on the U.S.S. Cole. This heinous attack again 
demonstrates the constant peril faced by our military personnel and 
reinforces the need for this Nation to maintain its vigilance at all 
times.
  Mr. President, I join Chairman Warner and Senator Levin, the ranking 
member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, in urging my Senate 
colleagues to support the conference report to accompany the Floyd D. 
Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. The 
report, which is the culmination of hundreds of hours of work by the 
Senate and House Armed Services Committees, is a continuation of the 
Congress' efforts to reverse the decline in the readiness of our armed 
forces. It increases the President's budget request by more than $4 
billion. More important, it directs the additional resources to the 
critical areas of procurement, research and development, and improving 
the quality of life for our military personnel and their families.
  The chairman and ranking member have already highlighted the 
significant aspects of this bill. However, I do want to comment on the 
comprehensive health care provision for Medicare-eligible military 
retirees and the Energy Employees' Occupational Illness Compensation 
Program, both of which I consider significant aspects of this 
legislation. The health care provision is long overdue legislation that 
will ensure our military retirees and their families receive life-long 
health care committed to them as a condition of their service. It will 
significantly ease the uncertainty regarding health care and financial 
burden for thousands of military retirees who have dedicated their 
lives to the service of the Nation. The occupational illness 
compensation provision provides fair and just compensation to the 
thousands of workers who were exposed to dangerous levels of hazardous 
material and other toxic substances while they worked on the Nation's 
nuclear weapons programs. Although I understand that these benefits 
come at a significant financial cost, we must keep in mind our 
commitment to these patriots and remember the greatness of a Nation is 
not how much gold or wealth it accumulates, but on how it takes care of 
its citizens, especially those who serve in the Armed Forces.
  As with all conference reports, there are disappointments. I am 
particularly disappointed that the provision to increase the survivor 
benefit plan basic annuity for surviving spouses age 62 and older was 
dropped during the conference. The provision would have increased the 
survivor benefit plan annuity for these individuals from 35 percent to 
45 percent over the next four years. I understand that despite the 
obvious merit of the legislation it was dropped during the conference 
because it would have cost $2.4 billion over the next 10 years. I find 
this ironic, since there is more than $60 billion in direct spending 
attributed to this conference report.
  Despite my disappointment regarding the survivor benefit plan 
provision, this is a strong defense bill that will have a positive 
impact on the readiness of our armed forces. It is also a fitting 
tribute to my friend Floyd Spence, the Chairman of the House Armed 
Services Committee, to have this bill named in his honor. Floyd has 
worked tirelessly for our military personnel throughout his long and 
distinguished career in the House of Representatives. Regrettably, due 
to the House Rules he will give up the chair of the Armed Services 
Committee at the end of this session. Although he will be missed as 
chairman, his leadership and concern for our military personnel will 
have a lasting legacy in this conference report and Floyd will continue 
to serve the people of South Carolina and the Nation as a member of the 
House Armed Services Committee.
  I congratulate Chairman Warner and Senator Levin on this conference 
report and urge my colleagues to give it their overwhelming support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I believe there is a parliamentary inquiry 
from our colleague. I yield for that purpose.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Michigan, I be allowed 
to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, of course, his request is in the unanimous 
consent agreement, and, of course, we will observe it.
  Today the Senate begins consideration of the conference report to 
accompany H.R. 4205, the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2001.
  Before I discuss the provisions of the conference report, I want to 
report that my fellow Senators on the conference panel and I 
enthusiastically joined the House conferees in naming this bill. 
Representative Floyd Spence has served as the chairman of the House 
Armed Services Committee for the last six years. His chairmanship, 
however, represents only a portion of the almost 30 years 
Representative Spence has been a tireless and dedicated supporter of 
the military men and women in uniform. As chairman of the committee, in 
particular, he has led the committee and the House of Representatives 
in addressing the many challenging national security issues that have 
confronted our nation in the wake of the cold war. Representative 
Spence has accomplished this undertaking with distinction. From this 
former Marine captain to a retired Navy captain, I salute him for his 
leadership. Under the rules of the House, he will relinquish command of 
the committee at the end of this Congress. Representative Spence will 
remain a member of the committee, and I look forward to continuing to 
work with him in the many years to come.
  This legislation will have a profound, positive impact on our 
nation's security and on the welfare of the men and women of the Armed 
Forces and their families. For the second year in a row, the conference 
report before the Senate authorizes a real increase in defense 
spending. We have built on the momentum begun last year by authorizing 
$309.9 billion in new budget authority for defense for fiscal year 
2001--$4.6 billion above the President's budget request. And how have 
we allocated this increase? This bill authorizes $63.2 billion in 
procurement, which is $2.6 billion above the President's budget 
request; $38.9 billion in research, development, test and evaluation, 
which is $1.1 billion above the President's request; and $109.7 billion 
in operations and maintenance funding, which exceeds the budget request 
by $1.0 billion.
  It is said that success has a thousand fathers and failure is an 
orphan. The majority of credit for the successes in this bill however, 
can be attribute to five distinguished and decorated fathers: the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the four service chiefs. 
General Shelton, General Shinseki, Admiral Clark, General Jones, and 
General Ryan came to Congress repeatedly during this session and 
presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee their concerns about 
the state of the Armed Forces today. They also shared with us their 
observations about the future. They have consistently shared this 
information with us in a reasonable, earnest, and nonpartisan manner. 
We greatly appreciate their candor and contributions to this process.
  We all recognize that our military today is over deployed and under 
recourced--both in terms of people and money.
  Since the early 1990s, the U.S. military has been sent on operations 
overseas at an unprecedented rate; at the same time that force 
structure was reduced by a third and defense spending was declining. 
From the end of the Viet Nam War until 1989, there were 60 military 
deployments. From 1990 to today, there have been 343 deployments--a 571 
percent increase. These statistics accurately tell the story. This 
trend has increased the risk to our forces and has exacerbated the 
recruiting and retention problems in the military. This cannot 
continue.
  While the rate of military deployments is established by the 
President, the Congress, within our constitutional powers, is 
continuing to support the Armed Forces by improving the quality

[[Page S10336]]

of life for the men and women in uniform and their families, by 
providing for funding increases to address declining readiness 
problems, aging equipment, and recruiting and retention difficulties. 
The conference report does this. For the servicemen and women deployed 
around the world, and the families at home that wait their return, they 
should know that the Congress is steadfastly behind them.

  I turn now to what is one of the most important single item in this 
conference report--military healthcare, particularly for our retired 
personnel and their families. History shows they are the best 
recruiters of all.
  The conference report before the Senate fulfills an important 
commitment of ``healthcare for life'' made by the recruiters--the U.S. 
Government--beginning in World War II and continuing through the Korean 
war and the Viet Nam war. The goal of making that commitment was to 
encourage service members to remain in uniform and become careerists. 
Simply put, a commitment of health care for life in exchange for their 
dedicated career service.
  Again, this convergence report fulfills the promise of healthcare for 
life. I am proud of the bipartisan unanimity with which the Senate 
Armed Services Committee supported this initiative--an initiative never 
taken before by an congressional committee.
  Let me describe for my colleagues and for our active and retired 
service members around the world the legislation in this conference 
report to authorize health care benefits for Medicare-eligible military 
retirees and their families, and how we arrived at this outcome.
  For as long as I can remember, military recruits and those facing re-
enlistment have been told that one of the basic benefits of serving a 
full military career is health care for life. We all know now that this 
commonly offered incentive was not based in statute, but was, 
nonetheless, freely and frequently made; it is a commitment that we 
must honor.
  Let me briefly review the history of military health care. Military 
medical care requirements for activity duty service members and their 
families were recognized as early as the 1700's. Congressional action 
in the last 1800's directed military medical officers to attend to 
military families whenever possible, at no cost to the family. During 
World War II, with so many service members on activity duty, the 
military medical system could not handle the health care requirements 
of family members. The Emergency Maternal and Infant Care Program was 
authorized by Congress to meet this road. This program was administered 
through state health agencies.
  The earliest reference in statute defining the health care benefit 
for military retirees was in 1956 when, for the first time, the 
Dependent's Medical Care Act specified that military retirees were 
eligible for health care in military facilities on a space-available 
basis. In 1966, this Act was amended to create the Civilian Health and 
Medical Program of the Uniformed Services, CHAMPUS, to supplement the 
care provided in military facilities. This legislation, in 1966, 
specifically excluded from coverage military retirees who were eligible 
for Medicare--a program which had been enacted by the Congress one year 
earlier, in 1965.
  The exclusion of over age 65, Medicare-eligible military retirees 
from guaranteed care from the military health care system was masked 
for many years because the capacity of military hospitals an the 
military medical system exceeded that required to care for active duty 
service members; therefore, many Medicare-eligible retirees were able 
to receive treatment, on a space-available basis, at military 
facilities. In the 1990s, we began to reduce the size of our military 
services and the base realignment and closure, BRAC, rounds began to 
close bases--and military hospitals--all across the Nation. The 
combined effect of fewer military medical personnel to provide care and 
the closure of over 30 percent of the military hospitals eliminated the 
excess capacity that had been so beneficial to military retirees. Also 
during this decade the retiree population grew dramatically, adding 
pressure to the military health care system. The true magnitude of the 
problem was finally exposed.

  All of us have heard from military retirees who served a full career 
and, in so doing, made many sacrifices. Many times the sacrifices these 
heroic veterans made resulted in serious medical conditions that 
manifested themselves at the time in their lives when they were pushed 
out of the military health care system. As a nation, we promised these 
dedicated retirees health care for life, but we were ignoring that 
promise.
  On February 23, 2000, I introduced a bill, S. 2087, that provided for 
access to mail order pharmaceuticals for ALL Medicare-eligible military 
retirees, for the first time. The legislation also would improve access 
to benefits under TRICARE and extend and improve certain demonstration 
programs under the Defense Health Program.
  On May 1, 2000, I introduced S. 2486, which added a retail pharmacy 
component to the previous legislation, providing for a full pharmacy 
benefit for all retirees, including those eligible for Medicare.
  On June 6, Senator Tim Hutchinson and I introduced S. 2669, a bill 
that would extend TRICARE eligibility to all military retirees and 
their families, regardless of age. Later that same day, I amended the 
defense authorization bill to add the text of S. 2669. This legislation 
provided uninterrupted access to the Military Health Care System, known 
as TRICARE, to all retirees.
  While the Senate bill extended TRICARE eligibility to all military 
retirees and their families regardless of age, the defense 
authorization bill passed by the House of Representatives took a 
different approach. The House bill expanded and made permanent the 
Medicare subvention program. Medicare subvention is a program that is 
currently being tested in ten sites across the country. Under Medicare 
subvention, the Health Care Financing Agency of the Department of 
Health and Human Services reimburses the Department of Defense for 
providing health care to Medicare-eligible military retirees in 
military hospitals.
  There are several problems with Medicare subvention. First, the 
amount of the reimbursement from Medicare to DOD falls well short of 
the actual cost of providing that care, causing DOD to absorb a loss 
for each retiree covered by the program. Second, expanding Medicare 
subvention nationwide would provide access to health care only for 
those beneficiaries living in proximity to the remaining DOD medical 
facilities. In contrast, the Senate bill covered 100 percent of the 
Medicare-eligible military retirees, regardless of where they live.
  As many of you know, since the defense authorization conference began 
in late July, Senate and House conferees have been working toward the 
mutual goal of adopting legislation which would provide comprehensive 
health care to all military retirees, regardless of age. I am pleased 
to announce that the conference report to accompany the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 includes a permanent 
health care benefit for retirees--modeled on the Senate bill. I am 
delighted that we have honored the commitment of health care for life 
that was made to those who proudly served this nation. This is long 
overdue.

  It had always been my intent to make this health care benefit 
permanent. In fact, when I originally introduced my legislation in 
February, with the support of many in the Senate, there was no time 
limit on the benefits contained in my amendment. During Senate floor 
consideration, a discussion arose about whether a budget point of order 
could be made against the bill due to the mandatory costs of the 
amendment. At that point, I made the decision to limit the provision to 
a preliminary 2-year period to ensure that there would be no point of 
order against the authorization bill. We knew of Senators who had a 
legitimate interest in raising such a point of order, and I did not 
want to put the bill at risk.
  All through this process, I have made clear my commitment to work to 
make these benefits permanent at the earliest opportunity.
  During the defense authorization conference we had an opportunity to 
make my retiree health care provisions permanent by converting the 
benefit to an entitlement and creating an accrual account in the 
Treasury. This conversion to an entitlement would not occur until 
fiscal year 2003.

[[Page S10337]]

  Let me describe how funding the health care benefit through an 
accrual account would work. Accrual method of financing is more of an 
accounting mechanism than a change in funding. Using an accrual method 
of financing does not, in itself, increase the costs of a program. 
Accrual funding is commonly used in entitlement programs; one example 
of an accrual account is the military retirement account. The 
Department of Defense would annually deposit such funds, as determined 
by the actuarial board, into the accrual account in the Treasury. The 
Treasury, which would absorb the liability for certain costs attributed 
to providing health care, would also make an annual deposit to the 
accrual account. The costs of the health care benefit would than be 
paid from the accrual account.
  The net effect of funding this important program as an entitlement 
would be similar to funding it from within the discretionary accounts 
of the Department of Defense. While a significant portion of the burden 
of funding this program is moved from the Department of Defense budget, 
there is little net cost to the federal government.
  Permanently funding the military retiree health care benefit will be 
seen by retirees, active duty service members and potential recruits as 
the nation keeping it's commitment of health care for life to military 
retirees. Those serving today and those who are joining the military 
will see that the promise of a lifetime of health care, in return for 
serving a full career, will be honored in perpetuity.
  Two weeks ago, in testimony before both the Senate Armed Services 
Committee and the House Armed Services Committee, General Hugh Shelton, 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and each of the service chiefs 
strongly supported making this benefit permanent and using the accrual 
account method of financing. The Joint Chiefs have repeatedly testified 
that failing to honor the commitment to our retirees has been 
detrimental to their recruiting and retention efforts.

  During our conference we made many tough decisions on issues that are 
very important to many Senators. I resisted every proposal that would 
potentially generate a point of order against the conference report. 
The accrual funding mechanism and the direct spending associated with 
the retiree health care benefit will make our conference report 
vulnerable to a motion to raise a point of order against our bill which 
would require a 60 vote majority to overcome. It is any Senator's 
legitimate right to take such an action. While I respect the right of 
any Senator to raise a point of order, I am urging my colleagues to 
consider the benefits of the health care provisions in this bill, which 
are fully justified. We would not want to leave our over-65 military 
retirees in doubt about our intentions with respect to their medical 
care. They must make critical decisions regarding their medical 
insurance plans and medical care. By making this health care plan a 
permanent entitlement, we are truly fulfilling the commitment made to 
all those who have completed a career in uniform.
  If such a point of order is sustained, then the Defense authorization 
conference report will have to be recommitted to a new conference. 
There is simply not enough time in this Congress to commence a new 
conference.
  If the Defense authorization conference report is not passed, there 
will be no health care benefit for Medicare-eligible military retirees. 
If the defense authorization conference report is not passed, this 
would be the first time in 38 years that the Congress has not passed a 
Defense authorization bill. That would be a tragedy. What a terrible 
signal to send to our brave men and women in uniform defending freedom 
around the world.
  In addition to restoring our commitment to our retirees, the 
conference report also includes a number of important initiatives for 
active and reserve men and women in uniform today. The conferees 
authorized a 3.7 percent pay raise for military personnel effective 
January 1, 2001 and a revision of the basic pay tables to give 
noncommissioned officers an additional pay increase, effective July 1, 
2001. I cannot understate the importance of providing our 
noncommissioned officers with this support. They are our career 
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines; tried and true, they are the 
backbone of our military and are more than deserving of this pay raise.
  We included a provision to reduce the number of military personnel on 
food stamps. The conference report would provide up to $500 per month 
in an additional, special pay for military personnel who are eligible 
for food stamps. By our estimates, this provision should reduce the 
6,000 military personnel estimated by DOD to be on food stamps today by 
about half. To further assist our most needy service members, the 
conferees agreed to eliminate the requirement that service members pay 
15 percent of their housing costs out of their own pocket and directed 
implementation of the Thrift Savings Program of active and reserve 
service members.
  The conference report extends current and authorizes additional 
recruiting and retention bonuses and special pays. If the bill is not 
enacted into law, all of these bonuses will expire on December 31, 
2000. If the services are not able to offer the recruiting and 
reenlistment bonuses, their recruiting and retention progress of this 
past year will be for naught.
  Also important to improving the quality of life for servicemen and 
women and their families is our continuing support for the 
modernization, renovation, and improvement of aging military housing. 
This conference report contains $8.8 billion for military construction 
and family housing, an increase of $788.0 million above the 
administration's request. More than $443.0 million of this amount is 
for the construction of 2,900 family housing units--800 more homes than 
last year. The conference report also provides more than $585.0 million 
to renovate and upgrade critical barracks space for unaccompanied 
military personnel and more than $660.0 million for vital military 
construction projects for reserve components.

  This conference report also supports a group of dedicated men and 
women, who, while not in uniform, provided an equally important 
contribution to the defense of the Nation. The conference report 
establishes a new program to compensate Department of Energy, DOE, 
employees and DOE contractor employees who were injured due to exposure 
to radiation, beryllium, or silica while working at certain DOE 
defense-related nuclear facilities. This new program is intended to 
compensate those employees who, for the past 50 years, have performed 
duties uniquely related to nuclear weapons production and testing. 
Eligible employees would receive a lump sum payment of $150,000 and 
payment for all future medical costs related to the covered illness.
  At this point, I recognize the important contributions of Senators 
Thompson, Voinovich, McConnell, and DeWine and their staff in crafting 
the final conference outcome on DOE workers compensation. Although they 
were not conferees, they were involved every step of the way as we 
negotiated this important issue with the House. They are to be 
commended for their tireless efforts on behalf of DOE workers.
  I will now briefly highlight just a few of the important measures in 
this bill which support modernization and operations of our land, sea, 
and air forces, and which support our continuing efforts to identify 
and counter the emerging threats--information warfare or the use of 
weapons of mass destruction.
  The conference report:
  Increases funding by over $888.0 million for the primary military 
readiness accounts for ammunition, spare parts, equipment maintenance, 
base operations, training funds, and real property maintenance. While 
the additional funds that the conferees have provided will help with 
some of the most critical shortages in these areas, further efforts 
will be required over the next several years if we are to restore the 
Armed Forces to appropriate levels of readiness;
  Supports the Army's transformation efforts by: authorizing an 
additional $750.0 million for this initiative; directing the Army to 
provide a plan that charts a clear course toward the fielding of an 
objective force in the 2012 time frame; and requiring an evaluation of 
equipment alternatives for Interim Brigade Combat Teams;
  Adds $560.0 million to the President's budget request for ship 
construction;

[[Page S10338]]

  Adds $15.7 million for five additional Weapons of Mass Destruction 
Civil Support Teams, WMD-CST, which will result in a total of 32 WMD-
CSTs by the end of fiscal year 2001. WMD-CSTs, formerly known as Rapid 
Assessment and Initial Detection, RAID; Teams, are comprised of 22 
full-time National guard personnel who are specially trained and 
equipped to deploy and assess suspected nuclear, biological, chemical, 
or radiological events in support of local first responders in the 
United States.

  Includes a provision that would designate one Assistant Secretary of 
Defense as the principal civilian advisor to the Secretary for 
Department of Defense activities for combating terrorism. This 
provision--which is critically needed--ensures that there is a single 
individual within the Department responsible for providing a focused, 
comprehensive and well-funded DOD policy for combating terrorism.
  Provides additional funding to address several of the Department of 
Defense's most critical shortfalls in combating cyber-warfare threats. 
The conference report adds $15.0 million to create an information 
Security Scholarship Program to address shortages in skilled DOD 
information assurance personnel by providing essential training and 
education in exchange for a service commitment, and $5.0 million to 
establish an Institute for Defense Computer Security and Information 
Protection to conduct critical research and development that is 
currently not being done by DOD or the private sector, and to 
facilitate the exchange of information regarding cyberthreats and 
related issues;
  Adds $146.0 million to accelerate technologies leading to the 
development and fielding of unmanned air combat vehicles by 2010 and 
unmanned ground combat vehicles by 2015. This initiative will allow the 
Department to exploit the opportunities created by the rapid pace of 
technological development to provide our men and women in uniform with 
the most advanced weaponry and leverage these developments in a way 
that minimizes the risk to those deployed in harm's why;
  Authorizes a net increase of $391.8 million for ballistic missile 
defense programs including a $129.0 million increase for National 
Missile Defense risk reduction, an $85.0 million increase for the 
Airborne Laser program, and an $80.0 million increase for the Navy 
Theater Wide missile defense program;
  Reduces the congressional review period from 180 days to 60 days for 
changes proposed by the administration on the export control levels of 
high performance computers;
  Ensures service contractors receive prompt and timely payment from 
the Department of Defense by requiring a plan for the electronic 
submission of supporting documents for contracts and the payment of 
interest for service contracts for payments more than 30 days late;
  Authorizes $470.0 million in federal assistance to the Nation's 
firefighters over the next two years. The conference report also 
establishes a framework for the review and reauthorization of the 
program at the end of that time.
  I would now like to take a few moments to address a provision which 
is not in the final conference report--the Warner-Kasich amendment on 
Kosovo.
  As my colleagues know, I started the legislative effort to get our 
European allies to live up to the commitments they have made to provide 
assistance to the peacekeeping operation in Kosovo shortly after 
returning from a trip to the region in January. I was greatly troubled 
by what I saw in Kosovo--a U.N. peacekeeping mission that was out of 
money; a civil implementation effort that had barely begun, almost 
seven months after the war had ended; and U.S. and other NATO troops 
having to make up for shortfalls on the civilian side by performing a 
variety of non-military missions, from performing basic police 
functions to running towns and villages, to acting as judges and 
juries. I could not allow this situation to continue without reviewing 
the issue with our allies and bringing it to the attention of my 
colleagues.
  The United Sates bore the major share of the military burden for the 
air war on behalf of Kosovo--flying almost 70 percent of the strike and 
support sorties, at a cost of over $4.0 billion to the U.S. taxpayer 
and great personal risk to our aviators. In return, the Europeans 
promised to pay the major share of the burden to secure the peace. 
European nations and institutions quickly volunteered billions in 
assistance and thousands of personnel for the effort to rebuild Kosovo. 
Unfortunately, as I discovered in January, these resources and 
personnel were not making their way to Kosovo--commitments were simply 
not becoming realities.
  I introduced legislation that had a very clear and simple purpose: to 
tell our European allies that we would not allow the commitment of U.S. 
military personnel to Kosovo to drift on endlessly because of the 
failure of the Europeans to live up to their commitments. My 
legislation would have done no more than hold our allies accountable 
for the pledges and commitments they freely made.
  For a variety of reasons, a form of the legislation that I originally 
sponsored failed in the Senate on a close vote. However, Congressman 
Kasich, after consulting with me, pursued similar legislation as an 
amendment to the defense authorization bill in the House of 
Representatives. The Kasich amendment passed the House by an 
overwhelming margin--over 100 votes. It was this amendment that we 
addressed during our conference.
  I believe that the legislation Congressman Kasich and I jointly 
pursued this year has had a very positive effect. Money and personnel 
for civil implementation efforts are now flowing into Kosovo. Our 
allies are making credible progress in fulfilling their commitments. 
The civil implementation effort in Kosovo is now moving forward. While 
more clearly needs to be done, it was the feeling of a majority of the 
conferees--myself included--that the Kosovo legislation had largely 
achieved its purpose, and keeping this legislation in the final 
conference report could have a negative impact on relations with our 
allies and, perhaps, developments in Kosovo.
  In place of the Kasich language, the conferees included a provision 
which requires the President to submit semiannual reports to the 
Congress, beginning in December of this year, on the progress being 
made by our allies in fulfilling their commitments in Kosovo. Such 
reports will allow the Congress to keep track of developments in this 
important area. If these reports reveal that progress again lags, it is 
the intention of this Senator to pursue legislation in the future 
designed to ensure greater burden sharing by our European allies in 
this crucial venture.
  In conclusion, I want to thank all of the members and staff of the 
Senate and House Armed Services Committee for their hard work and 
cooperation. This bill sends a strong signal to our men and women in 
uniform and their families that Congress fully supports them as they 
perform their missions around the world with courage and dedication.
  I am confident that enactment of this conference report will enhance 
the quality of life for our service men and women and their families, 
strengthen the modernization and readiness of our Armed Forces, and 
begin to address newly emerging threats to our security. I strongly 
urge my colleagues to adopt the recommendations of the conference 
committee.
  Mr. President, I especially thank my distinguished friend and ranking 
member for the cooperation he has given me. This is the 22nd year we 
have served together in the Senate. We have been partners all these 
many years. We are proud to have the joint responsibility of the 
leadership of the committee that tries at every juncture to exert 
wisdom and decisions reflecting bipartisanship and, as in the famous 
words of another Senator, we check politics at the water's edge, 
particularly as it relates to the forward-deployed troops of our Armed 
Forces.
  We are proud of that record. We have worked together very well. There 
was unanimous signing of the conference report which is presently 
before the Senate. I am very proud of the participation of all members 
of our committee and, indeed, the superb staffs of both the majority 
and minority.
  I join my distinguished colleague, the President pro tempore and 
former chairman, in recognizing this bill is named for Floyd Spence, 
the chairman

[[Page S10339]]

of the House committee. Chairman Spence has served many years. He was a 
World War II veteran in the Navy and rose to the rank of captain. He 
has had a distinguished public service record in the United States. It 
is most fitting that this bill be named in his honor.
  Mr. President, I see the presence of our distinguished colleague from 
Alabama. Perhaps he would like to follow the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. SESSIONS. If that is appropriate, I will be honored to follow the 
Senator.
  Mr. WARNER. Senator Wellstone, to be correct. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent he be recognized following Senator Wellstone.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, unless the managers, Mr. Levin or myself, 
for some reason need to be recognized.
  For the second year in a row, the conference report before the Senate 
authorizes a real increase in defense spending. We have built on the 
momentum of last year by authorizing $309.9 billion in new budget 
authority for Defense for the fiscal year 2001, $4.6 billion above the 
request of the President of the United States.
  That additional funding over and above the President's request was 
the result of the actions of many Senators, most particularly our 
Senate leadership, Republican and Democratic, the Budget Committee 
chairman, Senator Domenici, the ranking member, and others, and I 
certainly had a strong hand in it. We had a record to take before the 
Senate to justify that increase, and that record, in large measure, was 
put together by the Joint Chiefs of Staff; specifically, the Chiefs of 
the Services who have periodically come before the Congress and, in 
accordance with the clear understanding between the Congress and the 
Service Chiefs, to give us their opinions with regard to the needs for 
their respective military departments and, indeed, the other 
departments. They give us those professional opinions, even though 
those opinions at times are at variance with the statements of the 
President, the Secretary of Defense, and possibly even the Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
  The Service Chiefs have come forward repeatedly and told us about the 
needs over and above budget requests. Therefore, at this time, I 
specifically thank them for their service and thank them also for 
standing up for those in uniform and their families in their respective 
military departments.
  When you are down there, whether it is an enlisted man or junior 
officer, looking up to those four-stars, it is a long way, but they are 
the leaders and they are the most trusted of all, the most unbiased. 
When it comes to politics, there is not a trace. They are there for the 
interest of our Nation and most specifically for those who every day 
follow their orders. I thank them.
  They confirmed what we all know: That today, the U.S. military is 
overdeployed and underresourced, resource in terms of people, dollars, 
procurement, and O&M funds. I will go into detail about them in the 
course of this debate.
  Since early 1990, the U.S. military has been sent on operations 
overseas at an unprecedented rate. At the same time, that force 
structure was reduced by a third and defense spending was declining 
every year up until 2 years ago. From the end of the war in Vietnam 
until 1989, the records of the Pentagon show there were 60 military 
deployments.
  From basically 1989 until today, there have been 343 deployments in 
sharp contrast to the 60 in the preceding period. This represents over 
a 500-percent increase in our deployments. These statistics tell the 
story.
  I am not suggesting in any way that most of these deployments were 
absolutely essential. Many were in the vital security interests of the 
United States. As I think quite properly, those contending for the 
Presidency today, both Republican and Democrat, have pointed out that 
they will watch very carefully what has been brought to the attention, 
largely by the Congress and the Chiefs, that they are overdeployed and 
underresourced. Those are the statistics of this period basically from 
1989 until today.
  While the rate of military deployments is established by the 
President, the Congress, with our constitutional powers, is continuing 
to support the Armed Forces by improving the quality of life for the 
men and women in uniform and their families, and the President, in his 
budget submissions, has done that. But each time in the past 3 years, 
the Congress has gone above the President's request to add what we can, 
given the budget constraints, to further improve the quality of life of 
the men and women in the Armed Forces, to further increase procurement, 
to further increase O&M funds because we are highly aware of that 
theme--overdeployed and underresourced.
  The conference report takes great strides in the direction to 
improve, over and above that requested by the President, the quality of 
life of our men and women and, I may say, the retirees.
  I am proud of our committee. The Senate Armed Services Committee, the 
records show, is the first committee in the Senate to recognize the 
need for revising the health care program for career military retirees. 
Basically, that is 20 years or, in the case of those who have medical 
retirement, earlier than 20, but the career military have long been 
neglected.
  I want to credit the many organizations and many individuals who 
approached this chairman, who approached, I believe, every Member of 
the Senate, and brought to their attention the need for correction. 
That correction, I am proud to say, is incorporated in this conference 
report and will be given in great detail.
  Basically, these retirees, in my judgment, have been entitled to this 
for many years. In my judgment, they were promised this. At a later 
point in this debate, I will go into the specifics because I have 
researched it way back. And now, at long last, in this 2001 
appropriations, we make the start for a health care program to have the 
care for those retirees which they deserve and to which they have been 
entitled for many years. One of the most important single items in this 
conference report is this military health care.
  History shows that our military retirees are the best recruiters of 
all. One of the direct consequences of our military being overdeployed 
and underresourced--I will use that refrain over and over again--has 
been the difficulty in recruiting the needed personnel, the difficulty 
in retaining the middle grade officers primarily, and the middle grade 
enlisted, particularly those with skills that are in direct competition 
with our ever-burgeoning economy in the private sector, who know full 
well that to get a military person--trained in computers, trained in 
electronics--they know they get a well-trained, well-disciplined, 
reliable employee.
  That is quite a lure to these young men and women who are 
overdeployed, who suffer so much family separation. There has been an 
over 500-percent increase in these military deployments in the past 
decade or so. So that is the reason we are having difficulty in meeting 
our recruiting goals.
  But we are beginning to put a fix in to take care of the retirees, so 
once again they can go out, as they have done in the past--I am not 
suggesting they withstood recruiting, but certainly some of the 
incentive has been lacking because they have not been treated fairly--
and, once again, they will be in the forward vanguard of recruiting. 
They are the best recruiters of all.
  I have to say on a personal note, my father served in World War I. I 
am very proud of his service and believe he recruited me in World War 
II by simply saying: It is your duty, son. Although I had very modest 
service at the conclusion of, the end of that war, fathers like him all 
throughout the country--and some mothers--were the recruiters long 
before we got to the recruiting station.
  The conference report before the Senate fulfills an important 
commitment of health care for life, as we have determined because in 
World War II, history shows, and continuing through the Korean war, and 
indeed through Vietnam, the goal of making that commitment was to 
encourage service members to remain in uniform and become careerists. 
Simply put, there was the commitment of health care for life in 
exchange for their dedicated career service.
  Let me describe for my colleagues and for our active and retired 
service

[[Page S10340]]

members around the world the legislation in this conference report to 
authorize health care benefits for Medicare-eligible military retirees 
and their families. First, our committee, we were in the forward 
vanguard of this. Then we were joined by the House. But let me describe 
what we have done in this bill jointly--Senate and House--in this 
conference report.

  Military medical care requirements for active duty service members 
and their families were recognized as early as the 1700s. That is how 
far back in the history of our country it goes--George Washington's 
Continental Army. Congressional action in the late 1800s directed 
military medical officers to tend to military families, whenever 
possible, at no cost to the family.
  During World War II, with so many service members on active duty, the 
military medical system could not handle the health care requirements 
of many family members. The Emergency Maternal and Infant Care Program 
was authorized by Congress to meet that need in that wartime period. 
This program was administered through State health agencies. The 
earliest reference in statute defining the health care benefit for 
military retirees was in 1956, when for the first time, the Dependent's 
Medical Care Act specified that military retirees were eligible for 
health care in military facilities on a space-available basis.
  In 1966, a decade later, this act was amended to create the Civilian 
Health and Medical Care Program of the Uniformed Services, called 
CHAMPUS, to supplement the care provided in military facilities. This 
legislation, in 1966, specifically excluded from coverage military 
retirees who were eligible for Medicare, a program which had been 
enacted by the Congress 1 year earlier, in 1965.
  All of us have heard from military retirees who served a full career 
and in so doing made many sacrifices. Many times the sacrifices these 
heroic retirees made resulted in serious medical conditions that 
manifested themselves in a time in their lives when they were pushed 
out of the military health care program. As a nation, we promised these 
dedicated retirees health care for life, but at that period we were 
ignoring that promise of America.
  On February 23, 2000, I introduced a bill, S. 2087, that provided for 
access to mail-order pharmaceuticals for all Medicare-eligible military 
retirees. This was the first time that has ever been done. The 
legislation would also improve access to benefits under TRICARE and 
extend and improve certain demonstration programs under the Defense 
Health Program.
  On May 1, 2000, I introduced S. 2486, which added a retail pharmacy 
component to the previous legislation, providing for a full pharmacy 
benefit for all retirees, including those eligible for Medicare.
  Now, I staged this purposely because throughout this period I was in 
consultation with the many veterans groups who came forward in that 
period, experts who had studied this for a long time and brought to my 
attention the added requirements in the legislation.
  While I and other members of the Senate Armed Services Committee were 
working on this legislation, we were doing so in consultation regularly 
with those organizations representing the retired military and the 
Department of Defense. It is interesting, Secretary Cohen had some 
difficulty, understandably, because of his budget constraints. But I 
know in his heart of hearts he was concerned about the military 
retirees, as were the Chiefs. But the time came when the Chiefs had the 
opportunity to express their opinions, which, as I say, were at 
variance with those of the Secretary of Defense and, indeed, the 
President. They told us about the need for this legislation.
  So while I thank the Senate and most particularly our committee for 
pioneering this effort for the first time in the history of the 
Congress, we owe a debt of gratitude to so many others who helped us, 
gave us the encouragement, and, indeed, showed us the path to follow.
  On June 6, Senator Tim Hutchinson and I introduced S. 2669, a bill 
that would extend TRICARE eligibility to all military retirees and 
their families regardless of age. Later that same day, I amended the 
Defense authorization bill to add the text of S. 2669. This legislation 
provided uninterrupted access to the military health care system, known 
as TRICARE, to all retirees.
  While the Senate bill extended TRICARE eligibility to all military 
retirees and their families regardless of age, the Defense 
authorization bill passed by the House of Representatives took a 
different approach. I respect their approach, but it was different from 
ours.
  The House bill expanded and made permanent the Medicare subvention 
program. Medicare subvention is a program that is currently being 
tested in 10 sites across the country. Under Medicare subvention, the 
Health Care Financing Agency of the Department of Health and Human 
Services reimburses the Department of Defense for providing health care 
to Medicare-eligible military retirees in military hospitals.
  There were two significant problems with Medicare's subvention in the 
judgment of the Senate, and particularly the conferees, when we got to 
conference.
  First, the amount in the reimbursement from Medicare to DOD falls 
well short of the actual cost of providing that care, causing DOD to 
absorb a loss for each retiree covered by the program.
  Second, expanding Medicare subvention nationwide would provide access 
to health care only for those beneficiaries living in proximity to the 
remaining DOD medical facilities. In contrast, the Senate bill covered 
100 percent of the Medicare-eligible military retirees, regardless of 
where they live.
  This is important; I emphasize that. Many of the military retirees 
live under very modest circumstances and have sought places in our 
Nation for their retirement homes which cost less and, therefore, very 
often are not co-located with large military facilities and military 
medical hospitals. They are scattered. It has been a burden on some of 
those people through the years to travel considerable distances to 
avail themselves of such medical assistance as was afforded to them 
prior to this bill.
  Since the Defense authorization conference began in late July, Senate 
and House conferees have been working towards the mutual goal of 
adopting legislation which would provide comprehensive health care to 
all military retirees regardless of age. I am pleased to announce that 
the conference report to accompany the National Defense Authorization 
Act for fiscal year 2001 includes a permanent health care benefit for 
retirees modeled on the Senate's original version to have it permanent.
  I am delighted that we have honored the commitment of health care for 
life that was made to those who proudly served the Nation on a 
permanent basis.
  I acknowledge the strong participation by the House conferees; 
indeed, the Speaker of the House and the chairman of the House 
Subcommittee on Personnel, and Chairman Spence, Chairman Stump. I could 
mention many who worked on this. That was a subject of some concern in 
the conference because Senator Levin and I, when we had our bill on the 
floor with provisions which would, in an orderly way, have enabled us 
to have permanency to this program, were going to be challenged on a 
point of order. That may occur again today. Frankly, I would rather 
have it occur today than when this bill first was on the floor 2 months 
or so ago for various reasons.
  So the conferees made the decision--a bold one--that they would make 
this permanent, and we now present that to the Senate. It had always 
been my intent to make this health care permanent. In fact, when we 
originally introduced the legislation in February, with the support of 
many in the Senate, there was no time limit on the benefits contained 
in the early Senate bills and amendments. I have covered the history of 
how we have gotten where it is now permanent.
  The net effect of funding this important program as an entitlement 
would be similar to funding it from within the discretionary accounts 
of the Department of Defense. There is little net cost to the Federal 
Government. Permanently funding the military retiree health care 
benefit will be seen by retirees, active duty service members, and 
potential recruits, both enlisted

[[Page S10341]]

and officers, as the Nation keeping its commitment to health care for 
life to military retirees. Those serving today and those who are 
joining the military will see that the promise of a lifetime of health 
care in return for a career will be honored by America.
  Two weeks ago in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee 
and the House Armed Services Committee, Gen. Hugh Shelton, Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and each of the Service Chiefs strongly 
supported making this benefit permanent and using the accrual account 
methods of financing. While I respect the right of any Senator to raise 
a point of order, I am urging my colleagues to consider the benefits of 
the health care provisions of this bill which are fully justified. We 
would not want to leave our over-65 military retirees in doubt about 
our intentions with respect to their future medical care.
  This issue is on the 1 yard line, ready to be carried across for a 
touchdown by the Senate, hopefully within a matter of hours.
  These retirees must make critical decisions regarding their medical 
insurance plans and medical care. By making this health care plan a 
permanent entitlement, we are truly fulfilling the commitment made to 
all those who have completed a career in uniform and to those 
contemplating a career in the future.
  I am going to yield the floor at this time so as to move along. I 
will return to my remarks at a later point.
  I yield the floor to my distinguished colleague. Again, I thank 
Senator Levin for his untiring efforts on our behalf to create this 
historic piece of legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first let me congratulate Senator Warner, 
our chairman, for his distinguished service, as always, for his total 
commitment to the men and women in the military, for trying to produce 
a bipartisan product which we have produced again this year. Without 
his leadership, this would not be possible. I, first and foremost, 
thank my good friend John Warner for again coming through with a really 
good bill that I think will command the large number of votes which 
will be forthcoming.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I know he would wish 
to share, with me, such credit for this legislation with all members on 
both sides of the aisle of the Armed Services Committee. We have a 
great team.
  Mr. LEVIN. That was indeed the next point. We are blessed with a 
committee which operates on a bipartisan basis. The members of the 
committee work well together. The chairmen of our subcommittees work 
well. Our staffs work well together. We have many blessings to count 
being able to serve in this body and to serve our Nation, but surely 
one of our great blessings is being on a committee which is able to 
operate on such a bipartisan basis.
  I echo Chairman Warner's comments about the tragedy in Yemen this 
morning that involved the Navy ship, the U.S.S. Cole. Our hearts and 
prayers go out to the families of those who have been lost in this 
despicable act of terrorism. Our hearts and prayers go out to the 
sailors who have survived who are now struggling for life. Our hearts 
and prayers go out to their families. We are in, as we surely 
understand, for a long battle against terrorist acts.
  I notice my good friend from Kansas on the floor, chairman of the 
subcommittee that addresses new threats we face. The terrorist threat 
which was exemplified this morning in Yemen has been repeatedly pointed 
out by him and other members of the subcommittee and of the Senate as 
being the type of threat that we face. That kind of terrorist act is a 
real world threat which is here and now.
  That was not a weapon of mass destruction, but it was a weapon that 
caused massive injury, massive death. We must put our brains and our 
resources together with allies to try to prevent these kinds of actions 
from occurring and, when they do occur, to bring the perpetrators to 
justice.
  The Senator from New York has requested that I yield 5 minutes to him 
so he may make a statement at this time. The order that we had 
established by unanimous consent was that after my opening statement 
the Senator from Minnesota would be recognized, and then the Senator 
from Alabama would be recognized. I want someone on the other side of 
the aisle to hear this, but I ask unanimous consent that that be 
modified at this time so I may defer my opening statement to yield to 
the Senator from New York 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my friend, the Senator from 
Michigan. He is gracious as always, and I appreciate the opportunity to 
briefly interrupt this proceeding. I also compliment him and Senator 
Warner on the bill they have put together. As was mentioned, the whole 
Chamber admires the bipartisan way in which the Senators from Michigan 
and Virginia have worked together.
  I rise today to say I am stunned and saddened by the violence which 
has erupted in the Middle East. I am saddened by the loss of four 
innocent and brave American sailors, victims of malicious, malevolent, 
maddening terrorism that has no rationale, no justification.
  My prayers and thoughts are with their families, as well as with 
those who have been injured and those who are missing, and their 
families as well. Terrorism can strike anywhere at any time. We have to 
be doing all we can in this Chamber to deal with it.
  I am stunned also that after 7 years of good faith negotiations all 
too many Palestinians still see violence as the means to achieve their 
ends. The violent pictures we saw of the two Israeli reservists being 
thrown from a window and brutally beaten is enough to turn anyone's 
stomach. Pictures such as that and so many other pictures that we have 
seen are not only very disturbing to us, but it lessens the chances for 
peace in the Middle East.
  I am disappointed and sad that Chairman Arafat has failed to stop or 
even condemn the violence. Yasser Arafat says he is for peace and he 
has signed agreements for peace. Yet violence has erupted in the Middle 
East and not only has he failed to stop it, you don't hear a word of 
condemnation. Instead, one may feel that he misguidedly thinks violence 
is a means to an end. I am saddened that a peace process which saw the 
courage and sacrifice of leaders such as Yitzhak Rabin and Ehud Barak 
may be crumbling before our eyes. The prospect for peace, at least in 
the near future, has been shattered by today's events.
  I have been a supporter of the Oslo peace process because I truly 
believe that peace is the only realistic, long-term alternative for 
Israel and Israel's Arab neighbors. It will be through peace that they 
achieve strength and security. It will be through peace that Israel 
will have its future aglow with possibilities. But now, to be honest, I 
am not so sure what will come of the Oslo peace process, let alone how 
much more Israel can sacrifice in the name of peaceful compromise which 
may never come to be. Prime Minister Barak went further than anyone 
dreamed he could go, and even those exceedingly generous and courageous 
offers were rejected.
  Peace has to be a two-way street; otherwise, it is just empty 
promises.
  Chairman Arafat must be called to task for his inability to control 
the violence and to embrace peace. The sad truth is that while Israeli 
leaders were preparing their citizens for peace by bringing them to 
accept the compromises necessary for peace, Arafat was doing the 
opposite. He was making false promises to his people and raising false 
hopes.
  If there is to be real peace in the Middle East, Chairman Arafat has 
a responsibility to prepare his people for peace, not violence. That 
means changing Palestinian textbooks which still call for the 
destruction of Israel. It also means stopping the rhetoric of hate 
concerning Jewish claims to Jerusalem's holy sites. Most of all, it 
means telling his people, as Ehud Barak has, that compromise is the way 
to attain a fair and just settlement, and that violence is no longer an 
option.
  As a result, today, sadly, extremists on both sides have been 
strengthened. Who has benefited from what has happened in the last 10 
days? Ideologues, and only ideologues; not average people, whether they 
be Jew, Arab, Christian, or Moslem.
  I believe Mr. Arafat will rue the day he let this genie out of the 
bottle. He

[[Page S10342]]

has let forces loose and he now has a tiger by the tail, and I even 
wonder whether he can survive.
  To the Israelis, I say: Stay the course, even at this painful moment. 
It will be very easy to throw up one's hands and give up. Yes, be 
strong, and make sure that when a horrible thing such as happened to 
the two in Ramallah happens, there will be a price paid. But don't give 
up on the course to peace; don't give up to those who will tell you 
there is another solution. There is not.

  To my fellow Americans, I say: First, we are so saddened, again, by 
the loss of innocent lives--people defending America as Americans have 
for more than 200 years. I also say to my American brethren that we 
can't isolate ourselves, that this conflict in the Middle East is not 
one on which we can turn our backs. Just look; not only are four 
Americans dead; several more are missing and many more injured, and oil 
prices are up. We are carefully watching movements of troops in Iraq 
and Iran at this moment. We are worried about terrorism even on our own 
shores. No, we all must stay the course.
  As I mentioned, the prospects for peace in the Near East have been 
shattered by today's actions. Only by strong, courageous but careful 
and judicious action by people of good will--Americans, Israelis, and 
Arabs--can those pieces be put back together. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if my colleague will yield for 30 
seconds, I know other colleagues want to respond, but I say to my 
colleague from New York in as sincere a way as I can, I thought his 
words were powerful and eloquent. They were beautifully written, 
beautifully said, and very important. I want to associate myself with 
him. I know I can't speak on it as well as the Senator did, so I 
associate myself with what he said. It is just the way I think about it 
and feel about it.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. L. Chafee). The Senator from Kansas is 
recognized.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Presiding Officer 
this: It is my understanding that the Senator from Michigan will be 
recognized next, to be followed by the distinguished Senator from 
Minnesota, to be followed by the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions; is 
that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I ask unanimous consent that I may be recognized 
following the remarks by Senator Sessions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, while the Senator from New York is still on 
the floor, I commend him for his thoughtful comments about the Middle 
East. I was not only struck by the content of his comments, but also by 
the way in which they were so forcefully and calmly delivered, which I 
think will reverberate throughout this Chamber.
  These are times of great violence in the Middle East. One of the most 
striking things to me is the silence of Chairman Arafat relative to 
violence. Prime Minister Barak has said to his own citizens, ``I urge 
our Jewish citizens to refrain from attacking Arabs and their property 
under any circumstances.'' From Chairman Arafat, we have had silence 
about the actions of the Palestinians in the streets. That silence 
speaks volumes. It was referred to by the good Senator from New York, 
and I want to again say that I thought his comments were exactly the 
right substance and tone.
  I also want to expand on that one thought, about what we have not 
heard once from Chairman Arafat, which is a statement saying that 
violence--by whoever--is wrong. We have not even gotten that much from 
Chairman Arafat, and it is a huge and very obvious and intentional 
omission on his part, which speaks very loudly about what his 
intentions are.
  I would be happy to yield to my friend from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I think the Senator from New York summed up 
my feelings. I think Americans have to understand that tiny, little 
Israel, the only democracy in that part of the world--surrounded by 
some of the worst tyrannies in the world--is having a very difficult 
time right now. If there was ever a country in the history of the 
United States that has shown their friendship to the United States it 
has been Israel. During this time of need for Israel, we have to show 
our friendship toward them--no one wants to see the violence taking 
place--and recognize that Israel is a democracy. It was in 1948. It is 
today.
  As my friend from Michigan said, I hope we will have Chairman Arafat 
come forward and do something publicly to denounce what is taking place 
on the Palestinian side. It has been despicable--from the raiding of 
the tomb, to the terrible murders of these two Israeli soldiers today.
  I support the statement made by my friend from New York, and 
certainly my friend from Michigan who is managing this bill. Today, of 
all days, signifies to me the importance of the work that he and 
Senator Warner have done to get this bill to this point so we can 
authorize the many things that need to be done by the U.S. military. We 
have talked about the act of terrorism against our U.S. Navy, and this 
bill addresses that.
  As I said yesterday, the Senator from Michigan is to be commended for 
his work on this bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada. He is 
always thoughtful and on the point. He joins those of us who have 
commented on the tragic loss of our sailors and on the injuries to our 
sailors on the U.S.S. Cole because not only is it happening at the 
moment--this act of terrorism--but it is dramatizing what the major 
threats to our security are. But it is just another reminder of the 
sacrifices of the men and women of our military and the risk that they 
face every day in this world.
  I thank him for his comments.
  I am happy to yield to the Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank both of my colleagues for not 
only their kind remarks but for their leadership on this and some other 
issues. It is a pleasure to serve in the Senate under such leaders as 
the Senators from Michigan and Nevada. I thank them.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the good Senator from New York.
  Mr. President, let me now continue with my remarks relative to the 
Defense authorization bill itself.
  The most far-reaching step that we have taken in this conference 
report is to answer the call of Secretary Cohen and the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff to address shortcomings in the health care program. We provide 
health care for our military personnel and our retirees and their 
families. But there are shortcomings. There are gaps. There are holes. 
There are lapses. We are trying to fill those. We are trying to make 
the commitment of health care to our military men and women and to 
their families, and after they retire, a real-world commitment. We want 
to fulfill the promise of lifetime health care to those who complete a 
military career by providing, as we do in this bill, that retired 
members and their families remain in the TRICARE health program for 
life. When they become eligible for Medicare, TRICARE would serve as a 
Medigap-type policy and pay virtually all costs for medical care that 
are not covered by Medicare itself. This means that retirees will be 
able to choose any medical provider that accepts Medicare, and TRICARE 
would pay the deductibles and the copayments.
  Second, the budget request that we approved improves access to health 
care for families of active duty members by eliminating deductibles and 
copayments for care provided by the TRICARE program.
  We would also make TRICARE Prime available to the families of service 
members assigned to remote locations where they don't have access to 
military treatment facilities. And we provide for physical exams for 
family members when required for school enrollment.
  Finally, we would address the rising price of prescription drugs by 
providing a generous pharmacy benefit for military retirees. Under this 
provision, prescriptions filled in a military facility will be free. 
Prescriptions filled through the military's national mail-order 
pharmacy will cost $8 for a 90-day supply. Retirees would pay a 20-
percent copayment for prescriptions filled in a way which is on an 
approved list of retail pharmacies. There is the so-called ``network 
retail pharmacy.'' They

[[Page S10343]]

would pay a 25-percent copay for prescriptions filled in a non-network 
retail pharmacy; in other words, from a pharmacy not on the approved 
list.
  I am appalled, as so many Members of this body are appalled, by the 
rising costs of pharmaceuticals in this country, and by the growing gap 
between the prices paid for drugs by our citizens and people who live 
in other countries--frequently, by the way, for prescription drugs 
manufactured in this country and often subsidized either directly by 
taxpayers in the form of NIH grants to people who develop those drugs 
and do the research on them, and indirectly through the Tax Code. We 
provide credits for research and development. We have this gap between 
what our citizens pay and citizens in other countries pay for drugs 
manufactured in the United States. We are not curing that gap in this 
bill, except we are taking a step relative to military retirees. This 
step at least addresses that problem for military retirees.
  It is my hope that before the end of this session or in the next 
Congress that we will provide a similar benefit for Medicare 
beneficiaries.
  The importance of this prescription drug program is shown by the 
effort that was made to achieve it. The importance of this benefit is 
reflected in the fact that military retirees brought to our attention 
the extraordinary expense to them of prescription drugs. We are 
responding to that. We have a moral obligation to respond to that 
because we made a commitment to them.
  This country has a moral obligation surely to our seniors--I think to 
all of us, but at least to our seniors--to make prescription drugs 
affordable. We haven't made the same kind of commitment technically to 
our seniors. But surely we should feel the moral obligation to make 
sure our seniors have access to affordable prescription drugs. That 
commitment that we surely should feel, I believe, will be advanced by 
this action that we are taking relative to our military retirees. 
Hopefully it will prod us to do the same for all of our seniors as we 
do for our military retirees in the area of prescription drugs.
  We cannot overlook the fact that these provisions are going to be 
expensive to implement. This bill would establish a new entitlement 
program for military retiree health care at an estimated cost of $60 
billion. The $60 billion cost of this program is over the next 10 
years. It is actually, technically, a $40 billion net cost to the 
Government for reasons that I will go into when we get to the waiver of 
the point of order relative to the budget.

  It is a significant amount of money, $60 billion of direct spending, 
or $40 billion net, over the next 10 years. Either one of those numbers 
is a big number. We should be very conscious of what we are doing. That 
is why it is very important this body act openly and forthrightly on 
this proposal.
  Senator Warner mentioned that we had made a proposal in committee 
which would have achieved this same goal on a phased-in basis, first 
for 2 years and then permanently, in a way which would have met the 
requirements of the Budget Act without creating a point of order.
  In the wisdom of the conferees, we made this a permanent benefit. It 
is the right thing to do. But there is a cost to it which exceeds the 
amount of money this committee has been authorized to allocate under 
our mandatory spending limits. This body will then be offered the 
opportunity and presented with the question: Do we wish to waive that 
limit, to use the waiver authority as provided for us in the Budget 
Act, in order to approve this permanent benefit?
  That will be argued at a later time in this debate. I intend to vote 
to waive the Budget Act and permit this benefit to go into effect for 
our retirees. However, it is important that this body, when it exceeds 
these spending allocations, does so in a way where everyone has a 
chance to recognize what it is we are doing in that regard.
  As I said, there was no provision made in this year's budget 
resolution for this level of mandatory spending. We were given a very 
small amount, closer to half a billion. There was a way we could have 
operated within that level in a 2-year program, then expecting to make 
that permanent later on in a way which would have complied with the 
Budget Act. But this conference went in a different direction. It is a 
reasonable approach, perhaps even a more straightforward approach. In 
any event, it does create this point of order which we now need to 
address in this bill.
  I believe these steps to address problems in the military health care 
system are the right thing to do. Again, we just should do so openly. 
We should not do so blindly. The problem is not with this bill but in 
the budget resolution itself, which is not realistic in the amount of 
money it provided for this and for other purposes.
  The conference report also includes a title numbered 35 in the Senate 
bill which is the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 
Program. This Nation now has a great debt to the many workers in our 
nuclear weapons facilities who played such a vital role in winning the 
cold war, a deterrent which they produced which was able to deter 
aggression to help maintain security and peace. But we now know that 
many of these workers were exposed to dangerous radioactive and 
chemical materials in the course of their work, and they are now 
suffering from debilitating and often fatal illnesses as a result. It 
is simple justice that these workers and their families should be 
compensated for those illnesses.
  The Department of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 
Act provides that compensation, and it does so in a fair and balanced 
manner. We were able to overcome significant opposition in the House of 
Representatives and provide compensation to the loyal Department of 
Energy workers who were poisoned by that work in support of our 
Nation's defense. Now there is a cost. We should be aware of that cost. 
It is a cost of $1.1 billion over 5 years and about $1.6 billion over 
10 years.
  I am particularly pleased that the conferees rejected a House 
provision which would have prohibited the continued deployment of 
United States ground combat forces in Kosovo under 
certain circumstances. What the House provision said was, if the 
specified contributions by our allies for civilian policing and 
reconstruction were not met by a target date, then our troops would 
automatically be withdrawn.

  First of all, our European allies are almost to those levels. They 
are now clearly the senior partner in Kosovo. That is the right thing. 
We want our allies to be senior partners and the United States to be 
the junior partner. Many times we are not the senior partner. That is a 
very good development.
  It would be a mistake, and this body voted it would be a mistake, to 
put in an automatic withdrawal date because of the uncertainty that 
would create, the weakening of the NATO alliance which would be 
created, and the negative impact of morale on our men and women who 
would then believe, somehow or other between now and that automatic 
removal date, that our troops may be removed. That kind of uncertainty 
is not healthy either in terms of who our adversary was and could still 
become theoretically; it is not healthy in terms of the NATO alliance; 
it is not healthy in terms of the morale of our men and women in 
uniform.
  We have all put pressure on our European allies to do more. It is 
something in which many of us, if not most of us, believe. They are now 
doing more. Our response should be a positive response rather than this 
automatic threat that unless they meet a specified numerical target by 
a fixed date, something would automatically happen without any further 
action of the Congress.
  The process in the House bill, which was rejected by the Senate after 
a lengthy floor debate, but adopted by the House, would have led to the 
automatic withdrawal of our forces, even if there was no action in the 
future by Congress. That at least, in my judgment, would not have been 
a responsible exercise of congressional authority but rather its 
abdication. Putting this on automatic pilot would not have been the 
best way to exercise congressional authority.
  We have the power of the purse, and we have a right to exercise it. 
If we want to withdraw troops, we have the right to do that. If we have 
troops in too many places, we have the right to say: Pull them out, 
don't spend any money to keep them there. We have that responsibility. 
If we are in too many places, we are the ones with the

[[Page S10344]]

power of the purse. We can say: Pull forces out of here, pull forces 
out of there.
  The specific effort to do that was made relative to Kosovo. It was 
rejected. I am glad, by the way, that both the candidates for President 
rejected that approach. But if we are going to do it, we ought to be 
accountable ourselves for doing it and not put something on automatic 
pilot so that something will happen in the future even if we do nothing 
between now and then. That is not the way I believe the power of the 
purse should be used.
  I believe very deeply in the power of the purse, and I believe there 
are occasions when we want to say we believe that troops should not be 
in a certain place and we are not going to provide money for it. But 
that ought to be done directly and not be done at a future date in the 
absence of a decision by the Congress.
  The conferees also rejected a provision that would have placed 
burdensome restrictions on our efforts to support the antidrug effort 
in Colombia. We rejected a provision that undermined our ability to 
implement agreements designed to prevent development of nuclear weapons 
by North Korea. We rejected a provision which implied that a national 
missile defense would be deployed immediately without regard to the 
system's operational effectiveness or affordability or the impact that 
it might have on our overall national security. Those were unwise 
provisions, in my judgment, and I am pleased they were not included in 
the conference report. I am pleased the conferees did adopt a series of 
provisions implementing the agreement between President Clinton and the 
Governor of Puerto Rico regarding the status of training exercises by 
the Navy and Marine Corps on the island of Vieques. Training on 
Vieques, as we know, was suspended last year after the tragic death of 
a security guard at the training range. The Secretary of the Navy, the 
Chief of Naval Operations, and others have testified that there is just 
no adequate substitute for that training on the island of Vieques.

  As of today, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has lived up to its 
obligations under the agreement. The training range on Vieques has been 
cleared of protesters with the assistance of the government of Puerto 
Rico, and Navy training exercises have now resumed on the island with 
the use of inert ordnance, as provided for in the agreement.
  The Navy is working with the citizens of Vieques and others 
throughout Puerto Rico towards the resumption of live-fire training on 
Vieques. This bill, hopefully, provides the framework for the 
resumption of that training.
  The President's budget request added $12 billion of defense spending 
to last year's appropriated levels, and the Congressional Budget 
Resolution added an additional $4.5 billion. For the most part, the 
conference report spends this money wisely, to meet needs that were 
identified as priorities by the Joint Chiefs of Staff or to accelerate 
items that are included in the Future Years Defense Plan.
  The bill also provides funding support and legislative guidance for 
key Department of Defense priorities, including the Army's 
transformation plan and the Joint Strike Fighter Program.
  On the first point, the conference report provides appropriate 
support for the Army transformation plan, the plan that was put forward 
by Secretary Caldera and General Shinseki. The conferees concluded that 
the Army needs to transform itself into a lighter, more lethal, 
survivable, and tactically mobile force. We approved all of the funds 
requested by the Army for this purpose, and we actually added some 
research money to the amount requested to help the Army in the long-
term transformation process.
  At the same time, we directed the Army to prepare a detailed roadmap 
for the transformation initiative and to conduct appropriate testing 
and experimentation to ensure that the transformation effort is 
successful.
  Mr. President, I have a few more minutes but I have taken a little 
longer than I expected. I would like, at this point, if the Senator 
from Minnesota is ready, to yield to him for his presentation.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I do not want to break up the flow of 
my colleague. I am pleased to follow the Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Actually, if the Senator from Minnesota is ready to speak 
at this time, it will work to my convenience if I interrupt myself at 
this moment and yield to the Senator, but I ask unanimous consent I 
then be given back the floor for perhaps 10 more minutes of remarks 
following the Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I understand Senator Roberts was seeking 
to speak. Perhaps with that exception? The two of you could talk about 
that, perhaps.
  Mr. LEVIN. I will be happy to comment on the request of the Senator 
from Alabama because he is correct. As I understand it, the order now 
is that at the end of my remarks Senator Wellstone is to be recognized, 
the Senator from Alabama is to be recognized, and then the Senator from 
Kansas is to be recognized.
  What I am suggesting is that the remarks of the Senator from 
Minnesota come now in the middle of my remarks, I then complete my 
remarks following the Senator from Minnesota, and then we go back to 
the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from Kansas; if that is all 
right?
  Mr. SESSIONS. That is fine. I have no objection.
  Mr. LEVIN. It will just take me 10 minutes more when Senator 
Wellstone has finished. I thank my friend from Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me again thank Senator Warner of 
Virginia for his statement about the crew of the U.S.S. Cole. My 
understanding is four American sailors have lost their lives, others 
have been injured. As a Senator from Minnesota, I want to express my 
support and my concern. I do not think we have as yet knowledge of who 
is behind this. It certainly looks like a well-planned terrorist 
attack, but I echo the words of my colleague from the State of 
Virginia.
  The chair of the committee, Senator Warner, and the ranking minority 
member, Senator Levin, are two of the best Senators in the Senate. 
Therefore, I want to speak with a little bit of humility because I 
don't want this to come off as arrogant. I want to express my 
opposition to this bill. I don't think there will be many opposed, but 
I want to give this at least my best effort.
  Let me start out with my own framework. I believe part of the 
definition of real national security for our Nation is a strong 
military, but I also think part of the definition of real national 
security is the security of our local communities--whether it is 
affordable housing, whether it is affordable child care, whether it is 
good health care for citizens, or whether we have the best education 
for every child. It is within this framework that I rise to speak 
against this bill.
  The bill provides $309.8 billion for the military. That is $4.5 
billion more than the administration's request and $19 billion above 
fiscal year 2000 levels. Yet the majority party could not find the 
additional money for more school counselors, could not find additional 
money for Head Start. One of the scandals is we keep talking about how 
important the early years are, we keep talking about how important the 
Head Start Program is to give children a head start. Yet I think we 
provide funding for about 3 or 4 percent of the children who could 
benefit from the Early Head Start Program.
  The majority party could find the additional $4.5 billion, above and 
beyond the administration's request, but they could not find the 
additional money for affordable housing. They could not find additional 
money up to this time for prescription drug benefits for elderly 
people. It is a matter of priorities. I think as long as our country is 
first in the world when it comes to spending on the military but ranks 
10th in the world when it comes to spending on education, we will never 
achieve our strength and our greatness.
  The cry for more money, the rallying cry from some of my colleagues 
for more Pentagon funding, was for readiness. We have heard about the 
crisis in

[[Page S10345]]

readiness, lack of spare parts, inadequate training funds, difficulty 
retaining pilots and other key personnel, declining quality of life. I 
am all for the part of this budget that increases funding in these 
decisive areas. But if you look at the category of spending with the 
largest increase from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2001, it is 
procurement of weapons. It is not military readiness, with an 11-
percent increase; or operations and maintenance, which funds most of 
the readiness programs, which goes up 4 percent; or family housing, on 
the other hand, which actually declines by 3 percent; military 
construction declines by 6 percent. These figures are from the Pentagon 
budget authority.
  But the real increase in the funding--if you look at fiscal year 1999 
to fiscal year 2005, procurement increases 39 percent. This is the 
largest increase in this Pentagon budget. In fact, 53 percent of the 
increase in budget authority during this 6-year period goes to new 
weapons.
  I have to ask the question in this post-cold war period, in an 
opportunity to redefine some of our priorities and to redefine national 
security and to have a strong military, but also to make sure that we 
concern ourselves with national security as in the security of local 
communities--good education, good health care, good jobs, affordable 
housing. It seems to me this budget does much more for the military 
contractors than it needs to do, is beyond the President's request. 
And, frankly, we are in a zero sum game. You cannot have it all. Money 
spent in one area is money not spent in another area.
  I believe that overall what we have before us in this piece of 
legislation, and the amount of money it calls for, for the Pentagon and 
military, reflects some distorted priorities. It is for that reason I 
will oppose this conference report.

  Related to this question I have raised about budget priorities is an 
amendment which was dropped from the conference report. This was an 
amendment I offered, which was accepted, which asked that we in the 
Congress do a careful study of child poverty under welfare ``reform'' 
to find out how children are doing, to find out whether not only has 
there been a decrease in poverty of children but among those children 
who are poor--from the last report we received--we have an increase in 
poverty among children who are poor. I wanted us to do an honest policy 
evaluation.
  Over the last 2 years I have offered this amendment four or five 
times, and every time it is dropped in conference committee--every 
single time. It seems to me we would want to know, as we move into the 
reauthorization of the welfare bill, what this dramatic decline in the 
welfare roll means. Any fool can throw people off the welfare rolls. 
That is easy. The question is, Where are the mothers and where are the 
children and are they better off?
  Some I think are better off. For that I am grateful. Some have 
living-wage jobs and can support their families, and that is what it 
was supposed to be about. But I am telling my colleagues, I traveled 
some of the country--I am going to do more over the next 2 years 
because obviously we need to know what is happening out there--and it 
is my observation that the vast majority of the women and children are 
in the following situation: These women are working but now they are 
working poor. These jobs do not provide anywhere close to our salaries 
or even close to what would be called a living wage; in other words, on 
what they can support their families.
  From the studies of Families USA and what I have seen with my own 
eyes, too many of these women no longer have medical assistance for 
themselves and their children and in all too many situations--Yale and 
Berkeley did a study on the child care situation--2- and 3-year-olds--
these are mothers with children--are in child care situations which at 
best are inadequate and quite often are dangerous.
  We have seen, roughly speaking, a 25- to 30-percent decline in food 
stamp participation, the major safety net for poor children.
  I want to know what is happening out there. I would think colleagues 
would want to know, but sometimes we do not want to know what we do not 
want to know.
  For the fourth or fifth time, this amendment has been dropped, and I 
have come to the floor to express my opposition to the dropping of this 
amendment. The majority party found $4 billion more than the 
administration requested, I am sorry, but is unwilling to do an honest 
policy evaluation of the welfare bill, its effect on children, the 
poverty of children, and whether we can do better for poor children. 
That is a misplaced priority.
  When we come back next year--we will be moving into the period of 
time of reauthorization of this welfare bill--one of my commitments as 
a Senator from Minnesota is to do everything I can to focus the Senate, 
Democrats and Republicans, on an honest policy evaluation of what is 
happening to poor women and poor children in our country.
  I can think of better uses for some of this money in the Pentagon 
budgets as opposed to new weapons systems, for example. I can see 
putting more into child care. I can see putting more into education. I 
can see putting more into expanded health care coverage. I can see 
putting more into affordable housing. I can see putting more into 
making sure there is long-term care so elderly people are able to stay 
at home and live at home with dignity as opposed to being forced into 
nursing homes. I can see some other priorities.

  The Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which was passed by the Senate as an 
amendment, was taken out of the conference. In the United States of 
America, surely we as a people no longer accept the proposition that a 
citizen can be killed or injured because of his or her race, national 
origin, religion, gender, disability and, yes, sexual orientation.
  Not that long ago, James Byrd was dragged to death by the most 
vicious of racists, and he was killed for only one reason: He was 
black.
  It was less than a year ago that two men were killed and three others 
were injured in Pittsburgh when a gunman shot them down for only one 
reason: They were white.
  It was only a few months before that when a man went on a shooting 
spree in Chicago aiming at people for one reason and one reason alone, 
and that was because they were either black, Asian or Jewish.
  Let's not forget Matthew Shepard who was killed in Wyoming for one 
reason and one reason only: He was gay.
  The amendment we adopted in the Senate with 57 votes and was taken 
out of this conference report would have permitted Federal intervention 
in serious violent crimes. In addition, the crimes that would have been 
covered would have included gender, disability, and sexual orientation.
  There is not one Senator who can say that Matthew Shepard was not 
murdered because of hate. By failing to keep this amendment in this 
conference report, we have communicated a message that says we still 
tolerate these hate crimes; we are not willing to take strong action.
  The majority party took that amendment out of this conference report. 
The majority party took the hate crimes amendment out of this 
conference report, and I think we have communicated a terrible message 
to the country.
  Hate crimes are a kind of terrorism. They are not just meant to 
intimidate the victim but all those who belong to the group and make 
all of the people victims. They are meant to instill fear. They are 
meant to communicate the idea that one group of people has supremacy 
over others. They are meant to dehumanize people. They say not just to 
the victim but to all those who are like the victim: You are vulnerable 
and you could be next because you are gay, lesbian, transgender, or 
bisexual; you could be next because of your disability; you could be 
next because of your religion; you could be next because of the color 
of your skin; you could be next because of your national origin. And 
they took this amendment out of this conference report. I believe that 
is shameful, and that is another reason I am going to vote against this 
conference report.
  Mr. President, I have 30 minutes reserved. How much time do I have 
left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 15 minutes 47 seconds.


                     State Department Authorization

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from Alabama, I will take a 
couple more minutes to speak on one

[[Page S10346]]

other related issue, not so much to this conference report.
  While I am on the floor of the Senate, I express my disappointment--I 
have to do this with a little bit of a twinkle in my eye--at the 
eleventh hour attempt by some of my colleagues to ram through--and this 
is not, I say to the Senator from Virginia, in this conference report; 
this is separate--an ill-conceived, unjust, and unbalanced ``bankruptcy 
reform'' through the Senate by co-opting an unrelated conference 
report, although I am not surprised.
  The fact that the House and the Senate Republican leadership is 
willing to trample the traditions of the Senate in their rush to pass 
this legislation speaks to the tremendous clout and the financial 
resources of the financial services industry.
  Make no mistake about it, that is why I say I have to have a twinkle 
in my eye. This is a tactic straight out of ``Invasion of the Body 
Snatchers.'' Listen to this. House and Senate Republicans have taken a 
secretly negotiated bankruptcy bill--I am sorry; I do no damage to the 
truth when I say this--and they have stuffed it into a hollowed-out 
husk of the State Department authorization bill. Not one provision of 
the original State Department bill remains.
  Of course, the State Department authorization is the last of many 
targets. The majority leader has talked about doing this on an 
appropriations bill, on a crop insurance bill, on the electronic 
signature bill, on the Violence Against Women Act. So desperate are we 
to serve the big banks and the credit card companies that no bill has 
been safe from this controversial baggage.
  Colleagues, there is no question that this is a significantly worse 
bill than the one that passed the Senate. In fact, there is no 
pretending that this bill is designed to curb real abuse of the 
bankruptcy code.
  Does the bill take on wealthy debtors who file frivolous claims and 
shield their assets in multimillion-dollar mansions? No. Let me repeat 
that--no. It guts the cap on the homestead exemption which was adopted 
by the Senate. Nor does this bill contain another amendment adopted by 
the Senate, that Senator Schumer worked on, that would prevent 
violators of the Fair Access to Clinic Entrances Act--which protects 
women's health clinics--from using the bankruptcy system to walk away 
from their punishment.
  Indeed, colleagues, this legislation would deny a fresh start to low- 
and moderate-income families who file bankruptcy out of desperation. It 
has an arbitrary test making it very hard for people to go to chapter 
7. But at the same time, this legislation has no balance, does not hold 
the credit card industry accountable, does not hold the financial 
institutions accountable. It has now been stuffed into a hollowed-out 
State Department bill, and it is going to come over to the Senate, I 
suppose, sometime around Wednesday.
  I just want to say--I could go into all of the detail, but I will 
not--should the majority leader follow through on this strategy, I 
announce I will use my procedural rights as a Senator, of course, as 
any other Senator would, to slow down this conference report. The 
conference report would be hard to stop, but we could take at least a 
couple of days of the Senate's precious remaining time to consider the 
ramifications of this legislation on working families.
  And finally----
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, could I ask my distinguished colleague, on 
my time--I was momentarily off the floor due to the unfolding crisis in 
regard to one of our Navy's ships in the Middle East. He made reference 
to the hate crimes legislation.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. At an appropriate time, I would like to give to my 
distinguished friend and colleague from Minnesota, and also to inform 
the Senate precisely, my role as chairman of the conference and what I 
did in that context. So at the appropriate time, I would like to do 
that. And perhaps the Senator would like to make a reply to what I have 
to say. Indeed, perhaps my distinguished friend and colleague, the 
ranking member, would like to make a comment. But I think that should 
be made a part of the Record.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to hear from my colleague from 
Virginia.
  To expedite matters, included with my statement about this so-called 
bankruptcy reform bill I just will include a letter from the White 
House. This is from John Podesta, announcing that the President will 
veto this bankruptcy bill that has been stuffed into a hollowed-out 
State Department authorization bill. The President just makes it clear 
that none of the fundamental problems with this piece of legislation 
has been addressed and that he fully intends to veto this. I thank the 
White House for their very strong support. The President is doing the 
right thing.
  So I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                     Washington, October 12, 2000.
     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: I understand that the House will take up 
     today the conference report on H.R. 2415, which apparently 
     incorporates the text of S. 3186, a recently filed version of 
     bankruptcy legislation. if this bankruptcy legislation is 
     sent to the President, he will veto it.
       Over the last few months, this Administration has engaged 
     in a good faith effort to reach agreement on a number of 
     outstanding issues in the bankruptcy legislation. The 
     President firmly believes that Americans would benefit from 
     reform legislation that would stem abuse of the bankruptcy 
     system by, and encourage responsibility of, debtors and 
     creditors alike. With this goal in mind, we have pursued 
     negotiations with bill proponents on a few key issues, 
     notwithstanding the President's deep concern that the bill 
     fails to address some creditor abuses and disadvantages all 
     debtors to an extent unnecessary to stem abuses by a few.
       An agreement was reached in those negotiations on an 
     essential issue--limiting homestead exemptions--with 
     compromises made on both sides. Unfortunately, H.R. 2415 
     fails to incorporate that agreement, instead reverting to a 
     provision that the Administration has repeatedly said was 
     fundamentally flawed. The central premise of this legislation 
     is that we must ask debtors, who truly have the capacity to 
     repay a portion of their debts, to do so. This would benefit 
     not only their creditors but also all other debtors through 
     lower credit costs. Unlimited homestead exemptions allow 
     debtors who own lavish homes to shield their mansions from 
     their creditors, while moderate-income debtors, especially 
     those who rent, must live frugally under a rigid repayment 
     plan for five to seven years. This loophole for the wealthy 
     is fundamentally unfair and must be closed. The inclusion of 
     a provision limiting to some degree a wealthy debtor's 
     capacity to shift assets before bankruptcy into a home in a 
     state with an unlimited homestead exemption does not 
     ameliorate the glaring omission of a real homestead cap.
       Moreover, the President has made clear that bankruptcy 
     legislation must require accountability and responsibility 
     from those who unlawfully bar access to legal health 
     services. Yet the conference report fails to address this 
     concern. Far too often, we have seen doctors, health 
     professionals and their patients victimized by those who 
     espouse and practice violence. Congress and the States have 
     established remedies for those who suffer as a result of 
     these tactics. However, we are increasingly seeing the use of 
     the bankruptcy system as a strategic tool by those who seek 
     to promote clinic violence while shielding themselves from 
     personal liability and responsibility. It is critical that we 
     shut down this abusive use of our bankruptcy system and 
     prevent endless litigation that threatens the court-ordered 
     remedies due to victims of clinic violence. The U.S. Senate 
     was right in voting 80-17 to adopt an amendment that would 
     effectively close down any potential for this abuse of the 
     Bankruptcy Code. We fail to understand why the bill's 
     proponents refuse to include this provision and shut down the 
     use of bankruptcy to avoid responsibility for clinic 
     violence.
       I repeat President Clinton's desire to see balanced 
     bankruptcy reform legislation enacted this year. The 
     President wants to sign legislation that addresses these 
     known abuses, without tilting the playing field against those 
     debtors who turn to bankruptcy genuinely in need of a fresh 
     start. He will veto H.R. 2415 because it gets the balance 
     wrong.
           Sincerely,
                                                     John Podesta,
                                  Chief of Staff to the President.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order----
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed, 
as the manager, on my time, to address this issue for such time as I 
believe may be necessary.
  Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I 
just want to, while the Senator from Alabama is on the floor, alert him 
that

[[Page S10347]]

this will delay his place. He has been very patient here.
  Mr. WARNER. I know he has been patient, but this is important. It 
will be put in the Record. I shall probably not take more than 3 or 4 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the annual Armed Forces bill should really 
become almost an omnibus bill because so many amendments can be 
attached under the rules of the Senate, which I support. I do not 
criticize any Member exercising his or her rights under the rules of 
the Senate to put on bills, subject to a vote, such legislation as they 
deem appropriate.
  There are other rules that preclude that in certain areas, but in 
this instance we had a freestanding, amendable piece of legislation on 
the floor. Senator Kennedy courteously informed me, the ranking member, 
and others that he was going to raise the issue of what is generically 
referred to as the hate crimes legislation. Senator Hatch likewise said 
he had a version and he was going to put it before the Senate. Both 
Senators brought those bills. Both bills passed. Both bills went to 
conference as a part of the Senate bill.
  My decision, as chairman of the conference, was made to drop those 
pieces of legislation--both of them; Senator Kennedy's bill, Senator 
Hatch's bill--because I looked upon it as my duty to get this bill 
passed and enacted into law. That is my principal responsibility as 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, working with my ranking 
member and other members of the committee.
  I have been here 22 years. I understand Senators quite well. I 
respect their rights, and I know when they speak with sincerity. I was 
advised, not by one, not by two, but by many Senators on both sides of 
this issue, of the gravity of the issue and the seriousness of the 
issue. It was made clear to me that if this legislation--either Senator 
Kennedy's bill or Senator Hatch's bill--were left in the conference 
report, in all likelihood we would have a series of filibusters. And 
given the very short period of time which is remaining in this 
session--even though we have been active as a committee and got the 
bill timely to the Senate; even though we were on the floor for weeks 
intermittently, having to have it laid aside--we are here in the final 
hours of this session of this Congress. If we do not act on this bill 
tonight, and if we do not pass this bill tonight, it is questionable 
whether the leadership will find additional time for consideration. 
And, as we say, it may be that pieces of it would be put into some 
appropriations bills or a CR or something--some parts--but much of it 
could well be lost, unless this conference report is enacted. So I made 
the decision. I take full responsibility for the decision of urging the 
conferees to drop this legislation.
  My distinguished colleague, the ranking member of the committee, I 
presume, will address the Senate in a moment on this point. Exercising 
his rights in a very courteous way, he said he wished for me to convene 
the full Committee on Armed Services and have a vote: That we did. By a 
narrow margin, my recommendation was sustained by the full committee, I 
might add, in a bipartisan exchange of votes.

  So that is the history as to why this legislation was dropped, I say 
to my colleague from Minnesota. I take responsibility. I believed it 
was necessary that this bill should be passed. On this day when the 
world is in such a tragic situation, whether it is the violence in the 
Middle East or the attack on an American ship, all of America expects 
Congress to do its duty on behalf of the men and women of the Armed 
Forces, and this is the most important piece of legislation done every 
year.
  So I do not regret for a minute the decision I had to make in the 
face of representations, fairly and honestly made to me, by colleagues 
on both sides, as to the tactics that would be used if this bill would 
be brought up in a conference report before the Senate with either 
pieces of that legislation contained in the bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, on the hate crimes legislation 
issue, my good friend from Virginia has accurately presented the facts. 
There are some additional facts, though, which should also be brought 
to bear.
  I can't remember a time, although there may have been one, when the 
Senate has adopted language, as we did by a vote of 57-42, and when the 
House of Representatives has adopted language, as they did by 30 or 40 
votes--when I say ``adopted language'' in the House, let me be clear, 
what the House of Representatives did was even more precise than adopt 
the hate crimes language; they instructed their conferees to agree to 
our hate crimes language by 30 or 40 votes--I cannot remember a time 
when one body has adopted language and the other body has instructed 
their conferees to yield to the first body's language where that 
language has then been dropped in conference.
  I am not saying that has never happened because I haven't checked the 
records to be sure. I can say I can never remember it happening. Think 
about it. We had a big debate on this issue. We adopted Senator 
Kennedy's hate crimes language by a vote of 57-42 in this body. Then 
the House had a debate, instructing their conferees to agree to our 
language, and somehow or other it is dropped in conference.
  Let it be clear as to what happened. The House conferees would not 
accept our language, despite the instruction from the House of 
Representatives. Then we were faced with the question, Do we then give 
it up, despite the vote in the Senate?
  There was a vote among Senate conferees. Ten Republicans and one 
Democrat voted basically to give it up, which was the 11-vote majority. 
Eight Democrats and one Republican voted not to give it up; let us 
maintain this fight; let us bring this language back in the conference 
report. If someone wants to filibuster a conference report, they have 
that right. But this legislation is too important. This is the hate 
crimes bill that this body adopted. It is simply too important a 
subject to be dropped because of the threat of a filibuster after being 
adopted in the Senate and having the House telling their folks to yield 
to us. If we refused to adopt important legislation around here 
whenever there was the threat of a filibuster, we would never adopt 
anything important. The civil rights legislation of the 1960s was 
adopted after weeks of debate, a filibuster that lasted weeks, with 
numerous cloture votes, because it was important legislation.
  Let me say this about our chairman: He is absolutely correct that he 
felt that his responsibility was such that he had to bring a bill to 
the floor. He made the judgment, as he indicated, and it was a good 
faith judgment. I may disagree with him, which I do, but I don't in any 
way disagree with the fact that the chairman made a good faith judgment 
that it was necessary to drop this language because the House would not 
accept it. And even though I disagree with it and think we should have 
put this language in here and let someone filibuster, nonetheless, I 
surely agree that as always he acts in the best of faith.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, may I express to my colleague my respect 
for his acknowledging the fact that my judgment was predicated on sound 
facts.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Senator from Virginia was gracious 
enough to say I may want to respond. Other colleagues want to speak, 
and I believe the exchange between my two colleagues covered the ground 
and spoke to the question I raised. If I had spoken, I would have said 
what Senator Levin said. I just wouldn't have said it as well. I 
appreciate the forthrightness of the Senator from Virginia, his 
directness and, as always, his intellectual honesty.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague. I only say to him, the fervor with 
which he addresses issues and pursues his goals in the Senate for this 
cause, be it hate crimes in favor, I think he will recognize that that 
same fervor is matched by others who have a different point of view 
very often. Therein lies the issue which I had to take responsibility 
to resolve, and this bill was of paramount interest to anything else 
before the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I apologize to my good friend from 
Minnesota. I assumed he had yielded the floor. Has the Senator yielded?

[[Page S10348]]

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield back my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank him for his contribution to this debate, so many 
debates of this body.
  I am going to be briefer than I had actually planned to because our 
good friends from Alabama and Kansas have been waiting for some time. I 
do want to spend a couple more minutes.
  One of the items in this conference report which should be noted is 
the fact that we have agreed to the language in the Senate bill that 
would replace the Army's School of the Americas with a new Western 
Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. This new institute is 
going to provide professional education and training to military 
personnel, law enforcement personnel, and civilian officials of Western 
Hemisphere countries in areas such as leadership development, 
counterdrug operations, peace support operations, disaster relief, and 
human rights.
  The legislation specifies that the curriculum of this institution 
include mandatory instruction for each student of a minimum of 8 hours 
of instruction on human rights, the rule of law, on due process, on 
civilian control of the military, and the role of the military in a 
democratic society. In a very significant addition, we have a Board of 
Visitors, which includes, among others, four Members of Congress and 
six members from academia, the religious community, and the human 
rights community, to review the institute's curriculum and its 
instruction. The Board of Visitors will submit an annual report to the 
Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Defense, after consultation 
with the Secretary of State, will submit an annual report to Congress 
on the operation of the institute.
  I am hoping that this will be a positive, new chapter and that some 
of the controversial history of the School of the Americas can now be, 
in fact, in the history books and that we can turn to a new approach in 
terms of our relationship with the leadership, both civilian and 
military, in the democratic countries of the Western Hemisphere.
  We have some important beliefs that we want to share with others in 
democratic societies about civilian control of the military and human 
rights. These and other subjects, such as due process, are vital to us 
and, we believe, vital to the success of any democratic institution. 
They have been under challenge, under stress in too many countries in 
the Western Hemisphere. They have been too often violated. We have a 
positive role to play in this area. This provision, particularly now 
with the kind of Board of Visitors we are going to have that includes 
members of the religious community, human rights communities, and 
Members of Congress, I think is now going to make it possible for us to 
have a new Western Hemisphere Institute which is going to have a proud 
record of achievement.
  Second, the bill contains an amendment that I offered to prohibit DOD 
from selling to the general public any armor-piercing ammunition or 
armor-piercing components that may have been declared excess to the 
Department's needs. This prohibition was enacted on a one-year basis in 
last year's Defense Appropriations Act, and Senator Durbin has 
introduced a bill in the Senate to make the ban permanent. There is no 
possible justification for selling armor-piercing ammunition to the 
general public, and I am pleased that we have taken this step toward 
enacting the ban into permanent law.
  Third, the conferees rejected House language that would have 
effectively restricted the bidding when DoD privatizes its utility to 
the sole utility authorized by a state government to operate in that 
particular area. The conference agreement requires competitive bidding, 
with a level playing field for all bidders, when DoD privatizes these 
assets, and allows DoD to determine the rates they will pay after 
privatization as a matter of contract rather than by state regulation. 
The conference agreement also protects people on military installations 
by requiring DoD to enforce prevailing health and safety standards.
  Mr. President, this is a good bill as far as it goes. But I am deeply 
disappointed, however, by the failure of the conference to include 
several important provisions that were added in the Senate.
  First, I am disappointed that conferees refused to include title XV 
of the Senate bill--the Kennedy hate crimes legislation--in the 
conference report despite the clear support of a majority of both 
Houses for this legislation.
  Hate crimes are a special threat in a society founded on ``liberty 
and justice for all.'' Too many acts of violent bigotry in recent years 
have put our nation's commitment to fairness to all our citizens in 
jeopardy. When Matthew Shepard, a gay student was severely beaten and 
left for dead or James Byrd, Jr., was dragged to his death behind a 
pick-up truck, it was not only destructive of the victims and their 
families, but threatens more broadly to others, and to the victims' 
communities, and to our American ideals.
  When a member of the Aryan Nations walked into a Jewish Community 
Center day school and fired more than 70 rounds from his Uzi submachine 
gun, and then killed a Filipino-American federal worker because he was 
considered a ``target of opportunity,'' it not only affected the 
families of the victims and their communities, but the broad group of 
which they were a part of.
  The conferees had an opportunity to address this problem and send a 
message that America is an all-inclusive nation--one that does not 
tolerate acts of violence based on bigotry and discrimination. Sadly, 
we failed to do so.
  Despite a 232-192 vote in the House of Representatives instructing 
the conferees to adopt the Senate provision, the House majority 
refused. And then despite a 57-42 vote in the Senate to make the hate 
crimes legislation part of the bill, the Senate conferees voted 11-9 to 
drop the legislation.
  Mr. President, this issue will not go away. If this Congress will not 
pass legislation addressing the acts of hatred and violence that 
terrorize Americans every day, I am confident that another Congress 
will, and I will continue to work toward that objective.
  The Senate bill also included landmark legislation authored by 
Senator Cleland that would have permitted our men and women in uniform 
to extend the benefits of the GI bill to family members in appropriate 
circumstances, and would have addressed an inequity toward disabled 
veterans by eliminating the requirement that disability pay be deducted 
dollar-for-dollar from retirement pay. I am disappointed that we were 
unable to find a way to include these important provisions.
  Overall, however, this is a bill which should become law. Once again, 
I want to thank our chairman, Senator Warner, all of the members of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee, and the staff on both sides of the 
aisle, for their long hours of hard work on this legislation. I hope 
the Senate will join us in passing this bill and sending it to the 
President for signature.
  I thank my good friend, the chairman of the committee, for his fine 
leadership, and all the members of the committee and our staffs.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues in expressing 
my support for the Defense authorization bill. I salute Senator Warner 
and Senator Levin, the ranking member, for the work they have given in 
creating a bill that strengthens our Nation's defenses and allows us to 
be more efficient and innovative as we move forward into the future. I 
wish we could have done more, but irregardless, we will in the future. 
I must give Senator Warner credit. Under his leadership, for the last 2 
years, we have produced a defense budget with real increases in defense 
spending. A defense spending increase that has outpaced the inflation 
rate.
  For 15 consecutive years, we had a net reduction in the defense 
budget. As a result, we have some real problems today, as the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff told us 2 weeks ago in a very important Armed Services 
Committee hearing. We need to focus on the It is also important for us, 
all of us who care about the men and women in uniform, to pause and 
remember the men and women of this Nation who risk their lives daily, 
including the five who were killed in a dastardly attack by terrorists 
in the Middle East today. Unfortunately, this is the kind of world we 
live in. I wish it weren't so.

[[Page S10349]]

  This is a $310 billion bill. In fact, it is $4 billion above what the 
President requested. It is above what the Joint Chiefs, who are 
appointed by the President, said they needed to maintain an adequate 
force, although they told us after the budget had been written they 
really needed a lot more over a sustained period of time.
  Two weeks ago, in the Armed Services Committee, which I am honored to 
be a member of, we had the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
General Shelton, and the Chiefs for each of the service branches--Army, 
Navy, Air Force, and Marines. They were asked by Senator Warner: Tell 
us the truth, what is the situation in with the military?
  Each one of these men were appointees of this administration, but 
under oath they came forward and told the truth. That is, they 
testified that they have thankfully restored and maintained the 
readiness of two Army divisions that had fallen to the lowest readiness 
rating possible last fall. In other words, the Chiefs in the past were 
forced to take resources from other areas to maintain readiness. I 
believe Senator Roberts, who will speak in a minute, used the phrase, 
``The point of the spear then is OK, but it is the shaft that is 
wrong.'' That is what they agreed to. At least three of the five used 
the phrase, ``We are mortgaging our future.''
  What did they mean by that? They meant that this Nation has been 
robbing research and development, recapitalization, new equipment, and 
the kinds of things we need to maintain the greatest military in the 
world. But to maintain that, you have to continue to invest in those 
requirements. We are not doing that. The Chiefs stated it plain and 
simple, and I emplore anybody who doubts it to read the transcript of 
that hearing. They agreed with the phrase that one Senator used, 
quoting the Clinton Assistant Secretary of Defense, that the defense 
budget is in a death spiral. What he meant by that was that when you 
spend more and more money to try to maintain equipment that is worn 
out, you are pouring money down a bottomless pit. What we should have 
done, and what we have not done these past 8 years when we have had 
good economic times, is increase this defense budget. We could have 
recapitalized and replaced wornout equipment. But we haven't been doing 
that. As a result, we will face a future readiness crisis.
  The Secretary of Defense, Bill Cohen, testified earlier this year 
that this Nation has been living off Ronald Reagan's military buildup 
of the 1980s. He said we are going to be facing a crisis in the years 
to come. That is testimony by the Secretary of Defense and this 
administration has not listened to that warning. They are going to let 
this burden fall on the American people in the immediate future. The 
Secretary of Defense says it, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
says that, and the chairman of our committee who has been involved in 
these issues for so many years says that. It has been complicated, as 
they testified, with our excessive and unusually high number of 
deployments of our men and women around the world. This wears out 
equipment, it drains additional resources, and it tires our men and 
women in uniform. In addition, it separates them from their families 
for extraordinary periods of time.

  We have a real problem because we have a peace dividend. Oh, they 
say, President Bush cut the Defense Department when he was in there. 
Well, of course, he did. We had a legitimate peace dividend. The Berlin 
wall fell. We had a tremendous change as a result of the will of 
President Reagan and President Bush to maintain an unwavering stand 
against the Soviet Union. Consequently, we were able to save a lot of 
money.
  So, yes, he was cutting; yes, we wanted to reduce manpower and reduce 
any costs we could, and use those savings to strengthen this country. 
But he didn't pretend to have it go on forever.
  So that is where we are. I have to say that we have not yet faced up 
to the challenges of our future. I am reminded by the gulf war and our 
soldiers taking on the Iraqis. Our fighting men and women did an 
outstanding job. At that time, I heard the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. 
Wellstone, say we needed more preschool teachers and we needed more 
guidance counselors, and anything else you can think of that he would 
spend money on, but when we committed those men and women in the 
desert, what did they use? They used the finest equipment the world had 
ever seen. We were able to put missiles in the windows of buildings and 
our tanks were able to destroy the enemy's before they new it.
  Our forces were able to defeat the enemy and devastate them with 
minimum loss of life on our side. That is what we want to do. We do not 
want to get into a war in which this Nation is not able to carry out 
its just national interests and suffer a huge loss of life. We want to 
be able to carry out our just national interests effectively. We do not 
want to over extend ourselves and become engaged in conflicts all over 
the world. But we need to be ready to execute to defend our legitimate 
national interests. We can't do that if we don't spend some money on 
it.
  We are heading to a time where we can't live off the Reagan buildup 
anymore. We are going to be at a time where we will have to do 
something about it. We will be at a time when we need to improve our 
cruise missiles and our smart bombs and during the gulf war, we had 
superiority in the Middle East. We avoid wars by being strong.
  Senator Stevens, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, understood 
these issues and fought for them. When the conflict occurred, we 
prevailed at minimum loss of life to American citizens.
  I agree with Senator Warner. This bill does not need to be 
jeopardized by adding such measures as hate crimes legislation, that 
should have come out of Judiciary on a law enforcement bill, rather 
than on a Defense bill. This type of ploy only adds to the complication 
on these matters.
  I think we are making a solid step forward. It would have been better 
if the Commander in Chief had told us we needed more money and 
challenged us to find more. It is hard for Congress to find more money 
when the President says, as Commander in Chief, he doesn't need it. 
Nevertheless, we spent $4 billion more than he asked for, which is hard 
to do. But the core function of Government ultimately is to defend our 
national sovereignty. We have a leadership role in this world, whether 
we want to have it or not. We have the ability to lead this world into 
the greatest century in the history of mankind. We can avoid wars if we 
remain strong. If we have competent leadership, we can maintain peace. 
We need a steady, mature funding of defense so that we are always above 
and ahead of our competitors. We do not want to go into a war on a 
level playing field. If we do have to go to war, we must have the 
resources available to prevail at a minimum loss of life.
  All of this could create a more stable world order, and promote 
peace. Goodness knows, the events in the last few days are enough to 
make an impact and to see what happens in Belgrade, to see what happens 
in the Middle East, to see what happens now with an attack on our 
warship. Doesn't that tell us we live in a very dangerous world? The 
history of the world hasn't changed. There will always be struggles, 
fights, and wars, it seems. But if we are prepared, if we lead, and if 
we have a strong military that allows us to speak softly but carry a 
big stick, we can do great things. We can fulfill our destiny at this 
point in time; that is, to lead this world into a peaceful future.
  I will just say this: We need to maintain the ability to act 
unilaterally when we need to. This Nation cannot allow some 
multinational group to decide for us how to use the power that we have. 
Of course we want the support and friendship of every nation in the 
world, but we don't need to be in a position where we have to have NATO 
votes to tell us whether or not we can deploy our forces. We don't need 
to have the U.N. voting with a single veto in the security council 
stopping us from deploying either. Would that be wiser than the 
leadership within the United States? Not at this point in time. I 
believe we can help the world. We need to maintain our independence. We 
need to maintain a strong national defense.
  If I haven't used my time, I will yield it back and thank the 
chairman for giving me this opportunity.
  Once again, I thank Senator Warner and Senator Levin for their 
leadership

[[Page S10350]]

and bringing a bill that I believe will help preserve this Nation's 
strength in the future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, as chairman of the committee, I thank the 
Senator from Alabama for his service on the Senate Armed Services 
Committee. He has only recently joined the committee. But his voice and 
his wisdom are brought to bear on many key issues. His attendance at 
the hearings is among the highest. I thank him for the time that he has 
been working for our committee. We very much value his judgment and his 
wisdom as we deal with these tough issues.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the chairman. I am honored to serve with him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield to my colleague, 
the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Military Construction.
  At this time, may I say, Mr. Chairman, it is essential that the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and most specifically the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, and the chairman 
of the Armed Services Committee, and, indeed, our two ranking members--
Senator Byrd, is on the Armed Services Committee, as well as the 
Appropriations Committee--our ability to work together as a team is 
essential. In my many years on their committee, I can recall where the 
relationships between the chairman and the various committees was 
somewhat strained. I say to Senator Stevens that he has been an 
exemplary and wonderful working partner on our two bills in tandem on 
behalf of the men and women of the Armed Forces. I thank him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield all of my time, or such time as 
our distinguished colleague and a very valuable member of the Armed 
Services Committee may wish to take
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I believe the regular order is that I 
have the time. But I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee be recognized prior to my 
remarks at this time, and I would be delighted to have him speak, or I 
will yield to the distinguished chairman, whatever is his preference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank both Senators. I am delighted 
that I was able to be here at the time Senator Sessions made his 
remarks. I thank him for his kind remarks about my service, and I am 
delighted that he is on the Armed Services Committee because I like 
very much what he said.
  I had intended to make a statement on the Defense bill. But I have 
been engaged this week in sort of herding turtles around this place. If 
it is agreeable to my friend from Virginia, I will make my statement 
concerning the Defense bill next week and ask it be printed in the 
permanent record as part of this Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I yield to my distinguished friend and colleague from 
Oklahoma for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be recognized at 
the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Kansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, there has been some discussion on the 
floor in reference to this bill, the Defense authorization bill, on the 
merits of including a hate crimes provision. I am struck by the fact 
that we have just witnessed an international terrorist hate crime with 
the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, leaving, according to my notes, 5 dead 
and 36 wounded, 12 missing. All of our U.S. military are on alert in 
terms of force protection. Our intelligence services are working full 
time to make sure that we have the proper force protection as they do 
their duty. In fact, I think that is a hate crime to which this 
particular bill speaks.
  I associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished chairman. 
While Members on both sides have strong feelings about the hate crimes 
bill, in no way should this defense authorizations bill be further held 
up or impeded.
  I express my sincere condolences, as my colleagues have, to the 
families and friends of the crewmembers of the U.S.S. Cole who were 
killed and injured today in the Port of Aden in Yemen. They died or 
they were injured in the services of this Nation, and we all feel their 
sacrifice. The apparent--I say ``apparent''; I think we all know it 
was--terrorist attack on the U.S. ship was brutal, it was unprovoked, 
it was an act of terrorism. All the information is not yet available to 
determine the source and the motivation of the attack. The Government 
of Yemen has said they are certainly not involved, so we have to 
reserve judgment on the response, if this is a terrorist strike.
  No matter what the cause of the explosion, this again points out the 
risks that our service men and women face every day. We have to be 
ready every day. There is no strategic response to terrorism in regard 
to the service they provide to our Nation.
  We must never forget that we ask the members of the military to be on 
the front line of U.S. diplomacy, and, unfortunately, they are the 
obvious targets of terrorist groups.
  I have the privilege of being the chairman of the Emerging Threats 
and Capabilities Subcommittee on the Armed Services Committee. As has 
been indicated by Senator Levin and others, we have the responsibility 
to make sure we are ready and we have the proper resources to combat 
terrorism.
  I can make a solemn promise to the families involved and to our 
military: We are going to continue to do our very best budgetwise and 
our very best in regard to legislation and policy to assure the force 
protection that we must have to protect our troops.
  I rise to add my compliments to the chairman and the distinguished 
ranking member, Senator Levin, of the Armed Services Committee on a job 
that I think is well done. Through their hard work and their 
perseverance over the last legislative year, and in particular in 
regard to the conference with our colleagues in the House, we are 
presenting to the Senate a bill that will make significant progress.

  Senator Sessions has made what I consider to be an excellent speech 
on the state of military readiness, the problems and the challenges we 
face. I see the distinguished chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, 
the Armed Services Committee, Senator Inhofe, who does a splendid job 
in that regard. He has been sounding the alarm for years in regard to 
the readiness problems we face. We will make significant progress 
toward stopping what I call the readiness drain now facing our 
military. It is not enough, but this bill does actually lay down a 
marker that the Congress is very serious, that the committee is very 
serious about its commitment to reversing the damaging readiness cuts. 
We owe the men and women of the Armed Forces nothing less.
  Over time, the last several years, we have authorized significant 
increases in pay. We have certainly done a better job in regard to the 
retirement system. We reformed that. As the distinguished chairman and 
the ranking member have pointed out, under the health care banner, we 
are now providing health care for the military retired. That is an 
obligation we must keep.
  As I have indicated, I have the privilege to serve as the chairman of 
the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee. I am very proud of 
our accomplishments this year in the subcommittee. I thank the 
distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, for his 
assistance, as well as all the members of the subcommittee, working in 
a bipartisan fashion to produce this work product.
  Behind the success was the hard work of our staff. I have always said 
that there are no self-made men or women in public office today. It is 
your friends who make you what you are. I put staff in that category. 
We are only as good as our staff in terms of the work product we are 
able to pass. I take this opportunity to thank them. They are not 
expecting this, but I want to take this opportunity to present: The 
head of our Emerging Threats and Capabilities ``posse,'' if I can refer 
to us in that

[[Page S10351]]

vein, and who I consider to be the iron lady and the iron fist of the 
science and technology world, Ms. Pam Ferrell; Mr. Military 
Transformation, who did an outstanding job, Mr. Chuck Alsap; the strong 
duo dealing with counterterrorism, the very subject we are dealing with 
today, even as I speak, as the 250 members of the U.S.S. Cole try to 
right the ship and save the ship, is Mr. Ed Edens and Mr. Joe Sixeas; 
the guy, the young man or the staffer that the drug cartels probably 
fear as much as anybody, Mr. Cord Sterling; our cyber warrior, Mr. Eric 
Thommes; and our tough negotiator in dealing with the Russian programs, 
the counterthreat reduction programs, an investment for us, and we 
think an investment for the Russians, as well, Miss Mary Alice Hayward; 
and the cleanup hitter, Miss Susan Ross.
  I thank each and every one of them for their hard work, their 
professionalism, and the work product we were able to produce.
  There are many successes for this year I want to address, but time is 
an issue. I know the Senators from Oklahoma and Iowa want to make some 
remarks, but there are four areas I would like to highlight of which I 
am especially proud.

  First, we have two educational programs designed to increase research 
and the number of technically trained Americans. We have a technology 
personnel gap. I do not know what the acronym is for that. We hear 
about gaps in the past in terms of arguments in regard to the military. 
But, boy, this is a gap that is real and it is a gap that must be 
filled.
  We have authorized $15 million to establish what is called an 
Information Security Scholarship Program for the Secretary of Defense 
to award grants to institutions of higher education to establish or 
improve programs in information security and to provide scholarships to 
persons who would pursue a degree in information assurance in exchange 
for a commitment of service within the Department of Defense. That is a 
breakthrough.
  Senator Warner gave his personal leadership to this. As a matter of 
fact, it is his initiative. I like to think I had something to do with 
it, as well as all members of the committee in a bipartisan fashion.
  We have also authorized $5 million to establish something called an 
Institute for Defense Computer Security and Information Protection. 
This institute will conduct research in technology development in the 
area of information assurance and to facilitate the exchange of 
information with regard to cyber threats, technology tools, and other 
relevant issues.
  Again I go back to the technology personnel gap. This will assist us 
to really close that gap. As a matter of fact, when we asked the 
experts in our subcommittee, What keeps you up at night? they mentioned 
a lot of things, but they mentioned two things of priority interest. 
No. 1 is the possibility of the use of biological weaponry by some 
state-supported terrorist or non-state-supported terrorist. The second 
thing they worry about is cyber attacks, information warfare. So we 
think this institute is long overdue. We have authorized $5 million. 
That is going to get it started.
  The second thing I would like to mention is that we ensure that the 
Department of Defense will focus real coordination in their 
responsibilities to combat terrorism activities through a single 
office. We had four people before the subcommittee testifying in regard 
to DOD responsibilities and the challenge they face in regard to 
terrorism, so I asked the witnesses: Would you sit in order of your 
authority. Nobody knew where to sit--No. 1, 2, 3, 4--because they 
didn't know. We had so many people within the DOD who shared partial 
responsibility for this that we did not find one person in charge. So 
that is what we are going to have after this bill passes.
  We made a suggestion on the Senate side; we really singled it out and 
put it in a particular person's area of responsibility. The House came 
back and said let's let the Secretary of Defense decide that. But I 
will tell you again, we are going to ensure the Department of Defense 
is focused in regard to their responsibilities to combat terrorism 
through one single office.
  We included a provision that would designate one Assistant Secretary 
of Defense as the principal civilian advisor to the Secretary for 
Department of Defense activities for combating terrorism--one guy in 
charge, one lady in charge, one person in charge. This provision 
ensures there is a single individual within the Department responsible 
for providing focused and comprehensive and well-funded DOD 
antiterrorism policy.

  I have said that about three times now, but three times I want to say 
how important that is. I think it is a real step forward.
  The third area is to reduce the risk of the expansion of weapons of 
mass destruction and to help provide opportunities to Russian 
scientists outside of their weapons development. We authorized over $1 
billion for nonproliferation and threat reduction programs for the 
Departments of Defense and Energy to assist nations of the former 
Soviet Union in preventing the expansion of their weapons of mass 
destruction and dissemination of their scientific expertise. This is a 
program really started by Senator Nunn and Senator Lugar. Conferees 
included several initiatives to obtain greater Russian commitment to 
these programs--these programs are not without controversy--and the 
necessary U.S. access to ensure these programs do achieve their threat 
reduction goals.
  We authorized $443.4 million for the Department of Defense 
Cooperative Threat Reduction Program for fiscal year 2001 to reduce the 
threat posed by the former Soviet Union weapons of mass destruction. 
So, let's see, there is $443.4 and $1 billion for the nonproliferation 
and threat reduction programs. That is quite an investment to assist 
the Russians, to work together with the Russians to reduce that kind of 
capability.
  Last, I would like to say to help the military continue to put a 
solid effort in the invaluable area of science and technology and to 
ensure we are ready to address the emerging threats, we added $209 
million for the Defense Science and Technology Program; that is the S&T 
programs, the science and technology programs. We focused on 
revolutionary technologies to meet the emerging threats. And we 
required the services to undertake a comprehensive planning process to 
identify long-term technological needs in consultation with the 
warfighting and the acquisition communities, and to ensure that the 
services' programs in regard to science and technology are 
appropriately designed to support these needs.
  I could list some other significant accomplishments in the joint 
warfighting area, in the continued focus on helping our military 
communities prepare for the possibility that they may have to handle 
the consequences of a terrorist attack on our homeland.
  We all know about the U.S.S. Cole. That threat exists in regard to 
our domestic situation as well and in several other key areas where we 
have jurisdiction. But I am going to let that go. I will probably put 
something in the Record at a later date in regard to what I think we 
have done in meeting our responsibilities in that area.
  Again, I thank the chairman, Senator Warner, who has labored long and 
hard. We did this several months ago. We have been in conference for 2 
or 3 or 4 months. In the rush to complete our business, we had all 
sorts of things pop up out of the woodwork, almost a gauntlet to get 
this bill done. I thank Senator Warner, Senator Levin, all members of 
the committee for their leadership, their guidance, their help during 
the development of this year's Defense bill.
  There is no more important bill. Our first obligation as Members of 
this body is to do what we can in behalf of our national security. 
Today's events certainly prove that is the case. That has been spoken 
to by the distinguished chairman.
  I think it is a good bill. We need to get it passed, and it needs a 
big vote. It needs a big, solid vote for the responsibility we have to 
our men and women in uniform.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if I may interject, I thank Senator Inhofe 
for the work he has done on Vieques. I ask unanimous consent that, 
following the remarks of Senator Inhofe, Senator

[[Page S10352]]

Harkin be recognized for up to 10 minutes and Senator Robb then be 
recognized for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I join in the remarks that were made by 
the Senator from Kansas about the U.S.S. Cole, the tragedy that took 
place. We are all so saddened to hear about that. It was a complete 
surprise to all of us. Also, his comments about our chairman--our 
chairman, the Senator from Virginia, has done just an incredible job of 
leading the way and getting this bill done.
  I see this bill we are about to vote on as turning the corner. After 
7 years of neglecting our military, we are actually starting to improve 
some things. We have some things in this bill that I think are long 
overdue. In our readiness funding, the conferees add more than $888 
million to the primary readiness accounts. That included areas of 
neglect: $125 million to the war reserves and training munitions. We 
have places where they actually do not have enough bullets, enough 
ammunition to train with; $222 million for spare parts--that is not 
nearly enough, but there is a trend going up in the right direction 
now.
  I go around as chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee of the Senate 
Armed Services Committee to quite a few of the places around the 
country and around the world and find the cannibalization rates, 
getting spare parts out of engines. I have seen them open up a new, 
crated F-100 engine just to pull off spare parts. That becomes very 
labor intensive. As a result of that, we are having terrible retention 
rates.
  We hear about the pilots, but we don't hear about the mechanics and 
some of the other MOS, military occupational specialties, where we 
really are having a crisis.
  This bill also goes a long way to try to get us back into opening up 
the live range on the island of Vieques.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, will my distinguished colleague yield for 
a question?
  Mr. INHOFE. Certainly.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask the Senator if he is familiar with 
the statement made by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition 
and Technology--this is somebody who appeared before his subcommittee 
and mine--Secretary Jacques Gansler?
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes, he has appeared before our committee on three 
occasions I can recall.
  Mr. ROBERTS. He made a recent statement in regard to the very issue 
the Senator from Oklahoma is pointing out. I think it will be helpful 
if I read this, if the Senator from Oklahoma will permit me. This is 
somebody from the administration. He stated this:

       We are trapped in a death spiral.

  I do not think one could make it any more plain than that.

       We are trapped in a death spiral. The requirement to 
     maintain our aging equipment is costing us more each year in 
     repair costs, down time, and maintenance tempo. But we must 
     keep this equipment in repair to maintain readiness. It 
     drains our resources--resources we should apply to 
     modernization of the traditional systems and development of 
     new systems.

  Then the Secretary went on to say:

       So we stretch out our replacement schedules to ridiculous 
     lengths and reduce the quantities of new equipment we 
     purchase, raising the cost and still further delaying 
     modernization.

  I do not think one can be any plainer than that. So the Senator's 
remarks are backed up not only from what we hear in testimony but also 
from the many bases at home and overseas. I thank my distinguished 
colleague for all the effort he makes from his personal time and other 
duties to go to bases all over the world. He checks with the enlisted; 
he checks with the NCOs; he checks with the officers; and he checks 
with the commanders and shows them his candor and integrity. We talked 
about this at great length.
  In terms of readiness, there is no other person in the Congress of 
the United States or, for that matter, whom I know in this city who 
knows better the readiness problems we have, and it is backed up by 
this statement by a Secretary of the administration. We owe the Senator 
from Oklahoma a debt of gratitude.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I appreciate very much getting that into 
the Record because that testimony came out in our committee meetings. 
The Senator from Kansas is right. Sometimes when you sit in a committee 
meeting in Washington, everything is filtered. You do not really get 
the truth you find in the field.
  This bill is going to put $449 million in real property and 
maintenance. The RPM accounts are accounts that are mandatory that we 
have to get down, and yet I have been down to Fort Bragg during a 
rainstorm. Go into the barracks and one will see our soldiers are 
actually covering up their equipment with their bodies to keep it from 
rusting. It is a crisis. We are addressing that crisis with this bill. 
It is a start. We should be doing more than we do with this particular 
bill.
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield on my time?
  Mr. INHOFE. I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to express not only my appreciation 
but that of the whole committee, on both sides of the aisle, for the 
amount of travel the Senator has done. I heard the Senator talk about 
how he made these inspection trips. He spent a great deal of his time 
traveling to our military bases in the continental United States and 
abroad. There is no one who pulls harder on their oar than the Senator 
from Oklahoma.

  I especially credit him with trying to resolve in a very fair and 
balanced manner the diversity of positions regarding the Vieques issue. 
The President had his views, the Government of Puerto Rico had its 
views, colleagues in the Senate had their views, and the Senator worked 
his way through that problem, and I know in this bill we have a fair 
and good solution to that difficult problem. I thank him.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the chairman. Also I thank the ranking member, 
Senator Levin, who was very helpful on this whole issue. I believe we 
addressed it properly in this bill.
  If we let an agreement go that had a financial motivation for the 
9,000 residents of the island of Vieques to vote to kick out the Navy 
forever and lose that as a range, that had to be changed. This bill 
does that. We changed it so that the western land is not going to the 
Governor of Puerto Rico but to the people of Vieques.
  A lot of people do not realize that Vieques is like a municipality in 
Puerto Rico, and the people of Vieques are very fond of the Navy. I am 
the first one to admit the Navy had some PR problems, but I say to our 
chairman, they have worked very hard, and I see a change in attitude 
there.
  I was recently in Vieques meeting with a group of people. I left 
firmly convinced that if we have this referendum and if the referendum 
has a motivation for them to vote right--and that is to accept the Navy 
and the live firing range--then I believe they are going to do it.
  The other day, I was on a talk show and someone called in. Actually, 
it was someone who was on the other side of this issue. They said: How 
would you like to have a live range in your State of Oklahoma?
  I said: Let me tell you about Fort Sill.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I know the answer to that question. It is 
the same thing with the State of Virginia. Less than 30 miles from this 
Chamber is a live-fire range for the U.S. Marine Corps.
  Mr. INHOFE. That is exactly right. My concern has been, I hope and I 
will go on record right now and I am already on record saying, if we 
have this referendum, this will be the last time that we should allow a 
referendum to take place on closing a live range. When one stops and 
thinks about the domino effect this will have on other places, such as 
Capo Teulada in Sardinia or Cape Wrath in northern Scotland, it would 
be a real crisis if we lose those, and yet they logically ask the 
question--I have seen it in print in Scotland: Wait a minute, if they 
do not allow the training to take place on land they own, why should we 
let them come here to our country and bomb it?
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. INHOFE. The western land now will go not to the politicians in 
Puerto Rico but to the residents of the island of Vieques, and in the 
event something should happen that they should vote to reject the Navy, 
then it is not going to go into some developer's hands where someone is 
going to stand to get rich over this.
  We have done a good job----

[[Page S10353]]

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, will the Senator from Oklahoma yield for a 
very brief comment?
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes, I yield to the Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I add my voice to that of my senior 
colleague in thanking our colleague from Oklahoma for the way he has 
worked on this particular problem. For a number of months, this seemed 
to be one of those intractable problems that was probably not going to 
be resolved.
  I know the very strong feelings the Senator from Oklahoma has and 
brought to bear on this question in particular. We may disagree on 
other matters, but on this question in particular, he struck just the 
right balance, represented the long-term interests of the United States 
in a way that allowed us to come to closure on an issue that might not 
have closed at all and certainly would have created all kinds of 
difficulty for the United States in our long-term relations in the 
hemisphere with the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and others.
  I add my voice to others in thanking the chairman of the Readiness 
Subcommittee for his very important and tireless work on this issue.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia, who is 
the ranking member on the Readiness Subcommittee, for the contributions 
he has made. The Senator from Virginia is in the same position I am in, 
having live ranges in his home State.
  I can recall going out on one of the carriers before one of the 
deployments from the east coast to the Persian Gulf. They have this 
integrated training on the island of Vieques. They have F-14s and F-18s 
doing air work; they have the Marine expeditionary, with which the 
Senator is familiar, since he was a marine, doing their work, and at 
the same time they have live Navy fire. They say they can get that 
training elsewhere but not at the same type of place. The analogy was 
called to my attention by someone who was on one of the deploying 
battle groups. It is like you have the very best quarterbacks, the very 
best offensive line, and the very best defensive line. If one is 
training over here, one is training over here, and one is training over 
here, but they never train together. On the day of the big game, of 
course, they lose. The integrated training is necessary.
  I believe the language in this bill is going to offer the self-
determination of the people of Vieques to support the Navy live range, 
and I have every expectation that is exactly what is going to happen. 
American lives are at stake.
  I want to make one last comment. I have mentioned several times we 
should have probably gone further with this bill. I have been concerned 
about our state of readiness, and we outlined some of these things in 
the real property and maintenance accounts and others.
  But I was reading, the day before yesterday, in the Wall Street 
Journal, an editorial by Mark Helprin. Mark Helprin is a contributing 
editor to the Journal but is also a senior fellow of the Claremont 
Institute. He talks about the crisis that we are going to have to take 
care of, and that we should not be talking about the fact that we right 
now, today, are better equipped than we have been. We are not better 
equipped than we have been before. He goes on to talk about the fact 
that in Kosovo, 37,000 aerial sorties were required to destroy what 
Gen. Wesley Clark claimed were 93 tanks and 53 armored fighting 
vehicles. That is approximately 8 percent and 7 percent, respectively, 
of which Milosevic actually had.
  He goes on to say:

       Twenty percent of carrier-deployed F-14s do not fly, 
     serving as a source of spare parts instead. Forty percent of 
     Army helicopters are rated insufficient to their tasks. Half 
     of the Army's gas masks do not work.

  It goes on and on.
  I ask unanimous consent that this entire editorial be printed in the 
Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. INHOFE. Lastly, let me just say I am glad that defense has become 
prominent in this Presidential election. We have had a degradation in 
what has happened to our defense. We have great troops, but right now 
we are operating at roughly one-half the force strength we were during 
the Persian Gulf war. And that can be quantified.
  So often when people stand up politically and say we are stronger now 
than we were, or as strong as we were back during the Persian Gulf war, 
that just isn't true. We are approximately 60 percent of where we were 
in terms of force strength. That can be quantified.
  I am talking about 60 percent of the Army divisions, 60 percent of 
the tactical air wings, 60 percent of the ships floating around, going 
from a 600-ship Navy to a 300-ship Navy. It is true some of that was 
from the previous administration. The Bush administration wanted to go 
down from 600 to 450 ships. But now we are far below that.
  I think this administration has done a bad job the last 8 years. We 
are going to have to turn that around and do a massive rebuilding in 
the next administration. I think we are probably going to do it. I 
think we are going to see our Defense authorization committees of the 
House and the Senate do that. As well the Appropriations Committees are 
primed and ready, as is evidenced by the bill we are discussing today 
that we are going to pass. We are going to turn that corner and start 
rebuilding America's defense again.
  With that, I yield the floor.

                             Exhibit No. 1

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 10, 2000]

                           Mr. Clinton's Army

                           (By Mark Helprin)

       Many people have come to believe that thinking about war is 
     akin to fomenting it, preparing for it is as unjustifiable as 
     starting it, and fighting it is only unnecessarily prolonging 
     it. History suggests that as a consequence of these beliefs 
     they will bear heavy responsibility for the defeat of 
     American arms on a battlefield and in a theater of war as yet 
     unknown. Theirs are the kind of illusions that lead to a 
     nation recoiling in shock and frustration, to the terrible 
     depression of its spirits, the gratuitous encouragement of 
     its enemies, and the violent deaths of thousands or tens of 
     thousands, or more, of those who not long before were its 
     children.
       They will bear this responsibility along with 
     contemporaries who are so enamored of the particulars of 
     their well-being that they have made the government a kindly 
     nurse of households, a concierge and cook, never mind a 
     resurgent Saddam Hussein or China's rapid development of 
     nuclear weapons. They will bear it along with the partisans 
     of feminist and homosexual groups who see the military as a 
     tool for social transformation. And they will bear it with a 
     generation of politicians who have been guilty of willful 
     neglect merely for the sake of office.


                               Abject Lie

       So many fatuous toadies have been put in place in the 
     military that they will undoubtedly pop up like toast to 
     defend Vice President Gore's statement that ``if our 
     servicemen and women should be called on to risk their lives 
     for the sake of our freedoms and ideals, they will do so with 
     the best training and technology the world's richest country 
     can put at their service.'' This is an abject lie.
       To throw light on the vice president's assertion that all 
     is well, consider that in Kosovo 37,000 aerial sorties were 
     required to destroy what Gen. Wesley Clark claimed were 93 
     tanks, 53 armored fighting vehicles, and 389 artillery 
     pieces; that these comprised, respectively, 8%, 7%, and 4% of 
     such targets, leaving the Yugoslav army virtually intact; and 
     that impeccable sources in the Pentagon state that Yugoslav 
     use of decoys put the actual number of destroyed tanks, for 
     example, in the single digits.
       To achieve with several hundred sorties of $50-million 
     airplanes the singular splendor of destroying a Yugo, the 
     United States went without carries in the Western Pacific 
     during a crisis in Korea, and the Air Force tasked 40% of its 
     intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets, and 
     95% of its regular and 65% of its airborne tanker force, in 
     what the chief of staff called a heavier strain than either 
     the Gulf War or Vietnam.
       One reason for the ``inefficiency'' of Operation Allied 
     Force is that this very kind of farce is funded by 
     cannibalizing operations and maintenance accounts. Such a 
     thing would not by itself be enough to depress the services 
     as they are now depressed. That has taken eight years of 
     magnificent neglect. Case in point: The U.S. Navy now focuses 
     on action in the littorals, and must deal with a burgeoning 
     inventory of increasingly capable Third World coastal 
     submarines that find refuge in marine layers and take comfort 
     from the Navy's near century of inapplicable blue-water 
     antisubmarine warfare. But our budget for surface-ship 
     torpedo defense will shortly dip from not even $5 million, to 
     nothing in 2001.
       The reduction of the military budget to two-thirds of what 
     it was (in constant dollars) in 1985, and almost as great a 
     cut in force levels, combined with systematic demoralization, 
     scores of ``operations other than war,'' and the synergistic 
     breakdown that so often accompanies empires in decline and 
     bodies wracked by disease, have produced a tidal wave of 
     anecdotes and statistics. Twenty percent of carrier-deployed 
     F-

[[Page S10354]]

     14s do not fly, serving as a source of spare parts instead. 
     Forty percent of Army helicopters are rated insufficient to 
     their tasks. Half of the Army's gas masks do not work. Due to 
     reduced flying time and training opportunities within just a 
     few years of Bill Clinton's first inauguration, 84% of F-15 
     pilots had to be waived through 38 categories of flight 
     training. The pilot of the Osprey in the December 1999 crash 
     that killed 19 Marines had only 80 hours in the aircraft, and 
     the pilot who sliced the cables of the Italian aerial tram in 
     1998, killing 20, had not flown a low-altitude training 
     flight for seven months. It goes on and on, and as the sorry 
     state of the military becomes known, the administration 
     responds by doing what it does best.
       In the manner of Gen. Clark presenting as a success the--
     exaggerated--claim of having destroyed 8% of the Yugoslav 
     tank forces in 78 days of bombing, the administration moved 
     to ``restructure'' the six armored and mechanized divisions 
     by shrinking force levels 15% and armor 22%, while expanding 
     the divisional battle sector by 250%, the idea being that by 
     removing 3,000 men and 115 tanks and Bradley Fighting 
     Vehicles while vastly expanding the area in which it would 
     have to fight, a division would somehow be made more 
     effective.
       The two failed Army divisions cited by George W. Bush in 
     his acceptance speech were returned to readiness with speed 
     inversely proportional to the time it takes the White House 
     to produce a subpoenaed document, perhaps because, according 
     to the Army, ``new planning considerations have enabled 
     division commanders to make a more accurate assessment,'' and 
     ``the timelines for deployment . . . have been adjusted to 
     better enable them to meet contingency requirements.'' In 
     1995, brigade officials told the General Accounting Office 
     that they felt pressured to falsify readiness ratings, and 
     that the rubric ``needs practice'' was applied irrespective 
     of whether a unit scored 99% or 1% of the minimum passing 
     grade.
       But there is more. Mainly by coincidence but partly by 
     design, several broader measures exist. The Army rates its 
     echelons. In 1994, two-thirds of these were judged fully 
     ready for war. By 1999, not one of them was. More than half 
     the Army's specialty schools have received the lowest 
     ratings, as did more than half its combat training centers 
     (although the chaplains are doing very well). These training 
     centers serve as an instrument that illuminates the 
     character of all the units that pass through them. By 
     examining their ratings it is possible to get a 
     comprehensive view of the Army's true state.
       I have obtained National Training Center trend data that 
     are the careful measure of unit performance in 60 areas over 
     three years. Of 200 evaluations, only two were satisfactory. 
     This 99% negative performance, stunning as it is, is echoed 
     in the preliminary findings of a RAND study that, according 
     to sources within the Army, more than 90% of the time rates 
     mission capability at the battalion and the brigade levels as 
     insufficient. RAND has voluminous data and doesn't want to 
     talk about it until all the t's are crossed, long after the 
     election.
       If Gov. Bush becomes president, the armies his father sent 
     to the Gulf will not be available to him, not after eight 
     years of degradation at the hands of Bill Clinton. Given that 
     their parlous condition is an invitation to enemies of the 
     United States and, therefore, Mr. Bush might need them, and 
     because the years of the locust are always paid for in blood, 
     he should take this issue and with it hammer upon the doors 
     of the White House at dawn.
       In the Second World War, Marine Brig. Gen. Robert L. Denig 
     said, with homely elegance, ``This is a people's war. The 
     people want to know, need to know, and have a right to know, 
     what is going on.'' Nothing could be truer, and the vice 
     president of the United States does not speak the truth when 
     he characterizes as he does those forces that for two terms 
     his administrations have mercilessly run down. The American 
     military does not deserve this. It is not a cash cow for 
     balancing the budget, a butler-and-travel service for the 
     president, an instrument of sexual equality, or a gendarmerie 
     on the model of a French Foreign Legion with a broader 
     mandate and worse food.


                            caesar's legions

       If we are, in effect, the enemies of our own fighting men, 
     what will happen when they go into the field? The military 
     must be redeemed. Should Gov. Bush win in November he should 
     bring forward and promote soldiers and civilians who 
     understand military essentials and the absolute necessity of 
     readiness and training, people both colorful and drab, but 
     who would, all of them, understand that these words of Gen. 
     George S. Patton are the order of the day:
       ``In a former geological era when I was a boy studying 
     latin, I had occasion to translate one of Caesar's remarks 
     which as nearly as I can remember read something like this:
       `` `In the winter time, Caesar so trained his legions in 
     all that became soldiers and so habituated them in the proper 
     performance of their duties, that when in the spring he 
     committed them to battle against the Gauls, it was not 
     necessary to give them orders, for they knew what to do and 
     how to do it.'
       ``This quotation expresses very exactly the goal we are 
     seeking in this division. I know that we shall attain it and 
     when we do, May God have mercy on our enemies; they will need 
     it.''

  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this conference report contains a number 
of provisions of great importance to our troops and our veterans. 
First, I am very glad that one of the top priorities of this conference 
report is improving the military health care system. The expansion of 
TRICARE, the military health care system, to Medicare-eligible retirees 
provides a permanent comprehensive health care benefit to military 
retirees, regardless of age. All military retirees and their families 
will now be able to remain in the TRICARE health program for life.
  At least as important, military retirees will now have complete 
prescription drug coverage. With this new benefit, there is an even 
stronger case for Congress passing a Medicare prescription drug plan 
for all seniors this year before we go home.
  I am also pleased that this bill provides our troops a significant 
pay raise as well as supplementary benefits for troops on food stamps 
and increased WIC nutritional support for troops overseas. These are 
issues on which I have worked for several years on the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee.
  I am especially pleased that we have overcome significant opposition 
among the House majority to provide compensation to some of those who 
were harmed by dangerous conditions at our nuclear weapons plants. I am 
sure that by now all my colleagues are aware that many of our citizens 
were exposed to radioactive and other hazardous materials at nuclear 
weapons production plants in the United States. While working to 
protect our national security, thousands of workers were subjected to 
severe hazards, sometimes without their knowledge or consent.
  I would like to address in more detail another provision that is 
important for former workers at our nuclear weapons facilities. The 
dangers at these plants thrived in the darkness of Government secrecy. 
Public oversight was especially weak at a factory for assembling and 
disassembling nuclear weapons at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant in 
Middletown, IA. I first found out about the nuclear weapons work there 
from a constituent letter from a former worker, Robert Anderson. He was 
concerned that his non-Hodgkins lymphoma was caused by exposures at the 
plant. But when I asked the Department of Energy about the plant, at 
first they denied that any nuclear weapons work took place there. The 
constituent's story was only confirmed when my staff saw a promotional 
video from the contractor at the site that mentioned the nuclear 
weapons work.
  The nuclear weapons production plants were run not by the Defense 
Department but by the Atomic Energy Commission, which has since been 
made part of the Department of Energy. The Department of Energy has 
since acknowledged what happened, and is now actively trying to help 
the current and former workers in Iowa and elsewhere by reviewing 
records, helping them get medical testing and care, and seeking 
compensation.
  I compliment Secretary Richardson for his foresight and for taking 
this matter very seriously and making sure that the Department of 
Energy is forthcoming in regard to getting testing and care and 
compensation.
  I was pleased this past January to host Energy Secretary Richardson 
at a meeting with former workers and community members near the plant 
in Iowa. The Department specifically acknowledges that the Iowa Army 
Ammunition Plant assembled and disassembled nuclear weapons from 1947-
1975. And their work has helped uncover potential health concerns at 
the plant, such as explosions around depleted uranium that created 
clouds of radioactive dust, and workers' exposure to high explosives 
that literally turned their skin yellow.
  And while the Department of Energy is investigating what happened and 
seeking solutions, the Army is stuck, still mired in a nonsensical 
policy. It is the policy of the Department of Defense to ``neither 
confirm nor deny'' the presence of nuclear weapons were assembled in 
Iowa without admitting that there were nuclear weapons in Iowa. So they 
write vaguely about ``AEC activities,'' but don't say what those 
activities were.

[[Page S10355]]

  There have been no nuclear weapons at the Iowa site since 1975, but 
it is well known that weapons were there before that. The DOE says the 
weapons were there. A promotional video of the Army contractor at the 
site even says the weapons were there. But the Army can't say it.
  What this does is, it send the wrong signal to the former workers. 
These workers swore oaths never to reveal what they did at the plant. 
And many of them are still reluctant to talk. They are worried that 
their cancers or other health problems may be caused by their work at 
the plant. But they feel that they can't even tell their doctors or 
site cleanup crews they worked there or what the tasks were they did. 
They don't want to violate the oaths of secrecy they took. One worker 
at the Iowa plant said recently: There's still stuff buried out there 
that we don't know where it is. And we know people who do know, but 
they will not say anything yet because they are still afraid of 
repercussions. Instead of helping these workers speak out, the Army has 
forced them to keep their silence.
  I am pleased that the conference report includes a provision I 
offered to help these workers. It is narrowly targeted to require the 
Defense Department, in consultation with the Energy Department, to 
review their classification and security policies to ensure they do not 
prevent or discourage workers at nuclear weapons facilities from 
discussing possible exposures with their health care providers and 
other appropriate officials. The provision specifically recognizes that 
this must be done within national security constraints. It also directs 
the Department to contact people who may have been exposed to 
radioactive or hazardous substances at former Defense Department 
nuclear weapons facilities, including the Iowa plant. The Department is 
to notify them of any exposures and of how they can discuss the 
exposures with their health care providers and other appropriate 
officials without violating security or classification procedures.
  I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the conference 
committee for joining with me in a colloquy to clarify that this 
provision applies to all workers at such facilities, and not just DOD 
personnel.
  I am pleased we are passing this provision today. I thank the 
managers of the bill for including this provision and for the fine work 
they have done on all aspects of this bill.
  Lastly, I am very concerned about the recent upsurge of violence in 
the Middle East. I strongly support the efforts of President Clinton 
and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to negotiate a cease-fire. This 
cycle of killings and destruction must end so there can be a return to 
the negotiating table to achieve a comprehensive and lasting peace 
agreement in the Middle East.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Harkin for his wonderful 
commitment to the workers, particularly in his State, but really the 
workers in America. He noticed something in our bill which 
inadvertently could have left out some workers we wanted to cover and 
he wanted to cover.
  We worked out the colloquy with Senator Harkin which will be made a 
part of the Record. I thank Senator Harkin for his intrepid effort on 
behalf of the workers of America and Iowa. It has really paid off.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join my colleague. The three of us 
signed the colloquy. I thank the Senator. He does look after his 
people.
  Mr. HARKIN. If I might reciprocate, I thank the chairman and Senator 
Levin, the ranking member, for including this in the bill. These were 
hard workers. They were good people. They work for a contract employer, 
not the Department of Defense. With this change, it makes it clear they 
are covered also. I thank them both.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.
  While I have the floor, Mr. President, I would like to advise 
Senators that there is an effort being made to try and get the vote on 
first, presumably, a point of order that will be raised and then, 
following that, on final passage. We hope to begin to move to those 
votes possibly as early as 6 o'clock. So we are condensing down the 
period of time prior to the vote that Senators wish to speak.
  Of course, we can arrange for such time after the votes as Senators 
desire. This is to accommodate both sides of the aisle and many 
Senators. I thank my colleagues for working with me to achieve these 
goals. We now have in place two Senators ready to speak, then I will 
consult with our leadership.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if the Senator from Virginia will yield for 
an additional minute, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Allard be 
recognized immediately after Senator Robb for up to 5 minutes, and then 
that Senator Byrd be recognized immediately after Senator Allard. I 
will talk to Senator Byrd about the time situation in which we find 
ourselves.
  Mr. WARNER. Senator Byrd is a member of our committee and he has a 
key piece of legislation in here. It is my hope that we can have 
Senators speak briefly so that we can get on to the issue by Senator 
Kerrey.
  Mr. LEVIN. I will speak with Senator Byrd about the amount of time.
  Mr. WARNER. And Senator Robb, our valued colleague, a member of the 
committee, is about to address his issues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, the defense authorization bill before us 
today has historic qualities. It represents another year of real growth 
in our commitment to national defense and the readiness of the men and 
women who serve this Nation in uniform. It represents our reinvigorated 
and growing national consensus on the importance of American military 
power, and our military's continuing relevance to world peace, 
stability, and prosperity. Friends and allies around the world will see 
in this bill America's commitment to leadership and our willingness to 
keep our military the most powerful ever and equal to the challenge.
  This bill continues to chip away at the quality of life issues that 
make service in today's military a greater sacrifice than it needs to 
be. This bill raises pay, improves housing, authorizes additional 
bonuses to improve retention, and improves medical care for 
servicemembers and their families.
  I am particularly proud that this bill at last acknowledges the 
promise of lifetime health care made to America's thousands of military 
retirees and their families. The program put in place by this bill sets 
the conditions for keeping our promise, but we should have no illusion 
that this fulfills our debt. The devil, as usual, is in the details and 
there is much work ahead ensuring that the system we create is up to 
the requirements of this benefit and accomplishes its purpose. In a 
respect our real work lies before us, now that we are over the 
political and budgetary hurdles of keeping the promise.
  This bill, thankfully but modestly, also increases our procurement, 
readiness, and research and development accounts. Anyone reading this 
bill will see our clear intent to deal with our daunting maintenance 
challenges. Anyone reading this bill will see our clear intent to 
modernize our tactical aircraft. Anyone reading this bill will see our 
clear intent to increase shipbuilding rates necessary to sustain a 
globally capable 300-ship Navy. Anyone reading this bill will see our 
clear intent to accelerate research and development to bring forward 
the next generation of aircraft--manned and unmanned, ships, and combat 
vehicles necessary to our future readiness and security.
  Unfortunately, the rush, early this year, to massive tax cuts and 
political fears over new spending worked against us in making the kinds 
of real and significant increases necessary to address the challenges 
to our readiness today and tomorrow.
  There is no doubt that significant increases in the defense top line 
are ahead. But regrettably, we have missed an opportunity to apply 
additional resources this year to some of our more chronic military 
requirements such as aviation spare parts and ship depot maintenance.
  Equally regrettable, we fail again, in my judgement, to take on the 
issue of excess infrastructure.
  One of the best ways we can help pay for current readiness is through 
reducing the DOD's large ``tail'' of infrastructure and support, which 
is taking away critical funding for the teeth--

[[Page S10356]]

our warfighting troops and equipment that will fight the next year.
  And the best place to reduce tail is to cut more bases.
  I am encouraged by the Armed Services Committee chairman's commitment 
to making additional BRAC legislation his first priority for our next 
session. It is time to get over the history of this issue and get on 
with supporting defense establishment requirements.
  Mr. President, there are very exciting days ahead for America's Armed 
Forces. The benefits of a strong national economy with projected budget 
surpluses provide a historic opportunity across the range of national 
priorities--from paying off our national debt to tax relief. But we 
also enjoy a historic opportunity to address today's military 
challenges and reach deeply into the future assuring our continued 
peace and prosperity.
  At the same time, we must be careful and have the courage to make 
tough choices where necessary ensuring that we get the most for our 
defense dollars. We must not become embroiled in an arms race with 
ourselves. We are the best already, we need only stay ahead of our 
greatest threats.
  Mr. President, for the last couple years one of our greatest 
readiness challenges has been recruiting and retention. I believe a 
young American today should see not only a tremendous opportunity to 
join the best military in the world, but an opportunity to join a 
military that will get the resources it needs to stay trained and 
ready. And, more importantly, a military that will get even better.
  In addition, Mr. President, I rise to talk about events earlier 
today.
  The explosion and loss of life this morning aboard the U.S.S. Cole is 
deeply disturbing and has affected all of us. The U.S.S. Cole, her 
crew, and their families are homeported in Norfolk, VA, and are proud 
members of Virginia's Navy family. Our prayers go out to those sailors 
killed and injured or missing. Our prayers go out to the courageous 
crew members right now dealing with the aftermath of this attack, and 
our prayers go out to the families of the U.S.S. Cole who live, as Navy 
families always have, with quiet courage, with this kind of danger, and 
in the face of this kind of tragedy.
  I can confidently report that the extended Navy family in Virginia 
and around the country is coming together in this tragic moment to 
support and comfort the families of the U.S.S. Cole. The resources of 
this Nation will be there for them in this time of great sorrow and 
need.
  The U.S. Navy sails into harm's way every day around the world 
protecting America and her interests. Today's attack is a painful 
reminder that the world is still a dangerous and uncertain place. 
America's young men and women in uniform are truly on freedom's 
frontier. As the CNO reminded us this afternoon, the U.S.S. Cole is one 
of 101 warships that are currently deployed.
  We stand ready to provide the Navy whatever support is necessary at 
this painful time. We are doing everything we can to ensure the rapid 
evacuation of our casualties, to ensure the security of the crew and 
ship, to determine who is responsible for this attack, and to take 
appropriate action in response.
  Even in the best of conditions, service in the U.S. Navy, afloat or 
ashore, is inherently dangerous, difficult work. Ships and aircraft at 
sea in all types of weather, during the day and during the night, are, 
over the long haul, as hazardous as any conditions we ever ask 
Americans to serve under. We owe these men and women and their families 
the best possible leadership, a reasonable quality of life, modern 
ships, aircraft and equipment, and realistic training. We owe them a 
fighting chance to serve in harm's way and to come home safe and proud.
  The Navy is appropriately treating this as a suspected terrorist 
attack and has responded with antiterror-capable Marine security 
forces, in addition to the medical support flowing to the aid of the 
ship and her crew. If we determine that this was a terrorist attack, we 
should respond in a manner that guarantees that anyone or any state 
that might use terror against our military or civilians understands 
that they will pay a heavy price for misjudging either our capability 
or our will.
  The U.S. Navy provides an indispensable contribution to world peace 
and stability. This incident cannot deter us from our commitment to 
defend our interests wherever they are, anyplace in the world. America 
will never retreat from our responsibilities, and we will take steps to 
bring to justice those responsible for this tragic loss of American 
life.
  In this time of shock and sorrow, American resolve is called upon 
once again. We will meet this challenge.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I join with my colleague from Virginia in 
his expression of concern about the crew and members of the U.S.S. 
Cole. It still shows that we do live in a dangerous world, and our 
fighting men and women are exposed to danger every day they do their 
job.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to also make reference to the 
remarks of my colleague from Virginia. He and I have a very special 
responsibility in this tragedy. We will undoubtedly, working together 
on that, do what we can on behalf of the families, particularly, in 
this instance.
  Mr. ROBB. I thank my senior colleague from Virginia. We will be doing 
everything we can to respond to this tragedy.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator is aware of the availability at 6 o'clock of 
the briefing on this matter?
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I say to the senior Senator, I am and I have 
already availed myself of other briefings today.
  Mr. WARNER. Thank you.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, before I begin my statement regarding the 
conference report, I want to say that my heart goes out to the families 
of the crewman of the U.S.S. Cole in the Aden Gulf who were killed, 
injured, or are missing. Let it be said, that if this was a terrorist 
attack, the United States shall not allow this to stand without a 
strong response by the United States and no matter where these 
terrorists go, they will be found and they will be held accountable.
  Now to the conference report, I want to thank Chairman Warner for 
allowing me the opportunity to speak in strong support of this 
essential Defense authorization conference report which provides the 
needed resources for our men and women in the armed services. I believe 
this bill is a fitting tribute for those who served, are serving, and 
will serve in armed services in the future.
  The Fiscal Year 2001 Defense Authorization Act conference report has 
been a bipartisan effort and for the second year in a row we have 
reversed the downward trend in defense spending by increasing this 
year's funding by $4.6 billion over the President's request, for a 
funding level of $309.9 billion.
  As the Strategic Subcommittee chairman, I would like to point out a 
few key provisions in the subcommittee's jurisdiction, plus a few of 
keen interest to myself.
  As has been the pattern over the last several years, we had to 
increase the funding for our ballistic missile and space programs. This 
bill increases the ballistic missile defense programs by $391.8 
million, a very important increase of $78 million for military space 
research and development programs, an increase of $91.2 million for 
strategic nuclear delivery vehicle modernization, and $80.5 million 
increase for military intelligence programs.
  Regarding a few specific items--an increase of $85.0 million the 
Airborne Laser Program which requires the Air Force to stay on the 
budgetary path for a 2003 lethal demonstration and a 2008 deployment; 
an increase of $10 million for the Space Based Laser Program; a $129 
million increase for National Missile Defense risk reduction; an 
increase of $80 million for Navy Theater Wide; an extra $8 million for 
the Arrow System Improvement Program; and for the Tactical High Energy 
Program an increase of $15 million.
  Beyond the budget items, there four very important legislative 
provisions I would like to point out.
  First, the Secretary of Defense is required to conduct comprehensive 
review of our nuclear posture--the first major review since 1994. 
Second, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of 
Energy, must develop a long range plan for the sustainment and 
modernization of the U.S. strategic nuclear forces. We are concerned 
that the Department does not have a long term vision beyond their 
current modernization efforts.

[[Page S10357]]

  Third, in 2002, the Space-Based Infrared System Low or the SBIRS Low 
program will be transferred from the Air Force to the Ballistic Missile 
Defense Organization. And fourth, in order to assess an emerging 
threat, a commission has been established to assess the threats to the 
United States from an electromagnetic pulse attack.
  This conference report also authorizes the activities at the 
Department of Energy in regards to their defense activities. In order 
to ensure that America's nuclear weapon stockpile is safe and reliable 
and that our nuclear waste is managed responsibly, we have authorized 
$13 billion for Atomic Energy Defense activities at the Department of 
Energy.

  However, unfortunately, DOE has had a few problem areas in keeping 
and protecting our nation's most valued nuclear secrets. That is why we 
established in the fiscal year 2000 authorization bill the National 
Nuclear Security Administration or the NNSA and this year's bill 
provides a total of $6.4 billion for the NNSA. This total includes $4.8 
billion for weapons activities, $877.5 million for defense 
nonproliferation activities, and $695 million for naval reactors 
activities.
  A priority for me is the timely and efficient cleanup and closure of 
formerly used DOE weapons facilities, such as Rocky Flats in my State 
of Colorado. This bill moves the cleanup and closure of these forward 
with strong funding lines and some key legislative provisions. For 
example, DOE believed it would be best if they moved all the security 
and safeguards funding into one line and into one office at the DOE 
Washington, DC, headquarters. The problem is that this would have taken 
the responsibility away from the people who are responsible for the 
safeguards and security at each individual site, plus would have 
removed the needed flexibility to manage the sites effectively. For 
instance, once the material requiring security are removed from Rocky 
Flats, the savings from the reduction of these security needs would 
then be used to accelerate the cleanup and closure at the site. That is 
one of the reasons why we have a provision which would keep the funding 
and responsibility at each Environmental Management site.
  In regards to the workers at Department of Energy sites, 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.
  Another key provision which is very important not just for the 
workers I know at Rocky Flats, but for workers throughout the DOE sites 
in the United States is the establishment of an employee compensation 
initiative for DOE employees who were injured, due to exposure to 
radiation, beryllium, or silica, as a result of their employment at DOE 
sites. These workers performed a unique, important, but sometimes 
thankless task, of producing and testing our nuclear weapons arsenal.
  Finally, I would like to mention a few important highlights of the 
conference report outside of the Strategic Subcommittee. In last year's 
authorization bill, we enacted a much needed and deserved pay raise for 
our military personnel. This year's bill continues that progress with a 
3.7-percent pay raise beginning January 1, 2001. Along with the last 
year's pay raise, we also made major retirement reforms, including a 
Thrift Savings Plan for our service personnel. After many delays at the 
Pentagon, this year's bill directs the Department to implement the 
Thrift Savings Plan, in order to allow our military to prepare for life 
after their military service is complete.
  Let me finish with a provision that by no small measure is the most 
expensive but couldn't be more deserving for those who have served. 
Beyond the many changes we have made in the pharmacy benefit and 
extension of benefits for active duty family members, we provide a 
permanent comprehensive health care benefit for Medicare eligible 
military retirees. This has been a priority for this committee and 
Congress and I believe we are doing the right thing for our military 
retirees who have served and protected this Nation.
  I want to thank Chairman Warner for the opportunity to point out some 
of the highlights in the bill which the Strategic Subcommittee has 
oversight and to congratulate him and Senator Levin in the bipartisan 
way this bill was developed and ask that all Senators strongly support 
the Defense Authorization Conference Report. I also want to 
congratulate the chairman in the way he shepherded this conference 
report down the long arduous road this bill saw.
  One of Congress' main responsibilities is to provide for the common 
defense of the United States and I am proud of what this bill provides 
for men and women in uniform. I see this bill as a tribute to the 
dedication and hard work of these young men and women. I ask for a 
strong vote on this bill in order to get that much needed and well 
deserved resources to our military personnel.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, consideration of the annual Defense 
Authorization conference report is generally an occasion for 
celebration and congratulation in the Senate as we reflect on the 
strength and superiority of America's armed forces. The report that we 
are considering today is indeed a solid achievement in our efforts to 
keep this nation on the right track as we work to bolster America's 
military readiness and national security.
  Unfortunately, the circumstances under which we are taking up this 
report offer no cause to celebrate. The United States today is mourning 
the loss of at least five American sailors, a death toll likely to 
rise, and the injury of dozens more in an apparent terrorist attack on 
the destroyer U.S.S. Cole in Aden, Yemen. At the same time, the Gaza 
Strip and the West Bank are in chaos as the escalating violence between 
the Israelis and the Palestinians threatens to erupt into all-out war.
  Our thoughts and our prayers are with the crew of the Cole and their 
families, and with the entire Navy family. The attack on the Cole was a 
vile and contemptible act. We must leave no stone unturned in working 
to determine the origins of this attack, to bring those responsible to 
justice, and to redouble our efforts to protect our forces overseas. 
And we must renew our calls to the Palestinian and Israeli leaders to 
quell the violence in the Middle East, to stop the fighting between the 
two sides from spiraling out of control. Too many lives have been lost 
already in this latest round of violence, too many children have been 
sacrificed to the disputes of their governments. It is time for the 
Israelis and Palestinians to each accept responsibility for their 
actions, to stop the fighting, and to resume talking.
  These grave crises are a stark reminder of the importance of 
maintaining a strong and ready U.S. military, and the FY 2001 Defense 
Authorization conference report that we considering today does a good 
job in meeting that goal. Like the Defense Appropriations conference 
report that was passed earlier this year, this authorization measure 
provides needed funding increases and policy directives to meet the 
changing nature of our national security challenges and to respond to 
crises affecting our national security as they arise.
  With the current focus on the readiness of America's military, this 
is a timely package that makes a clear statement about the Senate's 
commitment to our men and women in uniform. There is no question that 
this is a big bill, topping out at $309.9 billion--$4.6 billion over 
the President's budget request. It is a broad and complex measure, 
affecting virtually every facet of our nation's military forces and 
readiness capabilities. It has not been an easy task to finalize the 
conference and reach this point. Many controversial issues had to be 
confronted and resolved along the way. Conferees began their work 
before the August recess, and have labored intensely over the past 
several weeks to complete the conference. I commend our Chairman, 
Senator Warner, and Ranking Member, Senator Levin, for their guidance, 
skill, and leadership during the conference. While not every Senator 
may agree with every provision of this conference report, all Senators 
can be assured, thanks to the leadership of Senators Warner and Levin, 
that the conferees never lost sight of the essential purpose of this 
legislation, which is to provide for America's national security and 
military readiness.

[[Page S10358]]

  I am particularly pleased that the authorizers concurred with the 
appropriators in funding a 3.7 percent pay raise for military 
personnel. We can never adequately compensate our men and women in 
uniform for their dedication and service to this nation, but we must 
always strive to provide the best pay and benefits package that we can. 
In that regard, I also welcome the comprehensive package of improved 
health benefits for Medicare-eligible military retirees, although I 
understand the concern that has been raised over the cost of the so-
called ``TRICARE for life'' provision that was included in this 
conference report. The cost of health care for aging Americans, be they 
military or civilian retirees, is an issue that this nation is going to 
have to confront, and that Congress will have to provide for in future 
budgets. I have no doubt that whatever we do, as we have seen in this 
measure, the price tag will be steep.
  I am also pleased that the conferees agreed to accept the provision 
that I offered on behalf of myself, Senator Warner and Senator Levin 
establishing a United States-China Security Review Commission to 
monitor and assess the national security implications of the U.S.-China 
trade relationship. In the wake of the recent enactment of legislation 
to extend Permanent Normal Trade Relations to China, this Commission 
can play a key role in assuring that an enhanced economic relationship 
between the United States and China does not undermine our national 
security interests.
  The purpose of the U.S. China Security Review Commission is to 
determine whether China, which is working hard to gain entry to the 
World Trade Organization, or WTO, and to extend its economic dominance 
throughout the hemisphere, will use its enhanced trade status within 
the WTO and income from increased international trade to compromise the 
national security of the United States. Given the circumstances--
including the fact that the Chinese Central Committee just this week 
approved an economic plan that calls for doubling China's economy over 
the next decade--this is a timely and serious issue to address.
  Mr. President, we have good reason to be wary. I think it is 
significant that even before the President signed the PNTR legislation 
into law, the Chinese started waffling on promises they had made to 
secure entry to the World Trade Organization. I note that the 
President's top trade negotiator was dispatched to Beijing this week, 
shortly after the PNTR signing ceremony, to attempt to nail down 
China's commitment to reduce tariffs on imports and open markets to 
foreign companies.
  Let me read from an item in Wednesday's New York Times, entitled 
``Clinton Warns China to Abide by Trade Rules.''
  I will read from the article.

       Mr. Clinton sent Charlene Barshefsky, the United States 
     trade representative, on her mission on the same day that he 
     signed into law the legislation to grant China permanent 
     normal trade relations, the culmination of 14 years of 
     negotiations and a protracted struggle on Capital Hill.
       But even as administration officials and bipartisan 
     Congressional leaders gathered on the White House lawn to 
     hail what they called China's integration into the world 
     economy, American officials acknowledged that China was 
     slipping on pledges to open its markets that it had made as 
     part of its efforts to join the World Trade Organization.

  I wish I could say I was surprised by China's apparent backing away 
from its WTO commitments, but I was not. I predicted this. China's 
record on trade agreements is abysmal. Since 1992, six trade agreements 
have been made, and broken, by China. In addition to its record of 
broken promises on trade agreements, China also has a history of 
weapons proliferation, religious repression, poor labor protections, 
and aggressive foreign policy postures. Is this the kind of behavior we 
want to reward with permanent normal trade relations?
  I opposed PNTR for China, and I have grave reservations over the 
impact of China's membership in the WTO. We are entering uncharted 
waters in our economic relationship with China, and it is absolutely 
essential that we do so with our eyes open. We gave away our only means 
to bring the issue of trade with China before the Congress on an annual 
basis when we passed PNTR.
  I believe there were 13 Senators who had their eyes open when they 
voted on that matter and they voted against it. I was one of the 13.
  This U.S.-China Security Review Commission will restore a vital 
measure of scrutiny to the economic relationship between the United 
States and China. It is a fundamental safeguard, and I am glad that we 
are moving forward with it.
  It is not a trade commission. It is a national security commission.
  Let's have some group that will advise the Congress as to what impact 
the trade engaged in by China with the United States might have on our 
national security. We are not depending upon the administration. We are 
not depending upon the executive branch. We have a commission that will 
advise the Congress so that we will know, we will have some idea as to 
what the impact on national security is of this permanent normal trade 
relations legislation.
  So it is a fundamental safeguard, and I am glad that we are moving 
forward with it.
  Once again, we stand at a time when tensions throughout the world are 
high. In the span of only a few days, we have ricocheted from the 
euphoria of democracy--this is the way of making China a democratic 
nation. We will have great influence upon China. It is laughable that 
we, the people of 212 years, will have influence upon the people of 
5,000 years. No. We have ricocheted from the euphoria of democracy 
sweeping through Yugoslavia, to the despair of escalating violence in 
the Mideast, to the horrific images of dead and injured American 
soldiers on the U.S.S. Cole, the victims of an apparent anti-American 
terrorist attack. We are reminded that peace remains an elusive goal, 
and that America must remain vigilant.
  The first order of business is to ensure that the United States 
maintains the finest, the best equipped, the best protected, and the 
best managed military in the world; a military force--but we will have 
to make it all of these things--a military force suited for the 
emerging challenges of the 21st century. This conference report goes a 
long way to meet that test. It is a good package.
  I urge its adoption, and I again commend Senators Warner and Levin 
for having led the way for others of the conferees to the final 
development of this package.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, let me thank our dear friend from 
West Virginia for his nice remarks about the chairman and myself. I am 
wondering if we could line up some speakers. We have Senator Reed of 
Rhode Island and Senator Cleland on our side who need some time on the 
conference report before we get down to the point of order. I have not 
had a chance to talk to Senator Hollings on that issue. But I am 
wondering if we could set up a line of speakers with Senator Reed for 5 
minutes on our side.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to make sure I hear because I have 
Senator Domenici and Senator Gramm of Texas.
  I, first, want to thank our very valued Member, Senator Byrd, of the 
committee. I was privileged to join him on the legislation on the China 
Commission. I can't tell you how our committee benefits from his work 
and wisdom that he has given us through the many years.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Virginia was 
a sterling and very steadfast advocate of this legislation. I am deeply 
in debt to him for his leadership in the committee, and also to my 
friend, Mr. Levin, for his support of this commission.
  Mr. WARNER. We thank the Senator.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me join our chairman in commending 
Senator Byrd for the way in which he worked so hard for this 
commission, and for the valuable function this commission is going to 
perform for all of us. Whichever side of that debate we were on in 
terms of PNTR, and however we voted on it, this commission is going to 
be very helpful to all of us.
  I thank my friend from West Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, Senator Levin and I will endeavor to see 
what we can do to convenience the Senate and keep this bill moving.

[[Page S10359]]

  Our esteemed colleague, Senator Kerrey, has his time reserved. We 
want to have several others before we get to his issue, if that is 
agreeable. Senator Reed has been waiting, Senator Gramm, and Senator 
Domenici.
  Mr. LEVIN. Senator Cleland.
  Mr. WARNER. Senator Cleland, a member of the Armed Services 
Committee.
  Let's alternate between sides.
  Mr. LEVIN. Senator Reed, who has been waiting the longest, wishes 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Senator Domenici, on my time for another 5 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. And back to Senator Cleland for 10 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Then we go to Senator Gramm, who has his time under the 
unanimous-consent agreement.
  It would be our hope the Senator will consume less than the allocated 
amount under the unanimous consent.
  Mr. GRAMM. I was hoping our distinguished chairman would consume less 
than allocated on the budget but he consumed 10 times as much.
  Mr. WARNER. We will have the opportunity, Mr. President, to have a 
few words on that subject.
  Mr. LEVIN. If the chairman will yield, it is my understanding under 
the existing unanimous-consent agreement after the 2 hours under your 
control, either used or yielded back, 2\1/2\ hours under my control, 
either used or yielded back, the 1 hour under the control of Senator 
Gramm of Texas, either used or yielded back, and Senator Wellstone, I 
believe, has already utilized his time, at that point we then turn to 
the point of order, and Senator Kerrey would be recognized for that 
purpose.
  Mr. WARNER. That is correct. For those who are following this, you 
will make a point of order, at which time I will seek recognition to 
have that point of order waived.
  Mr. LEVIN. We jointly ask unanimous consent the order of speakers be 
followed for such length of time that we outlined.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the fiscal 
year 2001 Defense authorization conference report.
  I believe this bill contains many excellent provisions which will 
ensure that our military remains the finest in the world.
  As to personnel benefits, this bill also takes great steps to improve 
health care, pay and benefits for armed services personnel.
  For the second year in a row, Congress approved a pay raise for 
military personnel. This year's 3.7 percent pay raise will go into 
effect on January 1, 2001.
  This bill directs the Secretary of Defense to implement the Thrift 
Savings Plan for active and reserve service members.
  Many Members of Congress have been outraged to learn that a number of 
active duty service members qualify for food stamps. This bill 
addresses that issue by directing the Secretary of Defense to implement 
a program which provides additional special pay of up to $500 per month 
for those service members who qualify for food stamps.
  This bill also eliminates co-payments for active duty family members 
for health care received under TRICARE Prime. In addition, Congress 
extended TRICARE Prime to families of service members assigned to 
remote locations.
  For military retirees, this bill goes far to fulfill the promise made 
to our military retirees when they enlisted that they would be given 
lifetime healthcare.
  Congress approved a permanent comprehensive health care benefit for 
Medicare-eligible retirees which effectively makes all military 
retirees eligible for health care within TRICARE.
  Under this plan, military retirees and family members may keep their 
Medicare coverage and use Tricare as a Medicare supplement to pay costs 
not covered by Medicare.
  This provision can save military retirees thousands of dollars in 
out-of-pocket costs.
  Congress also expanded the comprehensive retail and national mail 
order pharmacy to benefit all Medicare eligible retirees and their 
eligible family members, without enrollment fees.
  On submarines, this bill also provides significant resources for the 
Navy's submarine fleet, a military asset very close to the hearts of 
the residents of my home state Rhode Island:
  Authorizes funding for the construction of the third Virginia class 
submarine, the U.S.S. Hawaii;
  Authorizes a block buy of submarines from FY03-06 which will greatly 
increase the efficiency and lower the cost of our next generation of 
submarines.
  In transforming for future threats, the Navy will soon be faced with 
a decision on whether to refuel old Los Angeles class submarines or 
convert four Trident submarines which are scheduled to be retired to 
special operations boats. I believe that this decision must be made 
very carefully and so I am pleased that this report contains language 
directing a study of the advantages of Trident conversion over 
refueling.
  I am also pleased that significant funding has been authorized for 
countermine measures. I believe this is a necessary program that has 
been woefully underfunded in recent years.
  As to Army transformation, in October 1999, senior Army leaders 
announced a new vision to enable the Army to better meet the diverse, 
complex demands of the 21st century.
  At present, in some instances the Army faces strategic deployment 
challenges that inhibits its ability to negotiate rapidly the 
transitions from peacetime operations in one part of the world to 
small-scale contingencies in another.
  Army heavy forces have no peer in the world, but they are a challenge 
to deploy.
  The Army has the world's finest light infantry, but it lacks adequate 
lethality, survivability, and mobility once in theater.
  The Army Transformation Strategy will result in an Objective Force 
that is more responsible, deployable, agile, versatile, lethal, 
survivable and sustainable than the present force.
  A force with these capabilities will allow the Army to place a combat 
capable brigade anywhere in the world, regardless of ports or 
airfields, in 96 hours.
  It will put a division on the ground in 120 hours. And it will put 5 
divisions in theater in 30 days.
  This bill supports the Army Transformation efforts by authorizing an 
additional $750 million for the initiative, of which $600 million is 
for procurement requirements and $150 million for R&D requirements.
  On impact aid, I am also pleased that the conference report contains 
language I authored to address the considerable financial strain on 
school districts educating military children with severe disabilities 
and help military families get the best education for their children 
with severe disabilities.
  As many of my colleagues are aware, military personnel with children 
with severe disabilities often request and receive compassionate-post 
assignments to a few districts known for their special education 
programs.
  The cost of providing such education is disproportionately high for 
these communities. In fact, for some of these children, the cost is 
upwards of $50,000 to $100,000 a year (as compared to an average per 
pupil expenditure of $6,900).
  In my home state, Middletown, Portsmouth, and Newport are districts 
with many military children with disabilities. This year, Middletown 
alone is providing education to 66 high need military children with 
disabilities at a total cost of nearly $1 million.
  This experience, however, is not unique to Rhode Island. In fact, 
districts ranging from San Diego and Travis Unified in California to 
Fort Sam Houston Independence in Texas also face considerable financial 
strain in their endeavor to educate military children with 
disabilities.
  Section 363 of the conference report, Impact Aid for Children with 
Severe Disabilities, requires a report containing information on 
military children with severe disabilities, and authorizes funding to 
ease the strain on local communities providing education to high 
numbers of such children.
  Mr. President, this critical program will help ensure that military 
families get the best education for their children with disabilities, 
while providing needed relief to school districts, and I am very 
pleased that it has been adopted.

[[Page S10360]]

  I look forward to working with my fellow committee members, the 
Department of Defense, impact aid organizations, military personnel, 
and affected communities to press for funding for this program next 
year.

  Under the Montgomery G.I. bill, Mr. President, I would now like to 
turn to some items that I regret have not been included in the 
conference report.
  First, I would like to mention the expansion of Montgomery G.I. bill 
benefits that have been advocated for years by our colleague, Senator 
Cleland.
  One of the most innovative provisions he proposed would have allowed 
service members to transfer Montgomery G.I. bill benefits to family 
members.
  I believe this transferability would have been an effective tool for 
recruiting new members and retaining trained and skilled service 
members.
  This provision would have had a negligible impact on the budget: The 
provision was not written as an entitlement, but rather would have been 
implemented at the discretion of the service Secretaries.
  However, this provision, which was included in the Senate bill, was 
ultimately eliminated from the conference report because it was too 
expensive.
  Yet while this provision was considered too expensive, in conference, 
majority leaders created and approved a greatly expanded entitlement 
for retirees which will cost $60 billion over ten years.
  I am disappointed that we were not able to include both of these 
worthy items in this conference report and I will continue to work with 
Senator Cleland to ensure it is included next year.
  As for hate crimes, Mr. President, I would like to express my extreme 
disappointment regarding the stripping of the hate crimes legislation 
from the Department of Defense (DOD) authorization conference report.
  Fifty-seven United States Senators voted to add this important 
legislation to the DOD authorization bill, 232 Members of the House of 
Representatives instructed the conferees to keep the hate crimes 
legislation in the DOD authorization bill, and both the President and 
Vice-President have expressed unwavering support for this legislation.
  Although some argue that hate crimes legislation has nothing to do 
with authorizing our nation's defense programs, a majority of the 
Senate added it to the DOD authorization bill because we were never 
given the opportunity by the Republican leadership to vote on it as a 
stand alone bill.
  I support this legislation because it sends a message that society 
finds crimes motivated by bias especially heinous and worthy of 
punishment.
  Hate crime laws recognize that a violent act committed against 
someone just because of who they are, is intended to intimidate and 
frighten people other than the immediate victim. While a hate crime 
might be targeted at one person, it is really directed at an entire 
community.
  Considering the intent behind a person's action in committing a crime 
is not a new development. Deeply ingrained in our nation's laws is the 
recognition that intentions count when it comes to crime. That's why 
premeditated murder is punished more severely than manslaughter.

  Hate crime laws express society's judgment that a violent act 
motivated by bigotry deserves greater punishment than a random crime 
committed under the same circumstances.
  The Local Law Enforcement Act does not trample on our nation's ideals 
of free speech and equal justice under the law.
  The Supreme Court has held constitutional state legislation that 
enhances penalties for hate crimes, respecting findings that hate 
crimes often provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional 
harms on their victims, and incite community unrest. The Court affirmed 
that it is reasonable to have greater punishments for crimes that cause 
greater individual or societal harm.
  Hate crimes are very real offenses, combinations of uncontrollable 
bigotry and vicious acts of personal injury. These crimes not only 
inflict physical wounds, but wreak mental and emotional devastation by 
attacking a person's identity.
  People who hurt or kill someone because that person represents a 
certain community, deserve harsher penalties.
  Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said that he hoped that one day all 
people will be judged by the content of their character.
  A majority of the U.S. Senate, a majority of the House of 
Representatives and the President and Vice President believe this to be 
the case. Our nation's hate crime laws should be extended so that we--
that all people can have the freedom to be themselves without fear of 
being attacked for who or what they are.
  Mr. President, I regret that we were not able to accomplish all that 
we set out to do with this conference report.
  However, I believe that it is ultimately a solid legislative effort 
that will help our military and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. President, I commend Chairman Warner and the ranking member, 
Senator Levin, for their great work in bringing to the floor a 
comprehensive and critically needed reauthorization of our defense 
programs. This is legislation which recognizes the extraordinary 
sacrifices of our military personnel around the globe--sacrifices which 
were certainly highlighted today in the gulf.
  One part of this legislation is an enhancement of personnel benefits, 
both pay and health care. There is a sentiment which I subscribe to, 
frankly, as a veteran and as an American, that we cannot reward our 
service men and women enough for what they do each day. There is a very 
practical consideration, and that is the limits of our budget.
  This legislation does many good things, but it raises an important 
question. It raises the question of whether we are reaching the limits 
of resources that we can effectively devote to personnel concerns, not 
only in terms of overall economic strategies in the country but also in 
terms of the inherently limited defense dollars because dollars we 
commit to personnel force cannot be used for operations, cannot be used 
for modernization, cannot be used for a host of programs that give us 
the qualitative education, and give our service men and women serving 
today the tools to do this very critical job. That question keeps 
emerging in the context of this legislation. For those personnel 
enhancements, certainly no one deserves more recognition or reward than 
our men and women in uniform.
  Let me speak about several other topics included within this 
legislation. First, I am pleased to see that submarines have been 
recognized. This is a very valuable aspect of our national security. 
This legislation would authorize funding for the construction of a 
third Virginia class submarine, the U.S.S. Hawaii, and authorize a 
block buy program of submarines for fiscal years 2003 to 2006. It is 
more efficient, a better way to spend our dollars to get the quality 
submarines we need. It also recognizes the requirements to augment our 
submarine fleet by either new construction or by refueling existing 688 
attack submarines.

  This legislation, I am pleased to say, contains legislation language 
that directs a study of conversion of Trident over refueling, 
conversion of certain submarines over refueling, and that type of study 
is inherently positive and useful for future deliberations.
  What is happening to our services today as we speak is a profound 
transformation based upon new threats, a transformation based upon new 
political realities in the post-cold-war world. It is a transformation 
we have to undertake with each service. I believe this legislation lays 
out some good guidelines for the transformation.
  With respect to the Army, it does support the Chief of Staffs' 
commitment to forming five to six new interim Army brigades that would 
be more mobile, better able to be positioned around the world. It also 
sets up testing requirements that will ensure these new concepts are 
thoroughly tested.
  With respect to the Air Force, it recognizes what has already been 
done in terms of organizing 10 aerospace expeditionary forces in 
providing resources and certainly support for that.
  With respect to the Navy, it recognizes and, again, as evidenced 
today, the Navy now has responsibilities close in shore, along the 
littorals. They have to be prepared to meet the hostile fleet

[[Page S10361]]

at sea. But more often they are called upon to be close in, supporting 
operations, supporting political and diplomatic issues. That, too, is 
recognized here.
  So we have legislation that is comprehensive, legislation that 
recognizes the need to reward our service men and women, legislation 
that recognizes the need to transform our military services because of 
our new world, and legislation that I think goes a long way in building 
those vital programs, such as submarines, but there are others, that 
are critical to our future national security.
  There are several regrets, though, and one regret is that included 
within the Senate version of the legislation was the hate crimes bill--
important legislation that could match our ideals with our legislative 
intent. We all profess, indeed, would say stoutly and without 
reservation, our abhorrence for hate crimes, the need to condemn them. 
Unfortunately, this language which was included in the Senate version, 
and which the House also favorably supported for at least an 
instruction of the conferees, could not be included in the final 
version of the legislation. I regret that.
  What it means is that we have to return next January with a 
commitment to pass this legislation. Hopefully we can pass it standing 
alone; hopefully, if that is not the case, on some legislative vehicle. 
But this legislation is necessary. Certainly I will be supporting this 
legislation because it will make us more capable, it will help us 
modernize our forces, and will reward those forces who are serving so 
valiantly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is next to be 
recognized under the unanimous consent agreement.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I believe I have 5 minutes.
  Mr. President, I rise today to support for the Defense Authorization 
Conference Report of 2001. The conferees have worked very hard to 
achieve consensus or reach compromises on the provisions found in this 
year's report.
  The conference report contains many positive things for ensuring 
America's continued military dominance; in addition, it also includes 
several authorizations for defense activities in the state of New 
Mexico. I thank the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member for their 
contributions.
  I would like to specifically address what has been achieved in this 
bill with respect to laser programs and directed energy technologies. I 
strongly believe that lasers, like THEL and Airborne Laser, will offer 
offensive and defensive military means far beyond our current 
capabilities. These programs deserve our full support. At the same 
time, we need better coordination of our nation's efforts in lasers and 
other directed energy technologies.
  I am pleased the Committee accepted my amendment that requires the 
Secretary of Defense to implement the High Energy Laser Master Plan and 
authorizes up to $30 million for these vital technologies. This 
amendment also requires selection of a site for the Joint Technology 
Office (JTO) by the Secretary of Defense. The JTO will perform a 
critical role in achieving better coordination and execution of our 
nation's laser programs. The bill also underscores the vital role of 
the High Energy Laser Test Facility at White Sands Missile Range and 
the importance of DoD's close coordination with other federal agencies, 
academia and industry in creating a stable foundation for further 
progress in these technologies.
  Although my original legislation encompassed all directed energy 
technologies, including microwaves, in this defense-wide effort, the 
conferees would not support this position. Instead, the legislation 
will require the Pentagon to take a hard look at integrating all other 
directed energy technologies into the current structure for High Energy 
Laser programs. From my perspective this would be a logical next step 
in the Pentagon's efforts to streamline and better coordinate its 
research programs. This would also accelerate progress and maximize 
efficiencies for these related technology areas.
  The conferees also addressed shortfalls in some specific ongoing 
laser weapons programs. They authorized $85 million to restore the most 
of the Airborne Laser (ABL) program funding. The Air Force's ABL 
program is the only missile defense system currently contemplated that 
would strike and kill missiles in their boost phase.
  In addition, the conferees reached a reasonable compromise on the 
control of funding for Airborne Laser after the Air Force radically cut 
that program's budget. The Air Force will retain funding control for 
ABL; however, it must have the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization's 
(BMDO) approval before making any changes to any aspect of the program, 
including its budget.
  The Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) was authorized at $15 million 
for FY2001. THEL represents one of the first weapons systems being 
tested that utilizes high energy lasers for the purposes of missile 
defense. I led the charge to obtain an additional $5.7 million in FY00 
funding for continued testing of this weapon system this year. Since 
the passage of the Senate bill earlier this year, THEL has shown that 
lasers can provide effective, speed of light defenses against Katyusha 
rockets. In the coming months, THEL will be tested against other 
targets and will provide us additional insights into the lethality of 
this particular type of system.
  I am committed to addressing the shortfalls in the science and 
technology funding to ensure more rapid development and fielding of 
high energy laser weapons. However, I am also committed to expanding 
these efforts to all directed energy technologies. While I appreciate 
the Committee's attention to these vital programs, more must be done to 
ensure the directed energy science and technology is fully streamlined 
and sufficiently funded. These technologies can assist in countering 
some of the most prevalent threats confronting us.
  This long-awaited conference report will have a positive impact on 
the day-to-day concerns confronting our military. For example, quality 
of life received much needed attention. I applaud the 3.7 percent pay 
raise for military personnel and the comprehensive health care for 
Medicare-eligible military retirees. The conference report also 
retained the extension of the TRICARE Prime benefit to families of 
service members assigned to remote locations and the elimination of co-
payments for services received under TRICARE Prime.
  This legislation contains landmark provisions with respect to 
healthcare for our military retirees. Many complicated and situation-
specific problems currently exist with the health care programs for 
active and retired military members as well as for veterans. It will 
take more than one year of fixes to find the right combination of 
policies and ensure that the funding for military health care is not 
forced to compete with other defense priorities.
  These will aid in addressing the health care crisis within our 
military and provide proof of our desire to keep our promise. I applaud 
the conferees for enacting sweeping reform to a broken system.
  Military Construction and family housing is authorized at $8.8 
billion, an increase of $788 million over the Administration's request. 
I am pleased that projects critical to the operational effectiveness 
and well being of the service members and military families residing in 
New Mexico were addressed in this bill. These are not glamourous 
projects. These authorizations will replace critical crumbling 
infrastructure, such as repair of the Bonito pipeline between La Luz 
and Holloman Air Force Base.
  Five additional Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams were 
included at a cost of $15.7 million. This will provide us with a total 
of 32 Civil Support Teams by the end of fiscal year 2001. These teams 
are comprised of full-time National Guard personnel trained and 
equipped to deploy and assess suspected nuclear, biological, chemical, 
or radiological events in support of local first responders. One such 
team is currently being trained and fielded in New Mexico, ensuring 
that New Mexico constituents and its vital assets have better 
protection against such attacks.
  The bill authorizes a total of $13 billion for Atomic Energy Defense 
activities of the Department of Energy. A total of $6.4 billion of this 
funding is for the National Nuclear Security Administration.
  Over $1.0 billion is authorized for the nonproliferation and threat 
reduction

[[Page S10362]]

programs of the Departments of Defense and Energy. These programs 
continue to make great strides in the critical process of securing 
weapons of mass destruction and retaining scientific expertise in the 
former Soviet Union. To further ensure that these threat reduction 
programs achieve their goals, the committee has also included several 
initiatives to obtain greater commitment and necessary access from 
Russia.
  Earlier this year I introduced a bill to improve the structure and 
signal a meaningful U.S. commitment to DOE's nuclear cities initiative. 
I strongly believe that without significant restructuring in nuclear 
weapons production complex of Russia the progress in strategic arms 
reductions could readily be reversed. Further, the proliferation threat 
of underemployed and underpaid Russian weapons scientists could create 
a direct, negative impact on international security. I thank the 
Committee for focusing efforts on this issue.
  While I am pleased with the authorization levels to support stockpile 
stewardship and nonproliferation, I am dismayed that the conferees took 
it upon themselves to adopt additional provisions on polygraphs. These 
new requirements will entail polygraphs for an estimated 5,000 
additional persons working in our nuclear complex. I find it 
astounding--especially in light of the findings in the Baker/Hamilton 
Report--that the conferees included these provisions. That report 
stated unequivocally that ``(t)he current negative climate is 
incompatible with the performance of good science. A perfect security 
system at a national laboratory is of no use if the laboratory can no 
longer generate the cutting-edge technology that needs to be protected 
. . .''
  There is little evidence that polygraphs administered as a screening 
technique is an effective use of security resources. The Conferees 
apparently view mass polygraphs of everyone at the Labs as a silver 
bullet that will ensure no future security breaches. That is a naive 
view of security that fails to recognize that polygraphs are simply one 
tool among many, that must be wisely and judiciously used to ensure a 
strong security culture that will allow science to thrive. Otherwise, 
the silver bullet of mass polygraph will end up killing the labs, not 
protecting them.
  In sum, security is a moot point if our national laboratories fail to 
achieve scientific advances worth protecting. The Baker/Hamilton Report 
clearly indicated that we should avoid further ``made in Washington'' 
rules that frustrate scientific pursuits and only serve to further 
demoralize laboratory personnel. I believe these provisions will only 
make a bad situation worse.
  Finally, $38.9 billion is provided for the defense research, 
development, test and evaluation programs--an increase of $1.1 billion 
over the President's budget. This funding will focus on the 
revolutionary technologies to address emerging threats and ensure that 
America's military remains dominant in the future.
  In years past I have repeatedly emphasized the need to stop the 
ebbing tide and end the lengthy decline in defense budgets. We must not 
tire in our efforts to maintain a strong, ready and professional 
military. Quality of life is central to recruitment and retention. 
Combat readiness of our armed forces must never be at risk. And we must 
ensure that we are developing and leveraging new technologies to the 
maximum extent. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines require the 
means necessary to respond to international uncertainty and address 
different and diffuse security threats. We must not fail them or U.S. 
citizens in rising to this challenge.
  One of the most dangerous things confronting the United States of 
America is the current situation of morale at the three nuclear 
laboratories of the United States. These are the three labs that for 
three generations we have sent the greatest scientists in America, the 
best young scientists who wanted to go because it was a great place to 
work. We used to get the top graduate Ph.D.s from Texas A&M in physics. 
They would cherish going to one of the nuclear laboratories for 10 or 
12 years. From MIT, from Harvard, from Cal Tech, everywhere.
  We were being told about a current report available to this 
committee, while it was in conference, the committee that produced this 
bill, called a Baker-Hamilton report, named after Senator Baker and 
Representative Hamilton. It is about 6 weeks old. They were asked to 
check the current situation in our laboratories. They are more worried 
about the morale of the scientists there than any other single thing. 
They have concluded that the recruitment of young, bright scientists is 
off in excess of 50 percent because of the constant bombardment of 
those laboratories over the last 18 months with references to security, 
some of which has been corrected.
  They also concluded that a laboratory which is perfectly secure but 
cannot maintain the highest degree of science in the world is not a 
very good laboratory. They maintain that we should do less polygraphs, 
not more, be more targeted, and more efficient and more effective.
  Guess what the bill does. This bill permits 5,000 additional 
laboratory employees. This may even permit them to go down to a 
janitor, I don't know, and submit polygraph tests to them. And believe 
it or not, they provide a waiver for the Secretary of Energy. Then they 
say you cannot use the waiver if, in fact, the reason for it is that 
the laboratory is having morale problems and cannot keep its personnel 
to stay alive. That is paraphrasing.
  I read the exact words: This amendment would prohibit the Secretary 
from using the waiver to maintain the scientific viability of a DOE 
laboratory. That is the precise reason you should be able to use a 
waiver, the viability of the laboratories.

  Frankly, I am not at all sure everyone who signed this conference 
report and produced the bill that they really think is a great bill 
knows that provision is in there.
  I say to my good friend, the chairman of the committee, I worked hard 
and fast and side by side with the Senator from Virginia to get a new 
law to create a new, semiautonomous agency with which he helped so 
much. It is now known as the National Nuclear Safety Administration, 
headed by a great general whom you know, General Gordon. If you asked 
him, Can these laboratories work under these kinds of conditions? he 
would tell you: Please don't do that. He would say: Please don't do 
that. That is the wrong thing to do.
  Frankly, all I am asking is that the Senate take heed of what I am 
saying. I am not asking for anything more. I am not even asking the 
distinguished chairman for anything today. I only hope he is listening 
and next year, early on, when the Senator from New Mexico tries to 
change this provision consistent with the Baker-Hamilton report--and 
almost everybody who has looked at our National Laboratories since the 
Wen Ho Lee case would agree, too--I hope the distinguished chairman and 
the chairman's staff will consider, early in the year of the next 
Congress, something that will fix this provision; 5,000 additional 
polygraph employees is not the way to go with the laboratories in the 
position they are in now.
  There is no evidence that polygraphs of the type they are talking 
about have anything to do with security, veracity, or anything else. I 
know the people who work there. It is somewhat of an insult to consider 
the average employee, some of whom have been there 30 years, has to be 
subject to a polygraph because security has gone awry in the 
laboratories.
  I really wish I had had a chance to present this issue. I think it is 
exactly the kind of thing we should not be doing. I am going to do 
everything I can, starting next year with the first legislation that is 
around, to change this. In the meantime, I am glad the Secretary does 
not have to go next month and start immediately imposing these 
polygraphs. He has a little bit of time. I hope he squeezes the time so 
next year we can fix it. That is all I have on this subject.
  I say to the distinguished chairman, thank you for yielding me time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on my time I thank my colleague for 
bringing this to our attention. I commend him for the fervor with which 
he has taken the interest of these very vital laboratories, some of 
which are in his State, and spent inordinate amounts of time

[[Page S10363]]

in his Senate career trying to strengthen them and look after the 
employees. I know how difficult it was for him to work through the 
complicated case which was recently disposed of.
  I worked with the Senator in the creation of this new entity in the 
Department of Energy. I am about to get some new documents. Once I get 
them, I want to show them to you and we may find a little time to 
amplify this record. But I am advised, subject to the documents coming, 
we did take into consideration the concerns the Senator has expressed, 
and we do have a letter from the individual primarily responsible for 
security saying they could work with this proposal, this language.
  Until I get that letter, I will withhold. But I may ask unanimous 
consent to have documents printed in the Record, should I get them in 
my possession, after showing them to my good friend and colleague, the 
Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. LOTT. I know the Senator from Georgia is prepared to speak. Will 
he allow me to intervene for a moment? I do not want to take away from 
time that may be reserved, so I yield myself such time from my leader 
time as is necessary.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I will be brief. I want to commend Senator 
Warner for the effort he and his staff have put into this bill. I am 
hoping we can wrap up the debate and get to the votes that are going to 
be required on the point of order and final passage before too late in 
the evening.
  This has been a long time coming. It has been a laborious process. 
Senator Warner stuck with it. Obviously, he had help from his colleague 
on the other side of the Capitol, the gentleman from South Carolina, 
Congressman Spence. He worked with Senator Levin, the ranking member. 
But this is a monumental achievement.
  There are some people who have the idea we do not need the Defense 
authorization bill if we have already done the Department of Defense 
appropriations bill and military construction appropriations bill, but 
we need this bill because it authorizes important programs; it 
authorizes important changes in the law; it authorizes the money that 
we need. I want to touch on a few of those very briefly.
  The funding level for new budget authority for the Department of 
Defense in this bill is $309.9 billion, which is $4.6 billion above the 
President's budget request. It is an increase over what was requested 
for procurement, for research, development, test and evaluation, and 
operations and maintenance. It also has a 3.7-percent pay raise for 
our military personnel effective January 1, 2001.

  Last year, when we had a pay raise for our military men and women, 
the word I got from the rank-and-file troops, and also from the Joint 
Chiefs, including specifically the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, was 
that it absolutely transformed the attitude of our military men and 
women who were leaving and were not ``reuping,'' as the saying goes in 
the military, because they really wondered if we appreciated them and 
knew they were there. At least by improving their pay, by dealing with 
their retirement benefits, and now in this bill, another pay raise, and 
dealing with this question of health care, it is going to have a good 
effect on morale. Obviously, we want the morale to be good. We want 
quality of life in the barracks. We want the ships and tanks and 
everything we need. But if we do not begin with decent living 
arrangements for our military men and women, then all is lost.
  This bill comes at a critical time. Just today we see what the risks 
are--the U.S.S. Cole, built in my hometown of Pascagoula--I believe I 
was there when it was commissioned--300 sailors on the ship, and now we 
see 3 dozen or more of them are killed or injured and others are 
missing. Yet this is one of the most sophisticated ships in the world. 
But it shows once again, if we have kamikazes who are willing to put it 
all on the line, to get killed, to do damage, they can do damage to our 
equipment and to our men and women. This is no time to nitpick this 
bill and turn away from it.
  There are those who say we should not be starting these new programs 
or make them permanent. But for our military men and women, active duty 
and retirees, and for their families, we need to address this health 
care question. For our military people to be told, at 65, you are off, 
you are off this program, go there and get on Medicare or find some 
other arrangement, is wrong. When we talked to our military personnel 
and our retirees and we said: what is really the thing that you want 
the most in helping you deal with your health care needs, they cited 
the pharmaceutical problem, the need for pharmacy benefits, either mail 
order or, in this bill, through retail.
  This is a major achievement. I have already had military retirees and 
veterans call my office literally in tears to say thanks for what we 
are doing here. Maybe it was not done exactly the prettiest way, or in 
the way it should have been done early on, but this is a major 
achievement. I do not want to be the one to explain to some veteran, 
because of a procedural issue or a point of order, that we don't 
address this need of our military men and women and their families and 
our retirees. I am not going to explain that. I am going to vote for 
this bill, and I am going to do it proudly.
  Then there is another provision that objections have been raised 
about, and that is the Department of Energy employees who were injured 
due to exposure to radiation and other problems at our DOE facilities 
and nuclear facilities. Again, there may need to be more work on it. 
Maybe it should have been handled in a different way. But who wants to 
tell these people who have been injured by our Government operation, 
``There is no program for you.'' Not me. I do not think we should walk 
away from this at this point.
  This is a reasonable compromise. Both the retirement and the DOE 
program that was added as we went along, and expanded, while it may 
present certain difficulties for some of our people, in the end it is 
the right thing to do. Also, it is attached to a bill that we need 
desperately--a good bill, a bill that has been a long time coming.
  I thank all those involved. There are so many parts of it I could 
refer to that are important, but I didn't want us to get to final 
passage without me saying we should do this bill--we should defeat the 
point of order, and we should pass this bill. It is the right thing for 
the defense of our country, for our veterans, and the right thing for 
people who have been injured and haven't been properly compensated. We 
can fine tune the program as we learn more about the extent of the 
damages and how much they are injured and the proper way to deal with 
it, but for now I urge my colleagues, vote for this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commend our distinguished majority 
leader. This bill had a long and tortuous course through the Senate, 
but he stood by our side, not only me, as chairman, but the members of 
the committee from both sides of the aisle, and the Democratic leader 
likewise.
  I see the presence of the distinguished Senator from Nevada. On those 
days when we were on again and off the next, you stood by. Last year, 
you were the first one to cosponsor the bill on the pay raise, the 
first one this year to cosponsor the bill on the medical benefits. 
While you are no longer a member of our committee, having once been 
one, you have stood with us throughout this whole process. I thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. I inquire how much time our distinguished colleague and 
very valuable member of the committee, without whose wit and function I 
doubt we could function, requires.
  Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Senator. Two minutes.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I come before the Senate to remind 
Members that the news today reminds us why we need a Defense 
authorization bill; why we need pay increases for our military men and 
women abroad; why we need our Armed Forces to be strong; why we need to 
take care of our military retirees, especially in terms of their health 
care needs; why we need a defense of this country at all.
  Our young men and women are in 121 nations around the globe, and they 
stand on watch in defense of this country. In doing so, they 
voluntarily, every one of them, place themselves in

[[Page S10364]]

harm's way. We saw the cost today of that terrible price that is 
exacted from time to time on our service men and women. All of us have 
in our hearts and in our thoughts and in our prayers the families of 
those service men and women on board the U.S.S. Cole as they struggle 
with taking care of their dead, their wounded, and their missing.
  This year's Department of Defense authorization conference report 
represents months of hard work and compromise on behalf of our Nation's 
military, as has been discussed. I thank Chairman Warner and ranking 
member Carl Levin for their leadership throughout this entire process 
this year and for their support particularly of my initiatives to 
enhance the GI bill. Stephen Ambrose, the historian, particularly of 
the greatest generation of World War II, said the GI bill is probably 
the finest piece of legislation ever devised by the Federal Government.
  I thank Senator Hutchinson, chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee, 
with whom I have worked closely this year on issues pertaining to the 
quality of life of our service men and women.
  This conference report has been a long time coming, as has been 
discussed. We began the authorization process earlier this year. Here 
we are in the closing days of this session of the Congress and finally 
debating the conference report for the DOD authorization bill.
  The extended time we have taken on this year's bill has been 
worthwhile, though. It represents our continued effort in the Senate to 
build upon a firm foundation by providing a substantial increase in 
funding for the U.S. military, and Lord knows we need it.
  Last year was the first step in addressing some of the pressing needs 
of those who defend our Nation by providing pay increases--and by the 
way, with last year's pay increase and this year's 3.7-percent pay 
increase, we will have provided just in the last 2 years the biggest 
pay increase in a generation.
  This bill not only provides pay increases but reform of the military 
retirement pay system, targeted bonuses, critical investments in spare 
parts, and continued support for the next generation of weapons 
systems.
  We have taken an even bigger step this year throughout this process. 
We have talked with our men and women in uniform. This year I have been 
to Kosovo. I personally have been to Japan and the Korean peninsula. I 
talked with our men and women in uniform serving around the world. I 
consulted with the leadership of the services. We have taken yet 
another step to fulfill the promises to support those who put on the 
uniform and carry our flag every day.
  Our people, as we now know, and are so painfully reminded today, face 
dangers every day in what seems the most routine of tasks. Our hearts 
do go out to the sailors and families of those serving, especially on 
the U.S.S. Cole, tonight in the Middle East. Those sacrifices are just 
a recent reminder of what our men and women face every day.
  This year we continue the support of the modernization of our Armed 
Forces by funding the next generation of weapons systems, such as Joint 
Strike Fighter providing critical funding for the F-22 aircraft. We 
have authorized additions to some of our most trusted aircraft systems 
by increasing the funding for C-130s made in my home State of Georgia 
and funding additional JSTARS aircraft, without which we could not 
conduct modern warfare.
  Also included in this bill is increased funding to support the Army's 
plan to transform itself into a leaner, more mobile fighting force. We 
have authorized funding of $222 million for our spare parts accounts 
and over $407 million for equipment maintenance accounts to address 
such critical readiness issues.
  This year, as with last year, we have increased funding in support 
for the most critical weapon in our arsenal--our military men and 
women. It is their hard work and selfless service that make America's 
military the strongest force in the world.
  This year, we provided that 3.7-percent pay increase to all military 
personnel. We have eliminated TRICARE copayments for our military 
families and extended TRICARE Remote to active duty family members 
assigned to remote locations who do not have access to military 
treatment facilities.
  We have authorized almost $9 billion for military construction and 
provided improvements to family housing, which is much needed. We have 
included full implementation of a thrift savings plan for service 
members.
  We have also authorized those military families eligible for food 
stamps to qualify for an extra $500 a month. Most importantly, this 
year, we have taken an enormous step by providing health care access 
for our military retirees. Since my election to the Senate, I have 
heard from military retirees in Georgia and across the Nation regarding 
health care benefits. When they were asked to serve their country, they 
did not turn their backs on our country. Time and again, we have heard 
their call for keeping this country's promises to them.
  This year, we are living up to that promise. In this conference 
report, we have authorized the Warner-Hutchinson provisions granting 
TRICARE for seniors as a lifetime benefit for our retirees over the age 
of 65. For the first time, we are granting health care insurance for 
military retirees over 65. Though in the beginning this was a 2-year 
pilot program to be fully implemented and fully funded in the outyears, 
we worked to make this benefit permanent.
  Additionally, I worked with my colleagues to provide a prescription 
drug benefit, prescription drugs being the biggest out-of-pocket 
expense for military retirees, for our Medicare-eligible retirees. This 
is the first prescription drug benefit to be offered by the Federal 
Government.
  Our military retirees have earned these benefits, and I am proud to 
support both of these vital provisions.
  One quality of life issue I have been working on during the past 2 
years has been educational benefits. I was pleased that two provisions 
of my educational initiative are included in the conference report: 
authorizing the services to pay 100 percent of tuition assistance for 
going to school while in the military and allowing VEAP participants to 
buy into the Montgomery GI bill. However, we have to do more. I will 
continue to work to address the quality-of-life issues, especially 
educational benefits. I still believe we must make the GI bill more 
family friendly. We must work to offer a transferability option to our 
military families, as recommended by the congressionally mandated 
Principi Commission.
  I note this conference report is subject to a budget point of order. 
There are important concerns about the increases in mandatory spending 
that are included in the legislation. However, this spending which is 
mainly for health care benefits is needed and justified. Therefore, I 
will not support the budget point of order and will support final 
adoption of this conference report.
  In the next congressional session, we have to continue to work hard 
to establish meaningful benefits for service members who serve our 
great Nation by taking additional steps along the road to maintaining 
the finest military in the world. We must honor the soldiers, sailors, 
airmen, and marines who serve this country. They deserve it.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I again thank our distinguished colleague 
from Georgia. His knowledge of the military and his real love and deep 
respect for them to this day is an invaluable contribution to our 
committee. I thank him for his hard work and his extensive travel to 
military bases and installations in the United States, as well as 
abroad.
  Mr. LEVIN. If I could just ask my friend from Virginia to yield, let 
me join in his thanks to our good friend from Georgia for the really 
not only invaluable but unique contribution based on his experience, as 
well as his judgment, on so many issues that come before us.
  It is hard to imagine the committee without the Senator. I just want 
to add my thanks.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we should add to that--Senator Levin and 
I--how hard the Senator fought with respect to amendments on the GI 
bill for portability of the benefits, enabling

[[Page S10365]]

the service person to have a quantity of those benefits--whatever 
fraction might be agreed on in law--to be passed on to a spouse or a 
child. I supported that and fought that battle with you, I say to the 
Senator. We did not win. We lost in conference. But, I say to the 
Senator, we will start that next year.
  Now I would like to refer to the UC agreement which is governing this 
debate. I will read from it: That following the debate just outlined--
that is basically what we have had to date--Senator Bob Kerrey be 
recognized to make a point of order, and that the motion to waive the 
Budget Act be limited to 2 hours, equally divided in the usual form.
  It also states: I further ask unanimous consent that following the 
use or yielding back of time on the motion to waive, the Senate proceed 
to vote on the motion and, if waived, a vote occur immediately on 
adoption of the conference report, without any intervening action, 
motion, or debate.
  The one remaining thing is, I intend to fairly--and I am sure my 
colleague from Michigan does as well--deal with Senator Phil Gramm, who 
unavoidably had to leave the floor. But let us proceed now under this 
order with the recognition of our colleague, Senator Kerrey.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I do not know if that is a unanimous 
consent request or not.
  Mr. WARNER. No, I didn't put it in the form of a UC.
  Mr. LEVIN. If my good friend from Nebraska would yield for one moment 
for me to comment on that, the situation we are in is the following: We 
were to use all of the time on the conference report prior to turning 
to the point of order. We were to either use it or yield it back. We 
have not done that yet. Yet the Senator from Virginia is suggesting we 
turn to the point of order.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator raises a correct point. But I 
want to protect Senator Gramm of Texas.
  Mr. LEVIN. If I could just finish my thought, I fully agree with the 
determination to protect the Senator from Texas. On the other hand, I 
do not know where that leaves us in terms of this unanimous consent 
agreement. And if I could complete my thought, everyone reasonably 
wants to have some idea as to when the votes will begin, and to a large 
extent that is going to depend upon Senator Gramm's decision of how 
much time he wants to use of his time.
  I want to, as a factual matter, see if my good friend from Virginia 
has the same understanding. Both of us have time remaining, I believe, 
on our time.
  The 2 hours under the control of the chairman, how much of that time, 
if I may ask the Chair, is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fourteen minutes is remaining under the 
control of the Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. LEVIN. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifty-nine minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Is that time now still remaining under the approach we are 
taking, if we turn to----
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it would be, because I have not yielded 
back time on the UC. I was just trying to keep this thing moving in an 
informal way, protecting our colleague from Texas. I would be willing 
to yield back my 14 minutes. I presume the Senator would be willing to 
yield back his 59. Because the two of us have time under the debate of 
the motion of the Senator from Nebraska. So I think we are adequately 
protected. That would move this forward and shorten the time between 
now and the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would concur in that approach that we 
yield back the remainder of our time on the conference report. I 
understand Senator Wellstone has yielded back the remainder of his 
time. That would leave 1 hour under the control of Senator Gramm. We 
would then modify the unanimous consent agreement so that hour, in 
effect, would be placed into this second tier of debates.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object, I want to clarify, I am 
not certain at what juncture Senator Gramm would be recognized. Again, 
he is unavoidably away from the floor. But we could proceed, presumably 
under Senator Kerrey's motion and my motion that I would make, and 
really have the vote on that, and then Senator Gramm could be 
recognized if he can't be recognized beforehand.
  So I am prepared to yield back 14 minutes. As I understand it, the 
Senator from Michigan yields back 59 minutes. Let's have action on 
that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senator from Virginia restate his 
unanimous consent request?
  Mr. WARNER. The unanimous consent request is that I yield back my 14 
minutes remaining under the existing unanimous consent agreement, and 
the Senator from Michigan yields back 59 minutes, with the 
understanding that the UC agreement which provides 1 hour under the 
control of Senator Gramm remain intact.
  Mr. LEVIN. I have no objection to that. I think that is a good 
course.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I make a point of order the pending 
Defense authorization conference report violates section 302(f) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to waive the relevant provisions of 
the Budget Act with respect to the conference report to accompany H.R. 
4205, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, the 106th Congress appears to be heading 
towards an ending which will be regarded by many as an orgy of 
spending. Over the past 12 years when I was approached by citizens who 
sought additional spending I would invariably reference the spending 
caps contained in the Budget Act as a way to encourage restraint. But 
this year, the total spending contained in thirteen FY2001 
appropriations bills will be $100 billion over the original spending 
caps. By drastically increasing the spending baseline, we are adding 
more than $1 trillion in additional spending over the next ten years. 
This additional spending is in excess of one dollar of every ten 
dollars in total U.S. Gross Domestic Product which we propose to 
collect in taxes and spend. This will be done with nary a debate about 
the wisdom of our actions.
  In addition, there are active discussions under way about spending 
more to ``fix'' the changes we made in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, to 
cut taxes, and to create a prescription drug benefit for seniors. 
Before we go any further, we need to step back and take a look at the 
choices we are making about the budget surplus.
  The Defense authorization conference report is our first opportunity 
to do so. Contained in this bill is an authorization that drastically 
expands the health care entitlement of military retirees over the age 
of 65--a provision that costs more than was allocated to the Armed 
Services Committee under current law. The cost of this provision 
violates our budget rules because it mandates $60 billion in new 
mandatory spending beyond what is authorized in our budget resolution. 
Because this provision violates the Budget Act, at least 60 Senators 
must vote to ignore the budget resolution. While fully I expect 60 
Senators will vote to do just that, I hope the debate this afternoon 
provides us with a better perspective on what we are about to do with 
the people's money.
  The provision we are debating about increases health care spending on 
1.2 million military retirees and will cost, according to CBO, $60 
billion over the next 10 years. But this number is deceiving. By 2010, 
the annual cost will be nearly $10 billion. I think we have a duty to 
ask ourselves what problem are we attempting to solve at an eventual 
annual cost of $10 billion? The provision in the conference report 
would allow military retirees to remain in TriCare when they turn 65 
and would allow these retirees to continue to receive health care 
provided by the Department of Defense. Currently, when military 
retirees turn 65, they must transition from a more generous health 
insurance program called TRICARE to

[[Page S10366]]

a less generous program called Medicare where co-payments and 
deductibles are higher. By changing the law, we will in essence be 
providing a subsidy for military retiree health insurance coverage that 
contains no deductibles or co-payments and a generous prescription drug 
benefit. Imagine the cost if we did the same for all Medicare 
beneficiaries.
  I oppose the provision both for policy and budgetary reasons. First, 
the rhetoric in support of this spending exaggerates the promise that 
was made to the men and women who volunteered and served in our Armed 
Forces. Worse, it undermines and reduces the value of the motivation of 
millions who volunteered with no expectation or desire of being repaid 
with taxpayer-financed benefits. Our motivation was that it was our 
duty, and that the service would be good for the nation and for us. In 
my case, I got a bargain and I do not like the feeling I get when I 
hear former comrades-in-arms claim they are entitled to some benefit on 
account of their service.
  A second objection to this provision is that it is in essence an 
admission that Medicare is an inadequate program whose coverage is 
unacceptably poor. Military retirees are not the only former employees 
in America who must transition from health care provided in the work 
place to Medicare. You could probably find millions of current Medicare 
beneficiaries who would stand in line to have their co-payments and 
deductibles paid as this provision will do for military retirees. If we 
grant this benefit to military retirees, how soon do you think it will 
be before non-military retirees will be asking Congress to do the same 
for them?
  My third objection is based upon considering the source of the money 
we will use to pay this subsidy. The source of the money will, of 
course, be individual and corporate income taxes. Please don't tell me 
the government is paying for this. That is a euphemism used by 
politicians and military retirees alike to hide the truth: we will be 
collecting individual income taxes from millions of working families 
who cannot afford to buy health insurance in order to subsidize the 
purchase of Medigap coverage for millions who could afford to pay their 
premiums.

  Unfortunately--as is often the case--beneficiaries of this income 
transfer are better organized and better informed than those who will 
be paying the bills. As a consequence, there will likely be 60 votes to 
waive the budget point of order. I doubt there would be 60 votes if the 
transfer of funds was in the opposite direction: from those who have 
health insurance to those who do not.
  My final objection is that the extension of this benefit conflicts 
with the need we have to invest in our current forces: their salaries, 
their training, their equipment, and their benefits. Every dollar we 
commit to increased spending on the mandatory side of our budget--which 
currently represents two-thirds of total spending--comes at the expense 
of appropriated spending, defense and non-defense alike.
  It is very possible that this business of breaking the budget caps 
may become a habit. If that's the case, then the conflict between 
mandatory and discretionary spending may become moot. That's the good 
news. The bad news is, if this happens we will have spent our way back 
into fiscal deficits.
  Under the budget law that governs our spending, we should be spending 
no more than $540 billion on defense and non-defense appropriations. 
The budget resolution enacted by Congress earlier this year allowed for 
$600 billion in spending. The appropriations bills we are trying to 
finish will contain at least $40 billion more.
  Most Members of Congress are aware--even if most Americans are not--
that we cannot do this under the law. To appropriate $640 billion, 60 
Senators will have to vote to waive our own budget act to lift the 
spending caps or to waive the imposition of $100 billion sequester of 
all defense and non-defense appropriated accounts.
  My fear is that we will likely take this action as a consequence of 
our desire to get out of town quickly. We will have minimal debate and 
will hope that the American people do not notice what we have done 
until after the election. However, if we were to have an actual debate 
on this issue, I believe there would be at least two positive outcomes 
beyond informing the American people of what we are doing. First, 
domestic spending levels dictated by our budget act are too low. 
Second, in less than ten years, the pressure of mandatory spending, 
even presuming lower interest costs, will become enormous.
  Mr. President, I do not expect to win this vote given the margin of 
victory when it was considered in the Senate earlier this year. 
Therefore, I will not take more of my colleague's time with further 
arguments against this provision. Instead, I want to present a case for 
increasing defense and non-defense spending, but against the willy-
nilly process which will lead to the greatest expansion of domestic 
spending since Lyndon Johnson was President. After I make this case, I 
will briefly describe the looming problem of mandatory spending.
  The good news on spending is that a synergistic combination of 
federal fiscal discipline and economic growth has shrunk domestic 
spending as a percentage of total U.S. income to its lowest levels 
since the middle 1970s. Ten years ago, total Federal spending consumed 
22 percent of U.S. GDP. This year, federal spending will be 18 percent 
of our GDP. According to CBO, if current law is unchanged, total 
spending will fall to 16 percent in ten years, the lowest percentage of 
our income since the Eisenhower administration.
  In current dollars, each 10 percent of GDP represents nearly $1 
trillion. It is a tremendous amount of money that causes the people of 
most other nations on this earth to shake their heads and wonder at our 
good fortune. Leaving $4 trillion in the economy over the next 10 years 
for private sector purchases and investments adds a lot of constructive 
steam to our economy. This fact gets too little attention when we are 
debating how to sustain our current economic recovery.
  Mr. President, this is why we need to stop and to consider what we 
are doing before we quietly agree to spend $1 trillion beyond the 
original discretionary spending caps. We would be better-served if we 
made this decision to increase the caps with a coherent and holistic 
debate about how to invest the surplus. A spending strategy that would 
increase the productivity of our work force by increasing the 
percentage of college graduates, and by increasing the number of high 
school graduates who have the necessary technical training to succeed 
in the American economy. A thoughtful debate on our spending strategy 
would no doubt also lead to higher spending levels on early childhood 
education and adult education. A thoughtful debate on our spending 
strategy would no doubt recognize the need to invest in our non-human 
infrastructure of roads, research, sewer and water. And a thoughtful 
debate on our spending strategy would no doubt contain safeguards to 
make certain that we do not throw good money after bad.
  Instead, we are going to commit ourselves to dramatic increases in 
discretionary and mandatory spending without any unifying motivation 
beyond the desire to satisfy short term political considerations. To be 
clear, Mr. President, I do not believe most of these considerations are 
bad or unseemly. Most can be justified. But we need a larger purpose 
than just trying to get out of town.
  On the mandatory side of the spending equation we have allowed the 
heady talk of surpluses as far as the eye can see to prevent us from 
seeing the wave of baby boomers that will begin to become eligible for 
taxpayer subsidized health and retirement benefits in less than 9 
years. In less time than our most senior colleagues have served in the 
Senate, the ratio of American workers being taxed to pay the benefits 
for those who are eligible will shrink from 3 workers per retiree to 2 
workers per retiree. If we continue to vote for more and more 
spending--as a percentage of our income--on Americans over the age of 
65 and less and less on Americans under the age of 18 we will create 
two terrible problems: workers who do not have the skills to earn the 
money needed to support their families and a collective working 
population whose total income is smaller than needed to avoid higher 
payroll taxes.

[[Page S10367]]

  And yet that is exactly what we are doing with this provision in the 
Defense authorization conference. We obligate another $60 billion of 
tax revenue to reduce the burden of buying Medigap insurance. Just this 
year, a majority of the Senate has voted for a prescription drug 
benefit, an end to the Social Security earnings test, a decrease in the 
income tax of Social Security income, and this military retiree 
provision. Together, these mandatory spending items will cost the 
American taxpayer more than $500 billion over the next ten years.
  These spending levels may in fact be justified and affordable. 
However, they could also end up squeezing our domestic spending further 
as a percent of GDP. Because entitlement spending programs are locked 
into law, because those who favor these benefits are well organized and 
easily provoked come election time, they tend to be protected from 
spending cuts forever.
  I ask my colleagues to consider how many votes there would be for a 
proposal to waive the budget act in order to spend $60 billion more on 
our children to improve the quality of their health, their education, 
their lives. How many votes would there be for such a proposition? Less 
than 60, I assure you.
  Mr. President, I regret the proposed expansion of tax payer 
subsidization of military retirees' health benefits will not take place 
in the context of a more thorough debate of current and future Federal 
spending. In my view, it would be far less likely that this entitlement 
expansion would occur if we understood how it will add to the problems 
created by rapidly growing mandatory spending that begins again just as 
the full cost of this new benefit kicks in. And it would be far more 
likely that if we did vote for such an expansion we and the American 
people would understand the future consequences of our actions.
  Mr. President, let me say, I regret this may be my last speech on the 
Senate floor and that it be a speech against extending additional 
benefits to my fellow veterans or, stated another way, which I think 
needs to be thought about as we do this, asking other taxpayers to pay 
some things that I currently pay for myself by asking them to subsidize 
me even more for the service.
  I am military retired, let me fully disclose to my colleagues. I will 
benefit from this provision regardless of what my income is, regardless 
of what my need is. I say to you, I am personally offended by some of 
the rhetoric around this. I did not volunteer for the U.S. Navy in 
order to get anything. And you take away the most important value that 
I have from my service: I served; I volunteered. You did not have to 
buy that. You did not have to give me a health care benefit.
  If you want to give me a health care benefit, give it to me, but 
please do not say you owe it to me. You may decide it is necessary, but 
I got more from my service than my country got from me. I am the one 
who benefited from my service. And I am much less likely to benefit if 
all of a sudden I become a mercenary. You would owe me money because 
what this bill does is it says that when our veterans reach age 65, 
Medicare is not good enough; Medicare will not be good enough for the 
1.3 million veterans over the age of 65 who are military retirees; it 
is not good enough.
  We are going to buy their Medigap insurance. Oh, no, Medigap isn't 
good enough. It has to have a prescription benefit in it. That is what 
this does. It asks one group of taxpayers to pay the Medigap insurance 
for another group of Americans who say Medicare is not good enough.
  Look, I know it is a hot issue. I have received lots of phone calls 
already from people who say: Gee, Kerrey is down here trying to stop 
this.
  I do not expect to get more than 40 votes. I hope there aren't 60 
votes to waive the Budget Act. I say to my colleagues, nothing would 
send a better signal from this Congress right now than for us to say 
that we will not waive the Budget Act--that we will not waive the 
Budget Act.
  We are not getting much leadership down at the other end of 
Pennsylvania Avenue. And there is a spending orgy going on. We are 
going to have another vote to waive the Budget Act on appropriations. 
The cap, prior to the budget resolution, was $540 billion. The budget 
resolution raises it to $600 billion. We all sort of privately know it 
is going to be $640 billion or $645 billion. That is $100 billion over 
the previous cap. That is $1 trillion over 10 years. There is a meeting 
going on amongst Senate Democrats on the Finance Committee, talking to 
Secretary Summers about a tax cut package. There are lots of 
discussions going on about putting more money back in, as a consequence 
of the BBA of 1997, for health care providers.
  I do not know what it all adds up to, but I will tell you, I have 
never been in a situation where I took a phone call from somebody who 
said: Senator, this only costs $60 billion over 10 years--it only costs 
$60 billion over 10 years. That is what I am getting from people right 
now.
  So I think we would send a very important signal, right now, saying 
that we will not waive the Budget Act, we will not waive the Budget Act 
that has created the fiscal discipline that enabled us to get to where 
we are today. I think it would send a very important signal. I 
understand that you would have to take this thing back to 
conference tell the House Members we are coming back next week anyway. 
Isn't it worth $60 billion to spend a little more time to get this 
thing right?

  Let me get into the substance of this. I think it is important for us 
to send a signal that we will not waive the Budget Act to spend only 
$60 billion over the next 10 years.
  Let me make the case against the provision. First of all, I 
reiterate, you don't owe me any additional benefits. This Nation 
doesn't owe me anything. I will make that case, and I will make it 
repeatedly because I have heard an awful lot of rhetoric here that 
implies that I am a mercenary.
  I am a better person because of my service. I learned from my 
service. I believe I am a part of a nation as a consequence of my 
service. I wasn't just in the Navy; I was in the U.S. Navy. It has 
enriched me. It has benefited me. You didn't have to pay me to get me 
to do it. I did it as a consequence of believing that it was my duty. I 
thought I was going to be the one who came out ahead, and I have.
  Please, in the rhetoric you are using to describe why this is 
necessary, don't tell me it was a promise. I am one of the 
beneficiaries of this language, and I wasn't promised any benefit when 
I signed up. If you want to give it to me, fine, but please don't tell 
me that you owe it to me.
  Secondly, it is important for us to do some sort of evaluation of 
need. The last time I checked, I didn't see an awful lot of military 
retirees out there foraging in the alley for food. We need to do some 
sort of evaluation of need. Remember, we are taking $60 billion over 
the next 10 years from one group of Americans, and we are going to pay 
for the Medigap insurance, including a prescription drug benefit, for 
another group of Americans.
  I don't know how many Americans we are going to tax who are out there 
right now saying, I don't have enough income to pay for my health 
insurance, but there are a number who are. They are sitting out there, 
hard-working families, paying their bills, who are an important part of 
our country as well, who are an important part of our society.
  We are not saying to them, you are entitled to Medigap insurance. We 
are not saying to them, you are entitled to a prescription drug 
benefit. What you are entitled to is to pay somebody else's bills. 
Remember, the Government doesn't pay for anything. All we do is collect 
the money and pay the bills for somebody else. We are obligating $60 
billion over 10. In the tenth year, this thing is knocking on the door 
of being $10 billion a year at the very moment--which is my third 
point--at the very moment when we have this unprecedented baby boom 
generation that begins to retire.
  I know this surplus goes as far as the eye can see. I understand that 
it has gotten more difficult to say no to people as a consequence of 
that; the fiscal discipline is lucid. But we are not going to change 
this demographic boom that is heading our way. It is not going to be 
altered. There aren't enough H-1B visas we can issue to immigrate our 
way out of this problem. We aren't going to have three people working 
who we tax to pay the retirement and health care benefits of those who 
aren't working. We are only going to have two. We are going to have two 
workers

[[Page S10368]]

per retiree. You don't get to pick Warren Buffet and Bill Gates to tax. 
You tax an average.
  As a consequence of taxing that average, we are going to have a very 
difficult time paying the bills. Everybody who has examined this says 
that is the case. It is true that right now, under the previous CBO 
evaluation, we have stabilized the cost of mandatory programs, but not 
for long. We are going to be right back off to the races again starting 
in 2009. Our Federal Government, unless we exhibit some restraint, is 
going to become an ATM machine. We are going to be collecting money 
from one group of taxpayers and shipping it on to another group of 
taxpayers.

  The reason it is a problem can be seen in the way our authorizers had 
to deal with this. They didn't want this money to come out of Defense 
appropriations. They didn't want it to come out of readiness accounts. 
They didn't want it to come out of our ability to be able to recruit, 
to train, and equip our forces. No. They want to protect that. So they 
push it all over into mandatory.
  Well, you can only push it so far. I am sure the chairman of the 
Budget Committee will say at some point you have a limited amount of 
money you can extract from the U.S. economy. If you have a limited 
amount of money and you have mandatory programs going, it is going to 
eventually put pressure on appropriated accounts. The paradox, in my 
view--not shared by all--is that we probably are underinvesting right 
now in things that will increase productivity and will increase the 
strength of our economy. It is a paradox because we are going to be 
taxing the very people in whom we are underinvesting because we don't 
have a sufficient amount of resources in the appropriated accounts.
  As I said, on the basis of policy, I think on the basis of fiscal 
discipline, on several other bases I could talk about, this sounds 
good. Again, I understand the pressure. Nobody organizes better than 
Americans over the age of 65 in order to get something they think they 
are entitled to. In a relatively short period of time, I have generated 
well over 75 phone calls, including one misguided human being who said 
he was going to do everything in his power to make sure that my Medal 
of Honor was taken away from me. Well, more power to him; have at it. 
It is not likely. I am not offended by that. It is just an indication 
of the intensity of people's feelings, to which they are entitled. They 
don't tell us where we are going to get the money. The Government is 
going to pay for it; that is as far as they will go. Let the Government 
pay for it.
  The Government--I say again, for emphasis--doesn't pay for anything. 
It collects. It taxes one group of people in order to pay the benefits 
for another. That is what we are doing. You have a very difficult time, 
either on the basis of promise or on the basis of need, making the case 
that this group of Americans needs to have us pay their Medigap 
insurance, including a prescription drug benefit.
  I hope my colleagues, at this moment when we seem to have lost our 
fiscal discipline, will come to the floor and say: I might have, under 
normal circumstances, liked to be able to help these military retirees, 
but we have to stand up and say, no, we are going down a road where, 
when the smoke clears, we are going to find ourselves looking pretty 
foolish for having spent all the money or committed all the money that 
we have done.
  I hope my colleagues, even those who might say they like this 
benefit, will not vote to waive the Budget Act. The Budget Act has 
given us the discipline that enabled us to get this far. To sort of 
willy-nilly come down here and say, fine, my phone is ringing off the 
hook, I will not be able to stand up to that, I have to say, yes. The 
Budget Act allowed us to turn to our citizens and say, we have to be 
disciplined. It gave me, for 12 years, a method by which I could say, 
look, I support what you are doing, but we don't have the money. We 
have to say no sometimes to things we want to spend money on.

  I hope my colleagues will come to the floor and muster the will to 
vote no on waiving this Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I know there are moments in the life of a 
Senator that they will never forget. This is one I will not forget. I 
don't have a better friend in the Senate than my good friend from 
Nebraska. I don't know of any Senator--well, perhaps Senator Inouye, of 
course--who has more rightfully earned the respect of this body and, 
more specifically, the men and women of the Armed Forces for his 
courageous acts in the field of battle in Vietnam. I was privileged to 
be in the Navy Secretariat with our recently departed, beloved former 
Senator Chafee, who was then Secretary when the Medal of Honor was 
awarded my good friend.
  I have to say to my friend that, yes, in law, it is not clear about 
their entitlement, but in every other respect--sometimes the law is 
silent--these people were, time and time again, told they would have 
for life their health care.
  I want to draw a distinction which was not clear in the Senator's 
otherwise very able presentation. He talked about his service, indeed 
my service, which was very insignificant compared to his, but we both 
served in the Navy at different times. I think I have some faint 
recollection of this, but it was long ago; I won't rest my laurels on 
that.
  You went in initially not with the idea of becoming a careerist, and 
there may have been a point in your career when you did think about 
staying for 20 years.
  The people who are entitled under this legislation are the ones who 
devoted their careers--a minimum of 20 years and often more years of 
service--to the military. It is not those like myself who served for 
briefer periods in World War II and brief periods in Korea. This 
legislation doesn't cover them. It would not cover you, regardless of 
your injuries which entitled you to other medical care that you 
received that was service connected. My point is, the person who goes 
in for one hitch as an enlisted man, one tour as an officer, they are 
not the beneficiaries under this. It is that class of individuals who, 
together with their families, have dedicated a career, who have moved, 
who responded to the call to go overseas many times, in most instances. 
That is what this legislation is for. I would like to have the Senator 
comment on that.
  Mr. KERREY. I am pleased to, Mr. President. First of all, I am a 
retired Naval officer for medical reasons. The Senator is quite right; 
there is a difference between the reason I signed up, how I did it as a 
reserve officer, and somebody who signs up for 20 years. No question, 
that is true. I don't mean to imply there isn't a difference; there is 
a significant difference. When I hear people describing what this 
benefit does, that we are only talking about people who are in 20 
years, the rhetoric is far afield on this.
  I feel like I can't go home and talk to friends and neighbors and say 
I am getting one more thing from my Government here. I am just telling 
you that I don't feel as if this country owes me anything. I want my 
colleagues, especially those who didn't have any military service, to 
know that. I have gotten more out of it than my Nation got. You say, 
well, somebody who has been in 20 years should be promised health care. 
There are employees we promised health care to. I say this to the 
Senator from Virginia: Medicare is health care. What do you say to 
somebody who has been in the workforce who says, ``My employer promised 
me health care, and I get to be 65 and I have to have Medicare.'' Do we 
say we are going to pick that up as well? That will be the next thing 
knocking on our door.
  Mr. WARNER. It should be knocking on our door.
  Mr. KERREY. Are we going to pay the Medigap insurance for every 
single Medicare beneficiary?
  Mr. WARNER. It is the obligation of the Congress to fix Medicare and, 
indeed, I know of initiative----
  Mr. KERREY. I don't disagree, but to fix Medicare by saying there 
will not be copayments or deductibles, I don't think there is anybody 
on the floor who would argue that eliminating copayments and 
deductibles is the way to save money in health care. Quite the 
opposite. The argument on the other side of the aisle--joined by me in 
1997--is we should go in the opposite direction. This eliminates 
copayments and deductibles.

[[Page S10369]]

  Mr. WARNER. It was intentionally devised that way. When I made 
reference to the nonmilitary people in this country who are not, of 
course, eligible because of absence of a career in military service, 
Congress should be addressing that issue. I know of initiatives time 
and again to try to do that. Regrettably, it will probably not be done 
in the waning days of this Congress, but we have an obligation to these 
people. Do you realize if we had not made this program permanent, we 
would be casting on these individuals--most of whom are over 65 to 70, 
and some are medically retired--they would be forced to make a decision 
to drop their private insurance, which they had to go out and buy? They 
have to make other decisions because they would not be certain that 
Congress at some future date would make it permanent. So that is why we 
had to go down this road.

  I will yield in a moment. First, I want to show my good friend 
something that I found. I went out and did some research on this 
because I have spent endless hours trying to figure out the facts. I 
have found this recruiting poster for the U.S. Army. Can the Senator 
read it from there?
  Mr. KERREY. I can imagine.
  Mr. WARNER. ``Superb health care. Health care is provided to you and 
your family members while you are in the Army, and for the rest of your 
life if you serve a minimum of 20 years of active Federal service.'' 
This is an actual official recruiting document. I daresay there are 
many others like it from World War II to this date. If you are a young 
man or a young woman enlisting today and this is printed by the U.S. 
Army, you believe it.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mr. KERREY. It will take 30 seconds to respond. On that basis, my 
Government owes me a lot of travel. They promised me I was going to see 
the world. All I saw was Vietnam, right? So I go to OCS for, they told 
me 16 weeks; it was 18 weeks. Guess what they said. ``We lied to you. 
Big deal.'' We have a lot of promises we have to keep if we are going 
to fulfill every promise made at every recruiting office in the United 
States. Come on, this is about deciding how much we can afford. There 
is a limit. I know the chairman understands there is a limit. There is 
a point beyond which one can't go. Are we going to do long-term care? 
Are we going to promise to pay for that? There are lots of things we 
can pay for and say we have an obligation.
  The question before us is, Are we going to waive the Budget Act? This 
Defense conference authorization requires $60 billion worth of spending 
beyond the budget resolution. That is the question, not do you like 
what this is. You may like this particular provision. But I am telling 
you, with just a couple of days left in this Congress, we are on a 
spending orgy. I am having people saying to me: Don't worry about 
waiving the budget resolution on appropriations; don't worry about 
waiving the budget resolution on Defense authorization; don't worry, we 
have to get out of town. Well, we are going to get out of town having 
done an awful lot of damage if we take that attitude.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Does the Senator from Nebraska have any time to yield 
me?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first, if I might reply, I respect the 
Senator from Nebraska. I associate myself with his remarks that the 
military did more for him than he gave to the military. That is 
certainly true in my case. I don't think it is true in his. I think he 
served with the greatest distinction, and this country is everlastingly 
in the Senator's personal debt. Certainly, for this humble soul, the 
military did more for me than I did for it. I have said that on the 
floor a dozen times.
  There is living proof of promises made. I have shown you the 
difficulty facing the aged people over 65 and into their seventies who 
have to make a decision depending on the vote about to be taken in this 
Senate. They were made to commit one way or another by their Nation. I 
think they are deserving, having given their careers, families, 
spouses, whatever. I urge that Members of the Senate join me in waiving 
this Budget Act.

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator from Nebraska yield briefly?
  Mr. KERREY. I yield.
  Mr. DOMENICI. First, I will be as quick as I can because I understand 
Senator Gramm wants to comment at more length than I. Let me say to the 
Senator from Nebraska, when you came to the Senate, I had already been 
here a while. I didn't know anything about you. I didn't know you were 
a Medal of Honor recipient of the United States. I know you don't like 
to hear this, but I want to tell you that what you are doing tonight 
shows that you have something about you that is intuitively or 
instinctively courageous because what you are down here doing is not so 
easy for many Senators because, obviously, there is going to be a lot 
of guff for what you have proposed tonight, asking that we not waive 
the Budget Act.
  I wish to also say to everyone that neither of us--including Senator 
Gramm--are saying we should not do what we are doing tonight for our 
veterans. What we are saying is, with 2 days left in the session, 
neither the House nor the Senate having any detailed hearings, nor the 
Medicare people having detailed hearings on this, we come out of a 
conference with an agreement and propose a little item that over a 
decade will cost $60 billion.
  That may be something veterans are entitled to, but I believe we are 
all thinking that there is no end to American prosperity and to 
American surpluses. I think we have come to the conclusion that they 
will be here forever and they are in quantities beyond anything we can 
imagine--and whatever goes in the waning moments goes. I think I can 
support this; I just don't believe we ought to do it now, with 2 days 
left, without sufficient hearings on the effect on the rest of 
Government. I might say, without trying to figure out who we are going 
to give prescription drugs to under Medicare, who are also people who 
are hurting very much and who think Medicare should have covered them 
better--there are millions of those people.
  I believe the Budget Act singularly permitted the Congress to get its 
deficit under control. There are benefits from that. Every single 
American, every single veteran, and everyone in this country 
participates in a prosperity movement, with low interest rates and 
things people thought they would never acquire because when we used to 
stand up and say, ``Don't waive the Budget Act,'' nobody waived it. In 
fact, I didn't check tonight to see how many years had gone by when 
neither Senator Domenici, nor Senator Gramm, nor Senator Kerrey, nor 
whomever would say that violates the Budget Act to see if you could get 
61 votes. That is why the decade of the 1990s became the decade of 
discipline.
  Do you know the Government of the United States, on average, for the 
decade of the 1990s grew 3.3 percent, the most formidable in terms of 
small growth in the last 50 years? There is no reason other than that 
as to why this deficit has come down the way it has and prosperity has 
grown the way it has.
  I believe next year is a year to look at the big picture, to fit this 
into all of the other things we have to do. But I don't believe we 
ought to waive a Budget Act which has protected our people, protected 
our veterans, and protected the cost of military equipment because of 
inflation coming down.
  Those are all great big benefits that we don't quite understand, but 
they are very important.
  Again, tonight by insisting that we comply with the Budget Act, you 
are showing me a degree of courage that makes me understand who you 
are.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield for 1 minute for a question of the 
chairman of the Budget Committee?
  Mr. GRAMM. Yes.
  Mr. LEVIN. While the good chairman is here, I ask a factual question: 
What is the estimate as to how much the appropriations bill that we are 
about to vote on in the next few days will go over the discretionary 
ceiling in the budget resolution?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I don't know.
  Mr. LEVIN. We predict it is $40 billion for 1 year.
  Mr. DOMENICI. No. I don't. If you say that is the case, I disagree.
  Mr. LEVIN. I say it is not the case. We have heard the figure. Is it 
clear

[[Page S10370]]

that there will be a point of order that will lie against one of these 
appropriations bills coming up?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Surely.
  Mr. LEVIN. For exceeding the caps of the budget resolution.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, at some point there will be a vote on a 
waiver of the Budget Act for that purpose--I don't want to estimate the 
number of billions because I am not privy to it--but for a significant 
amount of money. I want to put that in this context. This is not going 
to be the last time this year that there is going to be a vote on 
whether to waive the Budget Act because the ceiling is exceeded.
  I fully agree with Senator Domenici. I couldn't agree more in terms 
of what his comment was about Senator Kerrey's instincts. As always, he 
seems to me honest and open. That is what this point of order is going 
to force. Even though I will vote for waiving the Budget Act--I am 
going to vote that way on this point of order--I must say that I think 
it is very important that this point of order be made. It is so 
important that if Senator Kerrey had not made it, I was going to make 
it, because I think the Senate has got to understand what we are doing. 
I think we are doing the right thing. But we are not going to be doing 
it quietly in a closed way, which is hidden. We are going to be doing 
it openly or we are not going to do it at all. Maybe there will not be 
enough votes to do it at all.

  But the important point that Senator Kerrey and others are making, it 
seems to me, No. 1, is in their judgment we should not do it. That is 
the matter of disagreement. But where I think there is agreement is 
when we do it and when we consider it, we should not be burying it in 
some bill that nobody knows about. That is why this point of order is 
valuable, in my judgment.
  I thank the Senator for his comments.
  One other point: That the size of this item is a 10-year item. The 
question I asked the Senator from New Mexico, chairman of the Budget 
Committee, was approximately how much will the appropriations bills for 
just 1 year go above the budget ceiling and discretionary spending. It 
is that figure which perhaps by the end of the evening I can try to get 
an estimate of from the staff of the Appropriations Committee. But it 
will be a significant amount. We are going to have to vote on it. I 
hope we vote on that explicitly. I hope we vote on that in that final 
appropriations bill just as openly as we are going to vote on this. I 
hope it is not just going to be buried in the final appropriations bill 
and fly through here without a conscious decision on whether or not to 
waive the Budget Act. Otherwise, there is no fiscal discipline at all. 
If it is not done openly, there will be even less fiscal discipline.
  I want my comments to go against my time, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I am stunned that we are talking about 
fiscal discipline and asking whether a bill is over the budget when we 
have a bill before us where we set out funds in the budget knowing that 
this was a problem that needed to be dealt with. We set out $400 
million in the budget to try to begin to deal with this problem. The 
bill before us creates a brand new program never debated anywhere and 
which no Member of this Senate can really explain how it will work. It 
has never been tested anywhere. It will cost $59.9 billion.
  Let me quote from Senator Warner's letter and his initial cost 
estimate, which is now out of date because additional benefits were 
added to this bill. But let me quote from his letter of September 27. 
``The cost of this proposal is scored by the Congressional Budget 
Office at $42.4 billion in mandatory spending over 10 years.'' That has 
now risen to $59.9 billion. ``In addition, the Treasury would accept a 
$200 billion liability that would be amortized over 70 years.''
  Not only is this bill a budget buster--it will win the blue ribbon in 
Congress this year. There will be no bill in this Congress that will 
approach this bill in terms of fiscal irresponsibility and lack of 
financial discipline. And all of this was done not in a committee, not 
in a public debate, but by a group of conferees who got together in 
closed sessions. The House entered that conference with a program that 
cost $945 million. The Senate went into the conference with a program 
that cost $466 million. They came out of conference with a program that 
cost $60 billion, and committed us to a 70-year debt of $200 billion.
  I believe there is no parallel in the history of appropriations and 
authorizations in America to the bill before us in terms of a bill 
which has never been debated and a program that has never been 
discussed.
  Let me make a couple of points.
  First of all, it is obvious that all of us here tonight should praise 
our dear colleague, Senator Kerrey, who is retiring. You can get a lot 
of praise around here by dying or retiring. Given the choice between 
the two, he has chosen the right one.
  Let me say that many people have congratulated Senator Kerrey for his 
physical courage. I don't know much about that type of courage. So far 
as I know, nobody has ever shot at me. Nor do I have any reason to 
believe I would have been shot at. I don't know much about that kind of 
courage.
  But there is a different kind of courage that I know a little bit 
about. It is a courage that has to do with standing up to peer group 
pressure. There is something very human about the fact that somewhere 
around the first or second grade we start caring terribly about what 
people around us think. It is something we never escape from until they 
lower us in the grave. One would think grown men and women, Members of 
the Senate, the greatest deliberative body in the history of the world, 
would be immune to it. But as my colleagues know, we are not immune to 
it. We want to be loved. We want to be accepted by our colleagues. You 
don't get love by opposing this giant expenditure of money. You don't 
get appreciated by your colleagues by standing up to it. Senator Kerrey 
is getting a lot of praise tonight. My guess is when the votes are 
counted, we may have three votes to sustain this point of order. But I 
don't know. I wasn't there when Senator Kerrey won the Congressional 
Medal of Honor, but I was there when he stood up in this Congress and 
pointed out to America and to this Congress that the largest federal 
entitlement programs tax young working people who are just starting 
out, and give that money to seniors, many of whom have built up 
retirement savings over a lifetime.
  And it's being done because older people vote and younger people 
don't vote. We are digging a hole in Medicare and Social Security that 
can destroy America and that will destroy our prosperity if we don't do 
something about it.
  The Senator from Nebraska has been a leader in that and I want to say 
I appreciate it. I believe America does, but America is not embodied in 
the way it can speak and, since it hasn't been elected, it couldn't 
speak on the floor of the Senate anyway. On behalf of working people in 
my State and my country, I thank you, Bob Kerrey. I'm sorry you are 
retiring. I want to thank you for what you have said and what you have 
stood up for.
  Now, let me try to put all this in perspective. First of all, I agree 
with Senator Warner's poster. I hope my colleagues will forgive me 
because I want to give a little bit of history to establish my bona 
fides on this issue, if I can.
  First, my dad was a career soldier. He joined the Army on his 15th 
birthday in his brother's clothes. He was in the Army for 28 years, 7 
months, and 27 days. He believed when he joined the Army that part of 
what the Government had committed to him was that if he served for 20 
or more years, they were going to take care of him and his family and 
their health care needs. I am proud to say--and I say it with certainty 
because I know; I was born in the same hospital my dad died in, and it 
was a military hospital at Ft. Benning, GA--the Government never, ever 
took that benefit away from my dad.
  We are here today for two reasons. We are here in part because the 
policies of our Government changed. They changed in a remarkable way, 
and it is an interesting thing how benefits are lost. They changed 
because Medicare was going broke. So our government

[[Page S10371]]

made everybody join Medicare, including men and women in the Armed 
Services. This problem came about because people who retired from the 
service qualified for two medical programs: One, by paying Medicare 
taxes; and two, by serving 20 or more years. The military health care 
benefit was a right not to Medigap insurance or any of the things we 
are talking about today, it was a right to go to a military hospital on 
a space-available basis and get military medicine.
  What happened--which was terribly wrong, in my opinion--is that, in 
the midst of a period of very tight budgets, the military gave retirees 
their military health benefit until they turned 65 when they became 
qualified for Medicare. As they got close to their 65th birthday--I 
know this because I have a brother who is a career soldier. I don't 
know whether he likes military medicine because they know his name--
``Colonel.'' He goes to a regular hospital and they call him ``Mister'' 
although, obviously, they don't know who he is. They don't know 
anything about him. So I don't know whether it is that or whether he 
just is comfortable with having been a career soldier and having served 
in the Army for some 27 years--the point is, as he gets closer to 65, 
under the current system he will get a sheet when he goes in, and 
members of the staff know this, he will get a referral sheet. And they 
will say, ``Colonel, you are going to turn 65 in August. So these are 
the medical areas that we are aware of that are relevant to you, and 
these are private practitioners in Dallas, Texas, that you can go to 
under Medicare.''
  Here is a person who got military medicine on active duty for 27 
years, and then he retired and continued to get it up to the day he was 
65, but because he earned two benefits, they shoved him out the door 
when he turned 65.
  My disagreement with Senator Warner is not about that recruiting 
poster. I believe that poster is true. And I believe the benefit is 
owed. Where we split company is on what we are doing here tonight.
  Let me explain. Just to complete the history, because I felt that I 
had some personal knowledge about this problem, I was the leader in 
Congress in putting together a test program called Medicare Subvention. 
The idea was simple. A lot of simple ideas don't work. It is not clear 
how well this one is working. In some ways, I think it is working well 
although costs are up because utilization is up. But the basic idea was 
simple. Let's pick ten facilities in America that have big retirement 
populations near them and let people stay in military medicine and let 
Medicare pay what they would pay had they gone to the private sector. 
We are in the midst of a test of that program right now.

  Earlier this year, while Medicare Subvention was still being tested, 
this bill came up, and while we were debating military retiree health 
care, a proposal was made to spend $92 billion. Senator Domenici will 
remember that. That proposal failed. And it should have. I voted 
against it.
  During that debate, Senator Warner offered a 2-year program to build 
on the test that we had underway. Senator Warner's program cost $466 
million. I supported it. In fact, I think all the rest of us supported 
it. I am not sure Senator Kerrey did, but I think Senator Domenici 
supported it.
  The Senate had put in the budget enough money that to try Senator 
Warner's program out for 2 years. Why was it important to do it in 2 
years? I will talk about the money, but let me talk about the policy. 
What is wrong with committing to $60 billion worth of new programs that 
have never been debated, never been tested, and committing to a $200 
billion liability over the next 70 years? What is wrong is, as anybody 
who has ever served in public office knows, once this program is in 
place, a vested political interest will build up around it in the 
medical sector, in the retirement sector, and in the communities where 
it is provided. What happens is even if this program doesn't work, even 
if it is terribly inefficient, even if people are unhappy with it, the 
chances of ever getting rid of it or fundamentally changing it are very 
low.
  We have in Medicare, as Senator Kerrey, better than anyone else knows 
having served on the Medicare Commission, we have a 1965 medical care 
system. In Medicare, we have an old Edsel. Yet we can't change it. We 
tried to change it on the Medicare Commission as the Senator remembers. 
But the vested interest in it, even though it is inefficient, even 
though it doesn't serve the public well, even though it costs 
tremendous amounts of money, once it is in place, it is hard to change.
  Here is the point. The first problem with this huge program is that 
was never debated, never discussed, and was written by a handful of 
people that, quite frankly, are very intelligent people, very 
knowledgeable people about defense. As far as I am aware, it was never 
discussed in the Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over 
Medicare. It was never debated in any public forum. It has never been 
tested anywhere. The point is, tonight on the verge of adjournment, we 
are getting ready to commit $60 billion in spending on a program that 
may or may not work, may or may not satisfy people, and which is going 
to be virtually irreversible.
  The second point I want to make is the House went into conference 
with a program that extended the Medicare Subvention demonstration, 
made it permanent within 6 years, and costs $945 million. So the Senate 
went to conference with a temporary program of $466 million to build on 
a concept, that basically, we had started in the test; and the other 
House of Congress went with a program that made a judgment to move 
toward full implementation of the test, and it cost $945 million. But 
what happened?

  What happened--and Senator Kerrey was making the point, I thought 
very effectively--they got to conference and suddenly somebody said, 
``The sky's the limit. We have a huge surplus. This is an election 
year.'' So what happened is one House, with a program for $466 million, 
and the other House, with a program for $945 million, got together and 
suddenly we have a $60 billion entitlement program. Actually the new 
program is $39 billion, but the committee just gratuitously took 
existing health care programs and said let's just put $21 billion on 
automatic pilot in a permanent entitlement program so we do not have to 
account for spending it.
  That is what happened. Why did it happen? Because the surplus is 
burning a hole in our pocket. This surplus is the greatest danger we 
face in terms of our economic stability--not just now, but 10 or 12 
years from now when the baby boomers start to retire. It is not just 
happening here. I am not just being mean to our dear friends on the 
Armed Services Committee, a committee I had the privilege to serve on 
for 6 years. It is happening everywhere.
  We have a railroad retirement proposal that lowers the retirement 
age. We are raising the retirement age in Social Security. Yet, we 
would lower it in railroad retirement. We have a proposal to give 
Amtrak $10 billion.
  We have proposals--we are giving back Medicare savings that we have 
previously adopted at a rate where, in 10 years, we will have given 
back more than we ever had in savings, yet Medicare is going broke 
every day. What is happening to us? What is happening to us is this 
surplus is affecting our judgment and we are spending it as fast as we 
can spend it.
  Let me sum up. I want to make a point about the economy, one I had 
not thought of until I was talking to Alan Greenspan today, and I want 
to bring it up because I think it is relevant.
  What is my position? My position is we do have an obligation to 
military retirees and we have to find a way to fix the health care 
system for military retirees. But I think we need to do it so we know 
what we are doing, so we know what it costs, so we know it is going to 
be efficient, and we have to do it after there has been a clear, 
effective, public debate and where we have actually tested the program 
so we know what we are doing.
  The problem here is this bill is immensely popular, as my colleagues 
know if any of you have paid any attention to your telephone calls 
today, but it is popular because we are spending massive amounts of 
money.
  My point is I do not disagree with Senator Warner. We owe these 
benefits, and we are going to have to provide a way for our military 
retirees to have quality medical care, which we promised. But the idea 
of doing it by busting the budget by $59.9 billion on a

[[Page S10372]]

program nobody ever debated, nobody ever tested, nobody has ever seen 
work, I think is clearly the wrong way to do it.
  We have a point of order that is going to be raised by Senator 
Kerrey. What is the point of order about?
  Mr. DOMENICI. He has already raised it.
  Mr. GRAMM. Well, he has raised it. What it is about is, in our budget 
we agreed we were going to spend $400 million to begin to try to fix 
this problem. The committee with jurisdiction to fix it was not willing 
to abide by that budget, and they came up with a program that did not 
cost $400 million, they came up with a program that cost $59.9 billion 
and committed us to a $200 billion debt to be amortized over 70 years.
  So Senator Kerrey has raised a point of order saying: This may be 
wonderful, this might actually be the right thing to do someday, but 
this violates what we voted to do and the constraints we imposed on 
ourselves.
  I do not suffer any delusion. My guess is we are going to get 3 or 4 
or 5--maybe 10 votes here. We are going to waive this point of order, 
and we are going to spend this $60 billion. We are going to spend it on 
a program which was never debated, never tested, never analyzed in any 
systematic way. My fear is that we are going to have a very difficult 
time fixing it. I am afraid 10 years from now we may be here debating 
how we can fix it, but with the vested interests that have built up, it 
will be very difficult to do.
  So I believe this point of order should be sustained. I am going to 
vote to sustain it.
  Why should we care about this spending? I was talking to Chairman 
Greenspan today about the economy and about the stock market. We were 
talking about spending. I basically had raised the issue with him, was 
he worried about this runaway spending? He made a point to me that, in 
April and May, something clearly started happening because long-term 
interest rates started going up in America. Some people say that is 
caused by Fed policy. No, the policy of the Fed, as our colleagues 
know, affects short-term interest rates. But the economy affects long-
term interest rates.
  Let me tell you what was happening in May. What was happening in May 
is it started to become clear we were not going to abide by our budget. 
It started to become clear we were losing control of spending. These 
long-term rates went up and the economy started to cool, and that is 
being reflected in the stock market today, in my opinion.
  I am not saying we are going into a recession. But I am saying the 
interest rates went up on the long-term because we are losing control 
of spending. We are losing fiscal discipline. They went up until the 
economy slowed down enough that they started to back off.
  I think we ought to be concerned about spending this surplus. I think 
we need to make rational decisions about it. It may very well be, after 
a debate, we write a budget and we spend $60 billion on this problem. I 
do not think I would do it this way. I think we need efficiency, I 
think we need copayments, I think we need incentives for cost 
consciousness. I don't think I would support doing it this way, but I 
might support a program that costs this much, more or less.
  But doing it this way, where two or three people put together this 
proposal, is fundamentally wrong and is dangerous. This is a noble 
cause, and a cause that I support--military retirees were promised a 
benefit. They weren't promised these kinds of benefits, but they were 
promised access to military medicine. I want them to have it.
  As bases have closed and as people now do not live near military 
bases, we have to come up with another program. But I think it ought to 
be a rational program. I think it ought to be one we look at over time. 
So I am going to vote to sustain this point of order.
  I think this bill is simply an outward and visible sign of what is 
happening in our Congress. I wish America could be awakened to it. We 
are on a spending binge that has no precedent in my period of service 
in Congress. You have to go all the way back to Lyndon Johnson to find 
spending at the level we are now talking about in the Congress. At 
first it was just discretionary spending. Now we are into entitlements. 
As we all know, these things start out small. This one didn't start 
small, but a lot of them do. But they get bigger and bigger and bigger 
and bigger.
  I appreciate my colleagues' listening. I think this is an issue such 
that you have to explain to people what you are trying to do. I think 
it is a very easy issue to say, boy, I am trying to deliver on the 
commitment in that recruiting poster. I believe in the commitment in 
the recruiting poster, but you don't deliver on it with a huge program 
that has never been tested, that was put together by people who do not 
specialize in this area of government, and where there has never been a 
debate. I think this is a mistake, and I think we are going to end up 
regretting it.
  I think we will someday come back and fix it, but we will not fix it, 
in my opinion, until we have spent a lot of money and until we have 
produced a system that--unless we are extraordinarily lucky--is not 
going to provide the kind of efficient care we need.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I say to the chairman and ranking member, 
I am not going to make any additional arguments on the specifics. I 
want to make some closing comments. I am prepared to yield back time 
and go to the vote. I don't know where they are, but I will start 
talking so they understand that is where I am.
  The Senator from Texas made an effort to establish his bona fides and 
did a very good job referencing his father, who was a career military 
officer.
  In my closing, I need to do a little subtracting in my bona fides. I 
have received the Medal of Honor, as was mentioned several times. The 
Senator from Texas said he was not there that night and does not know 
what happened. When I saw the citation, I didn't know if I was there 
that night. I didn't receive the Medal of Honor because of my heroism. 
I received it because of many men out there, heroic beyond me, who did 
not have a witness or had a witness who did not like them or could not 
write or something got lost in the food chain, as some of these 
sometimes do. I am a recipient for others, and I do not say that in any 
sense of false modesty at all. I say it sincerely and genuinely.
  I understand Reserve officers, which I am, and career officers are 
substantially different. I praise the chairman and the ranking member 
of the Armed Services Committee and all the members of the Armed 
Services Committee, some of whom already spoke, for their efforts to 
make certain we take care of the men and women who volunteer and say: I 
will make a life career. I do not want anything I said previously to 
subtract from the enormous respect and admiration I have for them. 
Indeed, many times I have been moved to tears to see the risks the men 
and women who wear the uniform of the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine 
Corps, and Coast Guard take for all of us, and we have a painful 
example of it today in sailors who are trying to keep an embargo in 
place on Iraq.
  We started that embargo many years ago, and we take it for granted. 
All of a sudden, we have 5 dead, 10 missing, and another 30 or so who 
are injured executing a mission. My guess is many of those people in 
question are lifers, as we call them, people who have made a life 
commitment.
  I appreciate very much the chairman making an effort. It may be he is 
right, that he has a provision here that ought to be done. I tried to 
argue as to why I think it goes beyond. He is the chairman of this 
committee. Senator Levin spent a lot of time on it. I supported them 
almost every time in the past when they tried to get benefits in line 
with what we need in order to recruit and retain. I do not want 
anything I said previous to this to be interpreted by anybody either on 
this floor or out in America that I have any disrespect at all for the 
commitment that men and women make when they say: I will make a life 
career.
  Again, I will use the observation of the Senator from Texas that you 
can support this provision and still say at some point you have to say 
no. We all understand that. We are asked to spend the taxpayers' money 
on many things, and you need a method by which at some point you say 
no. You can't say yes to everything. There are a lot of things I would 
like to spend money on, but there is a limit, and you have to figure 
out what that limit is.

[[Page S10373]]

  For years we had a Budget Act. For years we had budget caps. The 
Senator from New Mexico is right. It used to be, not that long ago, 
when you came down to the floor and there was a motion to waive the 
Budget Act, that was a tough vote. It was tough to waive the Budget 
Act. All of a sudden, it is not anymore. It used to be a mechanism that 
enabled us to have the fiscal discipline.
  I am proud of many things in which I had the opportunity to 
participate. One of them is the opportunity to help get rid of the 
fiscal deficit over the last 12 years. The only way that was possible 
was for us to have a mechanism by which we could look at a friend, look 
somebody in the eye who deserves to have more spending, and say: No, I 
just can't do it.
  At this moment, we are poised to spend far beyond what we intended 
when this year started. I hope colleagues will vote against the motion 
to waive the Budget Act and send this bill back to conference and say 
to the House Members: We cannot get it in because we have to say no, 
and we have to reassert the fiscal discipline that got us to where we 
are today.
  Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back my time.
  Mr. WARNER. I think we are all prepared to yield back time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. I yield back my time as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the conference report on the National 
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001 contains direct spending 
that far exceeds the Armed Services Committee's allocation of mandatory 
spending under the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, this conference report 
would increase mandatory spending by over $19 billion over the next 5 
years, and by $61 billion over the next 10 years.
  Most of this increased spending is for the new ``Medigap'' 
entitlement for Medicare-eligible military retirees. This new benefit 
would add $18.7 billion in new direct spending over the next 5 years, 
and $59.9 billion in new direct spending over the next 10 years. This 
year's congressional budget resolution established a $400 million 
reserve fund for mandatory spending on military health care benefits 
over the next 5 years; the mandatory spending on health care in this 
conference report would exceed that allowance by $18.3 billion.
  The net cost to the federal budget is somewhat less, because current, 
discretionary spending must be subtracted out. While the net cost to 
the federal budget--that is, the amount of the projected future 
surpluses that these health care benefits would consume--is somewhat 
smaller, it is still a very substantial amount of money. The health 
care provisions in this conference report, when both the mandatory and 
discretionary components are added together and the costs that are 
moved from one category to another are netted out, would require $14 
billion of new spending over the next 5 years and $40 billion of new 
spending over the next 10 years. That is a lot of money.
  This new spending was not contemplated in this year's congressional 
budget resolution. When Congress enacted the budget resolution earlier 
this year, we provided only $400 million for new military health care 
benefits over the next 5 years. So this conference report contains over 
$13.6 billion over the amount of direct spending on health care that 
was approved in the budget resolution.
  I support the new medical benefits provided by this conference 
report. I support them because I believe that it is incumbent upon the 
Congress to answer the call of Secretary Cohen and the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff to address shortcomings in the health care that we provide for 
our military personnel, military retirees, and their families. The 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Henry Shelton, told the 
Armed Services Committee earlier this year.

       For years our recruiters have promised health care for life 
     for career members and their families. As we all know, that 
     is not what they receive. . . . Keeping our promise of 
     ensuring quality health care for military retirees is not 
     only the right thing to do, it also is a pragmatic decision 
     because it sends a strong signal signal to all those 
     considering a career in uniform.

  General Shelton went on to point out that we have actual recruiting 
posters that specifically state that military members and their 
families would receive health care for life. That, he said, is 
``basically what we committed to at the time they were recruited to the 
armed forces.''
  Last year, we enacted pay and retirement reform provisions to send a 
strong message that we recognize the demands that we place on our men 
and women in uniform, the circumstances in which they must live and 
work, and the fact that we often pay them less, and expect them to do 
far more, than employes in the private sector. The health care 
provisions in this year's bill should send an equally strong message, 
and will hopefully have an equally strong positive impact on military 
recruitment and retention.
  I believe that providing these health care benefits is the right 
thing to do, and that we should use the waiver open to us to provide 
them. At the same time, however, Senator Kerrey has done the right 
thing in raising a point of order relative to these provisions under 
the Budget Act. We have the responsibility, if we are going to spend 
tens of billions of dollars on a new benefit, to do so openly and in 
accordance with our budget rules. Those rules allow us to exceed the 
spending limits we set for ourselves should we deem it wise and prudent 
to do so.

  We do so by voting to waive the Budget Act. That is our way of 
standing up openly and acknowledging what we are doing, acknowledging 
that we are about to use some of our surplus for a benefit that was not 
included in the fiscal plan the Congress adopted in April. We owe it to 
ourselves and our constituents to be willing to stand up and say either 
we think this is a good idea worth doing and we should waive the Budget 
Act, or to say we shouldn't be doing this and voting not to waive it.
  There is one other significant new entitlement in this conference 
report and that is the compensation program for contract and federal 
employees of the Department of Energy who became ill due to their 
exposure to radiation, beryllium, or other hazardous materials while 
working to build our nuclear weapons. While much less expensive than 
the health care benefit, this compensation program also entails direct 
spending of $1.1 billion over 5 years, and $1.6 billion over 10 years, 
that was not provided for in the Budget Resolution. As with the health 
coverage for our military retirees, I think this is the right thing to 
do, but we have to be willing to waive the Budget Act to do it.
  Either this bill is wrong, or the congressional budget resolution was 
wrong in the limitations that it placed on Federal spending. In my 
view, the problem is not with this bill, but with the budget resolution 
itself, which was never realistic in the amount of money that it 
provided for this and other purposes. I believe that the American 
people would want us to provide improved access to health care and a 
comprehensive pharmacy benefit for military retirees--and that they 
would want us to take similar action on behalf of other retirees.
  Others may disagree, but we cannot have it both ways. We cannot say 
that we support the strict spending limits in the congressional budget 
resolution and that we also support the new entitlement programs in 
this conference report, which would violate those spending limits. The 
two are inconsistent, and we must make a choice. That is what this vote 
is about.
  I commend Senator Kerrey for raising a point of order under the 
Budget Act. For the reasons that I have stated, I will vote to waive 
the point of order and allow this conference report--and the new 
benefits that it includes--to become law.
  I again quote from the testimony of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff when he told us earlier this year:

       For years our recruiters promised health care for life for 
     career members and their families. As we all know, that is 
     not what they receive. . . . Keeping our promise of ensuring 
     quality health care for military retirees is not only the 
     right thing to do, it also is a pragmatic decision because it 
     sends a strong signal to all those considering a career in 
     uniform.

  Last year, we increased the retirement benefit to where it previously 
had

[[Page S10374]]

been 10 years before when we said it would be 50 percent of your base 
pay when you retire, rather than the 40 percent which it had been 
reduced to 15 years ago. We did not make that subject to people's 
earnings. There is no earnings test. That was an entitlement. It was a 
retirement benefit. It was a recruiting aid. It was a retention aid. So 
is this.
  Most important, it is keeping a commitment which has been made to the 
people who joined the service. I know very well Senator Kerrey did not 
join for that purpose. Indeed, many do not join for that purpose. But 
the expert recruiters and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs tell us this 
is a very important recruiting and retention tool, No. 1. No. 2, it 
keeps a commitment which has been made, and when the Government makes 
that commitment, we should keep it. Whether or not the private company 
keeps it or not, we may not have any control over it. Senator Kerrey 
raised the question of what happens if a private company breaks a 
commitment. That is very different from when we, the people, make a 
commitment to our men and women in the military.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the Senator is right. Let's move forward 
and vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, all Senators recognize that we are drawing 
to a conclusion this session of Congress. We have had an excellent 
debate. I urge Senators to support my motion to waive. Were this to 
fail and the Budget Act is not waived, the entire Defense authorization 
conference report will fail. Conferees will have to be appointed for a 
new conference. The Senate will appoint conferees and send the bill 
back to the House. The House will appoint conferees and a new 
conference will have to be convened. A new conference report will then 
have to be passed by both the House and the Senate. We will have 
opportunities next year to readdress this problem.
  I close by saying, with all due respect to my dear friend from 
Nebraska, this is the living proof which says for the rest of your 
life, if you serve a minimum of 20 years active Federal service, you 
earn your retirement. That is a commitment that has been made by this 
Nation since World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and continues to be made 
today. Now it is the obligation of the Senate to confirm the 
credibility of this country and to give to these people what they have 
earned rightly.
  I yield back my time. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have been ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to waive the Budget Act. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Grams), 
the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), and the Senator from 
Arizona (Mr. McCain) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Feinstein), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator 
from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Torricelli) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``aye.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 84, nays 9, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 274 Leg.]

                                YEAS--84

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

                                NAYS--9

     Bryan
     Domenici
     Feingold
     Graham
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Kerrey
     Mack
     Nickles

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Feinstein
     Grams
     Helms
     Kennedy
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Torricelli
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 84, the nays are 9. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to table was agreed to.


                              Navy HRSC's

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I wish to enter into a colloquy with 
Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine and Senator John Warner of Virginia, two 
of my colleagues on the Senate Committee on Armed Services, to clarify 
a provision concerning a U.S. Navy Benefits Center as referenced in 
Senate Report 106-292 which accompanies S. 2549.
  As my colleagues are aware, the Department of the Navy's Human 
Resources Service Centers, HRSCs, located in eight geographical 
locations worldwide, serve as the regional Human Resources Management, 
HRM, processing centers for activities and Human Resources Offices in 
its service area. The HRSCs also provide various centralized HRM 
programs and services.
  S. 2549, the Fiscal Year 2001 National Defense Authorization Act, 
authorizes $3.0 million for a contractor-supported national employee 
benefits call center located in Cutler, Maine. According to Senate 
Report 106-292, this center is to provide a full range of benefit and 
entitlement information and assistance to civilian employees of the 
Department of the Navy. The report notes that the call center would 
replace eight separate Human Resources Service Centers now in operation 
throughout the country.
  Based on conversations with the Department of the Navy, it is my 
understanding that these HRSCs are not to be replaced by the new center 
to be established in Cutler, Maine. Instead, the new Navy Benefits 
Center will complement the services performed by the eight HRSCs.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senate understands these HRSCs are not to be replaced 
by the new benefits center to be established in Cutler, Maine. Instead, 
the new Navy Benefits Center will complement the services performed by 
the eight HRSCs. The conferences believe that the new U.S. Navy 
Benefits Center will add a new capability which supplements the 
resources inherent in the existing HRSCs. That is, the new center will 
not replace the eight existing Navy HRSCs but will enhance efforts to 
provide information to civilian employees of the Navy.
  I also want to bring to the attention of my colleagues that there is 
an error in the Conference Report tables. Three million dollars for 
this initiative should have been authorized to match the appropriations 
provided in the fiscal year 2001 DoD Appropriations Conference Report. 
I have been in contact with the Chief of Naval Operations this 
afternoon. I have his assurance that the Navy will execute this program 
as we intended.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished Chairman 
of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, for his support of 
this initiative. I agree with him and my colleague, Senator Santorum, 
and they are correct in their understanding of the intent of this 
authorization and the benefits center itself.
  Cutler has a history of admirable and noteworthy support of the U.S. 
Navy. For nearly 40 years, the United States Navy's Computer and 
Telecommunications Station resided in Cutler and set standards for 
excellence in performing its vital national security mission. The 
civilian men and women of Cutler who contributed so much to this 
success personify Maine's celebrated work ethic.
  Now, the residents of Cutler eagerly await the establishment of the 
new

[[Page S10375]]

benefits center and will once again showcase their loyalty, work ethic 
and stalwart support for the United States Navy.


                            specified cancer

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to clarify 
the definition of ``specified cancer'' as defined by this provision 
with my colleague from Ohio. When we drafted this definition, we 
intended to cover cancers that were likely to be caused by exposure to 
radiation, isn't that correct?
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes, we did intend to cover radiogenic cancers. The 
definition of specified cancer includes those cancers covered by the 
Radiation Exposure Compensation Act and Bone cancer. According to the 
medical text ``Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention'' by Doctors 
Schottenfeld and Fraumeni, cancers of the bone include cancers of the 
cartilage, including radiosensitive cancers that originate in cartilage 
such as chondrosarcoma.
  Mr. DeWINE. I would also like to add that both the Senate Health, 
Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and the Government Affairs 
Committee have heard testimony from the Department of Energy on worker 
exposure to ionizing radiation at the Portsmouth uranium enrichment 
plant in Portsmouth, Ohio, and we became aware that chondrosarcoma has 
afflicted some in the workforce. The chapter on bone cancer in the 
Schottenfeld and Fraumeni medical text should provide helpful guidance 
as the Administration implements this proposal. I ask for unanimous 
consent to include a portion of that text for the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention

(Edited by David Schottenfeld, M.D., and Joseph F. Fraumeni, Jr., M.D.)

                              Bone Cancer

   (By Robert W. Miller, John D. Boice, Jr., and Rochelle E. Curtis)

       Cancers that arise from bone or cartilage account for about 
     0.5% of all malignant neoplasms in the human. As with other 
     neoplasms, much more research has been devoted to diagnosis 
     and therapy than to causation. This chapter reviews the 
     epidemiologic observations on bone cancer that have provided 
     clues to its origins.


                      demographic characteristics

       Descriptive studies in the past have been handicapped by 
     the use of a single code number in the International 
     Classification of Diseases, which groups all cell types of 
     bone cancer. The three main subtypes are osteosarcoma, which 
     arises most often from the growing ends of long bones; 
     chondrosarcoma, which develops in cartilage; and Ewing's 
     sarcoma, which according to recent evidence may arise from 
     primitive nervous tissue (Cavazzana et al, 1987; Ewing's 
     Tumour Workshop, 1990; Horowitz et al, 1993), most commonly 
     in the shafts of the axial skeleton.
       The cell types should be studied separately, because they 
     have marked demographic differences that are of etiologic 
     significance. Histologic diagnoses are thus required, as from 
     population-based cancer registries. Of particular value in 
     this regard are data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and 
     End-Results (SEER) Program of the National Cancer Institute 
     (Percy et al, 1995), which has covered about 10% of the U.S. 
     population since 1973. Ninety-five percent of bone cancers 
     were histologically confirmed. The geographic areas covered 
     and distribution by cell type are shown in Table 44-1.
       Of the 1961 cases among whites and 163 among blacks 
     registered in the SEER Program from 1973 through 1985, 
     osteosarcoma was reported in 36%, chondrosarcoma in 26%, and 
     Ewing's sarcoma in 16%. Age-adjusted rates by histologic type 
     are presented in Figure 44-1 (charts are not reproducible in 
     the Record.)
     Age, Sex, and Race-Specific Incidence
       Osteosarcoma has a bimodal age distribution, with peaks in 
     adolescence and late in life (Fig. 44-2). It is rare early in 
     life, but the rate increases rapidly in late childhood. In 
     1950-1959, before improved therapy increased survival, 
     mortality and incidence rates were similar. There were enough 
     deaths in the United States during this ten-year interval to 
     allow study of the distribution by single year of age (Fig. 
     44-3). At age 13 the rate for males rose higher than that for 
     females, and remained elevated for a longer time, suggesting 
     that bone cancer is related to the adolescent growth spurt. 
     (Price, 1958; Fraumeni, 1967; Glass and Fraumeni, 1970).
       Chondrosarcoma is rare in childhood and rises with 
     advancing age, for unknown reasons (Young et al, 1990). The 
     age distribution of Ewing's sarcoma resembles that of 
     osetosarcoma early in life, but rarely develops over 35 years 
     of age (Fig. 44-2). Apparently, malignant change of the 
     primitive tissue from which it arises does not occur later in 
     life.
       There is a male predominance of each major form of bone 
     cancer among whites and blacks (Fig. 44-1). The two races 
     have similar incidence rates for childhood osteosarcoma, but 
     blacks have almost no cases of Ewing's sarcoma, either in the 
     United States (Figs. 44-1 and 44-1) or Africa (Parkin et al, 
     1988). Rates of Ewing's sarcoma are also low among Asians, 
     but less so than in blacks. A possible explanation for these 
     racial differences is that a gene for osteosarcoma is equally 
     mutable among the various races, but that for Ewing's sarcoma 
     resists mutation in blacks and Asians.
       Table 44-1 shows an absence of chordoma, when about 10 
     cases were expected if blacks had 12% of the total, as they 
     did for osteosarcoma. Among blacks there is also a rarity of 
     giant cell and blood-vessel tumors. These racial differences 
     have not previously been recognized, and need further 
     investigation.

    TABLE 44-1.--NUMBER OF PATIENTS WITH PRIMARY BONE CANCER AMONG WHITES AND BLACKS ACCORDING TO HISTOLOGIC TYPE, SEER CANCER REGISTRIES a, 1973-85
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Number of Cases
                                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Histology                                           Whites                                        Blacks
                                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   M            F           Total          M            F          Total     Percent \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Osteosarcoma................................................          379          287          666            51           42           93         12.3
Chondrosarcoma..............................................          295          248          543            18           14           32          5.6
Ewing's sarcoma.............................................          218          121          339             2            3            5          1.5
Chordoma....................................................           55           31           86             0            0            0  ...........
Fibrous histiocytoma b......................................           35           21           56             1            4            5          8.2
Fibrosarcoma................................................           27           26           53             2            5            7         11.7
Sarcoma, NOS................................................           26           19           45             3            1            4          8.2
Giant cell tumor............................................           22           22           44             0            1            1          2.2
Blood vessel tumors.........................................           15           19           34             0            1            1          2.9
Odontogenic tumors b........................................           12           14           26             4            1            5         16.1
Other types.................................................           11           16           27             2            2            4         12.9
Malignant neoplasm, NOS.....................................           24           18           42             1            5            6         12.5
                                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.................................................        1,119          842        1,961            84           79          163        100.0
                                                             ===========================================================================================
Percent histologically confirmed............................  ...........  ...........           95   ...........           95  ...........  ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a SEER areas include the states of Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, New Mexico, Utah and the metropolitan areas of Detroit, Atlanta (1975-1985), Seattle (1974-
  1985), and San Francisco-Oakland.
b Includes morphology categories in use since only 1977.
c For a given subtype, % that were Black; e.g., osteosarcoma = 93/(666+93) 100 =12.3%.

       Table 44-2 summarizes SEER data concerning the distribution 
     of the seven main bone cancers among whites with respect to 
     age, sex, and anatomic site. It shows that osteosarcoma most 
     often arises from long bones of the lower limbs, whereas 
     chondrosarcoma and Ewing's sarcoma most often arise from flat 
     bones. Chordoma, presumbly arising from remnants of the 
     embryologic notochord, is a tumor of the flat bones of the 
     trunk and head, and of the lower limbs. The lower limbs are 
     the principal sites for fibrosarcoma, giant cell tumors, and 
     malignant fibrous histiocytoma, which has recently gained 
     attention as a clinical entity, especially as a complication 
     of Paget's disease.
     Geographic Variation
       Little geographic variation is seen worldwide in the 
     incidence of bone cancer, all forms combined (Muir et al., 
     1987). Incidence rates that differ by more than 2-fold are 
     rare in the few populations of sufficient size to ensure 
     stable estimates. No clues to etiology are apparent from 
     international comparisons of age-adjusted rates. With few 
     exceptions, rates are higher among males than females, with 
     ranges of 0.8 to 1.6 and 0.6 to 1.2 per 100,000, 
     respectively.
     Time Trends in Mortality and Incidence
       Mortality rates for bone cancer, all forms combined, in the 
     United States (Fig. 44-5) and other countries have declined 
     steadily from the 1950s to the mid-1980s, largely 
     attributable to improved diagnosis and treatment (Pickle et 
     al, 1987; Miller and McKay, 1984; Decarli et al, 1987; La 
     Vecchia and

[[Page S10376]]

     Decarli, 1988; Ericsson et al, 1978). Using SEER incidence 
     data, Hoover et al (1991) found that between 1973-1980 and 
     1981-1987 there was an unexplained increase in the annual 
     incidence rates of osteosarcoma in males under 20 years of 
     age, from 3.6 to 5.5 cases per million people. Among females 
     the corresponding annual rates were 3.8 and 3.7 cases per 
     million.
       Figures 44-6 and 44-7 show survival rates for the three 
     main cell types for males and females, respectively (SEER 
     data, 1980-1989, all races combined). Survival was by far the 
     best for chondrosarcoma, and, for all 3 cell types, was 
     substantially better in females than in males.


                         environmental factors

     Radiation
       Ionizing radiation is one of the few environmental agents 
     known to induce certain bone cancers, particularly 
     osteosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, and fibrosarcoma. In 1935, 
     Maryland linked bone cancer to occupational exposure to 
     radium. In subsequent studies (see Table 44-3) an excess risk 
     of bone cancer was found following brief exposure to high-
     dose radiation therapy (Robinson et al, 1988) and following 
     continuous exposure to internally deposited radionuclides 
     injected to treat bone disease or to provide a contrast 
     medium in diagnostic radiography (Mays, 1988). Investigations 
     of radiogenic bone cancer have enabled researchers to develop 
     an elegant theory of the induction of osteosarcoma (Marshall 
     and Groer, 1977); models in which genetic-environmental 
     interactions can be evaluated (Knudson, 1985); and guidelines 
     for protecting against the effects of internally deposited 
     radionuclides, especially plutonium (Healy, 1975).


                       secrecy and worker health

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would ask the distinguished Chairman and 
Ranking Member to engage in a brief colloquy on section 1078 of the 
Department of Defense Authorization Conference Report regarding secrecy 
and worker health. This originally passed the Senate as an amendment I 
sponsored that was agreed to by all parties. The amendment referred to 
workers at former nuclear weapons facilities. The provision in the 
conference report was rewritten, and now defines these workers to be 
``employees and former employees of the Department of Defense'' at 
defense nuclear weapons facilities. However, at least one such 
facility, the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant, is owned by the Defense 
Department but operated by a contractor. Thus virtually all employees 
at the facility were and are employees of the contractor and not 
directly of the Department of Defense. Is it the understanding of my 
colleagues that this provision is intended to refer to all employees at 
such facilities, including those employed directly by the Department of 
Defense and indirectly through contractors?
  Mr. LEVIN. Yes, you are correct. As indicated in the report language, 
the conferees are concerned about all employees affected by the defense 
Department policies, and we intended this provision to cover all 
affected employees at the Iowa facility and similar facilities. We will 
join with you to make sure the Defense Department implements this 
provision according to these intentions.
  Mr. WARNER. I agree with Senator Harkin and the distinguished ranking 
member, and I too am committed to ensuring the Defense Department 
implements this provision to protect all workers including those of 
contractors.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have strong reservations about the 
fiscal year 2001 Defense Authorization Conference Report that is before 
the Senate today. The concerns I have are the same that led me to vote 
against the Defense Authorization bill when it was before the Senate 
earlier this year.
  This conference report would increase Defense spending by more than 
$20 billion over last year's authorized level. It is $4.6 billion over 
the President's request. I am particularly troubled that most of this 
$4.6 billion increase is for weapons systems that were not requested by 
the Department of Defense.
  While I support many provisions of this bill, including a 3.7 percent 
pay raise for military personnel and additional pay for troops on food 
stamps, I strongly believe that military spending is increasing at a 
rate beyond what is necessary to meet our security needs.
  Today, however, our military has been attacked--presumably by those 
who believe that acts of terrorism might somehow deter the United 
States from defending our interests of promoting peace and security 
throughout the world.
  At this time, it is important to vote for this bill to send a signal 
to the rest of the world that America stands united in the face of such 
threats and supports the men and women who so bravely serve this 
Nation.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Conference Report 
for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 
includes a program that I championed in the Senate during its 
consideration of this bill, along with Senator Thompson and others. 
This program 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 new program was a joint effort of a bipartisan group of Senators 
and House Members. I would like to knowledge the hard work by my staff 
and by the staff for Senator Fred Thompson, Senator George Voinovich, 
Senator Mike DeWine, Senator Mitch McConnell, and Senator Ted Kennedy. 
We worked with the Administration, with worker groups, with 
manufacturers, and with staff from the House of Representatives.
  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 program 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 help 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.
  Along with the workers who are covered by the compensation program 
being created by this legislation, we are reaching back to the uranium 
miners and millers who were compensated under the Radiation Exposure 
Compensation Act, or RECA, and providing them with a similar benefit of 
a total of $150,000 and ongoing medical care. I think that this is only 
a matter of simple justice, and I strongly supported its inclusion in 
the current legislation. Early in this Congress, I introduced 
legislation that would have provided $200,000 in compensation for the 
uranium miners and millers--the same financial payment that was 
initially proposed for the DOE workers in this legislation. I am glad 
that the final result is a better deal for the persons being 
compensated under RECA, as well as the persons being compensated under 
this new program.
  For the workers who 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. For purposes of helping in the implementation of 
this legislation, I would like to ask unanimous consent that a non-
exclusive list of the DOE-related facilities intended to be covered 
under this amendment be printed in the Record following my statement.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  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 worker's 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 a lump-sum payment of $150,000 for workers who suffer disability or 
death from chronic beryllium disease.

[[Page S10377]]

  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.
  The original legislative proposal passed by the Senate put 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 was envisioned that the National Institute 
for Occupational Safety and Health, or NIOSH, take the lead for the 
tasks assigned by this legislation. This assignment followed 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. While in the final legislative 
text, the President was assigned these responsibilities, I think it is 
clearly the intent of the Senate proponents that he delegate these 
authorities as laid out in the original Senate amendment.
  HHS was also given a Congressional mandate, in the Orphan Drug Act, 
to develop and publish radioepidemiological 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 Senate proponents envision these guidelines being used be included 
as an exhibit at the end of my remarks.
  (See Exhibit 2.)
  Under guidelines that would be developed and used under this 
legislation, if your radiation dose 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 the 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 the President (or his designee) 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 provides for a lump-sum payment, 
combined with ongoing medical coverage under language identical to that 
used to provide medical coverage under the Federal Employee's 
Compensation Act, or FECA, in section 8103 of title 5, United States 
Code. Since Congress has consciously mirrored FECA for one important 
part of this new program, I hope that the Administration, in 
implementing our legislation, looks to FECA as a precedent for 
establishing other parameters for this program.
  The legislation before us also invites the Administration to submit 
further legislative proposals to help implement this new program. In my 
view, it was not a good policy call for Congress to enact this program 
without more direction on the details of how it should operate, as was 
the case in the original legislative proposal passed by the Senate. I 
believe that the flexibility that the Congress has provided to the 
Executive Branch should be used to the fullest extent by the President 
to put the necessary implementing framework in place by Executive 
Order. If there are changes needed to the law that we have passed, they 
should be sent up by the President forthwith. But I do not have much 
confidence that Congress will be able to enact additional legislation 
on this program before the deadline date of July 31, 2001.
  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 congratulate my colleagues on 
having achieved a successful result from our initial 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

[[Page S10378]]

     ionizing radiation. Given that a radiogenic cancer cannot be 
     differentiated from a ``spontaneously'' occurring one or one 
     caused by other dietary, environmental and/or life-style 
     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, 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 you 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 99% 
     confidence interval of 0.21 to 0.55. This means that it is 
     38% likely that this worker's cancer was caused by this 
     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. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, as chairman of the Personnel 
Subcommittee I worked hard this year, along with Senator Max Cleland, 
our ranking member, to develop a defense authorization bill that is 
responsive to the manpower readiness needs of the military services; 
supports numerous quality of life improvements for our service men and 
women, their families and the retiree community; and addresses in a 
comprehensive manner, the health care needs of military retirees.
  The subcommittee focused on the challenges of recruiting and 
retention during each of our hearings this year, including the health 
care hearing. The important legislation contained in this bill will 
have a positive impact on both recruiting and retention as those who 
might serve and those who are serving see our commitment to provide the 
health care benefits promised to those who serve a full military 
career. I am proud of this bill and I believe the initiatives it 
contains will result in improved recruiting and retention within the 
military services.
  The most vigorously pursued and most prized provisions in our bill 
will extend TRICARE, the military health care system, to all military 
retirees without regard to their age. We have eliminated the statutory 
language that kicked military retirees out of the military medical 
system when they became eligible for Medicare--just at the time of 
their lives when these retirees need medical help the most and can 
afford it the least.
  We were fortunate during conference to be able to include a permanent 
funding mechanism for the retiree health care benefit. This funding 
mechanism will ensure that the important health care benefit will be 
financed in perpetuity rather than being subject to annual budget 
exigencies. I am delighted that we have stepped up to fulfill the 
commitment to those who served our nation over a full career.
  Of course, health care is not the only issue on which the Personnel 
Subcommittee focused this year. In the area of military personnel 
policy, there are a number of recommendations intended to support 
recruiting, retention and personnel management of the services.
  Among the most noteworthy, is a provision that would, effective July 
1, 2002, require high schools to provide military recruiters the same 
access to a high school campus, student lists and directory information 
as is provided to colleges, universities and private sector employers, 
unless the governing body--school board--decides by majority vote to 
deny military recruiters access to the high school.
  When I asked military recruiters what I could do to assist them in 
meeting the challenges they face recruiting the best young men and 
women in America, they asked me to help them get access to high schools 
on the same basis as the colleges and universities.
  Other initiatives to support recruiting are: a pilot program in which 
the Army could use motor sports to promote recruiting; implement a 
program of recruiting in conjunction with vocational schools and 
community colleges; and a pilot program using contract personnel to 
supplement active recruiters.
  This conference report authorizes the expansion of Junior ROTC 
programs. We have added $13.5 million to expand the JROTC programs. 
When combined with the funds in the budget request, this add will 
maximize the services' ability to expand JROTC during fiscal year 
20001. I am proud to be able to support these important programs that 
teach responsibility, leadership, ethics and assist in military 
recruiting.
  In military compensation, our major recommendations include a 3.7 
percent pay raise for military personnel and a revision of the Basic 
Allowance for Housing to permit the Secretary of Defense to pay 100 
percent of the average local housing costs and to ensure that housing 
allowance rates are not reduced while permitting increases as local 
housing costs dictate.
  The bill directs the Secretary of Defense to implement the Thrift 
Savings Plan for active and reserve forces not later than 180 days 
after enactment. The Thrift Savings Plan will be a very positive 
recruiting and retention tool assisting the military services in 
attracting high-qualified personnel and encouraging them to remain 
until retirement.
  We included a provision that will dramatically reduce the number of 
military personnel eligible to receive food stamps. Under this 
provision, military personnel determined by the Secretary of Defense to 
be eligible for food stamps would receive an additional special pay 
sufficient to raise their income level to where they would no longer 
need food stamps. This special pay will reduce the number of military 
personnel eligible to receive food stamps from the current DOD estimate 
of about 5,000 to less than 2,000. No United States military personnel 
should be forced to use food stamps to feed his or her family. When you 
combine the food stamp assistance in this bill with the increased pay 
raises we have directed over the next 5 years, we should practically 
eliminate the need for any service member to seek assistance from food 
stamps.
  We also modified the basic pay tables for non-commissioned officers 
effective July 1, 20001 to give these deserving leaders a well deserved 
pay raise. When we adjusted the basic pay tables for all military 
personnel last year, we discovered that the non-commissioned officers--
the key element in our military units--did not receive an equitable pay 
raise with the officers. We were able to correct that situation this 
year.
  Other health care provisions include: the elimination of co-payments 
for those active duty family members enrolled in TRICARE Prime; an 
initiative that would provide recipients of the Medal of Honor, and 
their families, life-time military health care; and a provision that 
would direct the Secretary of Defense to implement a patient care 
reporting and management system to reduce medical errors.
  Mr. President, I am proud of this bill. It will provide the resources 
and authority the military services need to maximize their readiness 
and to improve the quality of life for active and retired military 
personnel and their families.
  Before I conclude, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the 
hardworking staff members of the Personnel Subcommittee: Charlie Abell, 
Patti Lewis, and Michele Traficante. I am proud of the work they have 
done this year, and every man and women who wears our nation's uniform, 
and every military retiree, is better off today because of their 
efforts. I thank you.
  I will vote for the bill and I urge my colleagues to support the bill 
as well.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will once again oppose the Department 
of Defense authorization bill, as I have done each year I have been a 
Member of this body.
  As I stated earlier this year when the Senate passed the fiscal year 
2001 Department of Defense appropriations bill, my opposition to this 
conference

[[Page S10379]]

report should not be interpreted as a lack of support for our men and 
women in uniform. Rather, what I cannot support is the cold war 
mentality that continues to permeate the United States defense 
establishment.
  I strongly support our Armed Forces and the excellent work they are 
doing to combat the new threats of the 21st century and beyond. 
However, I am concerned that we are not giving our forces the tools 
they need to combat these emerging threats. Instead, this conference 
report, like the corresponding defense appropriations bill that has 
already been enacted, clings to the strategies and weapons that we used 
to fight--and win--the cold war.
  The cold war is over. It is past time that we undertake a 
comprehensive review of the threats currently facing the United States 
and formulate a strategy on how best to combat them before we continue 
to commit billions of dollars to programs that were created to fight an 
enemy that no longer exists.
  As we reexamine our defense priorities, we should assess the changing 
roles and missions of both our active duty and our reserve components. 
The National Guard and Reserve are integral parts of overseas missions, 
with recent and ongoing missions in places including Iraq and the 
Balkans. According to statements by Department of Defense officials, 
Guardsmen and Reservists will continue to play an increasingly 
important role in our national defense strategy as they are called upon 
to shoulder more of the burden of military operations both at home and 
abroad. The National Guard and Reserves deserve the full support they 
need to carry out their duties.
  One crucial part of that support is providing adequate compensation 
to these dedicated men and women. I am pleased that this conference 
report includes a modified version of an amendment I offered during 
Senate consideration of this bill which authorizes special duty 
assignment pay for members of the National Guard and Reserve not on 
active duty. This provision will provide a measure of pay equity to 
National Guard and Reserve personnel by making them eligible for 
special duty assignment pay for special duties performed during drill 
periods.
  The men and women who serve in the Guard and Reserves are 
cornerstones of our national defense and domestic infrastructure, and 
they deserve to be adequately and equitably compensated for their 
dedicated service to this country. This provision is a step in that 
direction. I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee 
on Armed Services for their cooperation and support on this important 
issue.
  On another matter, I am also delighted that this bill permanently 
extends the authority of the General Services Administration, GSA, to 
convey surplus property to local governments for law enforcement 
purposes. This provision builds on an amendment I offered when this 
measure was before the Senate, and I am pleased that the conferees have 
retained the language and expanded its scope. This section will help a 
number of communities across the country seeking to use surplus 
property to protect their citizens and provide safe, secure facilities 
for their police departments. Without this amendment, the authority to 
convey surplus property for law enforcement purposes would have expired 
this year. Communities that want to use the GSA process, and have 
counted upon doing so, to negotiate the use of property for law 
enforcement purposes at a reduced cost would have been shut out.
  In fact, I have just such a situation in my own home State. The city 
of Kewaunee, WI wants to acquire the city's Army Reserve Center, which 
is a former Federal armory building. The city intends to use the 
property as a municipal building in which they would house their police 
force and other municipal offices.
  Congress has specified a number of public purpose uses for which 
property can be transferred to local governments at a reduced cost. The 
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, FPASA, allows 
property to be transferred to public agencies and institutions at 
discounts of up to 100 percent of fair market value for a number of 
purposes: public health or educational uses, public parks or 
recreational areas, historic monuments, homeless assistance, 
correctional institutions, port facilities, public airports, wildlife 
conservation, and self-help housing. This type of transfer is called a 
public interest conveyance.
  I strongly believe that law enforcement is an important public 
purpose for which surplus property should be used. Moreover, in 
fairness to local communities with tight budgets, Congress today is 
acting to permanently preserve this option for communities that are 
counting on being able to use this authority.
  Mr. President, I again thank the bill's managers, the Senior Senator 
from Virginia [Mr. Warner] and the Senior Senator from Michigan [Mr. 
Levin], as well as the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Thompson], for 
assisting me in ensuring this provision becomes law.
  In closing, I reiterate my concern about the excessive spending 
contained in this conference report, including millions in taxpayers' 
dollars for planes, ships, and other equipment that the President did 
not request.
  We should reexamine our defense priorities, and we should do it as 
soon as possible.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I want to express my support for the 
Defense Authorization conference report and to thank the Chairman of 
the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, and the Ranking Member, 
Senator Levin, for their assistance in ensuring that the conference 
report includes a provision to provide compensation to Department of 
Energy nuclear weapons workers whose health was harmed in the course of 
their service to our country.
  Back in June, when the Senate first considered this measure, I 
offered an amendment along with Senator Bingaman, Senator Voinovich, 
Senator Kennedy, Senator DeWine and others to establish an occupational 
illness compensation program for these DOE workers who helped us win 
the Cold War. We offered the amendment after my Committee and others 
heard testimony and reviewed evidence that showed that, for decades, 
the federal government--and specifically the Department of Energy--
failed to adequately protect its workers or to properly inform them of 
hazards associated with the important work they were performing.
  In some cases, we simply did not know then what we know now about the 
links between some of the materials used to make weapons and certain 
illnesses. But in some cases, the government did know--and yet it 
covered up and kept people in the dark and failed to adequately protect 
them. We cannot go back and right that wrong. I wish we could. But we 
can face up to the mistakes that were made and begin to try to remedy 
them. That is what the Senate is about to do today.
  This conference report will establish a compensation program for 
Department of Energy and contractor employees who were exposed to 
beryllium, silica, or radiation in the course of their employment, and 
who are now suffering from illnesses that can be linked to those 
exposures. The program will employ eligibility criteria based on expert 
judgement and sound science.
  Under the compromise that was reached with the House, the President 
will be required to send to Congress by March 15th of next year a 
specific proposal detailing the level of compensation and benefits he 
believes should be paid. Congress will then have until July 31st to 
enact specific compensation levels. However, if Congress does not act 
by July 31st, a default benefit level of $150,000 plus medical benefits 
will take effect. Therefore, covered employees are guaranteed to 
receive at least that amount unless Congress enacts legislation stating 
otherwise by next July.
  I believe this is a good compromise, Mr. President. It is not 
everything that the Senate sponsors wanted, but it is a start. It will 
get a program in place, allow the Administration to begin to identify 
those who are eligible, and guarantee a minimum benefit level without 
further action by Congress. Those are important victories for these 
Cold War veterans to whom we owe a debt of gratitude. Today we 
acknowledge that debt of gratitude, as well as a responsibility to 
remedy mistakes we made.
  So again I want to thank Chairman Warner for his support of this 
important provision. It would not have been

[[Page S10380]]

included without his efforts. I also want to thank Senators Bingaman, 
Voinovich, Kennedy, DeWine, McConnell, and Bunning for working with me 
on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support the conference 
report.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to strongly support the fiscal 
year 2001 National Defense Authorization Conference Report which we are 
considering today. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee 
and the chair of the Seapower Subcommittee, I enthusiastically endorse 
this legislation, and further would like to particularly note its name 
as the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 
year 2001 in recognition of the chairman of the House Armed Services 
Committee's long and distinguished service.
  I also want to acknowledge the senior Senator from Virginia, Senator 
John Warner, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee for the 
superb leadership he has provided in support of the committee in the 
context of the entire authorization bill, and our ranking member, 
Senator Carl Levin, for all his work on this conference report and for 
his contribution to the committee and its deliberations.
  The Seapower Subcommittee addressed significant issues this year and 
we did so with the bipartisan support of the members of our 
subcommittee. I want to thank Senator Kennedy, the ranking member of 
the Seapower subcommittee, and the other subcommittee members, Senators 
John McCain, Bob Smith, Jeff Sessions, Chuck Robb, and Jack Reed, for 
their contributions and their bipartisan support of not only this 
legislation but also of the work by the subcommittee throughout this 
year.
  This conference report takes great strides toward modernizing our 
armed services, meeting their operational and maintenance funding 
requirements, and improving the quality of service for our dedicated 
and valuable men and women of the military.
  Because we recognize that the service members are our most valuable 
asset, this bill makes a solid investment in substantive healthcare 
provisions which will improve the coverage and quality of healthcare 
for our active duty military members, retirees, and their family 
members.
  Significantly, this legislation initiates a permanent program to 
provide ``healthcare for life'' to our military retirees age 65 and 
older by supplementing Medicare with TRICARE, the military's healthcare 
program. It also includes a provision, originally the Kennedy-Snowe 
amendment, which complements the ``healthcare for life'' legislation by 
expanding prescription drug coverage for all our retirees--to provide a 
comprehensive healthcare benefits program that our military retirees so 
richly deserve.
  This conference report also reflects the Seapower Subcommittee's hard 
look at Navy and Marine Corps operations and the equipment our men and 
women require to carry out those operations. And, Mr. President, what 
we have found in testimony from our operational commander is that our 
Navy and Marine Corps continues to be the nation's 9-1-1 force. Our 
sailors and marines are forward deployed, carrying out the national 
military strategy, and they continue to function at a high level of 
operations.
  In fact, between 1980 and 1989, the Navy/Marine Corps team alone 
responded to 58 contingency missions. However, between 1990 and 1999 
that number had increased to 192 contingency missions--a remarkable 
threefold increase in operations! What makes this figure even more 
astounding is that this increase in missions occurred while the number 
of ships was reduced from 500 in 1980 to the current fleet of 316 
ships.
  The subcommittee recognizes the critical and unique role that the 
Navy and Marine Corps team filled in pursuing the national military 
strategy, and worked to create a bill that would support these diverse 
missions. To that end, I am pleased that this conference report 
authorizes an increase of $749 million to the Seapower Subcommittee 
procurement programs--on top of the President's budget request of $21.6 
billion.
  Furthermore, this conference agreement includes all of the original 
Seapower Subcommittee legislative provisions I referenced during my 
June discussion of these issues on the floor of the Senate, as well as 
several positive additions which will enhance both our national 
security and the readiness of our naval forces.

  I want to highlight several capabilities and programs that we 
addressed after receiving testimony from the service chiefs and 
operational commanders and after visiting and talking with our service 
men and women.
  The Seapower conference report aggressively addresses the future of 
our nation's Navy and the importance of recapitalization of our fleet 
by authorizing the construction of eight new ships. This includes $4 
billion for a Nimitz class aircraft carrier; $2.7 billion for three 
DDG-51 Arleigh Burke class destroyers--the most advanced surface 
combatant in the world; $1.5 billion for two LPD-17 San Antonio class 
amphibious ships which will begin to reduce lifecycle costs in our 
amphibious fleet; $339 million for one ADC(X) auxiliary supply ship; 
and $1.2 billion for one Virginia class attack submarine
  It also authorizes the President's request of $357 million for the 
advance procurement of seven DDG-51 Arleigh Burke class destroyers, 
$508 million for SSN-774 Virginia class attack submarines, and $22 
million for one CVN(X) nuclear powered aircraft carrier.
  The subcommittee recognized this need to modernize the fleet and, as 
a result, invested in future ship research and development as the seed 
corn of the future Navy by approving the budget request of $38 million 
for CVN-77--the last aircraft carrier of the Nimitz class; $274 million 
for CVN(X); $207 million for the SSN-774 Virginia class attack 
submarines; and $535 million for the revolutionary DD-21 land attack 
destroyer.
  This conference report also approves the President's request for $1.1 
billion for the procurement of sixteen MV-22 Osprey Marine Corps tilt-
rotor aircraft, $2.2 billion to procure twelve C-17 aircraft, and 
$176.4 million for contained research, development, test, and 
evaluation of the C-17 strategic airlift program.
  I am pleased that $560 million of the total procurement authorization 
increase is for new ship construction and will assist the Navy in 
achieving potential savings of over $1 billion. This increase includes 
$460 million for advanced procurement of the LHD-8 amphibious assault 
ship and an increase of $100 million for advance procurement of DDC-51 
Arleigh Burke class destroyers.
  For the Navy and Marine Corps aviation communities the conference 
report authorizes an increase of $52.4 million to re-manufacture two 
additional SH-60 helicopters and a $41.8 million increase to procure 
two additional CH-60 Navy helicopters, an increase of $22 million for 
additional P-3 Anti-Surface Warfare Improvement Program Kits, and an 
increase of $17 million for modifications and night operations upgrades 
to the Marine Corps UH-1 and AH-1 helicopters.
  The conference agreement authorizes a $179.5 million increase to the 
President's budget request of $4.5 billion for the research, 
development, test, and evaluation of Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force 
programs under the jurisdiction of the Seapower Subcommittee to include 
a $12.5 million increase for an additional Advanced Amphibious Assault 
Vehicle prototype, a $20 million increase to develop advanced shipboard 
simulators for Marines embarked on amphibious ships, a $15 million 
increase for a multi-purpose acoustic processor for anti-submarine 
warfare, a $10 million increase for development of command and decision 
software to be used throughout the surface Navy to improve 
communication among commanders, and an $8.4 million increase for the 
development of a defense system to protect our surface ships from 
torpedoes.
  Mr. President, I want to emphasize that these increases were 
authorized by the Seapower Subcommittee to begin to provide much needed 
relief to the operational commanders who testified that they were being 
``stretched too thin.'' This added funding supports critical programs 
that will provide commanders with the equipment and the modernized 
systems they require to successfully and safely accomplish their 
mission.
  I say to my colleagues, this entire defense bill takes a positive 
step toward

[[Page S10381]]

modernizing our armed services, meeting their operational and 
maintenance funding requirements, and improving the quality of service 
for our committed men and women of the military. I urge my colleagues 
to vote in favor of passage of the final version of the FY 2001 
National Defense Authorization Act.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference report 
for H.R. 4205, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2001.
  The conference report contains a provision on an issue that I have 
been working on--the concurrent receipt of military retired pay and VA 
disability compensation.
  A law enacted in 1891 requires a disabled career military veteran to 
waive the amount of his retired pay equal to his VA disability 
compensation. Military retirees are the only group of federal retirees 
who must waive retirement pay in order to receive VA disability 
compensation. If a veteran refuses to give up his retired pay, he will 
lose his VA disability benefits. Our government is effectively 
requiring career military retirees to fund their own disability 
benefits. This inequitable offset affects over 437,000 military 
retirees.
  Section 666 of the Senate version of this legislation would have 
eliminated the current offset entirely. The provision was very similar 
of H.R. 303, which has 321 cosponsors in the House. The provision was 
supported by numerous veterans' service organizations, including the 
Military Coalition, the National Military/Veterans Alliance, the 
American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, the Veterans of 
Foreign Wars, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Uniformed 
Services Disabled Retirees.
  Some members were concerned that the provision was too expensive, and 
consequently, many felt that we could not include a provision to 
completely eliminate the current offset in the conference report. In my 
opinion, no amount of money can equal the sacrifice our military men 
and women have made in service to their country. This is a small price 
to pay to show our appreciation to those who have sacrificed so much 
for our great nation.
  While I am extremely disappointed that we did not take advantage of 
this opportunity to correct this long-standing inequity, I am pleased 
that the conference report does contain language that will take us one 
step closer to correcting this injustice once and for all.
  The Fiscal Year 2000 National Defense Authorization Act included a 
provision, to authorize a monthly allowance to military retirees with 
severe service-connected disabilities rated by the Department of 
Veterans Affairs at 70 percent or greater. The provision authorized 
payments of $300 per month to retirees with 100 percent disability, 
$200 per month to retirees with 90 percent disability and $100 per 
month to retirees with 70 and 80 percent disability. To be eligible, 
retirees had to have at least 20 years of service and have their VA 
disability rating within four years of their retirement. Only 
individuals retired for longevity qualified for the monthly benefit.
  The conference report for H.R. 4205 expands the eligibility for these 
special payments to those individuals retired for disability by their 
service. These individuals are also known as ``Chapter 61'' retirees. 
The payments will begin in fiscal year 2002.
  I want to thank Senator Warner and Senator Levin for their assistance 
in including this provision in the conference report. I would also like 
to acknowledge Congressman Bilirakis, who assisted as an outside 
conferee on the conference report which made it possible for us to 
debate concurrent receipt in this session of the 106th Congress. 
Congressman Bilirakis has been a vocal advocate for concurrent receipt 
in the House for over fifteen years.
  The original law is 109 years old and discriminates against service 
members who decide to make the military their careers. Military 
retirees with service-connected disabilities should be able to receive 
compensation for their injuries above their military retired pay. The 
elimination of this offset is long overdue, and I will continue to 
pursue this issue in the 107th Congress.
  I urge my colleagues to support the conference report for H.R. 4205.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am proud to serve on the 
Senate Armed Services Committee that developed the Senate version of 
the National Defense Authorization bill for fiscal year 2001. I am 
equally proud to have served as a Conferee to resolve differences 
between our bill and the one that passed the House of Representatives.
  This bill is important to our men and women who serve this Nation 
every day. As the explosion today in Yemen demonstrates, America's 
great military men and women put their lives on the line for us every 
day. That sacrifice demands our attention and our support.
  This bill is another step to help us pull the U.S. military out of 
the nosedive created by this Administration. The number of deployments 
the Clinton/Gore administration committed us to has forced the military 
to use its limited funds for operations vice maintaining our forces. 
Readiness is at an all-time low. We are cannibalizing parts of our 
forces to keep the other parts running. That is wrong. Our men and 
women in uniform deserve better. This bill is a step in the right 
direction, but we still need more. I will fight for more again next 
year.
  My colleagues on the Armed Services Committee have lauded the 
benefits of this bill, so I will not repeat them all here. However, 
several points I feel are very important to note for the American 
people.
  This bill authorizes $309.9 billion in military spending, $4.6 
billion above the President's budget request. It authorizes $63.2 
billion for procurement, $2.6 billion above the President's budget 
request. It authorizes $38.9 billion for research and development, $1.1 
billion above the President's budget request.
  This bill provides a decent pay raise--3.7 percent. It approves 
permanent comprehensive health care benefits for military retirees and 
benefits for military families. It also provides pharmacy benefits. 
When our military men and women put their lives on the line for our 
freedom, we owe them this commitment.
  This bill is a start, but we must do better. We need to expand our 
missile defense capabilities to fully leverage land, sea, air, and 
space options. Our ship-building rate is below that needed to sustain 
our aging naval force in the long term. We also need to be investing in 
space power programs. For 8 years, this Administration has ignored 
programs like the Kinetic Energy Anti-Satellite system and the military 
space plane.
  I also want to mention two important items which I fought vigorously 
for in this Bill that my colleagues have not mentioned.
  First, this bill attempts to right a grievous wrong that was 
committed over 50 years ago when Captain Charles Butler McVay III was 
tried and convicted--unjustly I believe--for the sinking of his ship, 
the U.S.S. Indianapolis, shortly before the end of the Second World 
War. This remains the greatest sea disaster in the history of the U.S. 
Navy. 880 of the 1,197 men aboard perished. Many of those who survived 
the actual sinking were left without lifeboats, food, or water and 
faced shark attacks for 4 days and 5 nights.
  This legislation recognizes Captain McVay's lack of culpability for 
the tragic loss of the ship, urges a correction of his military record 
to reflect his exoneration, and prompts the Navy to award a Navy Unit 
Commendation to the U.S.S. Indianapolis and her final crew.
  Captain McVay was not given intelligence reports about Japanese 
submarine activity in the ship's path; he was not granted an escort to 
help protect his ship; and he had taken prudent steps to protect the 
vessel. Not all of this information was made available to the court-
martial board. Several hundred U.S. ships were lost in combat to enemy 
action during World War II, yet only Captain McVay was subjected to a 
court-martial.
  This language does not erase the conviction of Captain McVay from his 
record. We in Congress do not have the authority to do that. It must 
remain on his record as a stain upon the conscience of the Navy until 
this or some future President sees fit to order that it be expunged. 
This resolution does, however, represent acknowledgment from one branch 
of the Federal Government he served so capably that Captain

[[Page S10382]]

McVay's conviction was morally wrong and that he should no longer be 
viewed by the American people as responsible for the horrible tragedy 
which haunted him to the end of his life.
  Second, this bill closes a loop hole in our national security 
regarding the granting of security clearances. Everyday, we entrust our 
national secrets to individuals to develop weapon systems, intelligence 
capabilities, war plans, and the like to defend this nation in war and 
peace. The American people demand these individuals be of the highest 
integrity. Yet, it came to my attention that we have not been 
maintaining that standard. Persons with criminal track records have 
been granted security clearances. We have even granted clearances to 
murderers.
  The addition I fought for in this bill is simple. It would prevent 
the Department of Defense from granting security clearances to those 
who have been convicted in a court of a crime punishable by 
imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
  As I have said, this bill will strengthen our military. It is a step 
in the right direction, but we are not finished. I urge my colleagues 
to approve the conference report.
  (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss provisions 
(Section 934) in the fiscal year 2001 National Defense Authorization 
Act (H.R. 5408) aimed at supporting efforts within the Department of 
Defense to develop a set of operational concepts, sometimes referred to 
as `Network Centric Warfare', that seek to exploit the power of 
information and U.S. superiority in information technologies to 
maintain dominance and improve interoperability on the battlefield. I 
am reiterating points here that I made in a longer and more detailed 
statement this past summer on June 20 on this legislation. The concept 
of Network Centric Warfare calls for a military that links sensors, 
communications systems and weapons systems in an interconnected grid 
that allows for a seamless information flow to warfighters, policy 
makers, and support personnel. I am very pleased to see that our House 
and Senate Conferees have made a strong statement as to the importance 
of this emerging theory of warfare. They have joined a chorus of 
voices, including experts from the Naval War College, Office of the 
Defense, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to push for an acceleration of 
DoD efforts to analyze, understand, and implement the concepts of 
Network Centric Warfare. In fact, Joint Vision 2020 set the goal for 
the Department of Defense to pursue information superiority in order 
that joint forces may possess superior knowledge and attain decision 
superiority during operations across the spectrum of conflict.
  After extensive discussions with a variety of Agency and Service 
officials, I believe that although there are many innovative efforts 
underway throughout the Department to develop network centric 
technologies and systems, as well as to develop mechanisms to integrate 
information systems, sensors, weapon systems and decision makers, these 
efforts are too often underfunded, low-priority, and not coordinated 
across Services. In many cases, they will unfortunately continue the 
legacy of interoperability problems that we all know exist today. To 
paraphrase one senior Air Force officer, we are not making the 
necessary fundamental changes--we are still nibbling at the edges.
  The legislation in Section 934 of H.R. 5408 explores many of the 
facets of this novel Joint vision of a networked force and operations. 
Section 934 (b) clearly states the policy of the United States with 
respect to Network Centric Warfare. The legislation makes it the goal 
of Department of Defense to fully coordinate various efforts being 
pursued by the Joint Staff, the Defense Agencies, and the military 
departments as they develop the concepts of Network Centric Warfare. 
The legislation then also calls for DoD to provide two reports to 
Congress detailing efforts in moving towards Network Centric forces and 
operations. The conference language reflects the fact that both the 
Senate and the House had compatible provisions on Network Centric 
Warfare in their respective bills. The final conference language 
essentially reflects the more detailed Senate version; it consolidates 
the wording while retaining the intent and each key element of the 
Senate bill's proposals. Therefore the points I made in a more extended 
statement this past summer remain applicable to the final provision, 
and what follows is merely a reiteration and elaboration from that 
statement. At this point I also particularly want to note my 
appreciation for the strong support, cooperation, and contributions on 
this provision from my friends and Committee colleagues, Senators 
Roberts and Bingaman.
  Section 934(b) calls for a report focusing on the broad development 
and implementation of Network Centric Warfare concepts in the 
Department of Defense. The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff are asked to report on their current and planned 
efforts to coordinate all Dod activities in Network Centric Warfare to 
show how they are moving toward a truly Joint, networked force. The 
report calls for the development of a set of metrics as discussed in 
Section 934(c)(J) to be used to monitor our progress towards a Joint, 
networked force and the attainment of fully integrated Joint command 
and control capabilities, both in technology and organizational 
structure. These metrics should allow Congress and DoD to evaluate 
technology development and acquisition programs that are related to 
Network Centric concepts and enable policy makers to set priorities and 
to make difficult resource allocation decisions.
  The legislation also requires the Department to report on how it is 
moving toward Joint Requirements and Acquisition policies and 
increasing Joint authority in this area to ensure that future forces 
will be truly seamless, interoperable, and network-centric, as 
described in Section 934(c)(G). These Joint activities are critically 
necessary to achieving networked systems and operations. Unless we move 
away from a system designed to protect individual Service interests and 
procurement programs, we will always be faced with solving 
interoperability problems between systems. For example, strengthening 
the Joint oversight of the requirements for and acquisition of all 
systems directly involved in Joint Task Forces interoperability would 
provide a sounder method for acquiring these systems. We need to move 
away from a cold war based, platform-centric acquisition system that is 
slow, cumbersome, and Service-centric. As part of this review, DoD 
should examine the speed at which it can acquire new technologies and 
whether the personnel making key decisions on information systems 
procurement are technically training or at least supported by the 
finest technical talent available. The report should, as part of this 
review, evaluate how to ensure that Service acquisition systems are 
responsive to the establishment of Joint interoperability standards in 
networking, computing, and communications, as well as best commercial 
practices.
  As described in Section 934(c)(I), the report must also address the 
need for coordination of Service and Agency Science and Technology 
(S&T) investments in the development of future Joint Network Central 
Warfare capabilities. In moving towards a more Joint, networked force 
we must continue to ensure that we provide our nation's warfighters 
with the best technologies. The review should evaluate where we must 
increase our investments in areas such as sensors, networking 
protocols, human-machine interfaces, training, and other technologies, 
especially in the face of constrained S&T budgets. The Secretary of 
Defense should explain how S&T investments supporting network centric 
operations will be coordinated across the Agencies and Services to 
eliminate redundancy and how and where investments will be made to 
better address critical warfighting technology needs. This is more 
important than ever as we develop our next generation of weapon 
systems--better coordination and establishment of common standards in 
the technology development stages can only help to alleviate future 
interoperability problems.
  Any investments in S&T for a network centric force must also address 
the role of the operator in a network centric system. The report must 
pay attention to the training of our combat and support personnel so 
that they can make the best use of information technologies, as well as 
investing more in

[[Page S10383]]

research on learning and cognitive processes so that our training 
systems and human-machine interfaces are optimized. The recommendations 
on investments in the report should also accommodate the incredible 
pace of change in information technologies that is currently driven by 
the commercial sector. Dodd must analyze the commercially driven 
revolutions in information technology and modify the investment 
strategy to best leverage those developments through cooperative R&D 
and utilization of dual-use technologies.
  Section 934(d) describes the second report, which requires an 
examination of the use of the Joint Experimentation Program in 
developing Network Centric Warfare concepts. Network Centric Warfare is 
inherently Joint, and the Commander in Chief of Joint Forces Command is 
in the best position to develop new operational concepts and test the 
new technologies that support it. The report calls for a proposal on 
how the Joint Experimentation Program and the results of its activities 
are to be used to develop these new operational concepts, especially 
with regards to the design of optimal force structures for Joint 
operations.
  The Joint Experimentation process should also be used to develop 
Joint Requirements, Doctrine, and Acquisition programs to support 
network centric operations. It should serve to identify impediments to 
the development of a joint information network, including the linking 
of Service intranets, as well as redesigning combat support functions 
to leverage new network centric operation concepts. The review should 
evaluate each of these issues. This of course does not detract from the 
critical role that existing Service experimentation programs will play 
in developing new technologies and doctrine to make our fighting forces 
more efficient and interoperable, which should be a part of this 
analysis.
  This legislation will help focus the Pentagon and Congress' attention 
on the need to move our military into a more information savvy and 
networked force. We ask that these reports set forth the needed 
organizational, policy, and legislative changes necessary to achieve 
this transformation for decision makers in the military, 
Administration, and in Congress. The realities of the information 
technology revolution will force our future military operations to be 
network centric. We must act now to ensure that we stay ahead of the 
curve in technology and, more importantly, in thinking. I look forward 
to receiving plans and proposals to help get us there efficiently and 
effectively.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate will vote 
today on the fiscal year 2001 Department of Defense Authorization 
Conference Report. This defense bill contains historic improvements in 
health care coverage for the approximately 12,600 military retirees, 
their families, and survivors currently living in South Dakota. In 
addition, the defense bill contains much-needed quality of life'' 
improvements for men and women in active duty and several improvements 
to the TRICARE health care system for active duty personnel and their 
families.
  On the first day of this legislative session, I introduced the Keep 
Our Promises to America's Military Retirees Act to restore the broken 
promise of lifetime health care for military retirees and their 
dependents. Men and women were promised lifetime health care for 
themselves and their families upon completion of 20 years in the 
military. However, military retirees are currently kicked out of 
TRICARE once they become eligible for Medicare. The current situation 
breaks a promise our country has made with its veterans and military 
retirees. The lack of adequate health care coverage for military 
retirees also impacts retention of qualified military personnel and 
sends a negative signal to young men and women considering a career in 
the military.
  My bipartisan legislation received the endorsement from military 
retiree and veterans organizations as well as from a grassroots 
organization of thousands of military retirees across the country. My 
legislation called for military retirees to have the option of staying 
in their TRICARE military health care program or electing to 
participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, FEHBP. The 
Keep Our Promises to America's Military Retirees Act would also allow 
military retirees who entered the military prior to June 7, 1956 (the 
date military health care for retirees was enacted into law) to enroll 
in FEHBP with the United States paying 100 percent of the costs.
  I offered my legislation as an amendment during Senate consideration 
of the fiscal year 2001 Defense Authorization bill. Although the 
amendment failed on a procedural motion, I was pleased that Senate 
Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner agreed to include one 
part of my bill--the expansion of TRICARE to Medicare-eligible military 
retirees--in both the Senate defense bill and the final conference 
report that will be sent to the President.
  The conference report also extends full DoD pharmacy benefits for 
Medicare-eligible military retirees. Military retirees will now be able 
to use DoD retail and mail-order pharmacy programs. A 20 percent 
copayment is required for retail, and a $8 copay is required for a 90-
day supply of mail-ordered drugs. As you recall, this pharmacy 
provision was included in the Senate defense bill after I was 
successful in creating a special military retiree health care reserve 
fund'' in the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution.
  The fiscal year 2001 Defense Authorization Conference Report includes 
a number of other health care and ``quality of life'' improvements for 
men and women in active duty and their families. I am pleased this bill 
eliminates TRICARE Prime copayments for active-duty family members as 
well as increasing reimbursement rates for TRICARE providers. In my 
numerous meetings in the state on TRICARE, low reimbursement rates have 
been of particular concern because the low rates make recruitment of 
TRICARE health care providers in rural areas difficult. With my 
support, the bill also includes efforts to improve TRICARE through good 
business practices, increased technology, and reduced administrative 
waste.
  The conference report includes a much-deserved 3.7 percent pay raise 
for active duty and reserve personnel. I am pleased the bill also 
begins the process of eliminating the mandatory out-of-pocket housing 
costs incurred by servicemembers. Recruitment and retention efforts 
will be enhanced with incentives to join ROTC and increased enlistment 
bonuses, as well as a provision that allows VEAP conversion to the 
Montgomery GI Bill for servicemembers currently on active duty who had 
previously contributed to VEAP.
  While I am pleased that a number of health care issues have been 
addressed in this year's defense authorization bill, there is more work 
that needs to be done. I will continue to work with cosponsors of my 
Keep Our Promises legislation to provide military retirees with the 
option of using FEHBP and to address the broken promise of free 
lifetime health care to those military personnel who entered the 
military prior to June 7, 1956. I am also disappointed that the bill 
failed to adequately address a rule that prohibits disabled vets from 
receiving their retired pay and disability compensation concurrently. I 
am a cosponsor of legislation that would correct this injustice, and I 
will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure its eventual 
passage. Finally, I will continue to fight for increased veterans 
education benefits through a strengthened Montgomery GI Bill and 
passage of my Veterans Education Opportunities Act.
  The health care improvements and ``quality of life'' improvements 
included in this year's defense authorization bill are a testament to 
the hard work and grassroots organization of thousands of military 
retirees across the country. One particular military retiree, Fred 
Athans from Rapid City, recently completed his term as national 
president of The Retired Enlisted Association. Fred and countless 
others from South Dakota and around the country were essential in the 
passage of this legislation.
 Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first, I would like to say that 
the attack on the U.S.S. Cole is a tragedy for the nation. My thoughts 
are with the families and loved ones of the sailors who lost their 
lives, and I pray for the full recovery of those who were injured. I 
also urge an immediate investigation of

[[Page S10384]]

this brutal terrorist act against our country in order to identify the 
terrorists and their backers and bring them to justice as soon as 
possible.
  I support the conference report to the Fiscal Year 2001 Defense 
Authorization Bill. It represents major progress in our commitment to 
defending our country and caring for the dedicated men and women who 
serve so well in our armed forces.
  I commend my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee for their 
skillful work in producing this consensus and bipartisan conference 
report. We have made worthwhile progress on many important issues 
affecting our armed forces.
  The nation owes a special debt to the men and women of the armed 
forces for their unwavering commitment to our country and their 
excellent performance in the challenges they faced in this past year. 
They stand in harm's way. They have helped end the aggression in 
Kosovo, enforced the peace in Iraq, and helped provide the foundation 
for a free and independent nation in East Timor.
  The contributions of our armed forces in those conflicts captured 
headlines, but it is important to recognize that our service members 
are preparing for and responding to a variety of contingencies. From 
defending the United States and our allies to participating in 
peacekeeping missions, to conducting counter-drug operations, to 
providing humanitarian assistance, the members of our armed forces 
today are prepared to carry out a wide range of duties in an efficient 
and professional manner.
  This conference report includes a number of important provisions that 
demonstrate the commitment by Congress to improving the quality of life 
of those serving our country today as well as those who have completed 
their service in the past. For those currently serving, the conference 
report includes a 3.7 percent pay raise, a full half-percent above the 
rate of inflation.
  Our commitment is not only to the soldiers, sailors, airmen and 
Marines who defend our country but also to their families. The 
conference report authorizes the construction of new housing for 2,900 
families. For families who live off-base, we have taken steps to meet 
our goal of reducing out-of-pocket housing expenses to zero within five 
years.
  The conference report helps to make the armed forces a more 
attractive career by implementing a program to allow active and reserve 
service members to enroll in the Thrift Savings Program, encouraging 
them to plan and save for their retirement.
  One of the most important accomplishments in this legislation is a 
prescription drug benefit for military retirees, their spouses and 
widows. It is a long overdue step toward making good on the Nation's 
promise to provide career personnel with lifetime health benefits. And 
we intend to continue the on-going effort to provide all retirees with 
affordable, comprehensive prescription drug coverage through Medicare.
  When we first considered the DOD authorization bill earlier this 
year, Senator Snowe and I drafted a proposal to create a comprehensive 
drug benefit. We worked closely with Chairman Warner and others to make 
coverage of prescription drugs a priority in this legislation. I am 
pleased that our legislation prevailed and was expanded in the 
conference. It is now clear to all that Congress has heard and heeded 
the needs of our military retirees, and addressed their number one 
priority--the cost of prescription drugs.
  As a result of our efforts, nearly 1.4 million Medicare-eligible 
military retirees and their spouses and widows--including more than 
21,500 in Massachusetts--will have access to affordable prescription 
drugs, effective upon enactment.
  Under this legislation, military retirees will receive a retail and 
mail-order pharmacy benefit. Almost one-third of them--450,000--already 
have this benefit under the base closing agreement. The bill provides a 
90-day supply of prescription drugs by mail for an $8 co-payment, or a 
30-day supply of prescription drugs from a retail pharmacy for a 20 
percent co-payment. There are no deductibles, and no additional 
premiums. Military retirees and their spouses and widows will receive 
the prescription drugs that their doctors prescribe. It is a generous 
benefit for those who have given so generously to the country during 
their working years.
  The legislation also assures comprehensive Medicare supplemental 
coverage through TRICARE. Together, these new benefits assure health 
security in retirement for those who have served in the armed forces.
  These benefits send a strong message to all men and women in uniform 
that we care about their service. It lets military retirees know that 
Congress listens, cares, and will act on their behalf.
  Despite success here today for military retirees, we must not forget 
the millions of other senior citizens who need help with prescription 
drugs, too.
  It's long past time for Congress to mend the broken promise of 
Medicare. Medicare is a compact between the government and America's 
senior and disabled citizens. It says work hard and pay in during your 
working years, and you will receive health coverage in your retirement 
years. But every day that promise is broken, because Medicare does not 
cover prescription drugs. It is time for Congress to make good on that 
promise, too.
  When Medicare was enacted in 1965, only three percent of private 
insurance policies offered prescription drug coverage. Today, virtually 
all private health insurance policies provide prescription drug 
coverage.
  Up to 20 million elderly and disabled Medicare beneficiaries--one-
half of the total--have no prescription drug coverage throughout the 
year. Almost 14 million have never had drug coverage.
  Those who have coverage find that too often it is unreliable, 
inadequate or unaffordable. In fact, the only senior citizens who have 
stable, secure, affordable drug coverage today are the very poor, who 
are on Medicaid. The idea that only the impoverished elderly should 
qualify for needed hospital and doctor care was rejected when Medicare 
was enacted.
  Governor Bush and Congressional Republicans say they want to 
subsidize prescription drugs for the poor. But senior citizens deserve 
Medicare, not welfare.
  Too many seniors today must choose between food on the table and the 
medicine they need to stay healthy or to treat their illnesses.
  Too many seniors take half the pills their doctor prescribes--or 
don't even fill needed prescriptions--because they cannot afford the 
high cost of prescription drugs.
  Too many seniors are ending up hospitalized--at immense cost to 
Medicare--because they aren't receiving the drugs they need at all, or 
cannot afford to take them correctly.
  Pharmaceutical products are increasingly the source of miracle cures 
for a host of dread diseases. In 1998 alone, private industry spent 
more than $21 billion in research on new medicines and to bring them to 
the public. Congress is well on its way to doubling the budget for the 
National Institutes of Health. The miracle drugs developed by these 
public and private sectors investments save lives--and they save 
dollars too, by preventing unnecessary hospitalization and expensive 
surgery. But millions of Medicare beneficiaries are left out and left 
behind from the benefits of 21st century medicine because they cannot 
afford the price of admission.
  Elderly Americans need and deserve prescription drug coverage under 
Medicare. Any senior citizen will tell you that--and so will their 
children and grandchildren. It is time to make the needs of all seniors 
a priority as well.
  As a party, Republicans have always disliked Medicare. It was one of 
the first votes I cast when I came to the Senate, and it's still one of 
the best votes I've ever cast.
  Senator Bob Dole, however, once boasted that he voted against 
Medicare's enactment, and never liked it. According to historian Robert 
Dallek, Ronald Reagan saw Medicare as the advance wave of socialism 
that would ``invade every area of freedom in this country.'' House 
Majority Leader Dick Armey has said that it's a program he would ``have 
no part of in a free world.'' Newt Gingrich wanted Medicare to ``wither 
on the vine'' in the GOP effort he led to privatize Medicare and reduce 
its funding in order to pay for tax breaks for the rich.
  In contrast, under the leadership of the Clinton-Gore Administration,

[[Page S10385]]

Medicare's financial outlook is the healthiest it has ever been. 
According to the most recent Trustee's Report, the Medicare Trust Fund 
will remain solvent for the next quarter century.
  Democrats want a universal, voluntary prescription drug benefit under 
Medicare. All beneficiaries would be eligible for affordable coverage 
within one year of enactment. In contrast, George Bush passes the buck 
to the states and private insurance companies. His flawed two-part 
program would force seniors to wait too long and do too little for too 
few.
  Phase One of the Bush plan would be a state block grant program 
similar to one of the proposals by Senator Roth. Eligibility is limited 
to senior citizens whose incomes are below $14,600--which leaves 70 
percent of all Medicare beneficiaries with no coverage. Senior citizens 
want Medicare, not welfare. They have spent their working years 
building our country, and they should not have to beg for prescription 
drugs in their golden years.
  It would take years to implement the Bush block grant program. Last 
February, the National Governors Association unanimously rejected this 
approach in a resolution that said, ``If Congress decides to expand 
prescription drug coverage to seniors, it should not shift that 
responsibility . . . to the states.'' States should not be asked to 
pick up the slack for Congress' failure to fill Medicare's biggest gap.
  Phase Two of the Bush plan picks up where Newt Gingrich left off. 
Under the guise of Medicare ``reform,'' the Bush proposal relies on 
private insurance companies to provide Medicare benefits. Prescription 
drug coverage under phase two would not start until 2004. It is 
contingent on passage by Congress of broad Medicare changes that would 
create a ``premium support'' program, which would eliminate the 
government's obligation to contribute 75 percent of the premium for 
individuals enrolling in Medicare. A similar plan was estimated to 
raise premiums for the elderly in traditional Medicare by up to 47 
percent in the first year. Bush claims that the elderly could keep 
their current Medicare, but many would be forced to join HMOs, because 
conventional Medicare would quickly become unaffordable. The Bush plan 
will turn many senior citizens over to the tender mercy of the private 
insurance industry, and force them to give up their doctors and join 
HMOs to have access to an affordable drug benefit.

  In addition, under Governor Bush's plan, the government would 
subsidize only 25 percent of an undetermined premium that could vary 
drastically from state to state. Never in the history of Medicare have 
senior citizens been asked to pay such a high proportion of the cost of 
any benefit. According to CBO estimates for a similar plan, the Bush 
proposal costs so much and provides so little that it is unlikely to 
help even half of the senior citizens who are currently without drug 
coverage.
  The ongoing revolution in health care makes prescription drug 
coverage more essential now than ever. Coverage of prescription drugs 
under Medicare is as essential today as was coverage of hospital and 
doctor care in 1965, when Medicare was enacted. Senior citizens need 
that help--and they need it now.
  So I say to my colleagues--while we are making good on broken 
promises, it's long past time to cover prescription drugs under 
Medicare for all elderly Americans. If we can cover military retirees, 
we can cover other senior citizens too.
  Another major achievement in this bill is the inclusion of the Energy 
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act, a gratifying 
breakthrough for basic fairness. These workers deserve this 
compensation, and it is decades overdue.
  As we now know, the nuclear build-up in the Cold War years exposed 
many hard-working, patriotic employees in the nation's defense plants 
to dangerous radioactive and chemical materials at far greater levels 
than employers were willing to admit. Many of these workers now suffer 
from debilitating and fatal illnesses directly related to that 
exposure. For too long, the government shamefully ignored the plight of 
these workers and failed to accept responsibility for it.
  I commend Secretary of Energy Richardson for his leadership in 
bringing this issue to light and dealing so effectively with this 
tragic chapter in our recent history. I also commend Senators Thompson, 
Bingaman, Voinovich, McConnell, DeWine, and Bunning for their 
leadership and persistence in achieving this bipartisan compromise.
  This workers' compensation program is based on sound science and 
traditional principles of workers' compensation. It is designed to make 
the claimants whole by paying medical benefits and compensating them 
for lost income due to death or disability that resulted from work for 
the federal government or one of its contractors. I supported giving 
workers the option of choosing to receive their actual lost wages, 
instead of a lump sum payment, and I am disappointed that the House 
Republicans refused to include this provision in the final bill. 
Despite this oversight, this new program is a substantial victory for 
these energy workers. They made great sacrifices for our country during 
the Cold War, and they have already waited too long for this relief.
  Another important provision in the conference agreement is a new GAO 
study of the effectiveness of existing disability programs in the 
military health system in meeting the needs of disabled dependents. Too 
often, active military personnel are forced to turn to Medicaid as the 
only way they can get good health care for their disabled child--even 
though there are programs authorized under the military health system 
to assist disabled dependents. In some cases, choosing Medicaid makes 
it impossible for active duty parents to accept a military promotion--
because they would earn too much money for their child to qualify for 
Medicaid. It is time to overhaul these programs and make them more 
effective, so that no military personnel have to impoverish themselves 
and their family in order to obtain needed health care for their 
disabled children.
  I am pleased that this legislation also includes a provision that at 
long last lifts the unfair stain placed on Admiral Husband E. Kimmel 
and General Walter C. Short in the wake of the Japanese attack on Pearl 
Harbor on December 7, 1941. Admiral Kimmel and General Short were the 
Navy and Army commanders at the time of that attack. Despite loyal and 
distinguished service, they were unfairly scapegoated for the nation's 
lack of preparation for that attack and the catastrophe that took 
place.
  They were the only two officers eligible for advancement under the 
1947 Officer Personnel Act who did not receive advancement when they 
retired. The provision in this bill asks the President to advance them 
posthumously, so that now, at this late date, these two men will 
finally be treated fairly like their peers. This provision moves us 
another step forward on the path of justice and equality, and I am 
delighted by its inclusion.
  Although the conference report makes progress on many issues, I am 
very disappointed that this legislation fails to take strong and needed 
action on the important issue of hate crimes.
  Earlier this year, with the support of a broad group of law 
enforcement organizations, civil rights groups, and community and 
religious organizations, strong, bipartisan majorities in both the 
Senate and the House voted to include a needed anti-hate crimes 
provision in the defense authorization bill. By stripping the hate 
crimes provision from the bill in the conference, the Republican 
leadership has callously ignored these votes and the clear will of 
Congress. On hate crimes, the Republican leadership has failed the 
leadership test and turned its back on the need to protect all our 
citizens from bigotry and prejudice.

  Hate crimes are a national disgrace--an attack on everything this 
country stands for. They send a poisonous message that some Americans 
are second class citizens who deserve to be victimized solely because 
of their race, their ethnic background, their religion, their sexual 
orientation, their gender or their disability. For too long, the 
federal government has been forced to stand on the sidelines in the 
fight against these senseless acts of hate and violence. If America is 
to live up to its founding ideals of liberty and justice for all, 
combating hate crimes must be a national priority.
  If the national outcry is loud enough, we still have a chance to act 
on this issue in the remaining days of this Congress.

[[Page S10386]]

  We also have a responsibility to address the problem of unexploded 
ordinance on active and formerly live-fire training facilities. On the 
Massachusetts Military Reservation, UXO poses a contamination threat to 
the soil and groundwater in the area. It is time to take action on this 
problem now, before it causes tragic and irreparable harm to the 
environment and the people who live in the area.
  The conference report authorizes $8 million to develop and test new 
technologies to detect UXO and map the presence of their contaminants. 
While this is a good step, it cannot be the last step. The Department 
of Defense should take on the task of removing UXO from current and 
former training facilities. This step would ensure the continued 
operation of live-fire ranges and make former ranges safe for their 
communities and future reuse.
  In addition, we must deal with the new generation of threats faced by 
our service members and the American public at large. As we enter the 
21st century, our country is faced with new challenges from the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the risk of terrorist 
attacks both at home and abroad, and cyber-warfare. This legislation 
takes steps to protect us from each of these dangers.
  The conference report authorizes the creation of five additional 
Civil Support Teams, comprised of National Guard personnel specially 
trained to detect and respond to the suspected use of chemical, 
biological, radiological, or other weapons of mass destruction against 
cities and people.
  Strong support is given to threat reduction programs to continue work 
with the nations of the former Soviet Union to reduce the dangers of 
proliferation. These steps include an additional $25 million above the 
President's request to eliminate strategic nuclear weapons in Russia.
  The number of cyber-attacks against the Department of Defense 
increased dramatically last year, totaling 22,000 raids on DOD computer 
systems. With computers being an essential part of the command, 
control, communications and intelligence functions of our armed 
services, it is easy to see how disruptive these attacks, if 
successful, could be. The conference report recognizes the seriousness 
of this threat and creates an Institute for Defense Computer Security 
and Information Protection to ensure our military can protect itself 
from this type of threat.
  The Seapower Subcommittee, under the leadership of our distinguished 
chair, Senator Snowe, heard testimony over the past year on concerns 
about the Navy's force structure, shipbuilding rate, and the readiness 
of our fleet. The conference report supports the Secretary of the 
Navy's decision to increase research and development on DD-21 to begin 
the next generation of our destroyer fleet, and asks the Navy to report 
on the feasibility of receiving delivery of this advanced ship by 2009. 
But many of us are concerned about the delays that the program has 
already faced, as well as the effects of the delays on the fire-support 
requirements of the Marine Corps and on our country's shipbuilding 
industrial base.
  The conference report authorizes the extension of the DDG-51 multi-
year procurement through fiscal year 2005. The extension of this 
procurement will ease the strain placed on many of our shipyards, and 
could raise the Navy's overall shipbuilding rate to an acceptable level 
of nine ships for each of those years. This provision is good for the 
taxpayer as well, as it can save the American public almost $600 
million compared to building these ships at a slower rate.
  In closing, this legislation makes progress on many of the serious 
challenges facing our armed services, and makes important commitments 
to those in uniform and those who have retired from the services. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in voting to approve the conference 
report.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to thank my 
colleagues who have worked very hard over the last several months on a 
proposal to compensate eligible workers in nuclear energy facilities 
who have been exposed to hazardous materials. Without the extraordinary 
effort of so many members and their staffs, including Senators 
Thompson, McConnell, Voinovich, Bingaman, and Kennedy, we would not 
have been able to create this compensation program. I especially 
appreciate the patience of Chairman Warner and Ranking Member Levin for 
working with us on the initiative and including it in the Defense 
Authorization bill.
  For more than 50 years, Ohio has been home to numerous facilities 
that performed work for the Department of Energy's nuclear programs. 
During the Cold War, hundreds of Ohioans, as well as thousands of 
Americans, were exposed to hazardous and radioactive materials as a 
result of their employment. Often, workers were unknowingly exposed to 
these materials, and if workers became ill, they had no relief. Our 
federal government directed, and even paid for, contractors and 
subcontractors to fight worker compensation cases. A worker had to 
prove his or her case on evidence that the government would not make 
available.
  A little over a year ago, things began to change. Stories started 
appearing in the press about what workers were exposed to and how the 
government ignored evidence. Several Senate Committees, such as 
Government Affairs; Energy and Natural Resources; and Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions, have held hearings the issue of harmful 
exposure and proposed remedies. I believe that we have a good 
understanding of the problem now, as well as a solution.
  However, Mr. President, we all fully understand that no level of 
benefits can compensate these workers for what they have endured. But 
we are trying to reimburse them for their financial loss. The agreement 
in the Defense Authorization bill provides eligible victims with a lump 
sum payment of $150,000, plus health care coverage.
  This agreement also defines those workers who are eligible based on 
the latest scientific evidence on beryllium disease, beryllium 
sensitivity, and radiogenic cancers. Mr. President, we have created 
stringent guidelines to determine eligibility. However, there are 
instances when the administering agency will not be able to recreate an 
employee's radiation dose exposure. We have reversed the burden of 
proof for exposure to employees at the Gaseous Diffusion Plants in 
Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, because their radiation exposure doses 
cannot be assessed.
  More than likely, there will be other instances of extremely poor 
record keeping, where it will be nearly impossible to determine 
employees' radiation exposure levels. Therefore, the administering 
agency may propose additions to the definition of ``special cohort'' 
under this agreement. Once a new cohort is proposed, Congress will have 
one hundred eighty days to act to reverse the decision to add the 
cohort. If Congress fails to act within that time, the cohort will be 
accepted and eligible for benefits.
  Eligible employees will have seven years from either the enactment of 
this bill or from the date on which the employee learned that his or 
her illness was related to work in which to apply and collect the 
benefits provided by this program. Like a traditional worker 
compensation program, compensation under this program will be an 
exclusive remedy to an employee for claims against the United States, 
its contractors, and subcontractors--but not against beryllium vendors.
  The benefits under this program are completely voluntary. Eligible 
individuals with beryllium disease must decide whether to litigate a 
claim or receive the benefits provided under this plan. Individuals who 
currently have pending lawsuits against beryllium vendors are eligible 
for benefits under this plan. Those individuals have two-and-one-half 
years from today to decide whether to dismiss their lawsuit and accept 
the benefits under this plan or to continue with litigation. During 
that two-and-one-half year window in which litigants must decide 
whether or not to drop their litigation, plaintiffs may begin an 
eligibility review with the agency administering this program, so the 
plaintiff knows whether he or she is eligible for compensation under 
this program. Nothing in this agreement prohibits plaintiffs or the 
administering agency from determining whether a plaintiff is eligible 
under this new program, allowing them to make an informed decision 
whether or not to pursue litigation.
  Mr. President, this is a reasonable proposal. It will help people, 
like Sam Ray, who worked at the Portsmouth

[[Page S10387]]

Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Ohio as an operator and instrument mechanic. 
It was there that Sam was exposed to technetium, plutonium, neptunium, 
and heavy metals. He has consequently developed chondrosarcoma--a rare 
type of bone cancer. As the medical text, Cancer Epidemiology and 
Prevention, by Doctors Schottenfeld and Fraumeni, points out, cancers 
of the bone include cancers of the cartilage, including radiosensitive 
cancers that originate in cartilage, such as chondrosarcoma.
  Mr. President, let me conclude by thanking my colleagues once again 
for supporting this program. I also want to thank the many, many 
workers who came to Washington, DC, or to Columbus to testify on why a 
compensation measure is needed. They worked tirelessly with my office 
and other offices to get us to where we are today. They deserve a great 
deal of the credit for the program contained in this bill.
  I thank the Chair and yield the Floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 4205, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. The bill that 
passed today includes several amendments that significantly improve the 
lives of active duty and Reserve servicemembers, military retirees, 
veterans, and their families.
  I am pleased that the conference agreement includes some key 
legislative provisions that I had introduced in the Senate during the 
course of the normal legislative process. Some of these provisions 
included in the conference report will: remove servicemembers from food 
stamps; increase pay for mid-grade Petty Officers and Non-Commissioned 
Officers; assist disabled veterans in claims processing; expand pay 
benefits to some disabled military retirees; authorize a low cost life 
insurance plan for spouses and their children; enhance benefits and 
retirement pay for Reservists and National Guardsmen; authorize back 
pay for certain World War II Navy and Marine Corps Prisoners of War; 
and provide for significant acquisition reform by eliminating domestic 
source restrictions on the procurement of shipyard cranes.
  One of the areas of greatest concern to me, however, regarding 
military retirees and their families is the broken promise of lifetime 
medical care, especially for those over age 65. Last year, the Joint 
Chiefs proclaimed that this would be the year for major health care 
reform for our military forces, especially our medicare-eligible 
military retirees who were promised lifetime military medical care. 
Despite the assurances of the Joint Chiefs, the President proposed a 
fiscal year 2001 defense budget without any major medical care reforms, 
and all but ignored those military retirees who are older and in 
greatest need of health care.
  The Republican Congress, however, responded to military retirees' 
needs and provided several major military health care reforms as well 
as a plan in this year's bill to provide all Medicare-eligible military 
retirees, family members, and survivors with lifetime military health 
care coverage, including full pharmacy benefits in military, retail, 
and mail order pharmacies. This conference report will establish 
``TRICARE-for-life'' as a permanent entitlement that will be funded 
through a ``Military Retirees Health Care Trust Fund,'' a legislative 
provision adopted from S.2013, a military health care reform bill that 
I introduced earlier this year. This new, critical lifetime benefit 
will mean huge savings for military retirees by eliminating the need 
for them to buy expensive Medicare supplemental policies.
  Separately, with severe recruitment and retention problems still 
looming, we must also better compensate our mid-grade enlisted 
servicemembers who are critical to leading the junior enlisted force. 
We have significantly underpaid enlisted servicemembers since the 
beginning of the All Volunteer Force. The value of the mid-grade NCO 
pay, compared to that of the most junior enlisted, has dropped 50 
percent since the All Volunteer Force was put in place by Congress in 
1973. The provision for the mid-grade enlisted ranks, up to $700 per 
year, plus the food stamp pay provision of up to an additional $500 per 
month for servicemembers, provides a significant increase in pay for 
enlisted servicemembers.
  In addition, 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 higher deployment rates of the 
active duty forces, the Reserve Components are being called upon more 
frequently and for longer periods of time than ever before. We must 
stop treating them like a second class force. It is tremendously 
important that we enact meaningful improvements for both our active 
duty and Reserve service-members, their families, and their survivors. 
They risk their lives to protect our freedom and preserve democracy. We 
should compensate them adequately, improve the benefits to their 
families and survivors, and enhance the quality of life for the 
Reserves and National Guard in a manner similar to the active forces.
  This bill goes far in correcting some of the inconsistencies, with 
regard to Reserve Component policies, that previously only benefited 
the active duty components. Additionally, in order to ensure that 
reservists receive full credit for the time and effort they commit to 
attending drills, performing annual training, and completing 
correspondence courses, the conference report increased from 70 to 90 
the maximum number of days per year that reservists may accrue as 
credit towards retirement benefits.
  Each year the number of disabled veterans appealing their health care 
cases continues to increase. Furthermore, it takes an average of 275 
days to get some sort of reply from the Department of Veterans Affairs' 
regarding claims filing. Disabled veterans are forced to leave the 
service because of their disabilities. It is Congress's duty to ensure 
that the disability claims process is less complex, less burdensome, 
and much more efficient. I am pleased that the final conference 
agreement includes legislation necessary to fully restore the 
Department of Veterans Affairs' duty to ensure efficient and timely 
veterans claims processing and remove onerous court-imposed procedures.
  I commend the conference leaders for including some minimal 
improvements to the egregious regulations that strip retirement pay 
from military retirees who are also disabled, and cost them any 
realistic opportunity for post-service earnings. We should do more to 
restore retirement pay for those military retirees who are disabled. 
With respect to concurrent receipt, clearly, retirees who have incurred 
significant disabilities over the course of a military career deserve 
better than how they are treated currently.
  Many such servicemembers are compelled to forfeit their full-retired 
pay under current rules. I have stated before on the Senate floor, and 
I am compelled to reiterate now, retirement pay and disability pay are 
two distinct types of pay. Retirement pay is for service rendered 
through 20 years of military service. Disability pay is for physical or 
mental pain or suffering that occurs during and as a result of military 
service. In this case, members with decades of military service receive 
the same compensation as similarly disabled members who served only a 
few years--with no recognition at all for their extended, clearly more 
demanding careers of service to our country. This is patently unfair 
and even more must be done to correct this problem.
  I would also like to point out that this year's defense authorization 
bill contained over $2 billion in unrequested add-ons to the defense 
budget that will rob our military of vital funding on priority issues. 
While this year's total is less than in previous years, and is far less 
than the $7 billion in the defense appropriations bill, it is still $2 
billion too much. We need to, and can do, better. I ask that the 
detailed list of pork on this bill be included in the Congressional 
Record following my remarks.

  I have to wonder, Mr. President, about the wisdom of permitting the 
Navy to potentially violate public law with respect to the status of 
the last two battleships, the only current means of providing high-
volume gunfire support for land forces ashore, while simultaneously 
continuing to provide millions of dollars from the defense budget for 
the recovery and preservation of Civil War vessels.

[[Page S10388]]

  Over the past six years, Congress has increased the President's 
defense budgets by nearly $60 billion in order to address the military 
services' most important unfunded priorities. Still, it is sufficient 
to say that the military needs less money spent on pork and more money 
spent wisely to redress the serious problems caused by a decade of 
declining defense budgets. Those of us who have been criticized for 
sounding alarm bells about military readiness now have the empty 
satisfaction of seeing that there is more to maintaining a strong 
defense than a politician's history of falsely promising to do so.
  We also must reform the bureaucracy of the Pentagon. With the 
exception of minor changes, our defense establishment looks just as it 
did 50 years ago. We must continue to incorporate practices from the 
private sector--like restructuring, reforming, and streamlining to 
eliminate duplication and capitalize on cost savings.
  More effort must be made to reduce the continuing growth of 
headquarter staffs and to decentralize the Pentagon's labyrinth of 
bureaucratic fiefdoms. Although nearly every military analyst shares 
these views, the conference agreement took great measures to increase 
the size of headquarter staffs, thereby eliminating any incentive for 
the Pentagon to change its way of doing business with its bloated 
staffs and its outdated practices.
  In addition, more must be done to eliminate unnecessary and 
duplicative military contracts and military installations. Every U.S. 
military leader has testified regarding the critical need for further 
BRAC rounds. We can redirect at least $3 billion per year by 
eliminating excess defense infrastructure. There is another $2 billion 
per year that we can put to better purposes by privatizing or 
consolidating support and maintenance functions, and an additional $5 
billion can be saved per year by eliminating ``Buy America'' 
restrictions that only undermine U.S. competitiveness overseas. Despite 
these compelling facts, the conference agreement did not address any of 
these critical issues. On the contrary, it includes several provisions 
that move demonstratively in the opposite direction.
  Sections designed to preserve Army depots and funnel work in their 
direction irrespective of cost are examples of the old philosophy of 
protecting home-town jobs at the expense of greater efficiencies. And 
calling plants and depots ``Centers of Excellence'' does not, Mr. 
President, constitute an appropriate approach to depot maintenance and 
manufacturing activities. Consequently, neither the Center of 
Industrial and Technical Excellence nor the Center of Excellence in 
Service Contracting provide adequate cloaks for the kind of 
protectionist and parochial budgeting endemic to the legislating 
process. Similarly, whether the Centers of Academic Excellence in 
Information Assurance Education is worthy of the $15 million earmarked 
in the budget is open to debate.
  The Defense Appropriations bill, already signed into law, included a 
provision statutorily renaming National Guard armories as ``Readiness 
Centers,'' a particularly Orwellian use of language. By statutorily 
relabeling ``depot-level activities'' as ``operations at Centers of 
Industrial and Technical Excellence,'' we further institutionalize this 
dubious practice, the implications of which are to deny the American 
public the most cost-effective use of its tax dollars.
  In conclusion, I would like to reiterate my belief in the importance 
of enacting meaningful improvements for active duty and Reserve 
servicemembers. They risk their lives to defend our shores and preserve 
democracy, and we can not thank them enough for their service. But, we 
can and should pay them more, improve the benefits for their families, 
and support the Reserve Components in a manner similar to the active 
forces. Our servicemembers past, present, and future need these 
improvements. However, we can not continue with this ``business as 
usual" mindset. We must reform the Department of Defense and we must 
not fall prey to the special interest groups that attempt to warp our 
perspective and misdirect our spending. We owe so much more to our men 
and women in uniform who defend our country. They are our greatest 
resource, and I feel they are woefully under-represented. We must 
continue to do better.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the attached list of 
items added to the defense authorization bill by Congress be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   FY01 Defense Authorization Conference Report (H.R. 4205) Add-Ons, 
                         Increases and Earmarks

Total Add-ons, Increases and Earmarks....................$2,333,550,000


                           Language Earmarks

       Sec. 112 Increases the quantity of Bunker Defeat Munitions 
     the US. Army is authorized to purchase from 6000 to 8500.
       Sec. 128 Directs the Secretary of the Navy to fully man and 
     equip one squadron of six SH-2G aircraft for operational 
     support of Naval Reserve FFG-7 frigates (Coronado, CA).
       Sec. 341 Directs the Secretary of Defense to not include 
     unutilized and underutilized plant-capacity costs when 
     evaluating an Army Arsenal's bid.
       Sec. 434 Encourages commercial firms to use Government-
     owned contractor-operated ammunition manufacturing 
     facilities. Included is a loan-guarantee program.
       Sec. 825 Provides a ``Sense of Congress'' that any entity 
     of the DoD should fully comply with the Buy American Act.
       Sec. 826 Directs that the Secretary of Defense may not, in 
     awarding a contract for the purchase of firearms or 
     ammunition, take into account whether a manufacturer agrees 
     to limit importing or manufacturing firearms or ammunition in 
     the commercial market.
       Sec. 831 Directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 
     study analyzing the amount and sources of parts, components 
     and materials that are obtained from foreign sources.
       Sec. 921 Directs the Secretary of Defense to establish an 
     Institute for Defense Computer Security and Information 
     Protection and provides $5 million for initial funding.
       Sec. 1084 The Secretary of the Army to convey without 
     consideration to the Cannonball House Museum in Macon, 
     Georgia a 12-pounder Napoleonic Cannon.


                  Specific Conference Report Earmarks

                        [In millions of dollars]

TITLE I, PROCUREMENT:
  Army Procurement:
    Truck, Tractor, Line Haul.......................................  1
    Special Purpose Vehicles........................................5.7
    Gen Smoke Mech: Motorized Dual Purpose M56......................  3
    Kit, Standard Teleoperating.....................................  6
    Combat Support Medical..........................................  5
    Training Devices, Non system....................................  9
  Navy Procurement:
    Items less than $5 million......................................  4
    TADIX-B.........................................................  6
  Marine Corps Procurement:
    Improved Night/Day Fire Control Observation Device (INOD).......  2
    M203 Tilting Brackets...........................................  2
    Material Handling Equipment (D-7G Bulldozer)...................12.1
  Air Force Procurement:
    F-15A.........................................................149.8
    Predator........................................................ 10
    Modification of Inservice Aircraft--55 C-135 Aircraft........... 52
    H-60............................................................5.5
    GPS Adv. Procurement............................................4.5
    Intelligence Comm Equip.........................................  4
    ADP Equip.......................................................  7
    Combat Training Ranges.......................................... 20
    Items less than $5 million (Light Parachutes)...................  3
    Mechanized Material Handling Equip..............................  8
  Procurement, Defense-Wide:
    Automatic Document Conversion System............................ 15
    Chem Bio Individual Protection..................................2.5
    Chem/Bio Contamination Avoidance................................0.9
TITLE II R, D, T, and E:
  Army R, D, T & E:
    Composite materials.............................................  6
    Passive millimeter wave camera..................................2.5
    MISSILE TECHNOLOGY: Advanced missile composite components.......  5
    COMBAT VEHICLE AND AUTOMOTIVE TECHN.: Smart Truck Initiative....3.5
    ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRONIC DEVICES: Portable hybrid electric 
      power research................................................1.5
    COUNTERMINE SYSTEMS: Acoustic mine detection....................2.5
    HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY: Medical errors reduction 
      research......................................................2.5
    MILITARY ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY:
      Thermoelectric power generation for mil. applications.........  1
      Operational support...........................................  4
    WARFIGHTER TECHNOLOGY: Thermal fluid based combat feeding system1.5
    MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY: Real time heart rate variability............2.5
    MEDICAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY:
      Life support for trauma and transportation....................  4
      Anti-malarial research........................................  2
      Volumetrically controlled manufacturing/artificial hip........3.5
    COMBAT VEHICLE AND AUTO. ADVANCED TECH:
      National Automotive Center....................................  3

[[Page S10389]]

      Equipment Readiness...........................................  8
      Fuel cell auxiliary power units...............................  3
    ARMY MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS INTEGRATION:
      Family of systems simulators..................................  3
      Army space control............................................  3
      Acoustic technology...........................................  4
      Radar power technology........................................  4
      Scramjet acoustic combustion enhancement......................1.5
      Aero-acoustic instrumentation.................................  3
      Supercluster distributed memory...............................1.5
    TANK AND MEDIUM CALIBER AMMUNITION: Trajectory correctable 
      munition......................................................  3
    C3--ENG. DEV.: Communications and networking technologies......12.5
    DOD HIGH ENERGY LASER TEST FACILITY:
      High-Energy laser test facility...............................  3
      Solid state high energy laser................................. 10
    AEROSTAT JOINT PROJECT OFFICE, DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS AGAINST 
      WMD: National Terrorism Preparedness Institute................  3
    ARMY TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES: Army tactical unmanned 
      aerial vehicles PIP...........................................  4
    END ITEM INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ACTS: Man Tech................. 10
  RDT&E, NAVY:
    AIR AND SURFACE LAUNCHED WEAPONS TECH: Free electron laser......  5
    SHIP, SUBMARINE & LOGISTICS TECHNOLOGY:
      Biodegradable polymers........................................1.2
      Bioenvironmental hazards research.............................  2
    MARINE CORPS LANDING FORCE TECHNOLOGY C3IS: Hyperspectral 
      research......................................................  3
    HUMAN SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY: Cognitive research....................  2
    MATERIALS, ELECTRONICS & COMPUTER TECH:
      Intermediate modulus carbon fiber.............................  2
      Silicon carbide & gallium nitride semiconduct. substrates.....  4
      Nanoscale sensor research.....................................2.5
      Ceramic and carbon based composites...........................  2
      Hybrid fiberoptic wireless communications.....................  2
    OCEANOGRAPHIC AND ATMOSPHERIC TECHN.:
      Adv sensors for mine countermeasures & oceanogr...............  6
      Distributed marine environment forecast system................  2
      Littoral area acoustic demo...................................  2
    UNDERSEA WARFARE WEAPONRY TECHN.: Computational engineering 
      design........................................................  2
    AIR SYSTEMS AND WEAPONS ADV. TECHN.:
      DP-2 thrust vectoring sys proof of concept demo...............4.5
      IHPTET........................................................  1
    SURFACE SHIP & SUBMARINE HM&E ADV. TECH:
      Project M.....................................................  3
      Ship service fuel cell program................................  2
      Advanced waterjet-21..........................................  4
      Laser welding and cutting.....................................  2
    MARINE CORPS ADV. TECHN. DEMO: Remote precision gun.............  1
    ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & LOGISTICS ADV. TECH:
      Hybrid light detection range lidar............................  3
      Aviation depot maint tec demo.................................1.7
    MINE & EXPEDITIONARY WARFARE ADV TECHN: Ocean modeling for mine 
      & expeditionary warfare.......................................  3
    ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION: USMC ATT Initiative.............7.5
    SHIP PRELIMINARY DESIGN & FEASIBILITY STUD: Shipboard simulation 
      for marine corps operations................................... 20
    COMBAT SYSTEMS INTEGRATION: Optically multiplexed wideband radar 
      beamformer....................................................  2
    NONLETHAL WEAPONS-DEM/VAL: Nonlethal research and technology 
      development...................................................  4
    SPACE & ELECTRONIC WARFARE ARCH/ENG SUPP: Collaborative 
      integrated information techn..................................  4
    MULTI-MISSION HELICOPTER UPGRADE DEVEL: Advanced threat infrared 
      countermeasures...............................................  5
    MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT: Mobile integrated diagnostic & data 
      analysis system...............................................1.5
    INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT: Single integrated human 
      resources strategy............................................  8
    TECHNICAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS: Supply chain management & 
      develop. best practices.......................................  4
    MARINE CORPS PROGRAM WIDE SUPPORT--E2-C SQUADRONS:
      E2-C2 Rotordome & control surface improvements................  2
      E2-C2 eight blade composite propeller.........................  4
    CONSOLIDATED TRAINING SYSTEMS DEVELOP: Battle force tactical 
      trainer.......................................................  5
    MARINE CORPS COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS: Mobile electronic warfare 
      support system................................................  5
    MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/SUPPORT JOINT C4ISR BATTLE CENTER: 
      Interoperability process software tools.......................  2
    TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES:
      Joint forces command operational testbed......................  1
      TUAV MSAG technology..........................................  7
    MODELING AND SIMULATION SUPPORT: C4ISR modeling and simulation/
      distributed eng plant.........................................  5
    INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS: Man Tech............................... 10
  RDT&E, AIR FORCE:
    DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES: Upper atmosphere and astronomical 
      research......................................................  3
    MATERIALS:
      Special aerospace materials & manufact. process...............4.5
      Ultra-high thermal conductivity graphite materials............1.8
      Resin systems for engine applications.........................1.3
      Laser processing tools........................................3.2
      Thermal protection system.....................................  1
      Weathering & corrosion on aircraft surfaces/parts.............  1
    AEROSPACE FLIGHT DYNAMICS: Aeronautical research................  2
    AEROSPACE PROPULSION:
      IHPTET/IHPRPT.................................................3.8
      Variable displacement vane pump...............................1.8
      PBO membrane fuel cell........................................2.6
    SPACE TECHNOLOGY:
      Aluminum aerostructures.......................................1.8
      Space survivability...........................................  3
      HAARP.........................................................  7
    CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS: XSS-10 microsatellite technology........  8
    ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR WEAPON SYSTEMS: Special aerospace 
      materials & manufact. process.................................4.5
    FLIGHT VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY: Fiber optic control technologies.....1.4
    BALLISTIC MISSILE TECHNOLOGY: Ballistic missile technology...... 12
    ADVANCED SPACECRAFT TECHNOLOGY:
      Miniature satellite threat reporting system...................1.5
      Upper stage flight experiment.................................  5
      Scorpius/low cost launch......................................6.5
      Space maneuver vehicle........................................6.5
      Solar orbital transfer vehicle................................2.6
    EW DEVELOPMENT:
      Precision location and identification technology.............. 10
      MALD..........................................................1.2
    MILSTAR LDR/MDR SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS: Automated 
      communications satellite management...........................4.5
    LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS: Standardized cockpit and crew seats.......3.7
    COMBAT TRAINING RANGES: AMODSM..................................  4
    RDT&E FOR AGING AIRCRAFT: Aging landing gear life extension..... 10
    AF TENCAP:
      Hyperspectral research on Predator UAV........................  2
      Hyperspectral research on high alt. reconn platforms..........  2
    INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM:
      Lighthouse cyber-security.....................................3.8
      U-2 SYERS/SYERS polarization project..........................  5
    AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS: Wideband integrated common data 
      link..........................................................  7
    MANNED RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS: ECARS............................9.5

[[Page S10390]]

    DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND SYSTEMS INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS: 
      Specialty Aerospace metals....................................3.8
  Defense-Wide R,D,T & E:
    Defense Research Sciences Spin Electronics...................... 10
    University Research Initiatives MEMS Sensors....................9.5
    Military Personnel Research Institute...........................  4
    Infrasound Detection Basic......................................  1
    Chem Agent Detection-Optical Computing..........................  2
    Thin Film Technology............................................1.7
    Lincoln Lab Research Program Bio Defense Research...............1.5
    Chem Bio Defense Program Hybrid Sensor Suite....................4.8
    Tactical Technology Remotely Controlled Combat Sys Ini..........100
    Integrated Comm and Cont. Tech. High Definition Sy..............  7
    Materials and Electronics Tech. 3-D Structure Research..........  2
    Nuclear Sustain. & Counter Prolif. Thermionics for Space........2.5
    High Energy Laser R&D HEL Applied Research/Transfers............ 30
    Explosives Demil. Tech. Ammunition Risk Analysis Cap............2.8
    Chem & Bio Def. Prog--Advanced--Chem-Bio Indiv. Samp............  2
    Consequence Management Information System.......................  4
    Chem-Bio Advanced Material Research.............................2.8
    Small Unit Bio Detector........................................0.75
    Generic Logistics R&D Tech Demonstrations Competitive Sustain...  3
    Air Logistics...................................................0.3
    Coop DoD/VA Med Research--Occupational Lung Disease.............0.5
    Adv. Concept Tech. Demonstrations--Ultra wideband Radar/Vision..  1
    Joint Wargaming Sim Management Office/WMD Simulation Cap........  3
    Advanced Sensor Applications Program............................9.5
    HAARP...........................................................  5
    CALS Initiative Integrated Data Environment.....................  2
    Environ. Sec. Tech. Certif. Prog. Remediation of Unexploded Ord.  4
    Defense Imagery and Mapping Program GeoSar...................... 15
    National Technology Alliance NIMA Viewer........................  3
    Smart Maps/Spatio-temporal Database Research....................  2
    Joint Technology Information Center Initiative.................. 20
    Live Fire Testing Reality Fire-Fighting Training................1.5
TITLE III OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE:
  Army O&M:
    Military Gator/Battlefield Mobility Enhancements................  3
    Modern Burner Unit..............................................  3
    Land Forces Depot Maintenance................................... 50
    Maintenance Automatic Identification Technology.................  1
    Apprenticeship Program..........................................  3
    Specialized Skill Training......................................  5
    WMD-CST.........................................................5.8
  Navy O&M:
    Operational Meteorology and Oceanography........................  7
    Man Overboard System............................................2.5
    MTAPP...........................................................  2
  USMC O&M: ULCANS.................................................. 10
  USAF O&M:
    Keesler AFB, MI, Weatherproofing................................2.8
    Tethered Aerostat Radar System..................................8.5
    Engine Reliability & Maintainability Program....................  2
    Aircraft Spares................................................70.8
  Defense Wide O&M:
    Mobility Enhancements........................................... 25
    IT Organization Composite Research..............................  2
    MOCAS Enhancememnts.............................................  1
    Document Conversion.............................................  4
    Clara Barton Center.............................................1.5
    CTMA-Depot Level Activities.....................................  6
    Legacy (Recovery & Preservation of Civil War Vessels)...........6.5
    Army National Guard O&M: Additional Military Technicians.......20.5
                                                             __________
                                                             
    Total Pork (not including MILCON Authorization)............1,272.75
                                                               ==========
_______________________________________________________________________

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION ADD-ONS:
  AL Redstone Space & Msl Defense Bldg.............................15.6
  AK Eielson AFB Joint Mobility Complex............................. 25
  AK Elmendorf AFB Child Development Center.........................7.6
  AK Air National Guard Kulis ANGB Corrosion Control Fac............ 12
  AZ Ft Huachuca Child Development Center...........................3.4
  AZ Army National Guard Papago Mil. Res. Readiness Center..........2.3
  AZ ANG Yuma Readiness Center......................................1.6
  AR Army Pine Bluff Arsenal Child Deve. Center.....................2.8
  CA Army Presidio Monterey Barracks................................2.6
  CA Navy Barstow MCLF Paint Fac....................................6.7
  CA Lemoore NAS Child Dev. Center..................................3.8
  CA Miramar MCAS Physical Fitness Center...........................6.4
  CA Navy Monterey NPGS Bldg 245 Extension..........................5.3
  CA Twenty Nine Palms BEQ.........................................21.7
  CA Beale Air Force Base Control Tower.............................6.3
  CA Camp Parks Army National Guard Org. Maint. Shop................6.1
  CA Fresno ANG Org. Maint Shop.....................................2.8
  CO Peterson AFB Computer Network Defense Fac......................6.8
  CO Peterson AFB Main Access Gate..................................2.3
  CO Ft. Carson ANG Mobilization and Training Site.................15.1
  CO Buckley ANGB Jt Munitions Maint and Storage Fac...............10.7
  DE Smyrna ANG Readiness Center....................................  7
  DC Marine Corps Site Improvement..................................7.4
  DC Washington NRL Nano Science Res. Lab..........................12.4
  FL Mayport NS Aircraft Carrier Wharf Improvements.................6.8
  FL Panama City CSS Amphib Warfare Integration Fac.................9.9
  FL Tyndall AFB Weapons Controller Training School.................6.2
  FL Clearwater Army Reserve Army Aviation Support Fac.............17.8
  FL St. Petersburg Armed Forces Reserve Center..................... 10
  FL Homestead AFB Fire Station.....................................  2
  GA Fort Gordon Army Consolidated Fire Station.....................2.6
  GA Athens NSCS Fitness Center.....................................2.9
  GA Moody AFB Dormitory............................................8.9
  GA Robbins AFB Storm Drainage System.............................11.7
  GA Robbins AFB Airmen Dining Hall.................................4.1
  HI Army Pohakuloa Trng Fac Saddle Access Road..................... 12
  HI Schofield Barracks, Army, Barracks Complex....................43.8
  HI Pearl Harbor NAVSTA Sewer Force Main on Ford Island............6.9
  HI Maui ANG Readiness Center.....................................11.6
  ID ANG Gowan Field C-130 Assault Strip............................  9
  IL Aurora ANG Readiness Center....................................2.8
  IL Danville ANG Readiness Center..................................2.4
  IN Ft. Wayne IAP Fuel Cell and Corr. Contr. Fac...................  7
  IN Grissom ARM Navy Reserve Training Center.......................4.7
  IN Grissom Air Force Reserve Services Complex....................11.3
  KS Army Fort Riley Adv. Waste Water Treatment..................... 22
  KS McConnell AFB ANG B-1 Power Check Pad..........................1.5
  KS McConnell AFB Approach lighting System.........................2.1
  KS McConnell AFB KC-135 Squad Ops Fac.............................9.7
  KY Ft. Knox ANG Parking at MATES..................................3.9
  LS Barksdale AFB B-52H Fuel Cell Maint. Dock.....................14.1
  LS New Orleans NAS Joint Reserve Center...........................  7
  LS New Orleans NAS Physical Fitness Rec Area......................1.7
  ME Portsmouth NSY Navy Standardized Waterfront Crane Rail Sys.....4.9
  MD Fort Meade Barracks............................................ 19
  MD NAS Patuxent River Environmental Noise Reduction Wall..........1.7
  MD NAS Patuxent River RDT&E Support Fac...........................6.6
  MD Aberdeen PG Munitions Assess/Proce Syst Fac....................3.1
  MA Hanscom AFB Renovate Acquisition Mgnt Fac...................... 12
  MA Barnes MAP Air Guard Relocate Taxiway..........................  4
  MA Otis ANG Upgrade Airfield Storm Water System...................  2
  MA Westover AFRB Repair Alter Airmen Quarters.....................7.4
  MA Westover Marine Reserve Trng Fac...............................9.1
  MI Augusta Army Guard Org. Maint. Shop............................3.6
  MI Lansing Combined Maint. Shop................................... 17
  MI Selfridge ANGB Upgrade Runway.................................. 18
  MS Stennis Space Center Warfighting Supp. Center..................6.9
  MS Columbus AFB Corrosion Control Fac.............................4.8

[[Page S10391]]

  MS Camp McCain (Elliot) Modified Record Fire Range................  2
  MS Oxford Army Guard Readiness Center.............................3.4
  MS Jackson IAP Air Nat. Guard C-17 Corrosion Cont. Fac............1.7
  MO Maryville Army Guard Readiness Center..........................4.2
  MO Whiteman AFB Navy Reserve Littoral Surveillance System.........3.6
  MT Malmstrom AFB Convert Commercial Gate..........................3.5
  MT Malmstrom AFB Helicopter Operations Facility...................2.4
  MT Bozeman Army Guard Readiness Center............................4.9
  NV Fallon NAS Corrosion Control Hangar............................6.3
  NV Carson City Army Guard USP&FO Administrative Complex...........4.5
  NV ANG Reno-Tahoe IAP Fuel Storage Complex........................  5
  NH ANG Pease Intl. Replace Medical Tng Fac........................  4
  NJ Picatinny Arsenal Armament Software Eng Ctr....................5.6
  NJ McGuire AFB Air Freight/Base Supply Complex...................10.6
  NM Cannon AFB Control Tower.......................................4.9
  NM Holloman AFB Repair Bonito Pipeline...........................18.4
  NM Kirtland AFB Fire/Crash Rescue Station.........................7.4
  NY Fort Drum Battle Simulation Center............................. 12
  NY Hancock Field Syracuse Small Arms Range Trg Fac................1.3
  NY Hancock Field Syracuse Upgrade Aircraft Maint Shop.............9.1
  NY Niagra Falls ANG IAP Upgrade runway/overrun....................4.1
  NC Camp Lejeune MCB Armories......................................  4
  NC Seymour Johnson AFB Repair Airfield Pavement...................7.1
  NC Charlotte Douglas IAP Replace Base Supply Warehouse............6.3
  ND Wahpeton ANG Armed Forces Readiness Center....................10.9
  OH Wright Patterson AFB Consolidated Toxic Hazard Lab............14.9
  OH Mansfield-Lahn MAP Replace Squad Ops and Comms.................7.7
  OH Springfield Buckley MAP Relocater Pwr Check & Arm Dearm........  4
  OH Columbus NMCRC Reserve Center Consolidation....................7.7
  OK Fort Sill Tactical Equip Shop.................................10.1
  OK Altus AFB C-17 Cargo Compartment Trainer.......................2.9
  OK Tinker AFB Dormitory...........................................8.7
  OK Vance AFB Maint. Hangar.......................................10.5
  OK Sand Springs Army Guard Armed Forces Reserve Center...........13.5
  OR Camp Rilea ANG Training Simulation Ctr.........................1.5
  PA Philadelphia NSWC Gas Turbine Fac.............................10.7
  PA Fort Indiantown Gap Army Guard Repair Waste Treatment..........8.6
  PA Johnstown Army Guard Regional Maint. Shop......................4.5
  PA Mansfield Army Guard Readiness Center..........................3.1
  PA New Milford Army Guard Readiness Center........................2.7
  SC Charleston AFB Base Mobility Warehouse.........................9.4
  SC Charleston AFB Repair Runway North Field......................10.3
  SC Shaw AFB Dining Fac............................................5.3
  SC Beaufort Readiness Center......................................4.8
  SC Leesburg Training Center.......................................5.7
  SC Fort Jackson Navy Reserve Readiness Center.....................5.2
  SD Ellsworth AFB Civil Engineer Complex..........................10.3
  SD Sioux Falls ANG Consolidated Barracks..........................0.1
  TN Henderson ANG Readiness Center.................................5.2
  TN New Tazwell ANG Readiness Center...............................3.5
  TX Ft. Hood Command and Control Fac...............................  4
  TX Ft. Hood Fire Station/Transportation Motor Pool................6.4
  TX Corpus Christi NAS Parking Apron Expansion.....................4.8
  TX Ingleside NS Mobile Mine Assembly Unit Fac.....................2.4
  TX Kingsville NAS Aircraft Parking Apron..........................2.7
  TX Dyess AFB Fitness Center......................................12.8
  TX Lackland AFB Child Deve Ctr....................................4.8
  TX Laughlin AFB Visitors Quarters................................11.9
  TX Sheppard AFB Dining Facility...................................6.5
  TX William Beaumont Med Center Lab Renovation.....................4.2
  TX Ellington Field Air National Guard Base Supply Complex......... 10
  TX Fort Worth Navy Reserve Indoor Rifle Range.....................3.5
  TX Fort Worth NAS Reserve Religious Ministry Facility.............1.8
  UT Hill AFB Dormitory............................................11.5
  VT Burlington IAP Aircraft Maint Complex..........................9.3
  VA Fort Eustis Aircraft Maint Instruct. Building..................4.5
  VA Dahlgren NSWC Joint Warfare Analysis Center...................19.4
  VA Langley AFB Fitness Center....................................12.2
  VA Richlands Army Guard Org. Maintenance Shop.....................1.2
  WA Bangor NSB Strategic Security Support Fac......................4.6
  WA Bremerton NS Fleet Recreation Fac..............................1.9
  WA Everett NS Aquatic Combat Training Fac.........................5.5
  WA Puget Sound Bremerton Industrial Skills Center................. 10
  WA Army Guard Bremerton Readiness Center..........................1.7
  WA Yakima Training Center Readiness Center........................1.6
  WA Fort Lawton Transfer...........................................3.4
  WV Yeagar ANG Upgrade Parking Apron and Taxiway...................  6
  WV Eleanor Navy Reserve Center....................................2.5
  WY Air Guard Cheyenne Control Tower...............................1.4
    MILCON Pork.................................................1,060.8
    Pork not including MILCON..................................1,272.75
    Total Add-ons, Increases and Earmarks......................2,333.55
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my profound 
disappointment that the Conference Report to the Fiscal Year 2001 
Department of Defense Authorization bill does not contain language that 
was in the Senate passed bill to expand Federal jurisdiction in 
investigating hate crimes.
  The language in the Senate passed bill was adopted by the Senate on 
June 20th by a vote of 57-42, and endorsed in the House on September 
13th by a vote of 232-190. This language would expand Federal 
jurisdiction in investigating hate crimes by removing the requirement 
in Federal hate crime law that only allows federal prosecution if the 
perpetrator is interfering with a victim's federally protected right 
like voting or attending school. It would also extend the protection of 
current hate crime law to those who are victimized because of their 
gender, sexual orientation, or disability.
  Mr. President, any crime hurts our society, but crimes motivated by 
hate are especially harmful. Many states, including my state of 
Vermont, have already passed strong hate crimes laws, and I applaud 
them in this endeavor. An important principle of the amendment that was 
in the Senate-passed bill was that it allowed for Federal prosecution 
of hate crimes without impeding the rights of states to prosecute these 
crimes.
  The adoption of this amendment by the Senate was an important step 
forward in ensuring that the perpetrators of these harmful crimes are 
brought to justice. The American public knows that Congress should pass 
this legislation, and it is unfortunate that the conferees did not 
retain this important language.
  Congress should pass this legislation, and I will continue to work to 
ensure that this legislation is enacted into law.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as the Senate completes action on this 
important legislation, I want to again congratulate the chairman of the 
Committee, Senator Warner, for his leadership and determination in 
completing this important bill.
  I also want to thank and congratulate all of the members of the Armed 
Services Committee for their hard work on this bill over the past year. 
The subcommittee chairpersons and ranking members carried the brunt of 
the workload in conference, but the fact is that every member of the 
committee played an active and constructive role in this legislation, 
from the committee and subcommittee hearings in the spring to the 
committee markup, to floor action and finally in conference.
  Finally, Mr. President, I want to say a special word of thanks to the 
staff of the Armed Services Committee. The majority staff under the 
capable leadership of Les Brownlee works very cooperatively with the 
minority staff under David Lyles. The Committee's long tradition of 
bipartisanship among the members extends to the staff as well. They 
truly work together as a single team for the benefit of the men and 
women of the armed forces and for the national security of our nation.
  In addition to David Lyles, I want to thank all of the members of the 
Armed Services Committee minority staff for their efforts this year: 
Peter Levine, Rick DeBobes; Richard Fieldhouse;

[[Page S10392]]

Creighton Greene; Mike McCord; Gary Leeling; Dan Cox; Chris Cowart; and 
Jan Gordon. I also want to recognize the efforts of the associate staff 
members of all of the Democratic members of the committee for their 
efforts this year.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my gratitude to 
Chairman Warner and Senator Levin for bringing to the Senate a strong 
Defense Authorization conference report. While I have long had the 
greatest respect for my friends from Virginia and Michigan, the task 
they complete today is a testament to their legislative skill, 
managerial expertise and leadership. Over the last year--and for many 
years--Senators Warner and Levin have listened to our troops needs, and 
the needs of our troops' families. They have listened to our commanders 
and identified the equipment and modernization requirements needed to 
carry out the missions we, as a nation, expect of our military. They 
have listened to their colleagues, literally working through hundreds 
of amendments and incorporating many of them into this conference 
report. And today we consider a conference report which reflects all 
these influences and effectively balances the current national security 
requirements of our country with an eye toward the future needs of our 
military.
  Broadly speaking, the Defense Authorization report we adopt today 
properly places the fighting men and women of this country at the heart 
of our military priorities. It increases pay, extends special pay and 
bonus programs to facilitate troop retention and it begins to address 
the housing, health care and educational needs of troops and their 
families. In addition this report extends retirement benefits 
including, most notably, the TRICARE-for-life program which will 
provide a prescription drug benefit and reduce out-of-pocket medical 
expenses for our Medicare-eligible military retirees--making a lifetime 
health care commitment to our fighting men and women. Taken as a whole, 
this report is a significant step in the right direction.
  This conference agreement will ensure that the United States remains 
the world's preeminent superpower well into the 21st century. The 
report authorizes $38.9 billion for research, development, training and 
evaluation, including $4.8 billion for Ballistic Missile Defense, 
ensuring that we remain the most technologically advanced fighting 
force in the world and enabling our country to pursue a policy that 
will provide the greatest level of security in an ever-changing global 
environment.
  I am proud of the central role Connecticut has earned when it comes 
to providing the men and women of our armed forces with the cutting 
edge in military equipment. I feel this conference report reflects that 
continued preeminence.
  As many of my colleagues are aware, today is the 100th anniversary of 
the commissioning of the U.S.S. Holland, the United States Navy's first 
submarine. Today we mark 100 years of submarine operations by the 
United States Navy. I feel it is altogether appropriate that the 
Congress christen the next 100 years of submarine operations with a 
21st century new attack submarine, the Virginia Class. It will be the 
most capable and most cost effective submarine class ever built.
  Therefore, I commend the conferees for recognizing the growing need 
for, and expanding role of, our submarine force by authorizing the 
block buy of five New Attack Submarines, including $1.7 billion in 
fiscal year 2001 for a new Virginia Class submarine. I am proud to have 
the U.S.S. Virginia, the first of its class, taking shape in 
Connecticut today. The commitment we make here today will continue this 
essential program for years to come.
  It is also encouraging that further planning and study for another 
innovative program, the conversion of four Trident submarines into 
guided missile submarines, remains a national priority, having been 
authorized for $37 million.
  Further, in response to a force level requirement report produced 
earlier this year by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, this conference report 
requires the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on how our 
country might maintain at least 55 fast attack submarines through 2015. 
I fully support this initiative.
  The H-60 helicopter platform is once again recognized in this report 
for its unique versatility and combat-proven track record of 
survivability and performance. The agreement authorizes $206 million 
for 16 UH-60Ls and two UH-60Qs, and $280 million for 17 CH-60s. With 
respect to the demonstrated need of our armed forces, this 
authorization level represents an appropriate increase over the 21 
helicopters requested by the Administration.
  The conference agreement also authorizes $310 million for F-15 engine 
upgrades and $305 million for F-16 engine upgrades. This will extend 
the life and improve the performance of these vital air supremacy 
assets.
  The New London Submarine Base is authorized to receive $3.1 million 
for much needed dry-dock construction which will enhance the base's 
ability to service and maintain our fighting force.
  I might also mention a number of other authorizations which are 
contained in this conference report, including for the C-17 cargo 
aircraft program, the JPATS program, the Joint STARS ground 
surveillance aircraft program, the Comanche helicopter development 
program, the F-22 fighter engineering and development program and the 
ongoing, but slowed, Joint Strike Fighter development. All of these 
important national security priorities will draw upon the ingenuity and 
strength of the citizens of Connecticut.
  I would also like to note the language in this conference report that 
will convey the national defense reserve fleet vessel Glacier to the 
Glacier Society of Bridgeport. The ship will be refurbished and docked 
in Bridgeport Harbor, becoming a museum to educate students and the 
general public about military service and the exploration of the North 
and South Poles. One of only a few ships to have served under both the 
U.S. Navy and the Coast Guard, the icebreaker Glacier made 39 trips to 
the North and South poles, including the deepest penetration of the of 
the Antarctic by sea in 1961. The Glacier will become a valuable civic 
asset for Bridgeport, and I am pleased to see the inclusion of this 
provision in the report.
  And finally, I would like to take a moment to comment about one last 
provision. Senator DeWine and I worked on the Firefighter Investment 
and Response Enhancement, FIRE, Act, which was designed to help reduce 
injuries among firefighters across the country. The original House 
version of the bill had previously been introduced by Congressman Bill 
Pascrell, Jr. of New Jersey. Senator DeWine and I worked hard to move 
the FIRE Act and we were pleased when Chairman Warner and Senator Levin 
agreed to accept the FIRE Act as an amendment to the DOD Authorization 
bill.
  Our original amendment has been modified by the Conference Committee, 
but the FIRE provision offered here today as part of this Conference 
Report authorizes more than $460 million dollars worth of federal 
assistance to local fire departments and for related research. This 
legislation represents a major step in developing an effective 
partnership between the Federal government and the men and women who 
every day put their lives on the line to protect Americans from all 
sorts of man-made and natural disasters.
  The FIRE Act, is designed to provide local fire departments with the 
resources they need to keep firefighter safe and to protect the public. 
The bill is modeled on the very successful ``COPS'' program, which has 
helped towns and cities hire tens of thousands of police officers and 
to buy equipment to protect lives and property from crime. Now, under 
the FIRE Act the federal government will make a similar commitment to 
help protect lives and property from the ravages of fire, chemical 
spills, accidents, and natural disasters.
  Each day, a million U.S. firefighters put their lives on the line to 
protect our families, our homes, and our businesses. Unfortunately, 
under the current funding regime, these unselfish men and women aren't 
always as well-equipped as they should be.
  And in many ways the problems are getting worse. As our population 
grows, as our buildings and infrastructure age, as our suburbs expand 
and our highways and waterways become more congested, our firefighters 
and emergency medical technicians are being

[[Page S10393]]

asked to respond to an increasing number and variety of dangerous 
situations.
  There is a bright side, as well. Technology has kept pace with the 
increasing demands. We now have high-tech equipment, like thermal-
imaging devices, that allow firefighters to see inside a building 
without going into the blaze. And modern science has produced 
incredible materials that can be integrated into protective gear that 
can shield firefighters from heat and falling debris. Unfortunately, 
technology is not cheap. And local governments are seldom able to fund 
the purchase of all of the wonderful tools becoming available.
  There is a gap--a widening gap--between the leading edge of modern 
technology and our ability to put that technology to work to protect 
the public and our firefighters. I believe the Federal Government has 
an obligation to bridge the gap and help ensure that local firefighters 
have the financial resources they need to protect the public.
  We can't eliminate all of the dangers that confront firefighters, but 
we can at least ensure that our local fire companies have up-to-date, 
safe and reliable equipment and today we are doing something about the 
problem.
  By passing the FIRE Act today, Congress is saying to every 
firefighter in America: ``We have taken you for granted for too long. 
We won't ignore your needs any longer. We stand with you and we are 
committed to working together to ensure that America is as safe and as 
prepared for any catastrophe as it can be.''
  Passage of the FIRE Act has been one of my highest legislative 
priorities this year. I want to thank Senator Warner, Senator Levin, 
and Senator McCain, Senator Hollings, and, of course, Senator DeWine 
for their vigilance and commitment on this most important issue. I also 
want to thank the experts at the National Safe Kids Campaign, 
International Association of Fire Fighters, International Association 
of Fire Chiefs, National Volunteer Fire Council, International 
Association of Arson Investigators, International Society of Fire 
Service Instructors, the National Fire Protection Association, and The 
Safety Equipment Association for all of the assistance and insight they 
have provided over the course of the last year.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, today's final passage of the Defense 
Authorization Conference Report is a significant achievement. It 
fulfills past commitments, provides the necessary funds for our present 
obligations, and makes significant investments toward a secure future. 
I want to commend Senator Warner and Senator Levin for the tremendous 
job they have done providing for our national defense. This bill 
authorizes $310 billion for the Department of Defense and the 
Department of Energy's defense related activities. This is $4.5 billion 
more than requested by President Clinton, and represents the first real 
increase in defense spending in 14 years.
  One provision in the Defense Authorization bill of particular 
importance to the people of Missouri is that of military retiree health 
care. For generations, our military's career men and women have 
dedicated their lives to the protection of freedom and prosperity in 
America. One of the promises this country made to these men and women 
was a pledge that career members of the Armed Forces, their spouses, 
and dependents would have health care benefits on active duty and in 
retirement. While these benefits were not authorized by Congress, they 
were promised by the United States government, specifically, by the 
Department of Defense and its recruiters. Promises made need to be 
kept. Career members of the Armed Forces acted in good faith and relied 
on the statements of their government's representatives.
  Mr. President, until recently, military retirees were provided with 
health care in military facilities here and abroad. However, due to 
major changes in the military health care program, multiple base 
closings, and a risky downsizing of the military by the current 
Administration, too many military retirees have been shut out of 
military facilities. Many have sought Medicare coverage or private 
insurance, or have been forced to do without access to care. In 
Missouri, where we have 76,439 military retirees, retiree family 
members, and survivors, this is a significant problem. Although we are 
fortunate to have Fort Leonard Wood and Whiteman Air Force Base close 
at hand in Missouri, and Scott Air Force Base in Illinois and Fort 
Leavenworth, Kansas, both nearby, many military retirees in Missouri 
have told me that it is virtually impossible to get an appointment at 
these bases for a routine physical, let alone for critical care. It is 
clear that Washington is not keeping its promise to these patriotic men 
and women.
  Through the strong and dedicated leadership of Senator Warner, 
America's military retirees will again have access to quality health 
care, as promised. This Defense authorization bill includes a provision 
to expand the popular TRICARE Senior Prime demonstration project. It 
eliminates the current restrictions that require military retirees to 
lose their military health care benefits under the CHAMPUS and TRICARE 
programs after they reach age 65 and become eligible for Medicare. 
Military retirees will not be able to receive TRICARE Senior Prime, or 
``TRICARE-for-life''--an HMO-type coverage plan for retirees that 
includes partial payment of the costs from Medicare. This program will 
finally ensure that all military retirees have access to quality health 
care throughout their life. This bill will also establish a military 
health care trust fund to ensure that retiree health care remains 
solvent for years to come. This valuable retiree health care provision 
is endorsed by most of the major veteran and military retiree 
organizations, and I support its inclusion in this legislation.
  In addition to ``TRICARE-for-life,'' the Defense Authorization bill 
also extends to military retirees access to prescription drugs, by 
restoring the full DoD Prescription drug benefit, including mail order 
and retail pharmacy, to all Medicare-eligible uniformed services 
beneficiaries.
  These break-through provisions for military retirees are not the only 
important provisions of the Defense Authorization bill. This bill 
includes several critical active-duty provisions including measures to 
bring our military families off the food-stamp roles, provide a well-
deserved 3.7% pay increase, and eliminates the statutory requirement 
that service-members incur out-of-pocket housing costs, thus permitting 
the Deputy of Defense to increase housing allowances immediately. This 
will eliminate out-of-pocket cost for housing by October 1, 2004.
  This bill also makes significant progress towards ensuring a strong 
defense for our country in the years to come. The legislation includes 
authorizations for additional F-15s and a new Extended-Range Cruise 
Missiles, as well as provides $63 billion dollars for other new weapons 
procurements. Furthermore, the bill provides an additional $1 billion 
in funding for key readiness accounts. These amounts are necessary to 
ensure our military is not only ready to fight today, but will remain 
ready for any challenges our country may face in the future.
  Again, I want to thank Senator Warner for his leadership in the area 
of national defense. I urge the Senate to support this bill, and to 
support our men and women in uniform, especially those who gave their 
lives in service today on the U.S.S. Cole, in far away Yemen. We extend 
our thoughts and prayers to their families and friends.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
conference report.
  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.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Grams), 
the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), and the Senator from 
Arizona (Mr. McCain) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Feinstein), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator 
from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Torricelli) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``aye.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?

[[Page S10394]]

  The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 275 Leg.]

                                YEAS--90

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

                                NAYS--3

     Feingold
     Kerrey
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Feinstein
     Grams
     Helms
     Kennedy
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Torricelli
  The conference report 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.


                             Change of Vote

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to 
change my vote to ``no.'' It does not change the outcome, most 
definitely.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I cannot think of a stronger message that 
we as a body of the U.S. Government--the legislative body--can send to 
the men and women of the armed services in this hour of need throughout 
the uniform ranks, the reserve ranks, and the Guard ranks than this 
strong vote. It is a salute to each and every one of them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I join the chairman in that sentiment. This 
is an extraordinarily strong vote for a Defense authorization bill. I 
think there were 90-plus votes for it.

                          ____________________