Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 48 (Wednesday, April 4, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 48 (Wednesday, April 4, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3399-S3423]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEARS
2001-2011--Continued

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, at the outset, let me say to the
distinguished Senator from West Virginia, who holds an extraordinary
record in this body, and asked me 45 minutes ago if I would mind
yielding for a question, I want the Record to show that I agreed to
yield for a question. I had no idea that the answer would be so long,
Mr. President. I thought it worthy of note.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if my dear friend will yield briefly, just
that I might apologize to him for the questions having gone on and on
and the answers and the joining by other Senators, which I think added
to the importance of the question. I think we performed a service. I
certainly thank the Senator most kindly.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, like the incident with the Navy plane, no

[[Page S3400]]

apology is in order. I have worked with the distinguished Senator from
West Virginia for many years when he was the Democratic leader and then
majority leader, President pro tempore, and chairman of the
Appropriations Committee. I greatly admire what he has done.
I sat and listened to the whole proceeding, but I thought it was
worth just a minute of the Senate's time to note I yielded for a
question and 45 minutes later I got the floor.

Amendment No. 186

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

The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for himself,
Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, Ms. Collins, Ms. Landrieu, Mr.
Kerry, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. DeWine, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Sarbanes,
and Ms. Snowe proposes an amendment numbered 186.

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

(Purpose: Increase discretionary health funding by $700,000,000)

On page 28, line 23, increase the amount by $700,000,000.
On page 28, line 24, increase the amount by $700,000,000.
On page 43, line 15, decrease the amount by $700,000,000.
On page 43, line 16, decrease the amount by $700,000,000.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this is an amendment which adds $700
million to increase the health function in this resolution to assure
that the funding for the National Institutes of Health be doubled by
the year 2003 as provided for in a resolution of the Senate which goes
back to 1997, a 98-0 resolution that we double the funding for the
National Institutes of Health. The offset for the $700 million comes
from the 920 account, I am advised, which is allowances on
administrative costs across the board.

The funding for the National Institutes of Health is a priority
second to none. There is nothing more important than health. The
National Institutes of Health have made extraordinary progress in their
efforts to combat the most serious maladies which confront Americans,
and for that matter, people around the world. Among those diseases,
including, but not necessarily limited to, are Alzheimer's disease,
Parkinson's, epilepsy, cancer of the prostate, breast cancer, cervical
cancer, leukemia, melanoma, hearing research, heart disease, stroke,
AIDS, and diabetes. I could go on and on and on.
Our effort to secure this funding has been a rather bumpy road. We
have managed to persevere. In 1998, Senator Harkin and I led the attack
with a resolution to add $1.1 billion to the health function and the
amendment was defeated 63-37. We came back the next year, having
sustained that loss for $1 billion and doubled the request to $2
billion. Again the amendment was defeated, but this time by a lesser
vote of 57-41.
In those 2 years, notwithstanding the failure of our efforts to get
an increase in the budget resolution, we took out our sharp pencils and
as a matter of priorities allocated the extra billion in fiscal year
1998 and the $2 billion extra in fiscal year 1999. In fiscal year 2000
we, again, offered an amendment to the budget resolution, this time of
$1.4 billion to the health function over and above the $600 million
which had been provided by the Budget Committee. This time we lost
again by a narrowing vote of 47-52. Again, we found the extra funds as
a matter of priority by allocating funds within the overall budget for
the subcommittee which has jurisdiction over labor, health, human
services, and education.
In fiscal year 2001, we offered an amendment to the budget resolution
to add $1.6 billion to the health function. This time, for the first
time, the budget resolution was passed 55-45. Our efforts were rewarded
with increases over that 4-year period of affirmative votes: 37, to 41,
to 47, and finally to 55.
This year, on February 13, Senator Harkin and I had as additional
cosponsors Senators Breaux, Cochran, Collins, DeWine, Frist,
Hutchinson, Mikulski, Murray, Santorum, Sarbanes, Schumer, and Snowe on
S. Res. 19, the Biomedical Revitalization Resolution of 2001.
This year the administration has come forward with $2.750 billion, so
it was necessary only to increase by $700 million. We could not do a
figure in less than $100 million amounts under the resolution rules
which would enable us to come to the $3.4 billion target which is
necessary to keep us on the path to doubling the NIH budget within the
5-year period as called for in the resolution from 1997 which, as I
say, passed 98-0.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, would the Senator from Pennsylvania yield
for questions on my time?
Mr. SPECTER. I yield.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for his leadership
on this issue. He has brought this body a long way. We have seen it
over a number of years by his persistence and persuasion. I publicly
acknowledge the leadership he has provided in an area that is
critically important. I have seen in the lives of some of my
constituents how important the NIH can be and what an incredible
contribution it has made to improving health research and extending the
longevity of the lives of the American people. The Senator from
Pennsylvania can be very proud of his advocacy.
As I understand the Senator's amendment, it provides $700 million to
the National Institutes of Health in the fiscal year 2002, is that
correct?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes.
Mr. CONRAD. The source of funding for that would be out of the
projected surplus for that year?
Mr. SPECTER. No, as I am advised by the experts, out of the 920
account which covers allowances and administrative costs.
Mr. CONRAD. If that is the case, I think it may well be we will
support that amendment on this side. I have to check with other
colleagues, as I am sure the Senator is aware, in order to give that
answer. We are in the process of doing that. Perhaps as we go through
that process of checking with other Senators, we can find out what
their disposition is. We may be able to either accept this amendment or
go to a quick vote on this amendment. We will try to get an answer
quickly.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the distinguished Senator from North Dakota for
those comments. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. The Senator from Iowa has arrived.
Mr. HARKIN. I seek time to speak on behalf of this amendment of my
colleague.
Mr. CONRAD. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. SPECTER. If the Senator from Iowa will yield, I talked about the
cosponsors of the earlier resolution we offered. Let me note that I
have offered this on behalf of Senators Harkin, Hutchinson, Mikulski,
Collins, Landrieu, Kerry, Wellstone, Murray, DeWine, Snowe, and Senator
Sarbanes, as well as myself.
I yield to my colleague from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to stand with my colleague
and subcommittee chairman, Senator Specter, to offer this important
amendment to the budget resolution. We stand at the cusp of a
revolution that I believe will result in the overthrow of disease and
disability in this country. At no time in our history have we been so
close to major advances in the fight against killer diseases. Every day
we read about major breakthroughs in medical research: AIDS vaccine,
decoding the DNA letters that make up the human genome, new therapy for
breast cancer, less invasive surgical techniques. This resolution is a
direct result of our investment in medical research.
Four years ago the Senate went on record 98-0 committing to double
the NIH budget over 5 years. We are well on our way to doing that. Over
the past 3 years, Senator Specter and I have made good on that pledge
by providing the biggest increases ever for medical research. Last year
we were able to provide an unprecedented $2.5 billion,

[[Page S3401]]

or 15-percent increase, for NIH. We worked hard to make it happen, and
I thank all of my Senate colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats,
who worked with us on this historic accomplishment.

Unfortunately, if we pass this budget resolution as it is, we will
fall short of the 15-percent increase needed to maintain the commitment
that 98 Senators made to doubling the NIH budget over 5 years. But if
we pass this budget resolution as it is, we will fall short of keeping
that commitment.
This budget resolution in fact shortchanges Americans' health. At the
same time, this budget skimps on basic investments in America's health
care. It also cuts taxes for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans by
almost $700 billion. What this budget should do is spend the additional
$3.4 billion needed to ensure that all Americans, no matter what
income, can live healthy and productive lives. In this budget, that is
only .4 percent of a tax cut for the wealthiest; .4 percent of the tax
cut just for the wealthiest Americans would help us fulfill our
commitment of doubling medical research at NIH.
In the next 30 years the number of Americans over age 65 will double.
Medical research and its discoveries are essential to reduce the
enormous economic and social toll posed by chronic diseases that impact
our elderly, from Alzheimer's and arthritis, to cancer, Parkinson's,
and stroke disease.
Let's take Alzheimer's disease. Just the other day Senator Specter
chaired a hearing with researchers doing cutting-edge work on
Alzheimer's, and we also had patients there, some of whom were
diagnosed as having Alzheimer's. One of the witnesses was John Wagenaar
of Georgia, IA. He was diagnosed with Alzheimer's at age 60, at the
prime of his life, working at a manufacturing plant, taking pride in
his children and grandchildren, looking forward to retirement. But in
spite of this devastating diagnosis, he is a lucky man. Thanks to
medical research, he can now take a pill that has slowed the course of
the disease so now he can even continue to work and enjoy his family.
John Wagenaar can hope, along with the rest of us, that a drug will
soon come on the market that will not just slow Alzheimer's disease but
actually stop it.
Researchers have made extraordinary advances in recent years. A
decade ago--just 10 years ago--there were no Alzheimer's drugs on the
market. Today there are four, and more are on the way. Scientists have
developed a vaccine. We saw startling pictures of this at our hearing
yesterday. When tested on mice, it takes away, it wards off, the brain-
clogging deposits that are associated with Alzheimer's. Plans are now
underway to test this vaccine in humans.
We are clearly on the verge of breakthroughs on Alzheimer's and in
other areas. At no time in our history have we been so close to major
advances in the fight against killer diseases. Now is the time to boost
our investment to make sure our Nation's top scientists can turn these
dreams into reality.
The amendment Senator Specter has offered, which I am proud to
cosponsor, is very simple. It ensures the budget resolution will
include $3.4 billion for the National Institutes of Health for fiscal
year 2002. It is a commonsense amendment. It is bipartisan. It is the
right thing to do. We have gone too far now to cut back and to slow
down. Millions of Americans, our families, our loved ones, our friends,
and our neighbors all over this country are counting on us not to back
down in this fight against the diseases that still plague us.
As I said, we have made major strides against Alzheimer's,
Parkinson's disease, stroke disease. We have made great strides in
doing things that help alleviate the struggle many people have with
mental illness. We have come a long way. Now we are on the cusp of
finding the interventions, the vaccines, the drugs that will alleviate
this human suffering and make life better for so many people. Now is
not the time to turn back.
This budget resolution before us would say that investing in NIH is
not that important. This budget resolution says investing in medical
research is not as important as giving a big tax cut to people who make
over $1 million a year.
I disagree with that priority. I believe the priority is elsewhere.
Mr. President, .4 percent, that is all it takes. Four-tenths of 1
percent of the tax cuts of those Americans in the top 1-percent bracket
would pay for us keeping our commitment to fund medical research at
NIH.
I wholeheartedly support this amendment. I hope it has strong
bipartisan support on the Senate floor.
I yield my time.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, a quick word on why I voted against the
Specter amendment which made extra room in the budget for $700 million
in National Institutes of Health research spending.
I voted against the NIH amendment not because I oppose the valuable
research that NIH does, but rather because I wanted to draw attention
to the fact that we risk focusing on NIH spending to the exclusion of
other important initiatives.
Biomedical research at NIH is important, but we must recognize we
have other priorities as well.
The NIH is important, but so is the basic scientific research that we
do at the National Science Foundation. Basic research is the foundation
on which applied science and technology rests. Understanding how the
world works has applications in every field, including health. Without
increased funding for basic research, we will soon find that our basic
scientific understanding is too limited to get the maximum value from
the applied research NIH does.
The NIH is important, but so are community health centers. These
local clinics provide basic primary care services to close to 12
million Americans at over 3,000 sites in medically-underserved urban
and rural communities across the country. Yet the demand is still
great--millions are still uninsured, and millions more simply don't
have access to health care providers. The NIH does great work expanding
the high-tech envelope of medicine, but the people that health centers
serve often cannot get even low-tech services like immunizations and
basic doctor visits.
The NIH is important, but so are children's hospitals. These
priceless resources care for our sickest children, train a significant
portion of our children's doctors, and themselves perform much of the
pediatric research that NIH funds. But for three decades we have not
treated these children's teaching hospitals fairly. Through the
Medicare program, we have provided billions of dollars to help other
teaching hospitals train physicians. But until recently, we barely gave
children's hospitals pocket change to support their physician training.
We still do not have parity between children's hospitals and other
teaching hospitals, we need to get there.
I support the President's budget and his tax cut, and thus I
supported this budget resolution, at least as it was introduced.
Knowing that the appropriations bills that actually provide funds for
all of these priorities will be written later this year, I was content
to bide my time and deal with funding totals then.
But when the NIH amendment was brought up earlier, I started to
worry. Would our focus during this debate be only on the NIH, and not
in other areas? Would this mean that later appropriations bills thus
focus only on the NIH and ignore others areas? Would the NIH become the
guest at the dinner party who stays too long and eats everyone else's
food? We must not let this happen.
We voted to make room in the budget for a total increase in NIH
spending of $3.5 billion, more than 16 percent above the current
spending level. None of these other important programs, the National
Science Foundation, community health centers, children's hospitals,
receive anywhere close to that much of an increase.
In the remaining time here on the budget resolution, I intend to
offer amendments that will address each of these priorities. I hope the
Senate will recognize that they are just as important as the vital work
the NIH does. And I hope to see those amendments pass in a similarly
overwhelming way.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, whatever time Senator Specter had I
yield back.
Mr. CONRAD. We yield back our time on our side as well.

[[Page S3402]]

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on behalf of
Senator Specter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have already been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll to ascertain the
presence of a quorum.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 186. The yeas and nays
have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 4, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 70 Leg.]

YEAS--96

Akaka
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--4

Bond
Gregg
Smith (NH)
Voinovich
The amendment (No. 186) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Under the agreement, is the next business of the Senate
the Landrieu-Cleland amendment on national defense?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. CONRAD. How much time is available on that amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One hour evenly divided; 30 minutes per side.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I will be sending an amendment to the
desk in just a few moments on behalf of myself and Senator Carnahan to
correct the Record. We will be offering this amendment together this
afternoon, along with Senator Corzine, Senator Breaux, Senator
Lieberman, Senator Levin, Senator Graham, Senator Nelson, and Senator
Reed. There may be others who will be joining us in offering what we
hope will be a bipartisan amendment because this is surely a principle
that both Democrats and Republicans have supported for many years.
Before I get to my prepared remarks, I thank my colleagues, Senator
Conrad and Senator Domenici, for their fine work in handling this
debate. I will begin by giving a very graphic description of our
national defense outlays as a share of GDP.
It is helpful for our party, for the other side, and for our
constituents to understand that these numbers have varied widely and
fluctuated dramatically based on the current needs and crisis at hand.
As my colleagues can see, we were spending in the 1940s almost 40
percent of our gross domestic product when this country geared up to
fight the greatest war machine ever built in the history of the world,
when we defended the world. Then we came down to a low of below 5
percent as we recovered from that war and then had to invest again for
the Korean war.
This number has fluctuated wildly. I hope this chart can be seen
clearly because it is very important for the public to get a sense of
this debate and to understand why this amendment is so important and
why I am hoping we will have many Members support it.
This is an effort to improve the budget resolution we are debating,
and it is a very important debate clearly for the future of our Nation.
As one can see, we came down a great amount in spending, of course,
from the 1950s to the current year of 2001, and rightly so perhaps
because we used this as a peace dividend. The world generally being at
peace, we were able to contribute to our economy, to investments in
other areas, and to stabilizing our budget. This was done in a
bipartisan fashion.
We can see under President Reagan's leadership these numbers went up
slightly, which is referred to as the Reagan buildup, but the numbers
have come down. Both candidates for President, Governor Bush and now,
of course, President Bush, and Vice President Gore talked about the
need to stabilize this line, to make strategic investments now, to not
allow this line to continue to slide because the world is not becoming
safer. The cold war may be over, but there are still many challenges.
In addition, there has been study upon study, speech upon speech
given by our chairman, our ranking member, and members of the committee
talking about the time to invest now in our military to help turn
around this sliding line; to help stabilize. Words they used: Let's be
reliable; let's reinvest in our men and women; let's increase morale;
let's improve housing; let's recapitalize. This amendment is a modest
step toward that end.
To remind all, during the 2000 election campaign, President Bush made
a very compelling national security address at the Citadel, a military
school with a rich tradition of history and honor. While we commonly
refer to that as the ``Citadel speech,'' the speech has a name.
President Bush entitled his remarks that day ``A Period of
Consequences.''
That title is not just a casual descriptive phrase. It has an
important legacy. It was first used by a man facing the most
consequential period in his nation's history--Sir Winston Churchill.
Assuming the reins of power at a time when Britain was threatened by
the greatest war machine ever created, Churchill proclaimed:

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing
and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In
its place, we are entering a period of consequences.

When he cited those remarks last September, President Bush was right.
I agree with him, and so do many Members in the Senate.
Our military has reached a period of consequences, and many difficult
decisions need to be made. I will ask the Senate today to make one of
those important decisions. This body will go on record with a clear
choice of priority: we can either spend everything we have or think we
have in a surplus that has not yet materialized or we can give
commonsense tax relief, a realistic level of tax relief and also--which
is most important--have money to make some strategic investments in one
particular area with known shortfalls, and that is in defense.
We just passed Senator Harkin's amendment. I was proud to support
that amendment because this body, in a bipartisan way, made it clear
another strategic investment we must make is in education. We must take
a second step and make an important decision today to invest in
shortfalls in defense.
The President seemed to understand this problem during the campaign
when he said:

Not since the years before Pearl Harbor has our investment
in national defense been so low as a percentage of GNP. Yet
rarely has our military been so freely used--an average of
one deployment every 9 weeks in the last few years. Since the
end of the cold war our ground forces have been deployed more
frequently, while our defense budget has fallen by nearly 40
percent.

One cannot argue with the numbers or argue with the trend line on
this chart. The budget we are debating, unfortunately, without this
amendment, will not stabilize this line. It will not turn it around. It
will not invest in the quality of life issues so important to retain
our soldiers and their families, to build morale, and to strengthen our
troops, and most importantly, live up

[[Page S3403]]

to promises we have made to them in terms of their pay, in terms of
their benefits, in terms of the kind of housing we promised them.
These words do not sound like those of someone advocating the status
quo. I and many of my colleagues are baffled. I didn't imagine,
frankly, that this amendment would need to be offered. But here we are,
7 months after the election, having this debate.
Let me ask my colleagues, since the election, has the world gotten
automatically safer? Did our military find a secret storage site filled
with spare parts? Did the 13-percent civilian pay gap disappear? Did
the dilapidated facilities we heard about in the campaign start
repairing themselves? Maybe all of our military families at wit's end
with TRICARE have been cured.
We know that is not the reality and the needs still exist. The budget
we are debating is deficient in that regard. The amendment of Senator
Carnahan and myself which we are now debating we hope will begin to fix
this and make a modest investment.
Let me show a couple of pictures to highlight some of the problems we
have in our own State. I have the great privilege of representing Fort
Polk, one of the premier training centers in the Nation, in the view of
our commanders. This is where our men and women train before being sent
to Bosnia or to Korea or other places where we have either conflicts or
have engaged in serious peacekeeping efforts. This is just one picture.
I could show 100 pictures of housing, of dilapidated structures, of
mold and mildew.
If you go to Fort Polk's website, you will see old photographs taken
at its creation in 1941. These are the same makeshift wooden huts, now
used as dining facilities, that were there when Churchill was making
his speech about ``a period of consequences.'' How long does this
building need to serve its country before it can retire? I would say
World War II, Korea Vietnam, Grenada, Desert Storm, and Kosovo should
just about cover any building's life span. Not at Fort Polk.
This is only one of many examples of situations repeated all across
our country at our military bases. There are a variety of reasons for
this crumbling infrastructure. However, if you talk to the base
commanders you hear one refrain again and again. Real property
maintenance is the first casualty. When officers are forced to choose
between installing air conditioners for the Louisiana summer, or
continue training their men and women for war, officers correctly
choose training. However, it is wrong for Congress to force our
military leadership to opt between essential quality of life
initiatives and basic readiness, maintenance and safety. Yet that is
the choice our post commanders are forced to make year after year.
Furthermore, while the newer housing that the military is building is
very nice, there is not nearly enough of it to go around. In the
meantime, we force our servicemen and women to live in substandard
housing. I would be willing to bet that you could go on nearly every
base in America and find military housing that does not meet HUD's
standards. Nonetheless, we wonder why we have a recruiting and a
retention problem. If it were not for the extraordinary patriotism of
our men and women, our ``problem'' would be an epidemic.
Still, I suspect that many colleagues will respond that we are
undertaking a strategic review, and we should not prejudge and rush to
any conclusion. We should wait. To that, I refer my colleagues back to
Winston Churchill. We are in a period of consequences. We should be
done with the era of procrastination. In any case, we can study this
problem to death, and it will not change the fundamental reality. These
problems need a resolution today, not ten years from now. They will
require a greater portion of our nation's resources to address. Yet if
we do not set those resources aside in this budget resolution, they
will not be there for us to invest later.
The other irony about the supposed need for delay is the study
itself. In all the reports that have come out, there has not been any
indication that these quality of life initiatives are even being
considered. Even if they were considered, it is extremely unlikely that
any study would conclude that we need to spend less money on these
issues. More likely than not, this amendment adding $10 billion a year
would be viewed as a modest down-payment on a much larger debt coming
due.
Perhaps the real savings comes from military transformation? Maybe if
we adopt new technologies and techniques we can forestall the need for
more military spending? Not likely. Although Secretary Rumsfeld and Mr.
Marshall may be the latest to study military transformation, they are
not exactly the only study. I have brought with me a stack of studies
that reach the same conclusion. We need military transformation. We
need to recapitalize our forces. We need to encourage joint
experimentation and operations, and we must prepare for the emerging
threats of the 21st century. All the reports have a different emphasis.
They come from the broadest possible political spectrum, but they all
endorse these same principles. What is more, they all believe we need a
top line increase in defense to accomplish these goals. Again you will
find a range of perspectives from about a $30 billion annual increase
at the low end, to a $100 billion annual increase at the very high end.
Either way, the conclusion is the same.

The problem is that if we do conclude that we need a significant
investment, there will be no money for us to invest. I support the
strategic review. I imagine that I will support a good deal of what
Secretary Rumsfeld has to say. We have reason to believe there is a big
bill on the horizon. We have the money in the bank. I suggest we
allocate some of that money toward this bill that is due today.
Unfortunately, the Republican leadership is taking those savings and
living for the moment. How they will account for this decision, I do
not know.
The other important point to keep in mind is that this amendment does
not change the bottom line need for reform at the Pentagon. I agree
with Senator Byrd's insistence that the Pentagon get its books in
order. Furthermore, the low end estimates for the need to recapitalize
our current force are an additional $30 billion per year. My amendment
is providing the services $10 billion. If this is all the services get,
they still have to cover that two-thirds gap somehow. To do so will
require the services to rethink what they are doing, and how they are
doing it. This fundamental rethinking is an exercise we all should
endorse. It will not be any less necessary should our amendment pass.
I invite the Senate to look at the build rates for the Navy. Last
year, the Navy CinC's stated that they could not perform their missions
with fewer than 360 ships. Yet, for the past eight years, the Navy has
been procuring only an average of six ships per year. This build rate
is the lowest since 1932, and will result in a Naval fleet of 180 ships
if continued. All of our military forces serve the dual function of
good-will ambassadors and ``cooperation builders'' with our allies.
This role is even more prominently performed by our Navy. It also
serves as an important signal of American resolve at crisis points.
However, we may soon reach a point where our Navy, rather than an
instrument of American power projection, is relegated to protecting an
increasingly tenuous forward-presence.
I might also mention that we take a hard look at what we are saying
to our NATO allies about their defense budgets. As we insist that our
allies take greater strides to bridge the capability gap, we also
remind them that the whole solution will not be found in greater
efficiency or reform. We consciously assert that transformation costs
money, and no nation can expect to improve capabilities without an
increase in the top-line budget. I would submit that the logic of these
arguments applies no less to the United States than it does Belgium or
Norway.
This amendment acknowledges the truth, we are in a period of
consequences for our military. We can acknowledge that fact and pass
this amendment, or stick our heads in the sand. With the People's
Republic of China increasing defense spending 15 percent, with the
Middle East edging toward open conflict, with the conflict in the
Balkans spilling over to Macedonia, with increased military cooperation
between Iran and Russia--this seems like a very dangerous time to
ignore reality for the sake of political posturing. A tax cut that robs
our

[[Page S3404]]

military of much needed reinvestment is wrong-headed and reckless.
Another great English Prime Minister Lloyd George once said of
America that ``she always does the right thing, after she has tried all
other options.'' Today I present the Senate with the option to do the
right thing. Pass this amendment, put the needs of our military and our
nation before short-term political gain.
When we asked people to reenlist, we asked the spouses: Would you
like your spouse to reenlist? Have your children live in places that we
don't even allow our Housing and Urban Development to build and to
fund? We ask our service men and women to live in substandard housing
with inadequate pay, with health care that is less than what was
promised when they signed up to serve. These are the things I hope my
amendment will fix and make the minimum downpayment.
Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield?
Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes.
Mr. CONRAD. Might I inquire how much time we have consumed?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 11 minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. I yield 15 minutes off the resolution to the Senator.
Mr. WARNER. Parliamentary inquiry: It is the intention of the Senator
from Virginia at the appropriate juncture to offer an amendment in the
second degree. I value greatly the participation of my distinguished
colleague on the Armed Services Committee. I find myself in a position
of requiring to express my views and those of others in the form of a
second degree. My amendment would be very simple. It would ask for an
$8.5 billion increase solely for 1 fiscal year, which is 2002, and at
the appropriate time I will give further details.
Could I inquire of the leadership, I want to be very careful with the
protocol toward my good colleague, and presumably I can put the
amendment at the desk now, but I wish to have the Senator complete her
opening remarks first, and at that time if I might inquire of the
distinguished managers, what would be their desire with respect to a
second degree? I would need but 15 minutes to describe it. There may be
others who would like to speak.
Mr. DOMENICI. I would be pleased, if the other side agrees, to make
it in order that the Senator offer it, but we have to use up the time
on the amendment before it would be in order under current practice. It
is in their hands. I would be glad to let you send it up so people
could see it. It would not be ripe until all time were yielded on the
amendments.
Mr. CONRAD. Might I inquire of the Senator from Virginia, would the
Senator consider offering his amendment in the first degree with an
understanding that he would get the first vote? If the Senator offers
his amendment in the second degree----
Mr. WARNER. In the nature of a substitute, yes.
Mr. CONRAD. Not as a substitute, as a first degree.
I am suggesting this for this reason: We are going to want to get a
vote on the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana. We can go through
all kinds of parliamentary maneuvers to do that and ultimately succeed.
We have found so far it works better if we handle both amendments in
the first degree. You would get the first vote because you would have
been offering it in the second degree.
Mr. WARNER. I yield to the distinguished managers. They are handling
this bill. I want to hear from the Senator from New Mexico on that.
Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, from what I understand, we don't want to deny
her a vote. We want a vote on his first. Whatever happens to it, you
get a vote. But we will have a vote on it first. Is my understanding
correct?
Before I do that, if we could proceed and let me make an inquiry. It
looks as if that is what we ought to agree to. For now, let us proceed
in the normal course.

Mr. CONRAD. Fair enough. We appreciate the chairman looking into
that, and we appreciate the consideration of the chairman of the Armed
Services Committee as well.
Mr. WARNER. I thank all colleagues. Basically, I sought recognition
so the Senate will understand there will be an amendment of some type
which will be, in a sense, in opposition to my distinguished friend and
colleague from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I appreciate that. Let me comment briefly as we decide
the appropriate way to proceed. I must certainly note we will have a
vote on this amendment that Senator Carnahan and I are offering. I
suggest to the distinguished managers, our amendment and that of
Senator Warner could be complementary. His amendment deals only with 1
year of an increase, which I actually support. I agree we need an
increase for the 2002 budget. My amendment makes a longer, more
reliable, stable commitment over 10 years. Given the underlying budget
resolution does the same, we are not necessarily in disagreement,
except for the fact that mine has a 10-year outlook and his has only 1
year. I simply argue that while his amendment might be a step to take,
we could certainly take this step as we make a decision for the
strategic investment that we need to make over this decade--not just
for 1 year.
On another point, some may say: Senators, you know there is a
strategic review under way. Shouldn't we wait before we consider this
amendment?
I have brought to the floor today studies that I could submit for the
Record. This one is a ``Strategy For Long Peace,'' by the Center for
Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. I am just going to refer to two.
This one is called ``Averting the Defense Train Wreck in the New
Millennium'' by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in
Washington, DC. These are two very well known and well-respected think
tanks.
As I said, I have with me an additional 15 studies that I have
brought, from conservative to liberal think tanks, that have looked at
this issue and are actually probably part of the strategic study
underway. In no case that I can find, after reviewing all of these
studies, do any at all indicate that a strategic review would result in
less of an increase or reduction in defense spending--not one. Even
with those arguing for transformation from a cold war structure to a
new structure, even for those who are arguing for very aggressive
transformation, there is not a study that we can find, no expert on
either side of this debate, who is going to make an argument that this
spending line is going to go down. It is going to go up. Yet the budget
resolution we are debating is not, in the current form, going to allow
for that.
So our amendment will set aside $100 billion out of the tax cut, $10
billion a year, to make room for the strategic study, to make room for
the quality of life, to make room for the improvements that need to be
made to boost the morale and to boost the vigor of our Armed Forces.
Waiting is not only going to force us to make some very tough decisions
down the road, but waiting is also going to cost the taxpayer billions
of dollars because of the delay, because of this budget gap. It is not
fair and it is not right and it is not smart. We can do it all if we
use common sense and reasonableness and we are careful about what
numbers we put on the tax cut and on certain strategic investments.
I am going to try to wrap up in just a moment, only to say the
President campaigned on this issue when he ran for President. People
voted for him based on a promise to support an increased military
investment. Many of us who even voted for the other candidate believe
it is a very important step to take now, to improve and to strengthen
our investments, particularly the quality of life issues of housing,
pay, other compensation, and health care; to strengthen our retention
of our forces and to provide for them the things that we promised when
they signed on the bottom line.
If we are careful, if we make the right decisions today, we can have
a reasonable tax cut, we can pass strategic investments in education
and defense, and we can pass a budget that will work, not only for this
year but for next year and for many years to come. So I am proud to
offer this amendment on behalf of my colleagues. I could give many more
examples where it comes to our Navy, to our Army, to our Air Force, to
Marines, to the things we need to maintain our ships and planes, as
well as our quality of life issues.
In closing, let me say with all due respect to my chairman, who is
going to offer another amendment, whether he

[[Page S3405]]

does it before I do or after I offer mine, I agree with him that we
need to increase spending by his amendment of $8.5 billion for 2002.
But that does not go far enough. We are laying down a budget for the
next 10 years. Are we just going to offer our military an increase for
1 year and say you are on your own for years after? We need to be
reliable. We need to be trustworthy. We need to live up to our
promises. We need to support the Landrieu-Carnahan amendment that will
begin to make a modest investment to keep this line stable, to keep our
country secure, and to put the money where our mouth is. When we say we
support our men and women in the Armed Forces, let's do it now. If we
cannot do it now, when are we going to do it?

Once this budget resolution passes without my amendment, it will not
matter if 100 strategic studies come back. There is not going to be any
money to fund it. Let us, while we can, make the investment for our men
and women in the Armed Forces.
I yield the remainder of my time back. I think the manager has done a
beautiful job. Senator Carnahan would like to speak for a few minutes
on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana, who is
a distinguished Member of the Armed Services Committee, for her
amendment. I think it is an important amendment, one of the most
important amendments we will consider in the context of a budget
resolution. On the Budget Committee we heard witness after witness tell
us we needed to add $5 billion to $10 billion a year over the next 10
years to the defense budget to be responsible. The Senator from
Louisiana has added that $10 billion.
Let me say we had a hearing before the Budget Committee with four
witnesses: two Republican witnesses, two Democrat witnesses. They were
in agreement on the amount of money needed to be added to defense,
given the stress on the defense budget, with the higher rate of
operations, with the need for additional resources to meet demands we
have put on the Defense Department.
President Bush has called for a strategic review. We agree absolutely
that is important and that is appropriate. We also believe there is no
question that additional resources have to be provided to the Defense
Department. We need to strengthen our national defense. If we do not
provide the money in a budget resolution, it is not going to be
available. So this amendment is critically important.
I understand the Senator from Missouri, Mrs. Carnahan, would like to
speak on the amendment as well.
Mrs. CARNAHAN. Yes.

Amendment No. 188

Ms. LANDRIEU. If I may interrupt for one moment, I understand the
amendment is now at the desk, so I would like to officially call it up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) for herself, Mrs.
Carnahan, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Reed, Mr. Levin, Mr. Breaux, Mr.
Corzine, Mr. Graham, and Mr. Nelson of Florida, proposes an
amendment numbered 188.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. CONRAD. The Senator from Missouri has requested 10 minutes? The
Senator from Missouri is provided 10 minutes off the resolution.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Would it be
appropriate----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield? Does the Senator from
Missouri yield to the Senator from Virginia?
Mr. REID. Without her losing the floor.
Mrs. CARNAHAN. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the distinguished Republican manager
wishes to address a unanimous consent request which I think meets the
objectives, such that our valued colleague from Louisiana can get the
first vote, then my second-degree would be the second vote. I wonder if
the managers would refer to that.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending
Landrieu amendment be laid aside and Senator Warner be recognized to
offer an amendment relative to defense. I further ask the debate run
concurrently on both first-degree amendments and be limited to 60
minutes equally divided, and following that time the Senate will
proceed to vote in relation to the Landrieu amendment and then in
relation to the Warner amendment. I further ask consent no amendments
be in order prior to the votes just described and the votes occur in a
stacked sequence with 2 minutes prior to each vote for explanation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object, I just have a question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I have no objection to the 60 minutes divided for the
discussion of the Landrieu-Carnahan amendment and the Warner
alternative. How will the debate proceed? Will we alternate pro and con
or will we take our 60 minutes first or alternately allocate the time?
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, it is our intention that the two managers
allocate time so there is a fair division.
Reserving the right to object, since Senator Carnahan was previously
recognized off the resolution, I assume this would follow her remarks.
Would that be the intention?
Mr. WARNER. Certainly that would be satisfactory.
Mr. DOMENICI. In which event we ask 10 minutes be added to our side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object, there are a number of
other Members who would want to speak on this amendment. I am wondering
if Senator Lieberman, who was here, and Senator Reed, who was here,
will be given time to speak on this amendment?
Mr. DOMENICI. Sixty minutes divided equally. That is what it says. We
will work on rotation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object, I would hope that we could
work this out so we have a firm understanding of what will occur so
feelings are not bruised in the process. It is easy to have happen.
Let's be clear. As I understand it, then, Senator Carnahan will
proceed with 10 minutes off the budget resolution, and then there will
be the 60 minutes between the two sides with respect to these
amendments. Is that acceptable?
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, I thought you just prevailed. She
will get the 10 minutes she had. And then the 1 hour will become
operative, at which time we agree we each get half of that; but we will
accommodate back and forth so no side gets unfair treatment.
Mr. CONRAD. Good.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Ms. LANDRIEU. I withdraw my reservation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Missouri.
Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, when families across the country plan
for the future, they first determine their essential priorities. Then
they put money aside to make sure they can pay for them. Only after
those priorities are met, do our families decide whether money is left
over to pay for other things.
I believe we would be wise to approach the Federal Government's
budget the same way.
First, we should determine how much we need to invest for vital
national priorities. The remaining funds should be returned to the
people through a tax cut. We can meet our national priorities and still
provide for substantial tax relief to America's working families.
But the budget we are considering seems to have been constructed
exactly the opposite way. It appears to have

[[Page S3406]]

been built around the $1.6 trillion tax cut, leaving us without
adequate funds to meet our budgetary needs.
One of the most glaring shortfalls in the President's budget is in
the area of national defense.
Of the $5.6 trillion in anticipated surpluses, the budget proposed by
President Bush spends only $60 billion--about 1 percent--on defense.
I believe that this level of military funding is inadequate to meet
our military's current and long-term needs. The amendment that Senator
Landrieu and I have proposed will remedy this flaw by increasing
defense spending over the next 10 years by $100 billion above what the
President has proposed. I commend Senator Landrieu for her leadership
on this issue and am pleased to join with her in supporting the men and
women of our Armed Forces and in protecting the national security.
Leaders of our Armed Forces tell us that we must invest in both
personnel and equipment to preserve our preeminence in the 21st
century. The list of military needs is exceptionally long. That list
includes, but is not limited to, modernizing our tactical aircraft and
other aging weapons systems, increasing the readiness of our forces,
building decent housing on our bases at home and abroad, improving the
quality of military life, increasing military salaries and health
benefits, maintaining and repairing our aging infrastructure, and
securing our information technology.
Virtually every expert that has looked at the state of our military
agrees that major new investments are required.
Just last September, the Joint Chiefs of Staff estimated that $50
billion per year in additional funds were needed to maintain readiness
and to modernize our forces. And the Joint Chiefs were only talking
about modernization and readiness. The $50 billion figure did not
include the investments needed to increase retention of personnel and
improve the standards of living for military families.
Examples of urgent funding requirements abound. But let me take a few
minutes to discuss the situations on the two major bases in Missouri,
Fort Leonard Wood and Whiteman Air Force Base, with a special focus on
housing.
Fort Leonard Wood's housing units were constructed between 1958 and
1964. Only one out of six units has been fully renovated. The floor
plans are outdated. There are insufficient playgrounds and storage
space. Many homes are below Army standards in size and quality. The
poor grade of housing at Fort Leonard Wood is one of the factors that
makes it difficult for us to retain our highly trained and skilled
senior enlisted personnel and officers.
Numerous other infrastructure improvements are needed at Fort Leonard
Wood. The most disturbing one that has been reported to me is the lack
of running water or sewers on the 48 ranges used to train our young men
and women. The latrines on the ranges are some of the worst in the
command. Some soldiers are said to limit their water intake to avoid
using these decrepit facilities.
Military personnel at Whiteman Air Force Base face other indignities.
Family housing suffers from termite damage, water seepage, and flooding
of playgrounds. Twenty percent of all units have been vacated due to
termite and water damage.
Unfortunately, I cannot say that help is on the way.
The backlog of deferred maintenance at Fort Leonard Wood comes to
about $66 million. The current annual budget of $13 million is $2
million less than necessary to sustain the current housing stock and
$6.6 million less than what is necessary to reducing the backlog. To
make matters worse, high utility costs this year have caused a
shortfall of $1.8 million, which is being taken from the housing
maintenance budget.
At Whiteman, $125 million are needed to fix 900 units, construct 129
new units, and repair playgrounds, streets, and other common areas. But
Whiteman's annual housing budget is $7 million less than necessary to
implement this plan.
The problems in Missouri are duplicated across the country and at our
bases abroad. The Commander in Chief of the European Command, General
Ralston, testified last month before the Armed Services Committee on
which I sit. He said that 70 percent of the housing in Europe did not
meet Army standards. And the Department of Defense reports that the
backlog of real property maintenance is $27.2 billion.
The Landrieu-Carnahan amendment is designed to meet these needs in
the years to come.
The amendment will reduce the President's tax cut by $100 billion and
dedicate these funds to defense spending.
Reducing the tax cut by this amount will only slightly lessen the
amount returned to the wealthiest Americans under the President's plan.
I believe that these Americans would be willing to take this sacrifice
if they knew that the money would be spent for better equipment,
housing, and salaries for our military personnel.
When I asked new appointees to the Pentagon how they plan to address
the shortfall in the budget, they have all told me that these issues
are currently being considered in the Pentagon's comprehensive
strategic review. I applaud the new administration for conducting this
review and for proposing to ``transform'' the military to meet the
security threats of this new century. But no one believes that this new
review is going to lead to reduced defense spending over the next
decade.
Quite the contrary. One expert, Dr. Andrew Krepinevich of the Center
for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, testified before the Senate
Budget Committee. He said that there is a $120 billion mismatch between
our current defense plans and projected defense budget. The Pentagon's
strategic review may result in some cuts to existing programs. These
cuts, however, will not cover both the $120 billion shortfall, plus
whatever new costs are required to transform the military.
The bottom line is that there will be calls to spend more, not less,
on defense after the strategic review is over.
We should prepare for that certainty now by adopting a budget that
contains realistic spending levels for national security.
The problem with waiting until after the review is over is that
Congress is poised to pass the President's tax cut now. If this tax cut
passes, the necessary funds simply will not be available for the
required level of defense spending.
This amendment is a much more prudent approach. It sets aside the
funds for our military needs over the next decade.
In the unlikely event that the strategic review calls for less
spending than this amendment provides, that money can always be used
for tax cuts, or other purposes in the future. But everyone in the
Chamber knows that we will not be able to undo a tax cut, not even to
increase defense spending. If the President's tax cut goes forward, our
military budget is going to feel the squeeze in the years and decades
to come.
So I strongly advocate this amendment. I urge the Senate to stand
behind the men and women who defend our country by adopting this
important measure.
I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 189

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Under the previous order, the
Senator from Virginia is recognized to offer his amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I send to the desk an amendment. It is a
first-degree amendment. As I understand, under the UC there will be
sequential votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for himself, Mr.
Hutchinson, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Inhofe, Ms. Collins, Mr. Miller,
and Mr. Kyl, proposes an amendment numbered 189 to amendment
No. 170.

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

(Purpose: To increase the levels of new budget authority and budget
outlays provided for the National Defense (050) major functional
category for fiscal year 2002, and to make corresponding adjustments
necessitated by those increases)

On page 10, line 21, increase the amount by $8,500,000,000.

[[Page S3407]]

On page 10, line 22, increase the amount by $6,460,000,000.
On page 43, line 15, decrease the amount by $8,500,000,000.
On page 43, line 16, decrease the amount by $6,460,000,000.
On page 48, line 8, increase the amount by $8,500,000,000.
On page 48, line 9, increase the amount by $6,460,000,000.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I first pay tribute to my two
colleagues, members of the Committee on Armed Services. As I listened
very intently to their comments, there is not much with which I can
disagree with respect to the need for additional funds.
Where we differ, I say with due respect, is that we have a new
President, a new Secretary of Defense, and there are a number of
Members in this Chamber on both sides of the aisle who have commended
President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld in their initiatives to go back
and reexamine the entirety of America's defense posture and to give
greater emphasis to the emerging and ever-changing threats poised
against our Nation and providing everyday risk to the men and women of
the Armed Forces who are posted beyond our shores standing watch in the
cause of freedom.
This amendment prejudges the end result of these studies and
prejudges the Bush administration and how they are going to reorient
our defense posture for the outyears. It lays out a 10-year program; in
a sense it allocates the 10 for each of the years.
My amendment addresses but 1 fiscal year, 2002. It is the budget
which we are working on now. President Bush, when he came to office,
looked at the Clinton budget and decided to add $14.2 billion for this
particular fiscal year. That was done very early on when he arrived
into office. Subsequent thereto, the work of our committee produced
papers, an analysis which showed that even funding of 14.2 falls short
of what is desperately--I use that word very cautiously but very
truthfully--needed by all the military departments to get our military
through the 2002 fiscal year, to maintain its readiness, to maintain
the quality of life for the men and women of the Armed Forces, and to
hope to strengthen the ability of the services to retain. I cannot
emphasize too strongly the need to retain middle-grade officers and
senior enlisted men and women.
We are falling short in those areas, and we now realize we must do
more. Whether it is pay, housing, medical, hopefully less deployment,
but we are falling short in that way. Every time we lose a pilot, the
American taxpayers lose several million dollars of investment in the
training that he or she has received through the years. Only a small
amount of money, only a small amount of improvement in housing, only a
small amount of improvement in health care could well have retained
that highly skilled aviator and/or the maintenance chief down on the
line working night and day to repair and keep the planes flying.
This amendment by my two colleagues really prejudges what our
President and Secretary of Defense will come up with. I would like to
hypothetically put this to my colleagues. I think we should give this
President the opportunity to make his judgments and to come back in
subsequent fiscal years to the Congress and say: This is precisely what
I need, or I don't need the full 10 billion, should this amendment
become law.
Stop to think about that. It could be in fiscal 2003 that our
President wishes to increase the defense budget by 20 billion and
represents to the Congress at that time, absent unforeseen
contingencies, the following fiscal year he could have level funding
and/or maybe just a billion or two additional funding.
This President is reorienting the budget more and more towards the
threat, beginning to scale down the number of deployments and hopefully
improve the retention.
On the committee--I speak of the committee in terms of its staff
because we worked on this in a bipartisan way; I presume my colleague,
Mr. Levin, will join in this debate--the figures that were worked up
were produced in conjunction with analyses supplied by the Department
of Defense. We broke out the following amounts in various line items,
all in the 05, which is the readiness account:
Three-tenths of a billion for force protection. More and more we
recognize that our bases overseas are subjected to terrorism. We have
experienced very serious accidents this year, the U.S.S. Cole being the
most severe. So we need three-tenths of a billion to help augment those
expenditures.
Six-tenths of a billion for personnel. Again, special pay, pay
directed at those specialties, whether it is flying or maintenance or
medical or computers or the like, where we are having difficulty
retaining those individuals with the competitive forces in the private
sector.
Energy costs. It simply requires that we have this to maintain the
barracks, to maintain the housing, to maintain the office buildings, to
maintain the hangars, to maintain the ships. Our energy costs have gone
up not unlike those being experienced by the civilian sector.
Maintenance. The Senator from Louisiana put up a chart with which I
agree. Deterioration of the base infrastructure all throughout our
services, Seven-tenths of a billion for that. Base operations. Again,
we were underfunded in the accounts. That brings in another nine-tenths
of a billion--nine-tenths of a billion in real property maintenance,
the buildings. We will, hopefully, go through a base closure piece of
legislation within the next 24 months to complete that. But in the
meantime, it is absolutely essential to maintain the infrastructure we
now have in a condition so that it protects the airplanes in the
hangars and protects the personnel in the barracks.

Then we go to the direct health care system. We passed historic
legislation last year--TRICARE. It was something that the retired
community has wanted for many years, something they were really
promised when they joined the military services. Now that is going to
be a significant cost item. In years past, we had not even funded
TRICARE to the levels that were needed to maintain the costs before our
legislation takes effect. As a consequence, we were drawing funds out
of the major military hospitals.
I went by and visited both Bethesda and Walter Reed recently in
connection with seeing friends there, and the commanding officers, all
in a very respectful way, said: Senator, we do not have sufficient
funds to maintain these hospitals that are taking care of the active
duty, primarily--some retired--and their dependents. And that requires
$1.2 billion. But that ties directly to retention. The degree that we
properly care for the families and the active-duty personnel reflects
the degree to which we can retain these valuable people in uniform.
Fuel. This is different from base. This is for flying the aircraft.
This is manning the ships. This is training in the trucks, in the
tanks, the artillery pieces, mobile. This is where the fuel is needed.
That is a significant cost. Then, of course, in addition, it is for
flying hours and the spares.
I expect every Member of this Senate has learned of the
cannibalization going on, where you take parts from perfectly good
equipment and put them in other pieces to make them run. That is no way
to run a first-class military. But, regrettably, those dollars
associated with the normal maintenance and the spares have been
inadequate for a number of years, and we are asking $1.6 billion to put
back on the shelves sufficient spares to enable our troops to train and
keep their equipment in readiness. This was very carefully documented.
It is interesting; in the amendment of my distinguished colleague--
the Senator from Louisiana--she has the exact sum. My guess is that
she, quite rightly, has access to the same information. I must ask that
in the form of a question at an appropriate time. But she predicated
2002 on this figure.
I say the proper course of action is to be respectful of the fact
that this President has taken an initiative to study our military very
carefully, analyze the threat, and then to put together carefully a
plan to make such revision as he deems necessary for this year and our
outyears under the normal 5-year fit-up program--not 10. I think, in
fairness, he should be given that opportunity.
I will leave it to others to address the question of how this reduces
the overall proposed tax cut, how it goes to other areas of the budget.
But my responsibility as chairman of the Armed Services Committee is
simply to stick, at this moment in the debate, to those

[[Page S3408]]

facts as they relate to how this Nation should go forward in providing
for the men and women of the Armed Forces. I say out of respect for
this President, we should give him the right, the authority, to go
ahead and do the studies. We augment, by my legislation, a single
fiscal year for necessities, and I don't think anybody can dispute the
need. I would be anxious to hear from the proponents of the other
legislation. I think the 2002 figure is direct and for the right
reasons. For the years beyond 2002, let our President come forward--it
may be greater in 2003, and 2004 could be less--and we go about our
responsibility under the Constitution to maintain our Nation strong and
free, in accordance with the wishes of this President.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. How much time did Senator Warner use?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator used 14 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I yield myself 4 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. This is coming out of the 60 minutes, and then I will,
obviously, yield to the other side.
What Senator Warner is saying to the Senate is, under our unanimous
consent request, the Senate will get to vote on the amendment of the
Senator from Louisiana, to be followed by a vote on the Senator's
amendment, which he has described, an $8.5 billion increase for 2002.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, the Senator is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. Having said that, I want to tell everybody there is a
big difference between these two amendments, beyond the fact that this
distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee is saying fund
at 2002 and let's wait for the President's request.
The opposition amendment of the junior Senator from Louisiana is an
interesting amendment as it deals with defense because it actually cuts
the taxes--the taxes the people thought they were going to get back. It
reduces that by $100 billion. At first, it was $200 billion. So it
reduces that by $100 billion out of the tax cut in order to pay for
this amendment.
It seems to me the distinguished Senator who chairs Armed Services
has a good point, and I hope everybody who wants to follow his lead
will, indeed, understand that the second vote tonight will be on his
amendment. He very much desires that this position be made. As
chairman, he wants it to be taken by the Senate. We will be here for
the next 15, 20 minutes if anybody has any questions. But I send out a
little signal that we have a unanimous consent, which means we are
going to vote pretty soon. I might speculate with Senator Reid that we
are going to vote within 30 or 40 minutes. So everybody should know
that. All time will be used up.
Senator Conrad has indicated he may give me an additional 10 minutes
if I need it because there was an additional 10 minutes used on that
side. You can add that to the mix and figure out the time.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, 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:

U.S. Senate,

Committee on Armed Services,

Washington, DC, March 19, 2001.
Senator Pete Domenici,
Chairman,
Senator Kent Conrad,
Ranking Member,
Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Pete and Kent: In accordance with your request, I am
forwarding my recommendations on funding for the programs in
the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee for the
Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Resolution.
In the near term, I believe there are some urgent needs for
which a Fiscal Year 2001 supplemental is appropriate,
including the shortfalls that experts in the Department of
Defense have identified in the defense health care program,
increased flying hour costs, and full funding for the higher
housing allowances currently being paid to military personnel
living off base.
With respect to Fiscal Years 2002 through 2006, I agree
with the Secretary of Defense that it is prudent for him to
conclude his strategy review and present it to the President
and the Congress for our consideration before we make final
decisions on the shape and overall funding levels for our
future defense program.
However, I believe there are certain requirements that must
be addressed regardless of the outcome of the ongoing
strategy review. Some increases above the projections
contained in the President's budget outline of February 28
will be needed to continue the transformation of our military
to meet the threats of the new century, to fulfill the
commitments the Congress has made to provide quality health
care to active and retired military families, and to continue
the progress we have made in recent years to improve
compensation, housing and other quality of life programs for
our military families. I also recommend that the Budget
Resolution provide a sufficient mandatory spending allocation
for the Armed Services Committee to permit enactment of
legislation providing full funding for (1) the
transferability of benefits under the Montgomery G.I. Bill to
family members; and (2) reform of the statute prohibiting
concurrent receipt of military retirement and veterans
disability compensation.
For these reasons, I believe it would be prudent to
establish a reserve fund in the Budget Resolution to
accommodate the near-term and long-term adjustments to
current defense plans that the Administration and the
Congress may decide to implement once the Secretary's
strategy review is completed. I recommend that this reserve
fund provide in the range of $80 to $100 billion for the
national security priorities I have identified above the
levels projected by the President over the next ten years,
pending the completion of this review.
In my review, this reserve fund should be over and above
amounts set aside to fully protect the Social Security and
Medicare Trust Funds, pay down the national debt, and meet
other priorities, and should not be lumped into a single
reserve fund in which defense funding needs would have to
compete against other vital national priorities. I also
believe this reserve fund should be established in the Budget
Resolution before a decision is reached on the various tax
proposals before Congress. I have serious concerns that a tax
cut of the size proposed by the President would not leave
sufficient funds for future increases in defense and other
important programs.
I look forward to working with you on a Budget Resolution
for Fiscal Year 2002 that provides the necessary funding to
preserve our strong national defense and the other important
programs that are essential to our nation's security and
prosperity.
Sincerely,
Carl Levin,
Ranking Member.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, this is a letter from Senator Levin, the
ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, to the distinguished
Chairman Domenici and the ranking member, Mr. Conrad, of the Budget
Committee addressing the needs, as we see them, for defense in the
years to come.
I will read one paragraph which I think is really dispositive of what
we are discussing. I quote Mr. Levin:

In the near term, I believe there are some urgent needs for
which a Fiscal Year 2001 supplemental is appropriate,
including the shortfalls that experts in the Department of
Defense have identified in the defense health care program,
increased flying hour costs, and full funding for the higher
housing allowances currently being paid to military personnel
living off base.

He continues:

With respect to Fiscal Years 2002 through 2006, I agree
with the Secretary of Defense that it is prudent for him to
conclude his strategy review and present it to the President
and the Congress for our consideration before we make final
decisions on the shape and overall funding levels for our
future defense program.

I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Conrad, the manager
of the bill, I yield time to the Senator from Rhode Island, but prior
to doing that, I want to indicate how fortunate we are in the Congress,
in the Senate, to have someone of his knowledge.
Senator Jack Reed is a graduate of the United States Military Academy
at West Point. He was an airborne ranger, a company commander. He was
part of the 82nd Airborne. He had 35 jumps. His career in the military,
including his time at West Point, consisted of 12 years. He was a
professor at West Point.
He not only is a member of the Armed Services Committee in the
Senate, but during the time he served as a Member of the House of
Representatives, he served on the very important Intelligence
Committee.
This man has served our country, including his time at West Point,
some 12 years. I do not know of anyone I would rather have speak on
issues relating to the military than Jack Reed, the senior Senator from
Rhode Island. I yield 10 minutes.

[[Page S3409]]

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I associate myself with Senator Reid's
remarks. Senator Jack Reed is a very valuable and well-informed member
of the Armed Services Committee, as well as his colleagues, the
principal sponsors of the amendment.
Mr. REID. Madam President, the Senator from Virginia and I have a
mutual admiration society. We have served on the same committee since I
have been in the Senate. I am always impressed with the seriousness of
everything he says, especially on the Senate floor.
Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague. I share his view.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to lend support to the amendment of
Senator Landrieu and Senator Carnahan and commend my chairman for his
amendment. All of these individuals recognize the need for additional
resources in defense spending. In fact, when it comes to Chairman
Warner, there is no one in this Chamber who has been more solicitous
and supportive of the welfare of American fighting men and women and
the readiness of those forces than the Senator from Virginia, but I
believe this is an important moment in the debate to make a broader
point about this budget and defense spending.
Explicitly, this budget calls for a $1.6 trillion or $1.7 trillion
tax cut over 10 years. It reserves the money for that tax cut. Yet it
ignores anticipated expenses that we already know will be incurred in
defense. When it comes to defense spending in this budget, there is
only one word for it: this budget is disingenuous.
We are not prejudging President Bush. We are taking him at his word.
I quote the President:

At the earliest possible date, my administration will
deploy antiballistic missile systems, both theater and
national, to guard against attack and blackmail.

When we look at the estimated costs for a national missile defense,
it is approximately $115 billion, and that total is growing with each
new reestimation. The $115 billion was an estimate that was included in
this week's Defense Week magazine.
This national missile defense is a centerpiece of the President's
strategic program. I hardly believe that at the end of the strategic
review conducted by the Secretary of Defense--and I commend him for
that review--that the Secretary of Defense or the President will
recommend that they withdraw their support for national missile defense
or theater missile defense.
We already know the President may urge us to spend as much as $115
billion just on national missile defense, and there is nowhere in this
budget over 10 years that these costs are recognized. This is in
addition to the cost that Senator Landrieu was talking about--quality
of life for troops and readiness issues.
Let us look again at some of these costs we know will be urged upon
us. We will debate these costs. We will debate these programs. Some may
be eliminated. But right now we know there is a multibillion-dollar
defense program coming our way, and this budget does not provide for
it.
What this budget does is cut taxes explicitly to the tune of $1.7
trillion, yet ignores defense programs to which the President is
emotionally, passionately committed. I think that is disingenuous, as I
said before.
If you look at national missile defense, we started and are
developing a land-based system. It is estimated that the cost of 100
interceptors, a very rudimentary system, will be $43 billion. Again, I
do not think that number is properly accounted for in this budget going
forward 10 years. That system is criticized by many, including
President Bush, as being not robust enough; that we have to build a
system that is layered, not just a midcourse interception of enemy
missiles coming to the United States by land-based systems, but also we
have to have sea-based systems perhaps that will intercept in the boost
phase and other systems that can intercept in other phases in flight.
All of this adds additional cost.
If the Administration chooses to go to a sea-based system, the likely
candidate is called the Navy theater-wide missile defense system. That
is one system. That system is just being developed now. Estimates for
that system--to buy the ships, deploy the radar, deploy the missiles--
is about $5.5 billion. Again, we are not talking about this cost.

If we look at another aspect--the spaced-based laser is the program
the Air Force is developing--this system would be designed to be
orbiting in space and also intercept enemy missiles. That is another
multibillion-dollar program that is hardly off the drawing board. Yet
the administration may choose to pursue this option and the cost is not
accounted for.
That is the realm of national missile defense--about $115 billion and
counting. Indeed, every time there is an estimate of costs, the costs
go up.
This is a revolutionary innovative system that the Defense Department
is already developing. But none of these costs are provided in this
budget.
If we look at theater missile defense, we just had good news. The
PAC-3 missile system has been successfully tested. It is an advanced
theater missile defense, but the sobering fact is that the PAC-3
missiles cost has increased more than 100 percent over the last few
years, another cost not appropriately factored into the system.
There is another Navy lower-tier missile defense system with
estimates of about $7 billion to develop. Again, it is not recognized
in this budget.
The Army is developing a missile defense called THAAD. Once again,
that is struggling forward, being tested, being developed, estimated at
billions of dollars.
There is the Air Force airborne laser on aircraft, estimated at $6.5
billion in acquisition costs. That, too, is being considered but not
budgeted.
After we look at these programs, one after the other, and the
President's commitment to have a robust comprehensive national missile
defense and theater missile defense, we are talking about hundreds of
billions of dollars. It is not in this budget.
Just as the President eloquently and passionately called for a tax
cut, he called for national missile defense. This budget is silent
about those costs as it trumpets tax cuts.
I do not think that is the way to do a budget. I do not think that is
fair to our military forces because we know what will happen. These
programs will be urged upon us. We will have a choice to borrow money
because there is no money left after the tax cut to fund military
programs, or to take money from domestic priorities.
I do not think we should put ourselves in that position. We should
honestly and fairly put in this budget those costs we know and the
significant costs that are coming regardless of the outcome of this
strategic review.
We can illustrate, talk about other costs. We have other
responsibilities. In the last few weeks, as a member of the Strategic
Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, we have had several
different commissions report to us. They have already done their
studies.
Secretary Schlesinger, former Secretary of Defense and former
Secretary of Energy, reported to us on the status of our nuclear
safeguarding procedures and all the laboratories that guard the
readiness of our nuclear devices. His estimate is $800 million just for
maintenance backlog; $300 million to $500 million per year for ten
years for recapitalization--new equipment, new computers--billions of
dollars a year to clean up nuclear waste sites. We know these costs
already. They are not in this budget.
The Department of Energy also runs programs to reduce the threat of
weapons in the former Soviet Union, in Russia. We have been funding
multimillion-dollar programs which we have to continue to fund to
ensure our national security.
The Strategic Subcommittee has heard the Space Commission's report.
The Space Commission was chaired by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. This
Space Commission has urged significant investments in our space
capability. They rightly point out we don't have the situational
awareness from space to understand what type of missiles might be
fired, what might be a threat to us, or not a threat to us. They have
not put a price tag on it. But again, we are talking about a very
innovative, very expensive system, that the Secretary of Defense is
very committed to. Another total not reflected in the budget.
We just had this week a report about the National Reconnaissance
Office

[[Page S3410]]

which is responsible for overhead coverage, our satellites, our
intelligence satellite. They, too, are indicating additional moneys
must be spent.
These studies have been completed. The verdict is in: We need more
resources. Yet this budget does not reflect those costs. We are talking
about billions and billions of dollars in military programs. One could
debate and argue the merit of each, but we know they will be urged upon
us.
We have a budget that ignores the obvious costs in order to fund a
very large tax cut. I think we have to be straightforward and honest
about this budget. We have to recognize the need for defense. Again, we
are not prejudging the President; we are taking him at his word that he
wants to build a national missile defense, that he wants to continue on
the work of our nuclear stockpile safeguard program, that he wants us
to be a leader in space as we have been on the oceans and in the skies
and on land. And all of this costs money. There is none of this money
in the budget.
I urge the passage of Senator Landrieu's amendment. I also urge as
fervently that we look carefully at this budget and honestly reserve
from this proposed tax cut the real resources we will be asking for and
this administration will be asking for within months of our vote on
this budget.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, on my time, if I could ask my
distinguished colleague a question. I pride myself on being among those
who are strong supporters of the concept of a limited missile defense.
I have been on this floor much of the 23 years I have been privileged
to be in this body arguing for the need for this country to provide for
its defense against that threat.
I listened to the very careful recitation of all the options in the
outyears. I think some of those options require significant
modification of the ABM Treaty. Do I glean from that the Senator could
be in favor of modifications to the ABM Treaty, or maybe the abrogation
of the treaty if we are unsuccessful in modifications?
Mr. REED. I respond at this juncture the question is premature since
the systems we are testing have not proven effective technologically. I
would be reluctant to abrogate a treaty until I knew we had a system
that worked with a high degree of confidence. I hope some day we have
that choice.
Mr. WARNER. I doubt we could proceed to some of the naval systems,
which would require modification. You certainly have to concur in that.
Mr. REED. The Senator is likely right about those. As I understand
the ABM Treaty, there are restrictions on anything other than a limited
land-based system.
Mr. WARNER. It is a point of reference. I also add the historic act
adopted by Congress in response to the bill by the distinguished
Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, carefully spells out that we can
only proceed as technologically feasible, and that would be the pacing
item. I am not so sure we can prejudge here in this limited review that
we will spend all this money on missile defense that my colleague
suggests. It seems to me we will have to pace ourselves as technically
feasible.

I think to ask this Chamber at this time to accept as a premise that
all of this money is going to develop in the hundreds-plus of billions
of dollars at this early date is a little premature.
Mr. REED. I don't think the Senator is saying he suspects that the
President is not serious about a missile defense.
Mr. WARNER. No, I am not saying that. I am dead serious. But I think
we will pace ourselves, and it is a little early to begin to think
about the magnitude of the budgets associated with missile defense.
I didn't hear my distinguished colleague from Louisiana mention
missile defense in the course of her direct testimony unless I missed
it.
Ms. LANDRIEU. No, the Senator from Virginia did not hear me, but our
colleague did such a beautiful job on missile defense.
Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, how much time remains on the amendment
on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 18 minutes, and there are 9
minutes remaining on the other side.
Mr. CONRAD. I have agreed that if Senator Domenici thinks he needs an
additional 10 minutes, we will grant that in the interest of fairness.
If I might briefly say, I am kind of surprised at what I am hearing
tonight. I hear from the other side they are fully ready to make a 10-
year commitment to a tax cut, but they don't want to make a 10-year
commitment to defense. There is not a soul in this body who doesn't
know when the President's strategic review is completed they will come
back and ask for additional money. Does anybody believe they will not
do that? When they come back, the cupboard will be bare; the money will
be gone.
What we are saying with this amendment is, let's put some money in
the cupboard so when we are asked to fund defense with additional
dollars, we have it. That is a responsible thing to do.
I commend the Senator from Louisiana. I commend the Senator from
Missouri. I commend the Senator from Rhode Island. This is responsible
national defense policy.
I understand the Senator from Connecticut is seeking time.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I was hoping the Senator would have commended me, too,
for cosponsoring this amendment.
Mr. CONRAD. I am always glad to commend the Senator from Connecticut,
and I yield 10 minutes to the Senator.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend and colleague from North Dakota for
his thoughtful and persistent and effective leadership on these
budgetary matters. I thank the Chair and will see if I can use less
than 10 minutes.
I rise today to support this amendment offered by the lead sponsor,
my friend and colleague on the Armed Services Committee, Senator
Landrieu of Louisiana, and also cosponsored by Senator Carnahan, a new
member of the committee, from Missouri.
This is an important amendment. The Senator from North Dakota spoke
some words that struck me as I listened to my chairman from Virginia
about going ahead with this for 1 year but not for the 10 years. Of
course, the powerful reality is, we are arguing about priorities and
fiscal responsibility.
The concern of so many Members is we are committing to this enormous
tax plan from the President which, by the Concord Coalition estimate,
will cost $2.3 trillion over the next 10 years, threatening to take us
back--not just threatening but likely to take us back--into deficit,
higher interest rates, higher unemployment and we are prepared to
consider on a 10-year basis. When it comes to the needs of our
military, we are only prepared to allot the appropriate amount of money
for 1 year.
I think what is appropriate on the revenue side is appropriate on the
spending side. What is most appropriate is fiscal responsibility. What
this amendment by Senator Landrieu puts at issue is what this debate on
the budget resolution is all about, which is priorities. I suppose it
is not only about that. The other part is fiscal responsibility.
We say it over and over again, and it is true, when it comes to the
health of our economy, most of it happens in the private sector.
Government doesn't create jobs. The private sector does. But there are
a few things that Government can do to create the environment for jobs
and give some incentives for jobs and economic growth. The first and
most important is to remain fiscally responsible. The second is to make
the kinds of investments that help the private sector
grow. Incidentally, one of those is to support research and development
through the Defense Department, which has traditionally, in our
country, led to enormous economic growth.

So this is about fiscal responsibility. But then this amendment
really is about priorities. You cannot have it all. You cannot have it
all and be fiscally responsible. If you go for the Concord Coalition
estimate of $2.3 trillion on the Bush tax plan, then you are making it
impossible to do a lot of other things that we must do and that the
people want us to do.
Of course, one of the most fundamental responsibilities that
Government has is to provide for the common defense of our Nation. That
does not come cheaply. There is no free lunch when it comes to national
security.

[[Page S3411]]

Others have said, and I need not belabor the fact, that in the last
campaign then-Governor Bush and Secretary Cheney were very critical of
our allocation of resources for the military and assured the military,
particularly personnel, that help was on the way. Here we are in April
of 2001. President Bush sends his budget to us, at least in general
terms. I think we have to conclude that help may be on the way, but
when it comes to our defense budget, the check must have been lost in
the mail because we are not meeting the needs all of us know are there.
This amendment, introduced by the two Senators, one from Louisiana,
the other from Missouri, of which I am proud to be a cosponsor, would
right that wrong. It takes $100 billion from money that would be spent
on the tax cut and allocates it, $10 billion a year, to our national
security. It also does what folks at the Pentagon will tell you they
desperately need, which is to allow for an emergency defense
supplemental of $7.1 billion this year. That would make up for the $1.4
billion deficit now in the defense health program and provide immediate
assistance for the real serious near-term readiness and personnel needs
that have resulted from the military reductions and operating tempo
increases we have seen since the end of the cold war.
There are real and present needs now that this amendment would meet.
I know there has been reference to the strategic review being done in
the Defense Department. I support that review. I am very encouraged by
the instructions that Secretary Rumsfeld has given to those who are
working on the review. We need to transform our military. We need to
use the technology that is available around the world today to make
sure that we are ready for the threats that will come in the future and
that we are not just prepared to fight the last war, or wars of the
past.
But two things about that strategic review: One is that everyone
knows there are needs now and there will be needs next year and the
year after and for the coming decade that deal with shortfalls--
certainly in the near term--shortfalls that are basic, in items as
basic to the military as ammunition, flying hours, housing, quality of
life for our military personnel as documented by my colleagues who have
already spoken, force protection, and aircraft and ship maintenance,
including, incidentally, repairs to the U.S.S. Cole. There are
immediate needs now, regardless of what the strategic review brings.
Second, as my colleagues have said already, and I will say it,
therefore, briefly, no one should be under the illusion that whatever
the strategic review brings will it say that we can maintain our
national defense by spending less money. We are working through our
committee on a bipartisan basis to push the Pentagon to be as efficient
as possible. Some members of the committee have come out again with a
call for another round of the BRAC, of the base realignment and closure
operation, to avoid wasteful spending. But there has never been a
strategic review--never been an historic transformation such as we are
going through in our military today, attempting to apply the lessons
and the products of information technology and high technology to our
military--that has cost less. So this is a very measured and moderate
amendment.

The fact is, I would wager, my colleagues, that if we had the ability
to take ourselves 10 years forward and look back, assuming that we in
our time and those who follow us are responsible, which I hope and
trust they will be, we will, in fact, spend much more than the extra
$100 billion that Senator Landrieu's amendment allocates to the
military because we will feel it is necessary.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? I
will ask him on my time.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Yes, indeed. I am happy to yield.
Mr. WARNER. Did I understand the Senator to say his interpretation of
the amendment is that it covers the fiscal year 2001 for the
supplemental? I bring to the attention of the Senator the amendment. I
do not find that provision in it.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Responding to the Senator from Virginia, noting a very
definitive but subtle shake of the head by the Senator from Louisiana,
I therefore reached the conclusion that what I thought was the original
intention of the amendment, which was to include an emergency
supplemental for the defense, is not true?
Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield for a clarification?
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I yield to my colleague from Louisiana.
Mr. WARNER. If I may continue the colloquy--but go right ahead.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Which makes it even more important we adopt the
Landrieu-Carnahan amendment because at least there will be some money
in the bank to pay some bills we know are coming due, in addition to
the real and urgent needs that the supplemental represents. So I thank
my colleague for raising that issue. This amendment does not cover it,
but if there was a way for it to, we most certainly should because that
is an additional obligation that we should meet.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I recognize this Senator was one of the
first to say there is a need for a supplemental, even at the time when
my respected President wasn't totally in agreement with what I was
saying, but now there is thinking within the department that this
supplemental will be necessary and will be forthcoming. But I don't
want anybody coming tonight thinking that supporting the Landrieu
amendment is going to provide for the 2001 shortfalls which this
Chamber will have to address at some point in time when the
Appropriations Committee brings to the floor a supplemental.
I think my good friend slightly misspoke. I wanted to correct it in a
very polite way. If I could move on to the second part of my question--
--
Mr. LIEBERMAN. If I might respond, on my time, I thank the Senator
from Virginia, my respected chairman of the committee. I am encouraged.
I know the military was very hopeful, as this administration began,
that they would have the opportunity to receive a supplemental
appropriation. I commend the Senator from Virginia. As I recall, on
February 7 he sent a letter, along with 8 colleagues, to the President,
stating that there are bills ``which must be paid now. If money is not
provided in these areas there could be a significant negative impact on
readiness for this fiscal year and beyond.''

So as Senator Landrieu says, this amendment would take care of the
``beyond.'' I hope you and I and Senator Landrieu and others can stand
on this floor in this fiscal year and support a supplemental for the
Pentagon.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, let us proceed on the second part of my
question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 10 minutes of the Senator has expired.
Mr. WARNER. I want to ask my questions on my time. Perhaps he could
just be given another minute or so to respond to the question. Is that
agreeable? On his time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is up to the Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining on this
side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. I ask the time be charged to the Senator raising the
question. We have additional time that we can grant to the Senator from
New Mexico for that purpose.
Mr. DOMENICI. Are you asking the question?
Mr. WARNER. I am going to ask my colleague from Connecticut another
question which I thought I would ask on my time but he can respond on
his time. It would take him less than a minute, I am sure. He has it
right on his fingertips.
Mr. CONRAD. The problem is we do not have the additional time on this
side.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will yield my colleague a half a
minute--a minute on my time to answer the following question.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. The Senator from Virginia is showing his normal
generosity.
Mr. WARNER. Let me address again the letter to the budget chairman,
ranking member, from Senator Levin, which is written in very clear,
plain language:

In the near term, I believe there are some urgent needs for
which a Fiscal Year 2001 [as we have discussed] supplemental
is appropriate, including the shortfalls that experts . . .
have identified in the defense . . .

[[Page S3412]]

We got that.

With respect to Fiscal Year[s] 2002 [which we are talking
about] . . . I agree with the Secretary of Defense that it is
prudent for him to conclude his strategy review and present
it to the President and the Congress for our consideration
before [Senator] we make final decisions [which this
amendment asks] on the shape and overall funding levels for
our future defense program.

Do you agree with him?
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Very briefly, I do. Of course, Senator Levin's hope,
and the rest of us, many on the committee, was that the defense
supplemental would come to us before the budget resolution. But here we
are on the budget resolution now, needing to make judgments about next
year and years after. That is the purpose of this amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the language is clear. I simply ask: Do
you agree or disagree with his statement again, that we should receive
the results of these studies ``before we, the Congress, make final
decisions on the shape and overall funding levels for our future
defense program?'' Our time has expired.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Very briefly, I say, I think my distinguished
colleague from Virginia is misapplying what Senator Levin was saying.
Mr. WARNER. I have read it.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Which is, he wanted an immediate defense supplemental.
But here we are on the budget resolution, so our responsibility is to
go forward. I will read one sentence. He says very clearly in another
sentence:

However, I believe there are certain requirements that must
be addressed regardless of the outcome of the ongoing
strategy review.

Mr. WARNER. The letter is in the Record. I cannot take more of our
time.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator from Virginia and the Chair. I
yield the floor.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I believe I have 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 6\1/2\ minutes under the control of
the Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, how much time remains on the other side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes 15 seconds.
Mr. CONRAD. Six minutes on the Republican side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Correct.
Mr. CONRAD. And we have 6 minutes on our side. I should remind the
Senator from Louisiana that I indicated we would be willing to provide
another 10 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico in fairness.
Would the Senator from New Mexico like that time at this point?
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes. I think to allocate it would be splendid. I may
not use it all. I may give some of it back.
Mr. CONRAD. I think in fairness we should do that. And I so move that
we provide an additional 10 minutes to the Republican side so that it
is a fair distribution of time.
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, thank you.
Mr. President, how much time do we have now from the amendment and
the 10 minutes added?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Sixteen minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
Now, Mr. President, I am sure the distinguished Senator from
Virginia, Mr. Warner, would desire to speak with some additional time,
and I am sure I will not use all of it.
Mr. WARNER. That is all right. Go ahead.
Mr. DOMENICI. First, let me say, it is important we put into
perspective, for those who are concerned about defense, what the Warner
amendment will do for defense this year. This amendment sets a new
level for national defense spending for the year 2002. It adds $22.4
billion in budget authority over the 2001 budget. That is a 7.2-percent
increase. Compared to the President's budget, this proposal adds $8.5
billion in 2002. The proposal is also a $23.5 billion increase for
national defense over what President Clinton sought for the year 2002.
So I believe those who are concerned about what we ought to spend in
the year 2002 should be rather comfortable that when you have this,
plus what is in the President's budget, you have a very substantial
increase for the year 2002.
I want to make a few assumptions that I don't need anybody to concur
on, but I want to make sure the Record reflects what I assume.
First, this amendment assumes all the increases in President Bush's
plans for pay raises for military personnel--I do not believe there is
any disagreement over that--for retention, for housing, for TRICARE,
and research and development.
I would also assume that it includes $3.1 billion more for the
Defense Health Program. I am not asking does the distinguished Senator
agree, but I am suggesting those who support that program expect $3.1
billion out of that $23.5 billion we are speaking of which is added for
defense this year. In addition, it will restore the TRICARE costs and
all direct care in military treatment facilities.
That is going to be tough. But remember, we voted for it. We voted
for it. Now we cannot say we are not going to fund it.
The Defense Health Program has been experiencing annual shortfalls,
and this has been occurring recently because the budget requests--I am
not speaking of this budget but the budget requests from the
administration--have underestimated inflationary costs for health care
each and every year when they send the allowance up here for health
care programs.
This year Defense Health Program officials have been instructed to
use an inflation rate of 4.2, I say to my friend. But this year the
Health Care Financing Administration estimates that inflation will be 7
percent, I say to all those interested in our defense. And that can be
covered if we are careful in terms of what we use this increase for.
There is going to be a shortfall in the Defense Health Program, and
we all know that. I think it is a matter of making sure, with the give-
and-take with the administration, we do right by it. Yes, it is a $3.1
billion shortfall. That means we underestimated what they need.
The Surgeons General of the military services have told Congress that
they will have to furlough healthcare personnel, close pharmacies, and
refuse service at military treatment facilities if additional funding
is not found for 2001 very soon. If we do not fully fund the program
for 2002, we will have the same problem again next year. This is not
acceptable. Does any Senator know of a worse way to address moral and
retention?
There is another important element of this amendment. It also
restores cuts in the defense activities of the Department of Energy.
The proposal fully funds DOE's Stockpile Stewardship Program and its
nonproliferation activities. It adds $800 million for the Stockpile
Stewardship Program and $100 million for nonproliferation.
Frankly, I do not expect my friend to agree this money is going to be
used for that. But I want everybody to know I am going to work hard so
it will be. Because one of the things that the defense establishment
forgets about every year is that they have a little buddy over there
called ``nuclear weapons,'' you see. They pay for all the rest of
defense when they start allocating, but when they start having to give
up defense money to the Department of Energy to do stockpile
stewardship, which I say to my friend from Virginia is a fancy name for
making sure we maintain healthy nuclear weapons--the totality of it to
be safe and ready--they do not put enough money in it because it seems
that it is not defense money.
But I am here to tell you, we are not going to be doing that in the
future because this Senator is going to be here saying the nuclear
arsenal is part of the defense of our Nation. It is underfunded. Its
buildings are falling down.
I say to my good friend, while you never get to appropriate for it,
you take a trip up there to the State where they have this Y-12 in the
State of Tennessee.
Do you know what is happening up there, Mr. Chairman? There is a
great big building that is part of the work being done on three of our
nuclear weapons. And the roof is falling in on top of the heads of the
workers. They all wear hardhats, even though it is not a hardhat
environment. So we have to start by building that building, you see.
And then there are a lot of others. We are asking, and so is the
general in charge of nuclear weapons asking, that we fund that.
I am willing to add some more money later if somebody wants to argue
about it, but I just want to make sure everybody knows I am voting for
additional

[[Page S3413]]

money because I do not think the President funded adequately what I am
telling you about. I do not think his budget funds them adequately.
They are going to get funded adequately this year because the Senate
is going to understand the precarious nature of not doing it. It might
be one of the few times the Senator from New Mexico would ask for a
closed session, which I have never done on an issue. But I am very
worried about the condition of the science-based stockpile stewardship.
Let me close. If any of you do not understand that, it just means we
are no longer doing underground testing, I say to my friends. We are no
longer doing that because it is the policy of America.
Underground testing was how we proved the efficacy of nuclear
weapons--their health, their effectiveness, their wellness. Now we do
not do that anymore. So how in the world would you think we would be
sure that some of our 20-, 30-, and 35-year-old weapons are safe and
have a well-being about them? We start a science program. We are going
to do it through science without underground testing.
That isn't something you get on the cheap. That is one of the most
expensive science programs ever invented by man, to prove, without
testing, that a nuclear weapons arsenal is safe. And it is very
important for America.
So I am voting for the Senator's amendment tonight because I think we
need to add some money to defense this year. I do not think we have to
dream about missile systems. I think we have to take care of and create
a robust, high-morale establishment that maintains and perfects our
nuclear weapons.
I never get a chance to tell Senators about this. That is why I asked
them to give me 10 minutes because I didn't want to take it away from
you. I can't find a better time to discuss it than here tonight when we
speak of this very large add-on to the Defense Department. I hope I
wasn't too technical. I hope everybody understands a little better what
the nuclear weapons issue is all about.
I reserve whatever time we have.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I understand that I have approximately 5
or 6 minutes to close this argument.
First, I thank the Senators from Rhode Island, Connecticut, and
Missouri for lending their voice to this important amendment and to
this important debate. I also acknowledge the great respect I have for
the chairman of the Budget Committee, the Senator from New Mexico, who
has just spoken passionately about an issue he has spent a great deal
of time and energy working on for many years. He has called us to task
many times to try to deal with an issue that is sometimes technical and
difficult to explain but nonetheless an obligation this Nation has to
protect our children and our grandchildren.
He was speaking so beautifully in the 10 minutes given to him, it
could have been allocated to our time, because he made so many of the
arguments more eloquently than I can about the fact that this
underlying budget does not have enough money or resources to do the
things we know we need to do now. He has really helped make the
argument of why the Landrieu-Carnahan amendment is so important.
Point No. 2, regarding the costs mentioned by our distinguished
chairman for nuclear stockpile stewardship, for the health care
shortfall, for TRICARE, for housing, I ask this question: Do these
requirements cease after the year 2002? Do these expenses not continue
to recur? It defies logic that we could provide for this funding for 1
year and then simply turn our backs and walk away. That is why a 1-year
amendment, although it is helpful and I could probably vote for it
because it is better than nothing, certainly falls short, terribly
short, of what we need to do to make a long-term, 10-year commitment to
the basics.
The third point: With all due respect to Senator Warner, whom I
admire so much, the distinguished Senator from Virginia submitted this
letter, dated March 19, to Senator Domenici and Senator Conrad signed
by Senator Levin. He read the first two paragraphs. The most important
paragraph is the fourth paragraph, which goes on to say, after saying
we should consider the study:

However, I believe there are certain requirements that must
be addressed regardless of the outcome of the ongoing
strategic review. Some increases above the projections
contained in the President's budget outline of February 28
will be needed to continue the transformation of our military
to meet the threats of the new century, to fulfill the
commitments the Congress has made to improve quality health
care to active and retired military families, and to continue
the progress we have made in recent years to improve
compensation, housing and other quality of life programs for
our military families.

He goes on to say:

I also recommend that the Budget Resolution provide a
sufficient mandatory spending allocation for the Committee. .
. .

Point No. 4. Please be clear. Our amendment does not try to prejudge
the President. We are trying to prepare to implement the strategic
study. We are not standing in the way of the study. We are laying the
groundwork that we can walk on, that we can fight on, that we can
defend. This is about laying down a priority in our budget for the next
10 years. Are we going to say yes to defense or no? Are we going to
live up to our promises or turn our backs again? Are we going to
provide help or say, as the Senator from Connecticut said, the check
must have been lost in the mail?
I know the Senators from Virginia and New Mexico too well to think
they would walk away from obligations we have already made. I know that
is not their intention. So let us do what is right. Let us choose the
right priority, take the right step, be fiscally responsible. We know
this bill is coming due. The question is, Is there going to be any
money in the bank to pay it? If we don't vote for my amendment, the
bank will be empty. There is nothing you can tell them. We are sorry;
we spent the money.
I am not going to do that. Because I am on the committee, because I
live in the State of Louisiana, I know how important this is. I know we
are not asking for too much: $10 billion a year for 10 years. It is a
minimal requirement to lay the groundwork for this study.
I ask the Senate to take this amendment seriously. This is a very
important vote. We need to say yes. We can say yes to next year, with
Senator Warner at $8.5 billion, and we can say yes the next year
because the need for health care doesn't stop. People aren't going to
move out of their homes on the bases. We are not going to end the
distribution of spare parts. We are not going to run out of the need
for ammunition. We need it in 2003 and 2004.
I say to the Senate, let us live up to our promises, let us make the
right decisions, and let's vote for the Landrieu-Carnahan amendment.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished
chairman, Senator Warner, in cosponsoring this amendment to increase
the budget for defense by $8.5 billion in fiscal year 2002. This
amendment would help address current readiness shortfalls that the
Department of Defense faces today, even as the new administration
continues its strategic review.
I am hopeful that this strategic review will not only examine these
current readiness challenges, but also take a hard look at the current
shipbuilding rate and our shrinking industrial base. The numbers are
astonishing: the U.S. Navy has shrunk from a fleet of 594 ships in 1987
to 315 ships today, while, during the same period, deployments have
increased more than 300 percent. Regional Commanders-in-Chief have
repeatedly warned that the fleet is stretched perilously thin and needs
to be increased to 360-ships to meet present mission requirements.
Numbers do matter; on a typical day about half the ships in the Navy
are at sea, with one-third deployed in the Mediterranean, the Persian
Gulf, and the Western Pacific, putting wear and tear on our ships and
sailors. In addition to combat over the last 10 years, naval forces
have conducted 19 non-combat evacuation operations, 4 maritime
intercept operations with more than 5,000 boardings in support of
United Nations sanctions or U.S. drug policy, 32 humanitarian
assistance operations, and 20 shows of force to send powerful messages
to friends and foes alike.
Even though our deployments are at an exceptionally high rate, the
U.S. shipbuilding industry is at risk of deteriorating if the current
inadequate build rate for the Navy continues. At the current low rate
of production, the

[[Page S3414]]

cost for per ship will go up and the efficiency at the yard will go
down.
The new administration and this Congress will be faced with the
challenge of rebuilding and re-capitalizing the Nation's naval fleet.
The numbers are just as clear as can be: At the present rate of
investment our Navy is heading toward a 220-ship fleet, which is
alarmingly inadequate.
A few other critical areas that have seemed to get little attention
in a budget constrained environment are research and development and
training. Steps need to be taken today to attract and retain a highly-
skilled workforce necessary to build the complex warships required for
our U.S. naval ships to operate against the emerging and traditional
threats in the 21st century. Regardless of the result of the strategic
review, forward deployed combat power will not only be required, but
will continue to be a key element to our strategic posture.
I am standing here before you to support Senator Warner's amendment
and to highlight that the readiness issues facing our Nation's defense
are only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the defense challenges
facing the new administration and this Congress. Today's shipbuilding
account is woefully under-funded and does not provide the financial
support necessary to maintain a viable industrial base. We, as the
legislative body, need to take aggressive steps to ensure that our
armed forces are equipped with the most capable and advanced ships in
the world to defend our Nation's interests.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I intend to vote for the amendment by
Senators Landrieu, Carnahan, Conrad, Lieberman, Reed and Levin because
I believe that providing for a strong national defense is our most
serious obligation.
Two years ago, President Clinton sent a letter to Secretary of
Defense Bill Cohen that stated: ``Although we have done much to support
readiness, more needs to be done.'' President Clinton made this
statement in response to a briefing he had attended with Secretary
Cohen, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Commanders-in-Chief of the
military combat commands.
I applauded President Clinton then for his reversal of 6 previous
years of vastly underfunded defense budgets and for the reversal of the
Service Chiefs in 1998, who confirmed many of the alarming readiness
problems that had been identified in countless sources.
The imperative for increasing military readiness and reforming our
military is as strong today, as it was two years ago. Anyone who
dismisses our serious readiness problems, our concerns with morale and
personnel retention, and our deficiencies in everything from spare
parts to training is either willfully uniformed or untruthful.
What concerns me the most is that the highly skilled service men and
women who have made our military the best fighting force the world has
ever seen are leaving in droves, unlikely to be replaced in the near
future. Their reason is obvious; they are overworked, underpaid, and
away from home more and more often. Failure to fully and quickly
address this facet of our readiness problem will be more damaging to
both the near and long-term health of our all-volunteer force than we
can imagine.
The cure for our defense decline will neither be quick nor cheap. The
proper solution should not only shore up the Services' immediate needs,
but should also address the modernization and personnel problems caused
by years of chronic under funding. The solution will be found by using
a comprehensive approach in which the President, civilian and uniformed
military leadership, as well as Congress, will be required to make
tough choices and even tougher commitments.
I further hope that we do not fall into the trap of comparing defense
expenditures of the U.S. versus potential threat countries, because
dollar to dollar comparisons are meaningless. Only the U.S. has the
global responsibilities that come with being the lone superpower. Our
foes can employ asymmetric forces against our weaknesses and achieve a
disproportionate level of success.
I was concerned that recently, the USS Kitty Hawk battle group,
stationed in Japan, reported less-than-favorable readiness numbers,
short some 1,000 sailors, at the same time that tensions have increased
in the South China Sea.
I hope we do not focus solely on the readiness of front-line forces,
because the Army divisions that have good readiness numbers are being
supported by units that have less-impressive ratings. We need a
comprehensive remedy, not a shotgun approach. These support forces,
some of them reserve component forces, have become the backbone of our
fighting forces and need the most attention.
This degradation of the ``tail'' that trains and supports the
``teeth'' of the U.S. military must be reversed. We have the world's
finest military, but that is principally because the people in the
military, primarily the young enlisted, our NCOs, petty officers,
chiefs, Gunnies, and sergeants, continue to do more with less. Our
ability to field credible front-line forces is due to the efforts of
our service members, as we live off of the deteriorating remnants of
the Reagan buildup. That is difficult to admit, until you review the
list of aircraft, ships, artillery, and tanks in our current weapons
inventory.
The administration must take several steps: propose realistic budget
requests; specifically budget for ongoing contingency operations;
provide adequately for modernization; ensure equipment maintenance is
adequately funded; resolve the wide pay and benefits disparity that
precludes the Services from competing successfully for volunteers with
the private sector; and demonstrate strong support for additional base
closure rounds.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, as the Senate debates President Bush's
first budget proposal, I want to join my colleagues in congratulating
the President on his commitment to revitalize our Nation's economy and
national security. The President's budget proposal is fiscally
responsible and represents a prudent first step as he organizes his
administration and focuses on the issues facing both the Nation and the
World. I especially want to recognize the President's challenge to
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to conduct a strategic review of our
national security requirements. This review is long overdue and I
anticipate it will bring about significant changes to our national
security strategy and our military services.
I have been privileged to be a member of the Senate Armed Services
Committee since 1959. During this period I have been a witness to both
the greatness and tragedy of military service. After the tragic
conflict in Vietnam, we saw a sharp decline in the readiness and morale
of our armed forces. The Reagan era brought about a revitalization in
our armed forces that culminated in the end of the Cold War and the
great victory in the desert of Iraq. Now again, our military is showing
its age and neglect. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are
still the best, but the equipment and facilities are wearing out
because of under funding and overuse.
In a recent interview on the state of our Armed Forces, the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shelton, stated: ``If we go back
15 to 16 years, America was spending roughly 6.5 percent of our gross
domestic product on defense. Today we spend right at 3 percent. Put
another way, if we were spending the same percent of our national
wealth, our GDP, on the armed forces today that we were spending in
1985, the defense budget would be double what it is today. The Army in
1989 had 18 divisions. Today it's down to 10. The Air Force had 36
fighter wings. Today it has 20. The Navy had just short of 600 ships.
Today it's got just over 300 ships. We have taken 700,000 out of the
active force. That is greater than the armed forces of the UK, Germany,
the Danes and the Dutch put together. So we have restructured, and we
have downsized. As an example, our Army is right now the seventh-
largest in the world.''
General Shelton's comments show that we have adjusted to the new
world, although in my judgement we have gone too far both in terms of
force structure and funding. I am especially concerned over the
shortfall in funding over the past ten years. We have frequently heard
about the aging equipment and lack of spare parts. I would like to
focus on our aging military facilities. According to the GAO, in 1992
the military had accumulated an estimated $8.9 billion in deferred
facility

[[Page S3415]]

maintenance. By 1998, that had grown to $14.6 billion. The backlog now
exceeds $16 billion and it is still growing. If we do not reverse this
trend, our military installations will continue to deteriorate and
quality of life and readiness will continue to decline.
President Bush has proposed a $14.2 billion increase over last year's
defense budget. Although this is significant, it will not provide the
necessary resources to fix the immediate readiness shortfall identified
to the Armed Services Committee by the military services. Chairman
Warner's amendment to increase the defense budget by another $8.5
billion is a modest increase to fund critical manpower and readiness
issues. In my judgement, it is a down payment to the increase that the
President will seek after Secretary Rumsfeld completes his strategic
review. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and prove our
support to the men and women who wear the uniforms of our military
services.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from New Mexico has 8 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my distinguished colleague, when
I addressed the letter from Senator Levin, I put it in its entirety
into the record. I didn't in any way try to deceive the Senate as to
his feelings about a different approach than my distinguished colleague
from Louisiana, his approach being that we should begin to plan for the
outyears, but it wasn't sort of a mandatory $10 billion for the
outyears. It was more in the nature of some sort of a reserve fund.
The key to it is, who is going to run defense? The Constitution of
the United States says very clearly that the President is the Commander
in Chief. It is the function of the executive branch to make the
determination with regard to the needs and the requirements of our
Armed Forces. As Senator Levin said very explicitly, he supports the
reviews, and he says in absolutely clear language: And Congress, before
we make our final decisions on the shape and overall funding levels for
our future, let's hear from the President.
That is consistent with the Constitution. That is the way we have
done business. I think that is the way we should continue to do
business. It may well be in the year 2003 we need additional funding
over and above the 10, but the subsequent fiscal years may require less
funding.
I say with all due respect to my colleague, let us follow the
constitutional mandate: The Commander in Chief, the President,
proposes; Congress disposes. Someone far brighter than I in the history
of this venerable institution, the Congress of the United States, made
that statement. And it has been with us for these years.
Let our President propose, as he is entrusted to do under the
Constitution, and then each year we will go through the normal cycles
that we do year after year.
What is here is a means by which to reduce the President's tax bill.
I respect the difference of opinion on this side of the aisle where I
find myself very comfortably ensconced for the remainder of this
debate. We should respect your views. But if you are going to do it,
let's knock out all the business about defense and say you want to
knock down the tax bill by $100 billion, and put the issue straight
before the Senate. But as it relates to defense, I don't think we want
to start a radical departure. I have been associated with defense for a
number of years, starting in the Navy Secretariat in 1969, and now 23
years here. I have never seen the Congress allocate specific sums of
increases without the budget request from the President of the United
States, which has to be justified. You are speculating--and it may be
correct--that we will need increases for one or more fiscal years. But
I don't think it is our responsibility now to subvert the Constitution,
which says the President is the Commander in Chief. The President will
propose and, in due course, the Congress will dispose.

With all due respect to my colleague, I certainly support the basic
thrust of 2002. Our bills parallel in many respects. Mine takes care of
2002, lets the President finish his studies, and lets Congress analyze
them and then makes the decision.
Ms. LANDRIEU. My colleague from Virginia knows how much I respect him
for his leadership on this subject and how difficult I know this debate
is for him because he has been a champion of defense spending and
strengthening our defenses and actually appropriating money in very
wise ways, as we say about boosting the morale.
But I have to go back to this letter. I most certainly know we have
both turned it in for the Record. I think it is important because
Senator Levin is on his way to this debate--since this letter is
written by him--to make sure the Members understand the context of this
letter. If it is read in its entirety, which I tried to do--not just
reading the paragraph to which you referred but the next paragraph--it
is clear that Senator Levin says that, while we do need to support the
study, we must set aside now the resources necessary to fund the
outcome of the study.
I know the Senator from Virginia is familiar with the Congressional
Budget Office study. I know he is familiar with ``Defending America,
The Plan to Meet Our Missile Defense''--the numerous studies that have
been done. Not one study indicates that we will be spending less money,
but all suggest that we will be spending more, but differently.
So again, I will conclude because I think my time is up. We are going
to have a bill coming due. The question is, Is there money in the bank
to pay it? Please vote for the Landrieu-Carnahan amendment so we have
money to pay these bills when they come due and live up to our promises
to our men and women in uniform. I yield back my time.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I simply say to my colleague, we have had
a good debate. We have framed the issue very clearly. My posture is we
should proceed to let the Commander in Chief conduct his studies. There
is nothing in this debate to refute Mr. Levin. He said, ``. . .before
we make final decisions on the shape and overall funding levels for our
future defense programs,'' we should have those studies. I am saying
that we are encroaching on what my distinguished ranking member said in
clear English language. I say that with respect to the Senator. I yield
back any time I have.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back any time I have.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Landrieu
amendment.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 71 Leg.]

YEAS--47

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCain
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wellstone

NAYS--52

Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Boxer

The amendment (No. 188) was rejected.

[[Page S3416]]

Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment
was rejected.
Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Vote on Amendment No. 189

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second. The question is on agreeing to
amendment No. 189. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 84, nays 16, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 72 Leg.]

YEAS--84

Akaka
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NAYS--16

Boxer
Corzine
Durbin
Feingold
Gramm
Gregg
Harkin
Kennedy
Lincoln
Murray
Reed
Schumer
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
The amendment (No. 189) was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand this consent agreement has
been cleared on both sides.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Collins now be recognized to
offer her amendment and, following the reporting by the clerk, the
amendment be laid aside and Senator Conrad or his designee be
recognized to offer an amendment relative to home health care.
I further ask consent that the debate run concurrently on both first-
degree amendments and be limited to 60 minutes equally divided, and
following that time the amendments be laid aside.
I further ask consent that no amendments be in order prior to the
votes just described, and the votes occur in a stacked sequence, first
in relation to the Conrad amendment, and then in relation to the
Collins amendment, beginning at 9:30, with 10 minutes for closing
remarks equally divided prior to the 9:30 stacked votes.
I also ask consent that following those votes, Senator Conrad be
recognized to offer an amendment relative to deficit reduction, as
under the previous order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from North
Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. And I will not object. This is in accordance with what we
discussed?
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes. Has the Chair ruled?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. In light of this agreement, there will be no further
votes tonight. The next votes will occur in stacked sequence at 9:30
a.m. tomorrow.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.

Amendment No. 190

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

The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for herself, Mr.
Bond, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Smith of
Oregon, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Hutchinson, and Mr.
Santorum, proposes an amendment numbered 190.

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

(Purpose: To establish a reserve fund to eliminate further cuts in
medicare payments to home health agencies)

At the end of title II, insert the following:

SEC. __. RESERVE FUND FOR MEDICARE PAYMENTS TO HOME HEALTH
AGENCIES.

If the Senate Committee on Finance or the House Committee
on Ways and Means or Commerce reports a bill, or if an
amendment thereto is offered or a conference report thereon
is submitted, that repeals the 15 percent reduction in
payments under the medicare program to home health agencies
enacted by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and now scheduled
to go into effect on October 1, 2002, the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget of the House or Senate may increase
the allocation of new budget authority and outlays to that
committee and other appropriate budgetary aggregates and
levels by the amount needed, but not to exceed $0 in new
budget authority and outlays in 2002, $4,000,000,000 for the
period 2002 through 2006, and $13,700,000,000 for the period
2002 through 2011, subject to the condition that such
legislation will not, when taken together with all other
previously-enacted legislation, reduce the on-budget surplus
below the level of the -Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust
Fund surplus in any fiscal year covered by this resolution.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the amendment is
laid aside. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, Senator Stabenow is my designee on this
amendment. She has the amendment to send to the desk. I yield to
Senator Stabenow.

Amendment No. 191

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

The Senator from Michigan [Ms. Stabenow], for herself and
Mr. Johnson, proposes an amendment numbered 191.

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

(Purpose: To eliminate further cuts in Medicare payments to home health
agencies)

On page 2, line 18, increase the amount by $700,000,000.
On page 3, line 1, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
On page 3, line 2, increase the amount by $1,100,000,000.
On page 3, line 3, increase the amount by $1,300,000,000.
On page 3, line 4, increase the amount by $1,500,000,000.
On page 3, line 5, increase the amount by $1,700,000,000.
On page 3, line 6, increase the amount by $1,900,000,000.
On page 3, line 7, increase the amount by $2,100,000,000.
On page 3, line 8, increase the amount by $2,400,000,000.
On page 3, line 14, decrease the amount by $700,000,000.
On page 3, line 15, decrease the amount by $1,000,000,000.
On page 3, line 16, decrease the amount by $1,100,000,000.
On page 3, line 17, decrease the amount by $1,300,000,000.
On page 3, line 18, decrease the amount by $1,500,000,000.
On page 3, line 19, decrease the amount by $1,700,000,000.
On page 3, line 20, decrease the amount by $1,900,000,000.
On page 3, line 21, decrease the amount by $2,100,000,000.
On page 3, line 22, decrease the amount by $2,400,000,000.
On page 4, line 3, increase the amount by $700,000,000.
On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by $1,100,000,000.
On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $1,300,000,000.
On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $1,500,000,000.

[[Page S3417]]

On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $1,700,000,000.
On page 4, line 9, increase the amount by $1,900,000,000.
On page 4, line 10, increase the amount by $2,100,000,000.
On page 4, line 11, increase the amount by $2,400,000,000.
On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $700,000,000.
On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $1,100,000,000.
On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $1,300,000,000.
On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $1,500,000,000.
On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $1,700,000,000.
On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $1,900,000,000.
On page 5, line 1, increase the amount by $2,100,000,000.
On page 5, line 2, increase the amount by $2,400,000,000.
On page 30, line 23, increase the amount by $700,000,000.
On page 30, line 24, increase the amount by $700,000,000.
On page 31, line 2, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
On page 31, line 3, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
On page 31, line 6, increase the amount by $1,100,000,000.
On page 31, line 7, increase the amount by $1,100,000,000.
On page 31, line 10, increase the amount by $1,300,000,000.
On page 31, line 10, increase the amount by $1,300,000,000.
On page 31, line 14, increase the amount by $1,500,000,000.
On page 31, line 15, increase the amount by $1,500,000,000.
On page 31, line 18, increase the amount by $1,700,000,000.
On page 31, line 19, increase the amount by $1,700,000,000.
On page 31, line 22, increase the amount by $1,900,000,000.
On page 31, line 23, increase the amount by $1,900,000,000.
On page 32, line 2, increase the amount by $2,100,000,000.
On page 32, line 3, increase the amount by $2,100,000,000.
On page 32, line 6, increase the amount by $2,400,000,000.
On page 32, line 7, increase the amount by $2,400,000,000.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with several of my
colleagues, including Senators Bond, Hutchinson, Mikulski, Ensign,
Snowe, Cochran, Gordon Smith, and Santorum, in introducing this
amendment to eliminate the automatic 15-percent reduction in Medicare
payments to home health agencies now scheduled to take effect on
October 1 of next year.
Our amendment will create a reserve fund of $13.7 billion that can be
used solely to eliminate the 15-percent reduction in payments to home
health agencies now scheduled to go into effect on October 1, 2002. Our
amendment contains a safety mechanism that protects the Medicare HI
trust fund for each year covered by the budget resolution. In other
words--I want this to be clear--the Medicare trust fund will not be
used to pay for the elimination of the scheduled reduction in home
health payments.
Health care has gone full circle. Patients are spending less time in
the hospital, more and more procedures are being done on an outpatient
basis, and recovery and care for patients with chronic diseases and
conditions have increasingly been taking place in the home. Moreover,
the number of older Americans who are chronically ill or disabled in
some way continues to grow with each passing year as our population
grows older.
As a consequence, home health care has become an increasingly
important part of our health care system. The kinds of highly skilled
and often technically complex services that our Nation's home health
nurses provide have enabled millions of our most frail and vulnerable
elderly individuals to avoid hospitals and nursing homes and stay just
where they want to be--in the comfort, security, and privacy of their
own homes.
The rapid growth in home health spending, from 1990 to 1997,
understandably prompted the Congress and the Clinton administration, as
part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, to initiate changes that were
intended to slow the growth in spending and make this important program
more cost effective and efficient. Unfortunately, these measures have
produced cuts in home health spending far beyond what Congress ever
intended.
According to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, home
health spending dropped to $9.2 billion in the year 2000, just about
half the amount we were spending in 1997. This is at a time when demand
and the need for home health services have only increased. On the
horizon and very troubling is an additional 15-percent cut that would
put our already struggling home health agencies at risk and would
seriously jeopardize access to critical home health services for
millions of our Nation's seniors.
The Medicare home health benefit has already been cut far more deeply
and abruptly than any other benefit in the history of the Medicare
program. It is now abundantly clear that the savings goals set for home
health in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 have not only been met but
far surpassed. The most recent CBO projections show that the post-
Balanced Budget Act reductions in home health services will amount to
about $69 billion between fiscal years 1998 and 2002. This is more than
four times the $16 billion that the CBO originally estimated for that
time period and is a clear indication that the Medicare home health
cutbacks have been far too deep.
Moreover, the financial problems home health agencies have been
experiencing have been exacerbated by a host of ill-conceived
regulatory requirements imposed by the Clinton administration. As a
consequence of these burdensome and costly regulations, as well as the
reductions in reimbursements, approximately 3,300 home health agencies
have either closed their doors or stopped serving Medicare patients.

Moreover, the Health Care Financing Administration estimates that
900,000 fewer home health patients received services in 1999 than in
1997. That is 900,000 frail, elderly, ill individuals who have lost
their access to home health services.
This startling statistic points to the central and most critical
issue: Cuts of this magnitude simply cannot be sustained without
ultimately harming patient care.
The impact of these cutbacks has been particularly devastating in my
home State of Maine. The number of Medicare home health patients in
Maine dropped by 23 percent in just 2 years' time. That translates into
more than 11,000 home health patients no longer receiving services.
There was also a 40-percent drop in the number of home health visits in
Maine and a 31-percent cut in Medicare payments to home health agencies
in the State.
Keep in mind, Maine's home health agencies were already very prudent
in their use of resources. They were low-cost agencies in the
beginning. They simply had no cushion to absorb this cut. Indeed, these
cutbacks cut to the bone and are harming care in the State of Maine.
Last year I had the opportunity to meet and visit with a number of
home health patients and nurses throughout my State. I heard
heartbreaking stories about the impact of Medicare cutbacks and how
regulatory restrictions have affected both the quality and the
availability of home health care services, jeopardizing the health and
well-being of numerous senior citizens. For example, a nurse told me of
the tragic story of one of her patients, an elderly Maine woman who
suffered from advanced Alzheimer's disease, pneumonia, and
hypertension, among other illnesses. This patient was bedbound,
verbally nonresponsive, and had a series of other troubling health
problems, including infections and weight loss. This woman had been
receiving home health services for approximately 2 years. During that
time, due to the care of the skilled and compassionate home health
nurse, her condition had stabilized.
Unfortunately, the care provided to this patient had to end when the
home health agency received a Federal notice indicating that this poor
woman no longer qualified for home health care.
Mr. President, less than 3 months later this woman died as a result
of a wound from an untreated infection in her foot. One cannot help but
speculate that this tragedy might well have been prevented had this
woman continued to receive home health care.
This is only one of the heart-wrenching stories that I have heard
from both patients and dedicated home health

[[Page S3418]]

nurses throughout the State of Maine. I am, therefore, extremely
concerned that there is yet another cut in home health care looming on
the horizon, that an additional automatic 15-percent cut is scheduled
to go into effect on October 1 of next year. This cut would sound the
death knell for many of our already struggling home health agencies,
and it would further jeopardize access to critical home health services
for millions of our Nation's seniors.
Since we have already surpassed the savings target set by the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997, further cuts simply are not necessary.
Mr. President, the fact that Congress has delayed the automatic 15-
percent cutback for 3 straight years demonstrates that the cut is not
justified, it is not warranted. To simply keep delaying this cut 1 year
at a time, year after year, is to leave a ``sword of Damocles'' hanging
over the heads of these home health agencies. It makes it impossible
for them to plan how they are going to serve their patients. It causes
them to turn down patients who are complicated and costly to serve
because they can't count on the reimbursement. This further cut is not
needed, and it should be eliminated altogether once and for all.
Mr. President, the amendment we are introducing today will enable us
to eliminate this cut once and for all. It will provide a needed
measure of relief and certainty for cost-effective home health care
providers across this country that are experiencing serious financial
difficulties that are inhibiting their ability to deliver much needed
care, particularly to those chronically ill elderly with complex care
needs.
I urge all of my colleagues to support my amendment. I reserve the
remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to commend my colleague from
Maine for her comments. I could not agree more about the importance of
home health care for families all across America. We all know there are
more and more people who desire to live at home, and they can because
of modern medicine. There are more and more of us as baby boomers, and
others, who have parents or grandparents we wish to help care for in
our own homes or in their homes. Home health care is a critical part of
the network of health care for our citizens.
I could not agree more that we need to make sure the next cut--this
15-percent cut that has been delayed three times by the Congress--does
not actually take effect in October of 2002.
My problem with the amendment spoken to is it does not guarantee that
cut will not take place. In fact, the amendment I am offering would
guarantee--no ifs, ands, or buts about it--that this cut would not take
effect. When I look at my colleague's amendment, first of all, it says
if there is a repeal of the 15-percent reduction, the House and Senate
Budget Committees ``may'' increase the allocation of new budget
authority--not that they ``shall'' or that they ``have to'' but they
``may.'' I believe we have to say that they ``must.''

Secondly, unfortunately, the way this is put together, it creates a
shell game once again. While appearing to protect the Medicare trust
fund and saying that these dollars do not come out of the Medicare
trust fund, they, in fact, set up a scenario that does, in fact,
guarantee, I believe, that the $13.7 billion will not be available
because with all of the things being talked about, with all of the on-
budget surplus being used for the tax cut being talked about, with the
efforts going on here, and what will be happening with all the other
priorities, it will be impossible to keep this commitment; in fact, we
will see that cut happen--at least there is no guarantee under this
amendment that that horrendous 15-percent cut will not happen.
Mr. President, the amendment I have offered is for the same amount of
dollars, $13.7 billion. But instead of having the ifs, ands, maybes,
and the mays, what we say is that these dollars are taken off of the
top--a small amount of money--of the tax cut and shall be guaranteed
and put aside for home health care to guarantee that this 15-percent
cut will not take place.
This is a very small amount of dollars. I know people in my State--
the people who want us to put forward a balanced approach, who support
a tax cut and also want to make sure we are continuing to pay down the
debt--also are very concerned about putting aside a small amount of
dollars to make sure that our seniors can live at home in dignity; that
families can care for loved ones and have the opportunity to have
valuable home health care services available to them.
As my colleague from Maine indicated, when the Balanced Budget Act
was put into place, it was anticipated that the Medicare home health
cuts would be $16 billion, and we find just a few years later that it
is estimated to be four times that amount. We did not realize that when
the BBA was passed. I argue that it was a case of unintended
consequences, and that we have recognized that by delaying the 15-
percent cut three different times, because we know they are excessive,
that there is something wrong when there has been a 24-percent drop in
the number of patients served by home health agencies.

When we see a 30-percent reduction in the number of agencies serving
Medicare patients nationwide--30 percent--we are talking about almost a
third of a cut in those serving Medicare patients in home health care
across this country, while the demand is going up. The citizens of our
country are getting older and living longer, and we all celebrate that
we are living longer. Unfortunately, with that comes a greater and
greater demand with home health care services.
So I agree with my colleague that, in fact, we need to be serious
about this. We can all talk about men and women and children and folks
of all parts of this country who have been and are today in situations
where they are in desperate need of home health care. We can also talk
about how it saves dollars--that through home health care we are saving
dollars in nursing homes and other institutional care. It means dollars
and cents, and it makes sense from a quality of life standpoint.
I strongly agree that we need to protect these dollars and guarantee
that this cut does not take effect. Again, my concern is that the
amendment of my friend from Maine, unfortunately, does not guarantee
that this cut will not take effect. We can do that. We can, in this
process, say that we are going to, regardless of the other priorities,
regardless of what else is passed, put aside this small amount of
dollars to protect the home health agencies and the people they serve
all across this country. That is what this is about.
I urge my colleagues to reject the Collins amendment and to support
the Stabenow amendment, which is a guarantee that, in fact, we will be
able to protect home health services for our citizens. I can't think of
an issue that touches so many homes and families more than this one--
families who are hoping that they have the opportunity and the
resources to care for loved ones at home or for people who wish to live
in dignity in their own home.
Again, I commend my colleague on the other side of the aisle for her
comments about the importance of home health care. I could not agree
more. I believe very strongly that we need to take as firm a position
as we can, and the amendment that I offer does.
The amendment I offered is an absolute guarantee that our home health
agencies and the people they serve will not lose additional dollars and
that those services will be protected.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield me 2 minutes?
Ms. COLLINS. I yield as much time as the Senator wants.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first, so there will be no confusion,
the distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, has an amendment
that makes the money available when the committee of jurisdiction
reports back that the repeal has been accomplished. It is a real
amendment. It is precisely what would have to happen--and the Senator
is saying that it should happen--in order to repeal that statute about
which the Senator is talking.
I do not want anybody to think the Senator offered an amendment that
does not accomplish her purpose. She has been talking about this
problem for a long time.
If the Senator had offered an amendment that was not meaningful, that
did

[[Page S3419]]

not get the job done, we would have already fixed the amendment. We
would have looked at it first.
It is a real amendment. It is the real way to do it. I thank the
Senator from Maine for her persistence and for the amendment which we
will vote on tomorrow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has 22\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I neglected to mention Senator Roberts
wants to be a cosponsor of the amendment as well. He is on the
amendment I sent to the desk. I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Domenici be added as a cosponsor as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, Senator Domenici has been extremely
helpful in drafting this amendment. I am grateful for his help. Senator
Roberts has also been a real leader in this area.
I must say I am very disappointed to hear the comments of my friend
and colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow. There is no one who has
worked harder than I on home health care during the last few years. It
was the legislation I introduced that was incorporated into the
Medicare Refinement Act that we passed that restored some of the cuts
to home health agencies.
I have been honored to work with the trade associations representing
our Nation's home health agencies and have been very humbled and
privileged to receive their awards as legislator of the year.
For my colleague to suggest that I am offering a sham or phony
amendment and to somehow question my sincerity in trying to restore
home health care is really most unfortunate and most disappointing.
This is, as the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee said,
a very real amendment. In fact, a reserve account is the fairest way to
address this problem. We are still going to have to pass legislation,
whether it is the amendment of the Senator from Michigan that is
adopted or whether my version is adopted, to actually carry out the
elimination of the 15-percent reduction. But my reserve fund amendment
provides a mechanism to bring us closer to that goal by reserving those
funds that we need, that $13.7 billion that is necessary.
As I said, I am very disappointed and think it is very unfortunate to
have my efforts misrepresented. I have worked extremely hard on this
issue. I have introduced legislation that has bipartisan support, that
has more than 30 cosponsors expressing support for home health care.

I have visited elderly people in Maine who are receiving home health
care, and I know how absolutely critical it is to them.
On my most recent home health visit, I accompanied a very dedicated,
professional, and compassionate home health nurse to a town outside of
Bangor. This woman was receiving home health care while living with her
daughter. She had lung cancer. But home health care allowed her to
spend her final months of her life in her daughter's home--not in a
nursing home, not in a hospital, but surrounded by her loving family.
I do not want anything to jeopardize the ability of such a woman and
so many other Maine citizens and citizens across this country to
receive the home health care services they need.
I visited another couple in my hometown of Caribou. They were both in
their mid-eighties. One was in a wheelchair. Each of them had very
serious health problems. Home health care allowed this elderly couple
to stay together in their own home where they had lived for more than
60 years rather than be separated and having one sent to a nursing
home.
That is how important home health care is, and there is no one who is
more committed than I to making sure we undo the damage that was
inadvertently done by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and the very
burdensome and onerous regulations imposed by the Clinton
administration.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment that I and many others
have offered so that we can bring ourselves a step closer to making
sure we eliminate once and for all this 15-percent ill-advised cut in
Medicare home health care reimbursements.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator from Michigan yield?
Ms. STABENOW. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. REID. The Senator from Maine wishes to offer a unanimous consent
request.
Ms. COLLINS. I am sorry; I could not hear the Senator.
Mr. REID. It is my understanding the Senator wants to offer a
unanimous consent request.
Ms. COLLINS. I believe the Senator from Nevada knew that before I
did.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. I appreciate the Senator yielding.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the only first-degree
amendments in order on Friday be those amendments submitted at the desk
by 2 p.m. on Thursday, with the exception of an amendment to be offered
by the minority leader and an amendment to be offered by the majority
leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator
from Michigan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first, I in no way intended to express
doubt about my colleague's sincerity on this issue. I, in fact,
indicated in my comments that I appreciated her commitment and
understand this is an issue with which she has been very involved and
it certainly is an issue she cares deeply about and an amendment, I am
sure, that is intended for all purposes to move in the right direction.
I commend her for that.
I shared those same experiences when I was in the House of
Representatives working with the home health groups and having the
opportunity to be very involved as a House Member.
I very much appreciate the work of the Senator from Maine.
What I question is simply the language in the amendment and the
mechanism being used. The practical reality is that if we adopt an
amendment that indicates the dollars will be put aside but cannot be
used if, in fact, the Medicare trust fund is dipped into, that is an
impossible situation because the vast majority of the contingency fund
is, in fact, the Medicare trust fund.
When we look at what the President has proposed to spend from the
contingency fund, which is the Medicare trust fund predominantly, my
fear is that we will find a situation where the Senator's well-intended
amendment, if adopted, might be in a situation where it could not take
effect without dipping into the Medicare trust fund.
This bars dipping into the Medicare trust fund, which I support. But
by using this mechanism, it, in fact, may not provide the protection
she desires.
My amendment simply takes the same amount of dollars, but by taking
it off the top rather than through some language about the contingency
fund and not using the Medicare trust fund, by simply taking it off the
top, we guarantee that money can be put aside. We can call it a reserve
fund. That makes a lot of sense.
Let us work together and call it a reserve fund and put it aside but
not make it contingent upon all of the other decisions that will be
made by the Budget Committee, the Finance Committee, and others, in
ways in which this contingency fund will be structured. That is my
concern.

I appreciate the fact there is a desire to keep intact the
President's tax proposal. I appreciate that. I have a different view in
terms of priorities, wanting to see the tax cut as part of the
priorities and paying down the debt, and making sure we can carve out a
small amount of the total for home health care. I would like to see it
written in stone so it is not dependent upon other conditions.
The amendment says it would be subject to certain conditions, when
taken together with all other previously enacted legislation. In total,
if the amount involved would reduce the on-budget surplus below the
level of the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund, then it would not
happen.

[[Page S3420]]

The bottom line is, we see this Senate moving in the direction of
``combining'' when all is said and done because of the desire to move
the Medicare trust fund into spending, which is the direction the
Senate has been moving. The President has asked to move the Medicare
trust fund into spending and because all kinds of things have been
promised out of that Medicare trust fund and out of the contingency
fund, unfortunately, this language does not guarantee we can protect
home health care agencies from the 15-percent cut.
I will gladly work with my colleague to find a way to make sure we
can guarantee this 15-percent cut will not take effect. I couldn't
agree more. We see a 24-percent drop in the number of patients served
by home health agencies. We are talking about real people, real
people's lives, families who are struggling, people who need care. I
couldn't agree more that we need to make a strong statement in support
of those who use and need to use home health care services. My concern
is, as with other amendments that relate to the whole question of the
contingency fund, there is no guarantee that, in fact, this will be
able to happen.
I welcome my colleague joining with me to make sure we put aside
$13.7 billion and that we can work together to make sure that is truly
available, regardless of what other decisions are made regarding the
budget.
As I indicated, in this amendment, unfortunately, it is ``subject to
the condition that such legislation will not, when taken together with
all other previously enacted legislation'' dip into the Medicare trust
fund.
I argue strongly that given that exception, in fact, the goal would
not be met. I urge my colleagues to join with me in truly protecting
home health care. I welcome the opportunity to work with my colleague
to do that. I know we both share a strong commitment on this issue. I
want to make sure, as I am sure she does, I want to make sure this
language is the kind of language that will guarantee at the end of the
day that this 15-percent cut does not take effect, no ifs, ands, or
buts about it, that it does not take effect and our families will have
the opportunity to use needed home health care services.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, let's get this straight. Whether the
amendment of the Senator from Michigan passes or whether my amendment
passes, the Senate Finance Committee is still going to have to report
legislation repealing the 15-percent cut. There is no absolute
guarantee under either version.
The fact is, under the Collins amendment there is far more likelihood
that we will see repeal of the 15-percent cut because I specifically
set aside the $13.7 billion in a reserve fund that can only be used to
restore the 15-percent cut to eliminate the cut.
By contrast, the amendment of my friend and colleague from Michigan
just increases funding in the Medicare account, with no guarantee that
the money goes for home health care. Instead, she takes money out of
the tax cut.

The approach I have sets aside the $13.7 billion specifically for the
purpose of eliminating the 15-percent cut. There is far more of a
``guarantee'' that we will repeal the 15-percent cut under the Collins
amendment than under the amendment offered by the Senator from
Michigan.
I think it is unfortunate the Senator from Michigan has not joined on
to the Collins amendment. I am very pleased to say, and appreciative of
the fact, she is a cosponsor of the legislation that I have introduced,
which more than 30 Members have cosponsored, to eliminate the 15-
percent cut. If we are talking about what version of the amendment is
more likely to bring about the goal that we both share, it is clearly
the version I have offered which says that the money can only be used
for home health care and for eliminating the 15-percent cut.
I also find it ironic that the amendment is being criticized now for
exempting and providing a mechanism of safeguard for the Medicare HI
trust fund. That has been an issue that has been repeatedly raised by
Members of the minority party, by Members of the Democratic Party, as a
concern about these amendments. In an attempt to respond to that
concern, I make sure we shield the Medicare trust fund so it could not
be tapped for this purpose and that this would be new money. To now
hear criticisms of the amendment because we put in those safeguards
strikes me as puzzling, to say the least.
Again, my goal is to make sure every elderly American who needs home
health care, who wants to receive services in the privacy, security,
and comfort of their own homes is able to do so. Home health care has
become so important and we must ensure that our frail, vulnerable
elderly receive the services they need.
I yield the floor but reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I make it clear I agree with protecting
the Medicare trust fund. That is very laudable. I wish we were totally
protecting it from any areas of spending. My concern is simply that
when we protect it, as this amendment does, it makes it impossible to
find the $13.7 billion when you look at the conditions put in this
amendment.
It is excellent to protect the Medicare trust fund, but the reality
is the contingency fund that has been put forward by the President in
this resolution uses the entire Medicare trust fund to fund it. It is
really a Catch-22. That is my concern.
I certainly am hopeful we will be able to truly put aside the dollars
and make sure that, regardless of what else happens in the process, we
have dollars put aside to protect home health care.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. The Senator from Michigan has indicated she is willing to
yield back time. I don't know if there is anyone who wishes to speak on
the other side.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to join with my colleague from Maine,
Senator Collins, to offer an amendment on Medicare home health care.
This amendment will give us the ability later this year to pass the
Home Health Payment Fairness Act, a bill I have sponsored with the
Senator from Maine and 31 other Senators, that tries to ensure that
seniors and disabled Americans have appropriate access to high-quality
home health care.
Home health care is a crucial part of Medicare through which seniors
can get basic nursing and therapy care in their home. It is convenient.
It is cost-effective. But more importantly, home health is the key to
fulfilling a virtually universal desire among seniors and those with
disabilities, to remain independent and within the comfort of their own
homes despite their health problems.
Yet we have a crisis in home health, too many seniors who could and
should be receiving home health are not getting it. This is tragic.
We all know the basic history, Congress made cuts in the Balanced
Budget Act, the Health Care Financing Administration went too far in
implementation, providers struggled or disappeared, and now patients
are having a harder time getting care. This has been true for
hospitals, for nursing homes, and for home health.
But there are two things that distinguish the home health crisis from
all of the other Balanced Budget Act problems. First and most
importantly, no other group of Medicare patients and providers,
absolutely none, has suffered as much. The numbers don't lie: In 1999,
two years after the Balanced Budget Act, almost 900,000 fewer seniors
and disabled Americans were receiving home health care than previously.
More than 3,300 of the Nation's 10,000 home health agencies have either
gone out-of-business, or have stopped serving Medicare patients.
Medicare home health spending has actually gone down for three
straight years, dropping by 46 percent from 1997 and 2000.
In my home state of Missouri, 27,000 fewer patients are receiving
home care than before, a drop of 30 percent. And almost 140 home health
care providers, almost half, have disappeared since the Balanced Budget
Act.
The second thing that is unique about home health, the biggest cuts
may be yet to come.
While other Medicare providers will still face some additional
Balanced Budget Act cuts, nobody faces anything like the 15-percent
across-the-

[[Page S3421]]

board home cuts that are now scheduled for October of 2002. That's a
15-percent cut on top of everything else that has happened thus far.
I do not believe this should happen, and I actually don't know of
anybody who believes the 15-percent health cuts should take effect.
That's why Congress has already delayed the 25-percent cuts three
separate times.
Our amendment would give us the room in the budget to fix this once
and for all, no more mere delays, no more half-measures. This amendment
will allow us to pass legislation later this year to permanently
eliminate these 15-percent cuts.
Home health care has been through enough. Our Nation's dedicated home
health providers deserve to be left alone and given a break so they can
focus on patient care rather than survival. The last thing they need is
more cuts. And that is all our bill tries to do, we try to spare home
care patients and agencies additional cuts that threaten to make a bad
situation worse. The seniors and disabled Americans who rely on home
health for the health care, and for their independence, deserve no
less.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request.
Senator Burns would like to be added as a cosponsor of the amendment. I
ask unanimous consent that he be so added.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 11 minutes.
Ms. COLLINS. I would like at this time to reserve my time, but if
other Senators wish to speak I have no objection.
Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield, we have reserved 5 minutes for
the Senator in the morning and 5 minutes for Senator Stabenow. Senator
Grassley wishes to speak as in morning business.
Unless the Senator has some urge to speak tonight on this subject, my
point is, if she has nothing more to say, we will yield back all time
and allow Senator Grassley to speak as in morning business. He wants to
speak for an extended time.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, is all the time yielded back on the
amendment on the other side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I would just like to make certain there
are no Members on our side----
Mr. REID. I have checked with staff and they indicated they know of
no one.
Ms. COLLINS. In view of those assurances, even though this is one of
my favorite topics and I would like to continue to talk about it, as a
courtesy to my colleagues, I will yield the remainder of my time.

AMENDMENT NO. 174

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, to move the budget process forward, I
voted to support the Grassley amendment today to raise the levels of
spending for agriculture programs in the budget resolution. Despite my
favorable vote, I wish to express my deep concerns about the form and
level of spending included in this amendment.
The Grassley amendment will add an additional $63 billion in
mandatory spending to agricultural programs over ten years, which is
assumed to be paid from projected budget surpluses. This is above the
amount proposed by my Republican colleagues on the budget committee. By
designating the extra $63 billion as mandatory spending, much of this
funding will be targeted toward farm subsidy programs.
The needs of American family farmers are not being ignored. Congress
is in the process of drafting a new Farm bill to reauthorize USDA
programs, which many would view as the appropriate vehicle to tackle
necessary reform and address farm crises. In the past few years,
Congress has approved more than $20 billion in emergency farm aid for
crop losses and disaster assistance. The agriculture appropriations
bill for fiscal year 2001 was padded with $300 million in porkbarrel
spending for towns, universities, research institutes and a myriad of
other entities. This is already an exorbitant commitment by the
American taxpayer.
I believe it is fundamentally wrong that we are asking taxpayers to
pay billions more, above already inflated levels of spending for farm
programs and subsidies, particularly when the federal government is not
meeting its current obligations for other designated mandatory spending
programs such as education. For example, this budget resolution does
not account for the federal government's responsibility to pay 40
percent of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, for
special education. I believe many of my colleagues would agree that we
should prioritize mandatory spending for existing responsibilities not
being fulfilled without requiring the taxpayers to spend an additional
$63 billion for farm programs that have already been more than
compensated.
After consultation with the leadership on this particular amendment,
my colleagues stated that if Senator Grassley's amendment failed, many
would be in the position of having to vote for the Johnson amendment,
which would have raised mandatory spending on agriculture programs by
$97 billion, as the only available alternative. Therefore, while I
believe this to be irresponsible fiscal policy, I ultimately decided to
vote in favor of the Grassley amendment to move the process forward on
the budget resolution and to avoid even greater wasteful spending. I
remind my colleagues, however, that we still have an important
obligation to American taxpayers to ensure that any spending we approve
through the annual appropriations process pursuant to this budget
resolution is fair, fiscally responsible, and targeted at those truly
in need.

JUDICIARY COMMITTEE VIEWS

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the Record the Judiciary Committee's views and estimates letter from
Senator Hatch.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

U.S. Senate,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, March 21, 2001.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, Washington,
DC.

Hon. Kent Conrad,
Ranking Democrat, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Pete and Kent: Thank you for your recent letter
requesting my views pursuant to Section 301(d) of the
Congressional Budget Act. As you know, the Committee on the
Judiciary has jurisdiction over Department of Justice
programs, as well as matters relating to the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office. After consultation with members of the
Committee, I have prepared the following comments regarding
the budget of the Department of Justice and the Patent and
Trademark Office.
As I noted last year, the fiscal discipline exhibited by
Congress in the past several years, culminating with the
historic 1997 balanced budget agreement, has helped maintain
and ensure a robust economy not just for now, but for the
next generation as well. Maintaining a balanced federal
budget will, of course, require us to make tough choices
about spending priorities. Such changes must be executed in a
fashion to ensure that each dollar is spent in a productive
fashion. No department should be exempt from careful
scrutiny.
Exercising fiscal responsibility, however, does not absolve
us of our responsibility to carry out the core functions of
government. As I am certain you agree, the administration of
justice, including the protection of the public from crime
and terrorism, are core functions of government. Indeed, as
we begin the new millennium, these threats are becoming more
sophisticated and dangerous, making vigilance more important
than before. I look forward to working with you to develop a
budget resolution that reflects the importance of this
category of spending.
With these thoughts in mind, I am pleased to provide you
with the views and estimates of the Committee on the
Judiciary for the FY 2002 budget.

state and local law enforcement assistance

State and local law enforcement assistance programs, funded
largely through the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), are a
major component of the Department of Justice Budget. These
federal grants to state and local law enforcement allow the
federal government to contribute directly to the fight
against crime without involving the Department of Justice in
prosecuting crimes that are not federal in nature. As you
know, most violent crimes, such as murder, rape, and assault,
are state crimes, not federal crimes. By providing these
grants, the federal government can help to reduce crime in a
manner consistent with our constitutional system of
government.
Local Law Enforcement Block Grants: The Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant program (LLEBG) provides assistance
on a formula basis to local law enforcement agencies. The
LLEBG has made it possible for local police and sheriffs
departments to acquire efficiency-enhancing technology and
equipment. The LLEBG was funded at approximately $500 million
in FY 2000 and FY

[[Page S3422]]

2001. I urge continued funding of this valuable grant program
at a level consistent with the two previous fiscal years.
Byrne Grants: The Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law
Enforcement Assistance Grant program is a successful and
popular program which provides needed assistance to state and
local law enforcement for a wide variety of purposes, such as
purchasing capital equipment. Like the LLEBG, this program
provides needed assistance to state and local law enforcement
without entangling the federal government in the prosecution
of crimes that are not federal in nature. I urge continued
funding of this valuable grant program at a level consistent
with the two previous fiscal years.
Juvenile Accountability Block Grants: This program provides
valuable grants to states for a variety of law enforcement
purposes targeting juvenile crime, including graduated
sanctions, drug testing, and juvenile detention and
incarceration.
Juvenile crime continues to be among the greatest criminal
justice challenges in America. Juveniles account for nearly
one-fifth of all criminal arrests. Even with the recent
reductions in juvenile crime, there is a potential for
significant increases in juvenile crime as the children of
the baby boom generation mature into the prime age for
criminal activity.
In the last several years, the Juvenile Accountability
Block Grants received approximately $250 million per year.
This is the only federal money dedicated to juvenile law
enforcement and accountability programs. By contrast, the
federal government spends billions of dollars in prevention
funds for at-risk youth. There should be a balanced approach
to juvenile crime with resources dedicated to prevention and
accountability. Therefore, I urge continued funding for this
program at a level consistent with the two previous fiscal
years.
State Criminal Alien Incarceration Grants: The State
Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) reimburses states
and local governments for the costs incurred in incarcerating
illegal aliens who commit crimes in this country. Immigration
is the responsibility of the federal government. The SCAAP
reimbursements fulfill the federal responsibility to at least
partially indemnify states for the costs of illegal
immigration. These grants should be funded at an adequate
level. Last year, the SCAAP grants received approximately
$600 million. I urge continued funding for this program at an
adequate level which is consistent with the two previous
fiscal years.
DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Grants: DNA samples must
be analyzed by accredited laboratories before the samples can
be placed in CODIS, the national DNA evidence database.
Unfortunately, there is an approximate two-year nationwide
backlog of 700,000 unanalyzed convicted offender DNA samples
and unanalyzed DNA evidence from unsolved crimes. Authorities
estimate that at least 600 felonies will be solved by
eliminating the backlog of convicted offender DNA samples
alone. Consequently, I urge funding of the recently enacted
DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Grants to help States
analyze DNA samples and evidence and expedite their inclusion
in CODIS.
In addition, state laboratories desperately need funding
for buildings, equipment, and training of personnel in order
to eliminate the backlog and to process crime scene evidence
in a timely manner. Therefore, I urge adequate funding for
the recently enacted Paul Coverdell National Forensic
Sciences Improvement Act.
Criminal Technology Grants: Crime technology is critical to
effective law enforcement. Millions of dollars have been
invested in national systems, such as the Integrated
Automated Fingerprint Identification System and the National
Criminal Information Center 2000, which require state
participation in order to be effective.
Additionally, state and local governments are at a crucial
juncture in the development and integration of their criminal
justice technology. The Crime Identification Technology Act
(CITA) provides for system integration, permitting all
components of criminal justice to share information and
communicate more effectively on a real-time basis. There is
also a tremendous need to integrate the patchwork of federal
programs that fund only specific areas of anti-crime
technology. Therefore, I recommend funding for CITA at a
level consistent with the previous two fiscal years.

drug abuse

Combating drug trafficking remains one of the Judiciary
Committee's top priorities. As you know, drug use among
teenagers rose sharply throughout much of the last
administration. However, in the past few years, because of
the attention paid to the issue by Congress, drug use among
teens has leveled off. Still, the rate of teenage use remains
far too high.
Drug abuse in not confined to American teenagers. Far too
many Americans still abuse illegal drugs, and the problem
threatens to worsen as drugs such as methamphetamine and
ecstasy become increasingly available throughout the
country. We know that an effective drug control strategy
can dramatically reduce drug use in this country. Such a
strategy must embody a balanced approach and must contain
both demand and supply reduction elements. This approach,
which has the virtue of being nonpartisan, enjoys wide
support. It has been endorsed by the law enforcement
community, prevention and treatment experts, state and
local government organizations, community-based
organizations, and prominent political figures from across
the ideological spectrum.
As for the supply reduction component of this strategy, the
budget should contain sufficient resources to fund vigorous
domestic law enforcement activities, including defending our
borders, and international interdiction efforts. Such funding
includes supply reduction efforts by the Department of
Defense, the Coast Guard, and domestic law enforcement
agencies, such as the Drug Enforcement Administration, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Customs Service.
While we know that vigorous law enforcement measures are
necessary, we must also provide resources for drug prevention
and treatment programs. Such community-based programs, as we
learned in the 1980's, can significantly reduce drug use in
our communities. I recently introduced S. 304, the ``Drug
Education, Prevention, and Treatment Act of 2001,'' which
sets forth a comprehensive package of prevention and
treatment proposals. I am confident that these programs, if
adequately funded, will add the necessary demand reduction
component to our national drug control strategy. I believe
that if we are to win the war on drugs in America, we need a
stronger national commitment to demand reduction as a
complement to vigorous law enforcement efforts. Only with
such a balanced approach can we remove the scourge of drugs
from our society. Therefore, I recommend funding for the Drug
Education, Prevention, and Treatment Act of 2001 at a level
consistent with its authorization.

Violence Against Women Act Programs

Congress has consistently supported funding for the
majority of initiatives contained in the 1994 Violence
Against Women Act. Last Fall, Congress re-authorized most of
the programs contained in the original act for a five-year
period with adjusted funding levels. I believe that this
legislation will continue programs with a track record of
effectiveness. Therefore, I recommend funding for this
important Act at a level consistent with the new
authorization.

Antitrust Division Funding

Recognizing the increasingly numerous and complex merger
proposals confronting the Department of Justice, as well as
the explosive growth of high technology industries, both in
the United States and abroad, a reasonable expansion of the
Department's Antitrust Division may be appropriate if a
sufficient justification could be made. However, given last
fiscal year's increase in the Antitrust Division (and the
Federal Trade Commission), it appears that both the Division
and the Commission are adequately funded absent a
justification for a funding increase.

radiation exposure compensation act funding

The Department of Justice informed the Judiciary Committee
last year that there is a severe shortfall in the funding for
the Radiation Compensation and Exposure Act (RECA) Trust
Fund. As you know, Congress passed the original Act in 1990
as well as subsequent legislation, S. 1515, last year to
update the list of compensable illnesses. The Department is
currently unable to meet any of the financial obligations for
those individuals whose claims have been approved. As a
result, hundreds of individuals are receiving ``IOUs'' from
the federal government in lieu of their payment. Accordingly,
in order to meet the government's obligation to provide
financial assistance to these beneficiaries, I am requesting
$84 million to pay those claims which have already been
approved as well as the projected number of approved claims
for fiscal year 2001.

intellectual property rights (ipr) center

Last year, the President's budget requested $612,000 and
eight positions for a joint Intellectual Property Rights
(IPR) Center to be co-led by the FBI and the U.S. Customs
Service. I supported the creation of this multi-agency
enforcement center in last year's budget, which took a very
important first step in creating a mechanism for coordinated
enforcement of intellectual property rights in the United
States. I supported President Clinton's budget request to
fund this center this year as a down-payment, and I will
continue to be vigilant in seeking to ensure that adequate
funding is continued in the years to come. I hope that we
will continue to move forward to ensure effective and
efficient IPR enforcement and protection against the theft of
American technology and intellectual property.

united states patent and trademark office

Technology and innovation are the driving forces behind our
economy. Last year, the budget request acknowledged that
``[i]n the last 50 years, developments in science and
technology have generated at least half of the nation's
productivity growth, creating millions of high-skill, high-
wage jobs and leading to advances in the economy, national
security, the environment, transportation, and medical
care.'' Yet while President Clinton's budget purported to
promote science and technology through increased taxpayer
funding, it penalized private sector investment in innovation
by siphoning off roughly one-third of the total inventor-
derived user-fees paid to the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (USPTO) for technology-related services.
The USPTO is 100 percent supported by user fees paid by
patent and trademark applicants and owners. Since 1992,
Congress has

[[Page S3423]]

been withholding a gradually increasing portion of the
USPTO's user fees each year. Examples of recent withholdings
include $108 million in Fiscal Year 1999 and $116 million in
Fiscal Year 2000. Last December, consistent with the
President's budget request, legislation was passed that
provides the USPTO with a budget of $1,039 million. Of the
$1,039 million, $784 million will be derived from Fiscal Year
2001 and $255 million from a carryover from past years and
any fees received in excess of $784 million will not be
available to the USPTO in Fiscal Year 2001. With a projected
revenue of $1,152 million for Fiscal Year 2001, this means an
overall USPTO withholding of approximately $368 million
for Fiscal Year 2001.
As you know, I have long opposed the diversion of patent
fees as a debilitative tax on innovation. In my view, such a
tax flies in the face of the Constitution's patent clause and
its vision of government as a promoter, rather than an
inhibitor, of innovation. I was pleased to work closely with
you to sunset the patent surcharge fee in FY 1998, which for
several years had been the source of the patent fee revenue
subject to diversion and rescission. Last year, I was
encouraged that the President's budget for the first time did
not include fee diversion or recission as a means of funding
unrelated spending.
Statutory withholding of fees paid for services undermines
the integrity of the USPTO's fee-funded agency model and
restricts the USPTO's ability to provide service to its
customers and to promote American innovation and
competitiveness. Withholdings are being made at a time when
the USPTO is experiencing unprecedented grown in its
workload. In the last five years, patent and trademark
filings have been on the rise. Last year, patent filings were
up twelve percent and trademark filings were up a staggering
forty percent. Reduced availability of fee revenue will
prevent the USPTO from replacing and hiring examiners to
handle the increased workload. As a result, waiting times for
patents and trademarks could drastically increase in 2001 and
years to follow and there could be significant delays in
bringing important new technologies and products to the
marketplace. Companies in high-technology, biotechnology, and
many other vital industries depend on prompt and high quality
patents and trademarks to protect business investments in R&D
and new product promotion. Moreover, fee diversion will force
the USPTO to defer certain imperatives in automation,
electronic filing, and other implementation of technology to
improve the current ability and efficiency of the USPTO to
handle increased workload and increasingly complex
technologies.
As I understand it, what makes this practice possible is
the fact that, in past years, the Budget Committee has
delineated a portion of the USPTO's fee revenue as income
subject to the discretionary authority of the Committees on
Appropriations--an artifact of the patent fee surcharge
created by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990
(OBRA '90), which expired on September 30, 1998. OBRA '90
segregated a portion of fees that were subject to the
appropriation discretion, and the remainder of the USPTO fee
income was appropriated to the agency on a dollar-for-dollar
basis.
With the lapse of the patent fee surcharge, the Judiciary
Committee fashioned a modified fee system in which there was
no longer a ``surcharge'' component to patent fees. We set
the level of the fees to recover the cost of processing
applications and intended that all of the fee revenue would
be appropriated to the USPTO on a dollar-for-dollar basis, as
was done for the majority of fee income under OBRA '90. We
did not intend that there should be any discretion to
withhold any portion of the fee revenues.
Accordingly, I recommend that in the upcoming budget all
fee revenue of the USPTO be classified in a manner that
requires that it be appropriated to the USPTO on a dollar-
for-dollar basis. Thus, none of the fee revenues should be
considered as discretionary expenditures for the purposes of
the appropriations process. I have appreciated working with
you on this particular issue in the past. If legislation is
necessary to ensure this result, I am pleased to work with
you in that regard.
Thank you again for contacting me on this matter and for
your consideration of these views. I look forward to working
closely with you on this matter and other issues.
Sincerely,
Orrin G. Hatch,
Chairman.

Federal Employee Pay Parity

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I would like to commend the chairman of
the Budget Committee for addressing the issue of Federal employee pay
with the senior Senator from Virginia and me today.
The House-passed fiscal year 2002 budget resolution contains
important provisions to ensure parity between the pay raises granted to
civilian Federal employees and those provided to members of the armed
services. Disparate treatment of civilian and military pay goes against
longstanding policy of parity for all those who have chosen to serve
our Nation--whether that service is with the civilian workforce or in
the armed services. In fact, a comparison of military and civilian pay
increases by the Congressional Research Service finds that in 17 of
these last 20 years military and civilian pay increases have been
identical.
Mr. WARNER. In the 106th Congress, an overwhelming majority of the
United States Senate agreed, and approved a bipartisan pay parity
amendment by a vote of 94 to 6 during consideration of legislation I
introduced providing important pay increases for the military--S. 4,
the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines Bill of Rights. I know
that Chairman Domenici supported that Federal employee pay parity
amendment, and has been an advocate for pay parity through his position
on the Budget Committee.
Mr. DOMENICI. As the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the
Senator from Maryland know, the Budget Committee has included language
assuming parity between the raises granted to Federal employees and
members of the armed services in the Committee Report on the Budget
Resolution for the past 2 years.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for his
strong past support. Would the Chairman explain what provisions
regarding Federal employee pay have been included in this budget
resolution?
Mr. DOMENICI. In drafting the budget resolution for fiscal year 2002,
we have assumed that the historic pay parity between civilian and
military employees will be maintained, and that the President's
proposed 4.6 percent raise for military personnel will be similarly
provided to all Federal workers next year.
Mr. SARBANES. I thank the chairman, and the distinguished Senator
from Virginia for their interest and support. I am sure we all agree
that a talented Federal and military workforce is crucial to getting
the work of the American people done skillfully and efficiently. In
many instances, Federal civilian and military employees work side-by-
side doing the important work of the Nation, and Congress has
recognized that we should not undermine the morale of these dedicated
public servants by failing to bring them in line with military
personnel. Continuing pay parity is one way to ensure the Federal
Government is able to attract and retain qualified public servants.

____________________