[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 126 (Tuesday, September 25, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9780-S9800]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I understand the amendment of the Senator
from New Mexico has now been cleared on both sides. We welcome that
news. He has been working hard on this
[[Page S9781]]
amendment for a number of years to provide some equity to some people
who have had severe losses. I have always commended him on his efforts
and supported him. I think we have worked it out within the budget
constraints of the bill.
Perhaps the Senator from Oklahoma would agree that his amendment will
be temporarily laid aside so the Senator from New Mexico could offer an
amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join the chairman. We have known of the
years and years of work and the foundation laid by our colleague from
New Mexico. He provided for it in the budget amendment long before the
current situation developed. We support it.
Amendment No. 1672
Mr. DOMENICI. I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for himself,
Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. Allard, proposes an
amendment numbered 1672.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide permanent appropriations with fiscal year limits
to the Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund to make payments
under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. . RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION ACT MANDATORY
APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 3(e) of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42
U.S.C. 2210 note) is amended to read as follows:
``(e) Appropriation.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to the limits in paragraph (2),
there are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 2002, and each
fiscal year thereafter through 2011, such sums as may be
necessary to the Fund for the purpose of making payments to
eligible beneficiaries under this Act.
``(2) Limitation.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to
paragraph (1) may not exceed--
``(A) in fiscal year 2002, $172,000,000;
``(B) in fiscal year 2003, $143,000,000;
``(C) in fiscal year 2004, $107,000,000;
``(D) in fiscal year 2005, $65,000,000;
``(E) in fiscal year 2006, $47,000,000;
``(F) in fiscal year 2007, $29,000,000;
``(G) in fiscal year 2008, $29,000,000;
``(H) in fiscal year 2009, $23,000,000;
``(I) in fiscal year 2010, $23,000,000; and
``(J) in fiscal year 2011, $17,000,000.''.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are going to do something that is
very fair that will eliminate a serious problem that is out there among
a few thousand Americans, some of whom have walked into meetings with
the U.S. Government carrying an IOU. The IOU is that the Federal
Government owes them the money they were supposed to receive months
ago, because either the person there or one of their spouses have died
or is seriously ill with an ailment that is charged and relates
directly to having been in the uranium mining activity for years and
years in the early days of the nuclear weapons program.
What happened was, we put money in a trust fund and we made this an
entitlement, but it was not funded. The trust fund was a given amount
of money. They adjudicated these claims. We did it so they could do
them quickly; they didn't have to spend a lot of money on lawyers.
The Government ruled quickly, even though in some cases, with some of
them listening in the Four Corners area, they did go through an awful
lot of trouble to get their claim. But then, the insult: they produced
their claim and said, where is the money? The U.S. Department of
Justice said, oops, sorry, we don't have any. These people are walking
around, some of them almost in a daze, because they cannot believe that
their Federal Government they read about every day, spending hundreds
of billions of dollars, huge amounts for defense, huge amounts for
other things, is telling them for a claim that is theirs, that has been
adjudicated, that says the U.S. Government of America owes Jimmy Jones
$100,000, there is no money. And this is what they bring to our
meetings.
We do not take very long in agreeing with them. We try to give them
the history, the fact it has to be funded. Every time we sought funding
for one reason or another, we received just enough for a month or two.
This claim got mixed up in jurisdictional problems as to which
committee ought to fund it.
I say to the Senate, when we were working on the budget resolution,
we allocated in that budget to the Armed Services Committee the money
that was necessary to keep this program going for a substantial period
of time. We said, even though it is allocated to the defense part of
our budget, this amount of money should be used for the claimants I am
talking about under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Fund.
Under this bill, there is $172 million in the defense account that
has not been used because it is for these claimants. A little bit of it
was used in the process of producing this bill. I do not choose to
argue about that. That is all right with me. I just want this amendment
adopted so nobody uses the rest of the money that is in this bill for
these people.
For anybody who is interested, we are about to do something for a lot
of Americans, principally in the Four Corners area, some in the
Dakotas. Those claimants ought to know the best we can do is to put it
on this bill. This bill has a long way to go, but the Senator from New
Mexico does not know where else to put it that will get it into their
hands any sooner.
We will be watching and observing, and if for some reason this
authorization bill cannot get through the process--through the House to
the President and signed--we will try to find another way. We did not
succeed totally. We do not make this a completely mandatory program.
We are taking jurisdiction away from no one. If this bill is in the
Judiciary Committee, they will retain jurisdiction. We are going to pay
for it out of an allocation that went to this committee's work on
defense, and we are just about to say that this money will now go to
whom it was intended: those people to whom the Government is clearly
indebted and owes money.
I offered this amendment that will make funding for the Radiation
Exposure Compensation Fund mandatory.
From the 1940s through 1971, uranium miners, Federal employees, who
participated in above-ground nuclear tests, and downwinders from the
Nevada Test Site were exposed to dangerous levels of radiation. As a
result of this exposure, these individuals contracted debilitating and
too often deadly radiation-related cancers and other diseases.
In 1990, Congress recognized their contribution by passing the
Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to ensure that these individuals
and their families were indemnified for their sacrifice and suffering.
However, the RECA Trust Fund ran out of money in May, 2000.
Consequently, for over a year most eligible claimants received nothing
more than a five-line IOU from the Justice Department explaining that
no payments will be made until Congress provides the necessary funds.
Some of these claimants died while awaiting their payments. This is
simply unconscionable.
Fortunately, we were able to secure the necessary funds in this
year's supplemental to pay the IOUs and all claims approved by
September 30, 2001. Nonetheless, many claims will be filed and approved
over the coming years, and it is time we make all payments to this fund
mandatory so that these people who have suffered so greatly for our
Nation's security are not again shortchanged by the political
complexities of the annual congressional appropriations process. If we
do not adopt this amendment, more of these men will die holding nothing
but a Government IOU.
In a time when our Nation is at war, it is imperative that we do not
forget those citizens who have contributed so much to the strength and
security of our Nation. After all, these folks helped build our nuclear
arsenal, the nuclear arsenal that is responsible, at least in part, for
ending the cold war and leading to America's place as the world's only
superpower.
Moreover, it is important that we show those who are now being called
on to protect our Nation that the Senate cannot and will not forget
their efforts and sacrifice. By turning our backs on some of
yesterday's heroes we will be sending the wrong message to the heroes
of today.
[[Page S9782]]
This is the appropriate time to raise this issue because we assumed
this spending in the Senate budget resolution and the funding was
allocated to the Armed Services Committee for this purpose. It is
important to note that under this amendment, these mandatory payments
are capped at the amounts allocated to the Armed Services Committee and
will not exceed $172 million in any one year.
Those who helped protect our Nation's security through their work on
our nuclear programs must be compensated for the enormous price they
paid. Anything less is unacceptable.
Mr. President, there were a lot of Senators involved. If they want to
be a cosponsor, we will be glad to ask they be made original
cosponsors. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I commend our good friend from New Mexico.
He and Senator Bingaman and others have fought hard and long for equity
in this area. We intended to do it for some time, but it has always
been subject to appropriation.
The Senator from New Mexico made sure that in the budget resolution
there was an allocation that would make this possible on this bill. He
has done his homework, as he always does. It is very gratifying.
I know the people he represents, plus a lot of other people for whom
justice will finally be done. I commend him for his work and support on
the amendment.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am an original cosponsor of this
amendment by Senator Domenici and strongly supportive of it because it
takes important steps to fully fund the Radiation Exposure Compensation
Act, or RECA.
RECA was originally enacted as a means of compensating thousands of
individuals who suffered from exposure to radiation as a result of the
Federal Government's nuclear testing program and Federal uranium mining
activities. While the Government can never fully compensate for the
loss of a life or the reduction in the quality of life, RECA serves as
a cornerstone for the national apology Congress extended in 1990 to the
victims of the radiation tragedies. This amendment is critical to
ensure that the Federal Government finally lives up to that commitment
of providing a compassionate program of compensation to these workers
and their families.
Unfortunately, for years the Federal Government's commitment to RECA
has been half-hearted. The fund has been consistently shortchanged, so
much so that the Justice Department was until recently shamefully
issuing IOU's to sick and dying workers. This amendment will assure
uranium millers, miners and ore transporters that the Federal
Government values the service they gave to our country and is committed
to ensuring they receive compassionate compensation for that service.
The amendment provides $655 million over 10 years to workers and
their families that are eligible through RECA. This goes a long way
toward the Federal Government fully living up to its promise when we
passed RECA 11 years ago. Unfortunately, the Congressional Budget
Office estimates that we need $812 million over the same period. So,
while I urge the Congress to recognize we are making important and
critical strides to fully funding this commitment, we remain around
$150 million short and we must all work to ensure that the program is
fully funded throughout the 10-year period. We must never reach a point
of issuing IOU's rather than actual financial assistance to these
workers and their families again.
I would also like to thank Chairman Levin and Senator Warner for
their hard work on this issue. They have, from the beginning,
recognized the importance and fairness involved in passage of this
amendment and I am appreciative of their help and support.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1672) was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the senior Senator from Michigan. I yield the
floor.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am delighted that the Senate has
adopted an amendment I cosponsored with Senator Domenici to provide
$665 million over the next 10 years to fund the Radiation Exposure
Compensation Act.
Hundreds of former uranium workers in South Dakota and thousands
across the Nation have developed cancer and other life-threatening
diseases as a result of their work producing uranium on behalf of the
U.S. Government. Although the Federal Government knew this work put the
health of these men and women at risk, it failed to take appropriate
steps to warn or protect them.
The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act is designed to compensate
these individuals, or their surviving family. Although Congress has
already committed to the compensation, adequate funding has never
available to fund this program. In fact, the Federal Government at
times has been sending IOUs to eligible beneficiaries because Congress
has not been providing enough money to pay these claims.
The amendment just adopted by the Senate takes a significant step
toward addressing this problem. It provides $665 million over the next
10 years to pay these claims. While this amount is not sufficient to
cover all those expected to apply for benefits, it will cover the vast
majority of claims. I plan to work with my colleagues to ensure that
any remaining funds that prove to be necessary are provided.
I want to express my thanks to Senator Domenici for his work on this
issue, and to Senators Bingaman, Reid and Hatch for their consistent
efforts to support uranium workers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Congressional Budget Office is required
to prepare a cost estimate for spending legislation reported by
committees. The cost estimate for the bill reported by the committee,
S. 1416, was not finished at the time the report on this bill was
filed. The CBO cost estimate is now available. I ask unanimous consent
that the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate for the Defense
authorization bill reported by our Committee on Armed Services be
printed in the Record.
Because the four sections removed from S. 1416 should not affect the
funding levels in the bill, this CBO cost estimate will also apply to
S. 1438 which we are presently considering.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
September 19, 2001.
Hon. Carl Levin,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1416, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002.
The CBO staff contact is Kent Christensen, who can be
reached at 226-2840. If you wish further details on this
estimate, we will be pleased to provide them.
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson,
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
S. 1416--National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2002
Summary: S. 1416 would authorize appropriations totaling
$343 billion for fiscal year 2002 for the military functions
of the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of
Energy and certain other defense-related programs. It also
would prescribe personnel strengths for each active duty and
selected reserve component of the U.S. armed forces. CBO
estimates that appropriation of the authorized amounts for
2002 would result in additional outlays of $338 billion over
the 2002-2006 period.
The bill also contains provisions that would raise the
costs of discretionary defense programs over the 2003-2006
period. CBO estimates that those provisions would require
appropriations of $10 billion over those four years.
The bill contains provisions that would reduce direct
spending, primarily through revised payment rates for some
services offered under the Tricare for Life program and
certain asset sales. We estimate that the direct spending
savings resulting from provisions of S. 1416 would total $209
million over the 2002-2006 period and $86 million over the
2002-2011 period. Those totals include estimated net receipts
from asset sales of $144
[[Page S9783]]
million over the next five years and $120 million over 10
years. Because it would affect direct spending, the bill
would be subject to pay-as-you-go procedures.
Section 4 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
excludes from the application of that act any legislative
provisions that enforce the constitutional rights of
individuals. CBO has determined that subtitle F (Uniformed
Services Overseas Voting) of title V is excluded because the
provision would enforce an individual's constitutional right
to vote. The bill contains one private-sector mandate;
however, the costs of that mandate would not exceed the
threshold as specified in UMRA ($113 million in 2001,
adjusted annually for inflation).
The remaining provisions of the bill either contain no
mandates or are excluded, as specified in UMRA, because they
would be necessary for national security. The bill also would
affect DoD's Tricare long-term care program by increasing
costs in state Medicaid programs by about $1 million in 2002
and over $2 million in 2003. Such costs would not result from
mandates as defined by UMRA.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of S. 1416 is shown in Table 1. Most of the
costs of this legislation fall within budget function 050
(national defense).
TABLE 1.--BUDGETARY IMPACT OF S. 1416, THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002
[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Spending Under Current Law for
Defense Programs:
Budget Authority \1\.......... 316,051 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays............. 301,602 107,667 36,099 13,839 6,256 3,308
Proposed Changes:
Estimated Authorization Level. 0 342,647 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays............. 0 226,562 76,529 23,636 8,254 3,008
Spending Under S. 1416 for Defense
Programs:
Estimated Authorization Level 316,051 342,647 0 0 0 0
\1\..........................
Estimated Outlays............. 301,602 334,229 112,628 37,475 14,510 6,316
DIRECT SPENDING (EXCLUDING ASSET SALES)
Estimated Budget Authority........ 0 32 -200 61 25 17
Estimated Outlays................. 0 32 -200 61 25 17
ASSET SALES \2\
Estimated Budget Authority........ 0 -40 -114 -16 -5 31
Estimated Outlays................. 0 -40 -114 -16 -5 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2001 level is the amount appropriated for programs authorized by the bill.
\2\ Asset sale receipts are a credit against direct spending.
Note.--This table excludes estimated authorizations of appropriations for years after 2002. (Those additional
authorizations are shown in Table 3.)
Basis of Estimate
Spending Subject to Appropriation
The bill would authorize appropriations totaling $343
billion in 2002 (see Table 2). Most of those costs would fall
within budget function 050 (national defense). S. 1416 also
would authorize appropriations of $71 million for the Armed
Forces Retirement Home (function 600--income security) and
$17 million for the Naval Petroleum Reserves (function 270--
energy).
Title XIII would make $15.2 billion of the authorizations
in the bill contingent upon either a procedural action taken
by the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget in the Senate
or a procedural waiver agreed to by three-fifths of the
members of the Senate. The estimate assumes that one of these
actions would occur and that $343 billion will be
appropriated near the start of fiscal year 2002. Outlays are
estimated based on historical spending patterns.
The bill also contains provisions that would affect various
costs, mostly for personnel, that would be covered by the
fiscal year 2002 authorization and by authorizations in
future years. Table 3 contains estimates of those amounts. In
addition to the costs covered by the authorizations in the
bill for 2002, these provisions would raise estimated costs
by $10 billion over the 2003-2006 period. The following
sections describe the provisions identified in Table 3 and
provide information about CBO's cost estimates for those
provisions.
Multiyear Procurement. In most cases, purchases of weapon
systems are authorized annually, and as a result, DoD
negotiates a separate contract for each annual purchase. In a
small number of cases, the law permits multiyear procurement;
that is, it allows DoD to enter into a contract to buy
specified annual quantities of a system for up to five years.
In those cases, DoD can negotiate lower prices because its
commitment to purchase the weapons gives the contractor an
incentive to find more economical ways to manufacture the
weapon, including cost-saving investments. Funding would
continue to be provided on an annual basis for these
multiyear contracts, but potential termination costs would be
covered by an initial appropriation.
TABLE 2. SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATIONS IN S. 1416
[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Personnel:
Authorization Level........................ 82,342 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays.......................... 77,105 4,611 165 82 0
Operation and Maintenance:
Authorization Level........................ 125,702 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays.......................... 94,195 24,527 4,092 1,703 506
Procurement:
Authorization Level........................ 62,217 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays.......................... 16,037 22,489 13,471 5,112 2,011
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation:
Authorization Level........................ 46,616 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays.......................... 25,286 17,229 3,019 662 191
Military Construction and Family Housing:
Authorization Level........................ 10,478 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays.......................... 2,712 4,027 2,312 785 338
Atomic Energy Defense Activities:
Authorization Level........................ 14,285 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays.......................... 9,669 3,849 767 0 0
Other Accounts:
Authorization Level........................ 2,512 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays.......................... 1,778 431 166 74 20
Unspecified Reductions (DoD):
Authorization Level........................ -1,630 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays.......................... -617 -582 -236 -104 -38
General Transfer Authority:
Authorization Level........................ 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays.......................... 280 -60 -120 -60 -20
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total:
Authorization Level \1\.................... 342,522 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays.......................... 226,445 76,521 23,636 8,254 3,008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These specific authorizations comprise nearly all of the proposed changes shown in Table 1; they do not
include estimated authorizations of $83 million for the Coast Guard Reserve, and $42 million for payments to
WWII slave laborers, which are shown in Table 3.
[[Page S9784]]
TABLE 3.--ESTIMATED AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR SELECTED PROVISIONS IN S. 1416
[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULTIYEAR PROCUREMENT
F/A-18E/F Engines.............................. -10 -10 -10 -10 -10
C-17 Aircraft.................................. 0 -117 -293 -272 -252
FORCE STRUCTURE
DoD Military Endstrengths...................... 262 542 560 576 594
Coast Guard Reserve Endstrengths............... 83 0 0 0 0
Grade Structure................................ 20 41 47 53 55
COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS (DOD)
Military Pay Raises............................ 1,026 1,420 1,490 1,558 1,624
Expiring Bonuses and Allowances................ 564 457 257 171 114
Housing Allowances............................. 230 712 407 84 0
Travel and Transportation Allowances........... 84 88 93 99 104
Increase Incentive Pay and Bonuses............. 49 71 75 81 87
New Bonuses.................................... 38 24 21 21 22
Subsistence Allowances......................... 6 15 8 3 0
Uniform Allowances............................. 4 4 4 4 4
Commissary Benefits for Reservists............. 3 3 3 4 4
Education and Training......................... 22 26 30 35 41
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
Payment Rates.................................. -144 -90 0 0 0
Long-Term Care Rules........................... -44 0 0 0 0
Travel Reimbursements.......................... 5 5 5 5 5
OTHER PROVISIONS
Strategic Forces............................... -20 -70 -140 -200 -220
Voluntary Separation and Early Retirement 0 145 6 0 0
Incentives....................................
Payments to World War II Slave Laborers........ 42 37 31 4 4
Purchase Alternative Fuel Vehicles for DoD..... 0 0 0 23 21
TOTAL ESTIMATED AUTHORIZATIONS
Estimated Authorization Level.................. 2,220 3,303 2,594 2,239 2,197
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--For every item in this table except the authorization for the Coast Guard reserve and for payments to
WWII slave laborers, the 2002 levels are included in the amounts specifically authorized to be appropriated in
the bill. Those amounts are shown in Table 2. Amounts shown in this table for 2003 through 2006 are not
included in Table 1.
Section 122 would authorize DoD to enter into a multiyear
contract to buy engines for F/A-18E/F aircraft starting in
2002. The Navy currently purchases the aircraft from Boeing
under a multiyear contract covering the 2000-2004 period,
while the engines are purchased separately from General
Electric under annual contracts. Each engine costs about $4
million today. According to the Navy, it plans to purchase 48
aircraft a year over the next five years starting in 2002.
CBO estimates that the savings from buying F/A-18E/F engines
under a multi-year contract would total about $50 million
over the 2002-2006 period, or about 3 percent of total engine
costs. This estimate assumes that the Navy would buy 96
engines a year (two engines for every aircraft purchased)
over the five-year period and that there would be no up-front
investment required to implement the multiyear contract.
Section 131 would authorize DoD to enter into a new
multiyear procurement contract to buy up to 60 additional C-
17 aircraft. Under the current multiyear contract, the Air
Force will buy 15 aircraft in 2002 and another 8 aircraft in
2003. Assuming that the Air Force would proceed with follow-
on procurement of up to 60 additional aircraft, CBO estimates
that savings from buying 60 additional C-17s under a
multiyear contract arrangement would total $934 million or an
average of about $250 million a year over the 2003-2006
period. Funding requirements would total just under $8.3
billion instead of the almost $9.2 billion needed under
annual contracts. This estimate assumes that the Air Force
would purchase the 60 additional aircraft starting in 2003 at
a rate of 15 a year.
Force Structure. The bill contains various sections that
affect endstrength and personnel grade structure.
Endstrengths. The bill would authorize active and reserve
endstrengths for 2002. The authorized endstrengths for
active-duty personnel and personnel in the selected reserve
would total about 1,387,000 and 865,000, respectively. Of
those selected reservists, about 67,000 would serve on active
duty in support of the reserves. The bill would specifically
authorize appropriations of $82.4 billion for the costs of
military pay and allowances in 2002. Of that amount,
discretionary authorizations for military pay and allowances
would total $82.3 billion, while $0.1 billion would be
provided to cover mandatory costs. The authorized endstrength
represents a net increase of 3,152 servicemembers that would
boost costs for salaries and other expenses by $262 million
in the first year and about $600 million annually in
subsequent years, compared to the authorized strengths for
2001.
The bill also would authorize an endstrength of 8,000 in
2002 for the Coast Guard Reserve. This authorization would
cost about $83 million and would fall under budget function
400 (transportation).
Grade Structure. Sections 402, 415, and 502 would increase
the number of servicemembers in certain grades. Under section
402, the number of servicemembers in pay grade E-8 in
the Navy would increase. Section 415 would change the
grade structure of active-duty personnel in support of the
reserves. Section 502 would reduce the time-in-grade
required for promotion to captain in the Army, Air Force,
and Marine Corps, and lieutenant in the Navy when service
staffing needs require. These changes would not increase
the overall endstrength, but would result in more
promotions to these ranks. CBO estimates these provisions
would cost $20 million in 2002, rising to $55 million by
2006.
Compensation and Benefits. S. 1416 contains several
provisions that would affect military compensation and
benefits.
Military Pay Raises. Section 601 would raise basic pay by 5
percent across-the-board and authorize additional targeted
pay raises, ranging from 1 percent to 10 percent, for
individuals with specific ranks and years of service at a
total cost of about $3.1 billion in 2002. Because the pay
raises would be above those projected under current law, CBO
estimates that the incremental costs associated with the
larger pay raise would be about $1 billion in 2002 and total
$7.1 billion over the 2002-2006 period.
Expiring Bonuses and Allowances. Several sections would
extend DoD's authority to pay certain bonuses and allowances
to current personnel. Under current law, most of these
authorities are scheduled to expire in December 2001, or
three months into fiscal year 2002. The bill would extend
these authorities through December 2002. CBO estimates that
the costs of these extensions would be as follows:
Payment of reenlistment bonuses for active-duty personnel
would cost $327 million in 2002 and $174 million in 2003;
enlistment bonuses for active-duty personnel would cost $91
million in 2002 and $140 million in 2003.
Various bonuses for the Selected and Ready Reserve would
cost $64 million in 2002 and $73 million in 2003.
Special payments for aviators and nuclear-qualified
personnel would cost $52 million in 2002 and $55 million in
2003.
Retention bonuses for officers and enlisted members with
critical skills would cost $23 million in 2002 and $13
million in 2003.
Authorities to make special payments to nurse officer
candidates, registered nurses, and nurse anesthetists would
cost $7 million in 2002 and $2 million in 2003.
Most of these changes would result in additional, smaller
costs in subsequent years because payments are made in
installments.
Housing Allowances. Section 605 would limit the out-of-
pocket cost of housing for servicemembers receiving basic
allowance for housing (BAH) within the United States.
Currently, DoD pays members BAH rates which cover about 85
percent of the cost of adequate housing in the United States.
DoD plans to reduce the average out-of-pocket housing expense
for members by increasing BAH by about 4 percent annually,
until BAH covers the full cost of adequate housing by 2005,
adjusting the rate each January. Section 605 would accelerate
DoD's plan by limiting out-of-pocket costs to 7.5 percent in
2002 and eliminating average out-of-pocket costs in 2003,
adjusting the rates on January 1, 2002, and October 1, 2002,
respectively. CBO estimates that accelerating the increase in
BAH would cost $230 million in 2002 and $1.4 billion over the
2002-2006 period.
Travel and Transportation Allowances. Sections 631 through
634 would affect travel and transportation allowances by
expanding eligibility or increasing benefits. CBO estimates
that the cost of these changes would be as follows:
Expanding eligibility to receive the basic allowance for
housing (BAH) to junior enlisted members in grades E-3 and
below who are on leave or traveling between permanent duty
stations would cost $34 million in 2002 and $182 million over
the 2002-2006 period.
[[Page S9785]]
Expanding eligibility for temporary subsistence allowance
to officers would cost $6 million in 2002 and $30 million
over the 2002-2006 period.
Authorizing dislocation allowances (DLA) for married
servicemembers without dependents where the spouse is a
member of the military, would cost $4 million in 2002.
Expanding eligibility to receive DLA to members with
dependents moving to their first duty station would cost $34
million in 2002. Authorizing a $500 allowance to compensate
members who must move for government convenience (e.g.,
because of housing privatization or renovation) would cost $6
million in 2002. CBO estimates that these three provisions
would cost $256 million over the 2002-2006 period.
In total, these provisions affecting travel and
transportation allowances would cost $84 million in 2002 and
$468 million over the 2002-2006 period.
Increases in Incentive Pay and Bonuses. Sections 537, 616,
and 617 would expand eligibility for bonuses and increase pay
for personnel with special skills. Section 537 would expand
the population eligible to receive stipends under the Health
Professional Stipend Program to include medical and dental
school students. Assuming the number of participants would
increase gradually, at about 5 percent a year, CBO estimates
that implementing section 537 would cost less than $500,000
in 2002 and $7 million over the 2002-2006 period.
Section 616 would raise the maximum pay rates for
servicemembers performing submarine duty. CBO estimates this
pay increase, effective October 1, 2002, would have no cost
in 2002, cost $21 million in 2003, and cost $111 million over
the 2003-2006 period.
Under section 617, certain officers and enlisted
servicemembers would become eligible to receive career sea
pay, regardless of their rank, time-in-service, or time-at-
sea. CBO estimates section 617 would cost $49 million in 2002
and $245 million over the 2002-2006 period. Together, these
increases in incentive pay and bonuses would cost $49 million
in 2002 and $363 million over the 2002-2006 period.
New Bonuses. Sections 619 and 661 would authorize new
bonuses for commissioned officers and enlisted members with
critical skills. Section 619 would authorize a new officer
accession bonus for officers with critical skills. The bonus,
limited to $20,000, could be paid in a lump sum or
installments. This authority would expire on December 31,
2002. Based on information from DoD, CBO expects that the Air
Force and the Navy would use this authority starting in 2002,
and that the provision would cost $18 million in 2002 and $22
million over the 2002-2006 period.
Under section 661, the Secretary of Defense could purchase
United States savings bonds for certain officers and enlisted
members with critical skills, who agree to extend their
period of service for a minimum of six years. The face value
of the bonds would range from $5,000 to $30,000, depending on
the members' years of service and prior receipt of this
benefit. Based on DoD's use of similar bonuses, CBO estimates
that section 661 would cost $20 million in 2002 and $104
million over the 2002-2006 period.
Together, CBO estimates these new bonuses would cost $38
million in 2002 and $126 million over the 2002-2006 period.
Subsistence Allowances. Section 604 would extend the
current authority to provide an additional subsistence
payment when rations-in-kind are not available. DoD plans to
prescribe this incremental subsistence allowance until
payments may be fully offset by the annual increases in basic
allowance for subsistence (BAS). CBO estimates that under
DoD's plan, additional subsistence payments would end in
2005. This section also would delay the termination of BAS
transition authority by three months, making termination
effective on January 1, 2002, and saving an estimated $15
million in 2002. CBO estimates the combined effects of
implementing these provisions would cost $6 million in 2002
and $32 million over the 2002-2006 period.
Uniform Allowances. Section 607 would loosen restrictions
on eligibility of officers to receive an additional $200
clothing allowance by doubling the cap on the dollar amount a
member may receive in an initial clothing allowance over the
prior two years. Under current law, officers are ineligible
to receive the additional allowance if they have received
more than $200 in an initial clothing allowance during the
past two years. Raising the cap would increase the number
of officers eligible for the additional $200 allowance.
CBO estimates that implementing this provision would cost
$4 million in 2002 and $20 million over the 2002-2006
period.
Commissary Benefits. Section 662 would allow new members of
the ready reserve to use the commissary benefit up to 24
times a year. CBO estimates that implementing this section
would cost about $3 million in 2002 and $17 million over the
2002-2006 time period. Currently, new reservists do not
automatically qualify for commissary benefits, since they
have not had sufficient time to accumulate the necessary
annual training points. Under this section, new reservists
would be allowed to visit the commissary two times a month
until they meet the eligibility requirements which CBO
estimates to be about six months. Based on data from DoD, CBO
estimates that up to 70,000 reservists would become eligible
for this benefit each year. Allowing up to 70,000 more
customers to shop at commissaries would increase the
administrative costs associated with the commissary system,
which are paid out of appropriated funds and are estimated by
CBO to be about $8 per reservist per month.
Education and Training. Several sections of the bill would
affect education and training by expanding eligibility. CBO
estimates that the cost of these changes would be as follows:
Section 532 would remove the cap on the number of Junior
Reserve Officers' Training Corps (JROTC) units. DoD plans to
have 3,185 units in 2002, less than the current cap of 3,500
units. Based on recent growth rates, CBO expects the number
of units would exceed 3,500 in 2005. CBO estimates
implementing section 532 would increase JROTC costs by $2
million in 2005, rising to $5 million in 2006.
Section 536 would increase the number of international
students authorized to be admitted to the service academies
and would eliminate the restrictions on full tuition waivers.
CBO estimates that this section would cost $17 million over
the 2002-2006 period. Removing the restrictions on tuition
waivers would allow about 70 additional international
students to receive full tuition assistance each year. This
figure includes students admitted because of the higher
number of international slots made available under this
section, as well as slots that are currently receiving only
partial tuition assistance. The current cost of tuition for
an international student is about $62,000 a year, and the
annual cost of implementing this section would be about $4
million.
Section 539 would provide DoD with the authority to allow
certain military personnel the option to transfer up to 18
months of their entitlement to Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB)
educational assistance to any combination of spouse and
children. To be eligible for this benefit, servicemembers
would have to have a critical skill or speciality, to have
served at least six years in the Armed Forces, and to
agree to serve an additional four or more years. Under
section 539, the service would be required to deposit an
amount equal to the net present value of the transferred
MGIB benefit into the Defense Education Trust Fund when a
servicemember was granted this benefit.
Under current law, participants in MGIB who serve at least
three years on active duty are entitled to receive $650 a
month if they are full-time students. CBO estimates that the
value of 18 months of MGIB benefit would be $11,700 in 2002.
In estimating the net present value of transferring a portion
of an individual's MGIB benefit, CBO assumes that one-third
of the benefit transfers would be to spouses and two-thirds
would be to children, that spouses would begin using the
benefit after two years and children after 16 years, and that
75 percent of the amount available for transfer would be
transferred and used. Using these assumptions, CBO estimates
that the cost to DoD of the transferred benefit would be an
average of $6,640 per person in 2002 and, because of the
automatic cost-of-living increases in the MGIB benefit, the
cost of the transferred benefit would increase to $7,365 in
2006.
CBO expects that DoD would use the authority in 2002 to
enhance retention in those areas where the maximum authorized
retention bonuses are currently being paid and that the
benefit would be offered to a larger population in subsequent
years. Based on information from DoD, about 20,300
servicemembers, with six or more years of service, will
receive a selective re-enlistment bonus in 2002. Under
section 539, CBO assumes that about 3,000 of those would
receive the MGIB transfer benefit, and that this number would
increase to 4,400 by 2006. Thus, CBO estimates implementing
this provision would cost $20 million in 2002, and about $130
million over the 2002-2006 period. (There would also be
direct spending costs of about $91 million over the 2004-2011
period for outlays from the Defense Education Trust Fund as
the transferred MGIB benefit is used. CBO's estimate of those
outlays is discussed below under the heading of ``Direct
Spending.'')
CBO notes that, because this section offers a benefit to
the families of servicemembers, it is possible that the
demand for equal treatment across families might cause the
services to offer this benefit more widely than CBO has
estimated. If this benefit were offered to the entire
eligible population by 2011, CBO estimates the cost could be
more than $200 million over the 2002-2006 period.
Defense Health Program. Title VII contains several
provisions that would affect DoD health care and benefits.
Tricare is the name of DoD's health care program and the
spending under Tricare for beneficiaries under age 65 is
subject to appropriation. Spending under Tricare for
beneficiaries age 65 and over, often called Tricare for Life
(TFL), is subject to appropriation in 2002, but beginning in
2003 this spending will be paid out of a trust fund and
will not be subject to appropriation.
Payment Rates. Under current law, DoD has the regulatory
authority to set maximum allowable rates for medical services
to limit how much the Tricare program pays to health care
providers. Although DoD has set maximum rates for many
services, it has not yet set rates for hospital outpatient
diagnostic services, including clinical lab work and
radiation services, and long-term care services such as
skilled nursing and home health care services. As a result,
Tricare currently pays 75 percent of billed charges for these
services. DoD has started the regulatory process to establish
maximum rates
[[Page S9786]]
for the services listed here and estimates it will take
upwards of two years to implement the changes by regulation.
Section 713 would require DoD to implement these rates by
October 1, 2001. Under this provision, DoD would be able to
lower its costs for both hospital outpatient and long-term
care services over the 2002-2003 period before the
regulations would have been implemented. These savings would
affect spending subject to appropriation as well as direct
spending for retirees of the other uniformed services in 2002
and 2003 and the TFL trust fund that starts operation in
2003. CBO estimates that the total savings in spending
subject to appropriation for hospital outpatient and long-
term care services would be about $230 million over the 2002-
2003 period, assuming appropriations are reduced by the
estimated amounts. Section 713 would affect two different
programs: Tricare (under 65) and Tricare for Life. Those two
effects are discussed below.
By lowering payment rates for hospital outpatient
diagnostic services, DoD would be able to reduce spending on
its beneficiaries under age 65. (This portion of the
provision would not affect beneficiaries age 65 and over
because Medicare is first payer for these services and TFL
would only be responsible for the Medicare deductible and
copayments.) Using data from DoD, CBO estimates that making
payment rates for hospital outpatient diagnostic services
equivalent to Medicare rates would lower Tricare spending for
these services by about 30 percent. CBO estimates that
lowering the payment rates for hospital outpatient services
would save about $150 million over the 2002-2003 period,
assuming appropriations are reduced by the estimated amounts.
Under section 713, DoD also would lower the rates paid for
skilled nursing and home health care. This change would
primarily affect the TFL program since beneficiaries under
age 65 do not use much long-term care (DoD spent only $10
million on long-term care for those under 65 in 2000).
Savings arise because Tricare's skilled nursing benefit has
no time limit while Medicare's benefit expires after 100
days. The change in payment rates would have no impact on
Tricare for the first 100 days because Tricare would only be
liable for the deductibles and copayments charged under
Medicare. However, this provision would lower the amount that
Tricare would pay for those beneficiaries who need more than
100 days of skilled nursing care. Additionally, Tricare would
reduce its costs for providing skilled nursing and home
health care to those beneficiaries who use these services
without a prior hospital stay and are thus not Medicare-
eligible.
CBO estimates the savings to Tricare would initially be low
because the Tricare for Life program does not actually begin
operation until the start of fiscal year 2002 and CBO expects
that it will take about a year before all beneficiaries take
full advantage of the program. CBO estimates that lowering
payment rates for skilled nursing and home health care would
save DoD about $80 million in 2002, assuming appropriations
are reduced by the estimated amounts. (There also would be
direct spending savings of about $7 million over the 2002-
2003 period for the other uniformed services, and about $215
million in 2003 for DoD when the trust fund begins operation.
CBO's estimates of those savings are discussed below under
the heading of ``Direct Spending.'')
Long-term Care Rules. Tricare does not currently require a
hospital stay prior to using long-term care services such as
skilled nursing and home health care. Requiring prior
hospitalizations would reduce the number of beneficiaries who
use long-term care. DoD has stated the regulatory process to
require such prior hospitalizations and expects to complete
the process by the start of fiscal year 2004.
Section 703 would require DoD to structure the Tricare
long-term care program to resemble Medicare, which requires
prior hospitalization before being eligible for skilled
nursing and home health care. Under section 703, DoD would be
required to implement this provision on October 1, 2001.
Requiring prior hospitalization under Tricare's long-term
care program would reduce the benefit for those beneficiaries
who would otherwise have used long-term care and would save
DoD the cost of providing this care over the 2002-2003 period
before DoD's new long-term care rules would have gone into
effect under DoD's plan. CBO estimates that some of those
beneficiaries would likely be able to get a prior
hospitalization before seeking care. In those instances,
Medicare would become the first payer while a few
beneficiaries would end up using Medicaid. Thus the savings
to DoD would be partially offset by increased costs to both
Medicare and Medicaid (discussed below).
Using data from DoD and the Agency for Healthcare Research
and Quality, CBO estimates that about 3,500 beneficiaries,
who would have used skilled nursing without a hospital stay,
would be affected by these new rules along with about 24,000
beneficiaries who would have used home health care. CBO
estimates that some of those beneficiaries would pay for the
long-term care through Medicare or Medicaid, while others
would pay the costs themselves, use other insurance, or do
without the long-term care. For those beneficiaries who would
be covered by Medicare, DoD would not save the full cost
because Tricare would be liable for all deductibles and
copayments. Taking this information into account, CBO
estimates that, under section 703, Tricare spending would be
reduced by about $40 million in 2002, assuming appropriations
are reduced by the estimated amounts. (There would also be
direct spending savings of about $120 million for both the
trust fund and the other uniformed services in 2003 and
Medicare and Medicaid costs in both 2002 and 2003.)
Travel Reimbursement. Under current law, if the military
health care system refers an active-duty servicemember to a
new doctor or hospital greater than 100 miles from the
member's home or duty station, the servicemember is
reimbursed for the costs of traveling to the new doctor or
hospital. Section 712 would require the Secretary of Defense
to also reimburse reasonable travel expenses for a parent,
guardian, or responsible family member when the covered
beneficiary is a minor. Based on data provided by the
department, CBO estimates that this provision would apply
about 10,000 times each year and expects that reimbursements
would average about $500 per occurrence, although those costs
would rise with inflation. CBO estimates that implementing
this provision would cost about $5 million a year, assuming
appropriation of the necessary amounts.
Strategic Forces. Section 1011 would repeal section 1302 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998
(Public Law 105-85), as amended by section 1501(a) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000
(Public Law 106-65), to allow DoD to initiate actions to
retire or dismantle the Peacekeeper intercontinental
ballistic missile force. CBO estimates that implementing this
provision would yield net savings of $650 million over the
2002-2006 period. Those savings would come from eliminating
the cost to operate the missiles starting immediately in
2002, eventually saving about $200 million a year. These
savings would be partially offset by the costs of removing
the missiles and warheads from the silos and the costs of
monitoring the silos. CBO assumes that the retirement process
would take about three years and that the missiles would be
completely retired by the end of 2004. CBO estimates missile
retirement costs would total about $100 million over the
2002-2004 period.
Voluntary Separation and Early Retirement Incentives. S.
1416 contains several provisions that would allow DoD and the
Department of Energy (DOE) to offer voluntary separation
incentives and voluntary early retirement to their civilian
employees. Taken together, CBO estimates implementing these
provisions would cost $145 million in 2003 and $6 million in
2004.
Section 1113 would provide DoD with the authority to offer
its civilian employees early retirement annuities as well as
separation incentive payments of up to $25,000 to employees
who voluntarily retire or resign in fiscal year 2003. The
authority under this section would be provided only during
fiscal year 2003 and would be limited to 4,000 employees.
Assuming that 4,000 DoD employees would participate in the
buyout program, CBO estimates that the buyout payments would
cost $100 million in 2003, assuming appropriation of the
estimated amounts. DoD also would be required to make a
payment to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund
(CSRDF) for every employee who takes a buyout. The
payments would equal 15 percent of the final basic pay of
each employee and come out of the agency's appropriated
funds. CBO estimates these payments would cost $29 million
in 2003. (CBO estimates that enacting this section also
would increase direct spending for federal retirement and
retiree health care benefits by a total of $46 million
over the 2003-2011 period. CBO's estimate of those outlays
is discussed below under the heading of ``Direct
Spending.'')
Section 3153 would provide the Department of Energy with
authority to offer payments of up to $25,000 to employees who
voluntarily retire or resign in calendar year 2003. Current
buyout authority for DOE is scheduled to expire on December
31, 2002. CBO assumes that about 600 DOE employees would
participate in the buyout program in calender year 2003. CBO
estimates that the cost of the buyout payments would total
$11 million in 2003 and $4 million in 2004. Like DoD, DOE
also would be required to make a payment to the CSRDF for
every employee who takes a buyout payment. CBO estimates
these payments would cost $5 million in 2003 and $2 million
in 2004. (CBO estimates that enacting this provision also
would increase direct spending for federal retirement and
retiree health care benefits by $16 million over the 2003-
2011 period. CBO's estimate of those outlays is discussed
below under the heading of ``Direct Spending.'')
Payment to World War II Slave Laborers. Section 1064 would
authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA) to pay a
gratuity of $20,000 to certain veterans and civilians who
were held as prisoners of war (POWs) or prisoners of Japan
during World War II and sent to Japan to perform slave labor.
Section 1064 also would authorize VA to pay this gratuity to
a surviving spouse if the claimant is deceased. During the
war, thousands of American POWs and civilians who were
employees of the United States (either directly or through
contractors) were forced to provide slave labor for Japanese
corporations. While the precise number of people who might
qualify for this gratuity is not known because many Japanese
documents are still unavailable for examination, at least one
historian has estimated that as many as 25,000 Americans were
forced to perform slave labor for about 40 different Japanese
companies, and thus would qualify for this gratuity.
[[Page S9787]]
Based on historical and actuarial data about the veteran
and civilian populations, CBO estimates that about 6,000
claims would be made for the $20,000 payment resulting in a
cost of about $118 million over the 2002-2006 period. (CBO
assumes that surviving spouses who have subsequently
remarried would not be eligible for this benefit, a standard
VA policy. Should this rule not apply for this benefit, CBO
estimates that an additional 2,000 claims would be made and
costs would increase to $161 million over the 2002-2006
period.)
Purchase of Alternative Fuel Vehicles for DoD. Section 317
would increase the number of alternative-fuel light duty
trucks purchased for DoD use above the levels set forth in
the Energy Policy Act of 1992. CBO estimates that
implementing this section would cost about $23 million in
fiscal year 2005 and $44 million over the 2005-2006 period.
Based on data from the General Services Administration
(GSA), CBO estimates that about 11,500 light duty trucks are
purchased annually for DoD use. CBO also estimates that to
meet the levels specified in section 317, GSA would need to
purchase about 7,700 alternative-fuel light duty trucks for
DoD in 2005 and every year thereafter. These vehicles would
be purchased in lieu of conventional gas or diesel vehicles
and do not include vehicles purchased to satisfy the terms of
the Energy Policy Act. Based on data provided by GSA, CBO
estimates that in 2005 the average alternative-fuel light
duty truck would cost about $3,000 more than a conventionally
powered vehicle. When this cost differential is multiplied by
the 7,700 trucks estimated to be purchased under this
section, CBO estimates that the net annual cost to the
department would be about $24 million a year. This cost would
be partially offset by savings in DoD's fuel purchases. CBO
estimates fuel savings would average about $2 million a year
over the 2005-2006 period or about $300 per vehicle per year.
Emergency Response Equipment. Section 1063 would allow DoD
to give state and local governments equipment needed for
responding to emergencies involving weapons of mass
destruction. Only states and local governments in possession
of this equipment prior to enactment of this bill would be
eligible for this transfer. CBO estimates that this provision
would have no budgetary impact because giving equipment to a
state or local government would not result in additional
spending or cause the federal government to forgo receipts,
nor would it affect DoD's authority under current law to lend
equipment to other governments. It is possible, however, that
giving this equipment away now could lead to DoD experiencing
shortages in equipment later, but CBO projects that any
future spending would occur after 2011.
Reduction in Authorizations of Appropriations for DoD
Management Efficiencies. Section 1002 would authorize a $1.6
billion reduction to the amounts authorized for procurement,
research and development, and operation and maintenance in
the bill to reflect savings that should be achieved through
implementation of the provisions in title VIII and other
management efficiencies. Specifically, section 802 would set
savings goals for the procurement of services (other than
construction) within DoD. Section 802 specifies savings goals
beginning in fiscal year 2002 (3 percent) that increase
annually until 2011 when DoD would be expected to achieve a
10 percent cost savings in the procurement of services. CBO
has no basis for estimating the extent to which those savings
targets could be achieved. CBO notes that the department has
undertaken similar savings initiatives in the past and that
there is little evidence that these initiatives produced the
savings levels that were promised. If the total of the
authorization amounts in the bill are appropriated in 2002
and the savings goals for next year are not achieved, then
the department would need to reduce funding elsewhere in
its budget to achieve the $1.6 billion reduction called
for by section 1002.
Direct Spending
The bill contains provisions that would reduce direct
spending, primarily through revision to payments rates for
certain defense health care program services and certain
asset sales from the National Defense Stockpile. The bill
also contains a few provisions with direct spending costs. On
balance, CBO estimates that enacting S. 1416 would result in
net savings in direct spending totaling $209 million over the
2002-2006 period (see Table 4).
Medical Care Trust Fund. Sections 703 and 713 would change
the way DoD administers long-term care and the way it pays
for that care under the Tricare for Life program. DoD has the
regulatory authority to make the changes that are directed in
these sections but thinks it will take upwards of two years
to implement the changes by regulation. Both sections would
require that the changes take effect on October 1, 2001.
Accordingly, DoD would save money over the roughly two-year
period before the regulations would have been implemented.
The Tricare for Life program will begin on October 1, 2001,
but the trust fund will not begin operation until one year
later, so only the savings to DoD in fiscal year 2003 would
be considered direct spending savings. There also would be
some minor savings in 2002 for retirees of the other
uniformed services.
Payment Rates. Under current regulations, the Tricare for
Life program will pay all deductibles and copayments
associated with Medicare's skilled nursing benefit and will
pay for skilled nursing care in excess of the Medicare
benefit (100 days). Additionally, Tricare will pay for
skilled nursing and home health care even if the beneficiary
does not have a prior hospital admission. (Tricare will pay
75 percent of billed charges, with no maximum charge, until
the beneficiary has paid $3,000 in out-of-pocket costs and
then will pay 100 percent of billed charges after that
point.) Section 713 would require DoD to set maximum
allowable charges for skilled nursing and home health care,
which would lower its cost of providing long-term care. CBO
estimates that implementing new charges based on Medicare
rates would lower what DoD pays for skilled nursing and home
health care by about 30 percent. Under section 713, CBO
estimates that direct spending from the trust fund for DoD
retirees would decline by about $215 million in 2003. (The
discretionary savings for 2002 are discussed earlier in the
``Spending Subject to Appropriation'' section under the
heading of ``Defense Health Program.'')
TABLE 4.--ESTIMATED DIRECT SPENDING FROM HEALTH CARE AND OTHER PROVISIONS IN S. 1416, AS REPORTED
[By fiscal year, outlays in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING (EXCLUDING ASSET SALES)
Medical Care Trust Fund:
Payment Rates.............................. -2 -220 0 0 0
Long-Term Care Rates....................... 21 -47 0 0 0
Voluntary Separation and Early Retirement 0 44 35 3 -6
Incentives (DoD)..............................
Voluntary Separation and Early Retirement 0 6 7 2 (\1\)
Incentives (DOE)..............................
Improvements to Energy Employees Compensation 11 14 14 13 13
Program.......................................
Transferability of MGIB Education Benefits..... 0 0 2 5 8
Armed Forces Retirement Home Fees.............. 2 2 2 2 2
Land Conveyance of Navy Property in Maine...... 0 1 1 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................. 32 -200 61 25 17
================================================================
ASSET SALES \2\
National Defense Stockpile--New Sales.......... -2 -2 -2 -2 -2
National Defense Stockpile--Accelerated Cobalt -20 -30 -14 -3 33
Sales.........................................
Authority to Transfer Naval Vessels............ -18 -82 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................. -40 -114 -16 -5 31
================================================================
TOTAL CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING
Estimated Outlays.............................. -8 -314 45 20 48
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Less than $500,000.
\2\ Asset sale receipts are a credit against direct spending.
The Tricare for Life program also covers retired members of
the Coast Guard and retired uniformed members of the Public
Health Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Health care spending for these retirees is
considered direct spending. Under section 713, CBO estimates
that the other uniformed services would save about $2 million
in 2002 and $5 million in 2003.
Long-Term Care Rules. Under current law, Medicare will not
pay for skilled nursing and home health care unless the
beneficiary has been hospitalized before receiving that care.
Tricare, on the other hand, will pay for long-term care
without a prior hospitalization. For those cases, Tricare
becomes the primary insurance because Medicare will not pay.
Section 703 would require DoD to structure its long-term care
benefit to resemble Medicare's, which requires prior
hospitalization. Implementing this provision would lower
DoD's costs because fewer beneficiaries would be eligible for
skilled nursing and home health care. CBO estimates that
under section 703, direct spending from the
[[Page S9788]]
trust fund would decline by about $120 million in 2003. CBO
also estimates that, under section 703, the other uniformed
services would save less than $500,000 in 2002 and about $1
million in 2003. (There would also be discretionary savings
of about $40 million, as discussed earlier.)
The Tricare for Life program would be able to lower costs
by shifting many of those costs to their beneficiaries and
other government programs, primarily Medicare. CBO estimates
that about 50 percent of individuals who would have used
long-term care without a prior hospital stay would be able to
qualify under the Medicare rules (about 1,600 for skilled
nursing and about 12,000 for home health care). CBO further
estimates that the average cost of skilled nursing is about
$250 a day, and for home health care about $2,300 for 60 days
of care, which is the Medicare benefit. Accordingly, CBO
estimates that under section 703 direct spending for Medicare
benefits would increase by $20 million in 2002 and $70
million in 2003. In addition, a few beneficiaries would
eventually become eligible for Medicaid, which also provides
long-term care benefits. CBO estimates that Medicaid costs
under section 703 would be $1 million in 2002 and $3 million
in 2003.
Voluntary Separation and Early Retirement Incentives. S.
1416 contains several provisions that would allow the DoD and
DOE to offer voluntary separation incentives and voluntary
early retirement to their civilian employees. Taken together,
CBO estimates enacting these provisions would increase direct
spending for federal retirement and retiree health care
benefits by $50 million in 2003 and $62 million over the
2003-2011 period.
Section 1113 would provide DoD with authority to offer its
civilian employees early retirement annuities as well as
separation incentive payments of up to $25,000 for employees
who voluntarily retire or resign in fiscal year 2003. The
authority under this section is provided only during fiscal
year 2003 and is limited to 4,000 employees. CBO estimates
that enacting section 1113 would increase direct spending for
federal retirement and retiree health care benefits by $44
million in 2003 and $46 million over the 2003-2011 period.
Section 3153 would provide DOE with authority to offer
payments of up to $25,000 to employees who voluntarily retire
or resign in calendar year 2003. Current buyout authority for
DOE is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2002. CBO
estimates enacting section 3153 would increase direct
spending for federal retirement and retiree health care
benefits by $6 million in 2003 and $16 million during the
2003-2011 period.
DoD Retirement Spending. CBO assumes that 4,000 DoD
employees would participate in the buyout program in 2003.
CBO further assumes most workers who take a buyout would
begin collecting federal retirement benefits an average of
two years earlier than they would under current law. Inducing
some employees to retire earlier initially would result in
additional retirement benefits being paid from the Civil
Service Retirement and Disability Fund. In later years,
annual federal retirement outlays would be lower than under
current law because the employees who retire early receive
smaller annuity payments than if they had retired later.
Under section 1113, CBO estimates direct spending for
retirement benefits would increase by $38 million in 2003 and
$34 million over the 2003-2011 period. (The discretionary
costs for 2003 associated with the buyout payments were
discussed earlier in the ``Spending Subject to
Appropriation'' section under the heading of ``Voluntary
Separation and Early Retirement Incentives.'')
DoD Retiree Health Care Spending. Enacting section 1113
also would increase direct spending on federal benefits for
retiree health care because many employees who accept the
buyouts would continue to be eligible for coverage under the
Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) program. The
government's share of the premium for these retirees--unlike
current employees--is mandatory spending. Because many of
those accepting the buyouts would convert from being an
employee to being a retiree earlier than under current law,
mandatory spending for FEHB premiums would increase. CBO
estimates these additional FEHB benefits would increase
direct spending by $6 million in 2003 and $12 million over
the 2003-2011 period.
DOE Retirement Spending. CBO assumes that about 600 DOE
employees would participate in the buyout program in calender
year 2003 and that most workers who take a buyout would begin
collecting federal retirement benefits an average of two
years earlier than they would under current law. Inducing
some employees to retire earlier initially would result in
additional retirement benefits being paid from the CSRDF. In
later years, annual federal retirement outlays would be lower
than under current law because the employees who retire early
receive smaller annuity payments than if they had retired
later. Under section 3153, CBO estimates direct spending for
retirement benefits would increase by $6 million in 2003 and
$15 million over the 2003-2011 period.
DOE Retiree Health Care Spending. Section 1113 also would
increase direct spending on federal retiree health benefits
because many employees who accept the buyouts would continue
to be eligible for coverage under the FEHB program. CBO
estimates these additional FEHB benefits would increase
direct spending by less than $500,000 in 2003 and by $1
million in 2004.
Energy Employees Compensation. Section 3151 would make
technical changes to the Energy Employees Occupational
Illness Compensation Program (EEOICP) created by Public Law
106-398, which enacted the Floyd D. Spence National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. CBO estimates that
enacting this provision would increase direct spending for
EEOICP by $11 million in 2002, $65 million over the 2002-2006
period, and $108 million over the 2002-2011 period.
Section 3151 would establish more relaxed criteria for
determining whether a claimant suffers from chronic
silicosis. Specifically, this section would reduce the
required pneumoconiosis classification of a claimant to a
more lenient category. CBO estimates that relaxing this
criteria would allow about 550 new claimants, who were not
previously eligible, to receive compensation from EEOICP.
Under current law, successful claimants are entitled to a
one-time, lump sum payment of $150,000. CBO estimates that
relaxing the criteria for chronic silicosis would increase
direct spending for EEOICP by about $55 million over the
2002-2006 period, and $83 million over the 2002-2009 period.
CBO assumes these payments would be spread evenly throughout
the 2002-2009 period because screening programs are still
ongoing and will need several years to identify all potential
claimants.
Additionally, under current law, once a claim is approved
EEOICP becomes the primary payer for all medical bills
related to a claimant's condition. CBO estimates that the
average annual cost for treatment of chronic silicosis is
about $4,000. After considering mortality rates associated
with this disease, CBO estimates that medical costs paid
under EEOICP would increase direct spending by about $1
million in 2002, $5 million over the 2002-2006 period, and
$21 million over the 2002-2011 period.
Section 3151 also would make other changes to EEOICP. The
age requirement for those claimants afflicted with leukemia
attributable to occupational exposure to radiation would be
lowered to include those whose initial exposure occurred
before age 21. CBO estimates that lowering the age
requirement would create a negligible number of additional
claims. Section 3151 would also clarify the rules for making
payments to survivors of former energy workers. Currently,
widows or children can claim the entire $150,000 payment in
the event that the former employees are deceased.
Grandparents, grandchildren, and siblings can claim the
payment if they can prove dependency on the deceased
employee. Section 3151 would allow these other relatives to
make such claims without proving dependency. CBO estimates
that only about 2.5 percent of all survivors would be someone
other than a widow or child, generating about 25 additional
claims. CBO estimates that the relaxed restrictions on
survivors would increase direct spending for EEOICP by less
than $500,000 in 2002, and $4 million over the 2002-2006
period. CBO expects that almost all these additional claims
would be paid in the 2002-2006 period.
Transfer of Entitlement to MGIB Education Assistance.
Section 539 would provide DoD with the authority to allow
certain military personnel to transfer up to 18 months of
their entitlement to MGIB educational assistance to any
combination of spouse and children. To be eligible,
servicemembers would have to have a critical skill or
speciality, to have served at least six years in the Armed
Forces, and to agree to serve an additional four or more
years. Under section 539, an amount equal to the net present
value of the transferability option would be deposited into
the Defense Education Trust Fund when a service member was
granted this benefit, and would be paid to the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs as the benefit was used. The monies
deposited into the trust fund are subject to appropriation
and were discussed earlier under the heading of ``Spending
Subject to Appropriation.''
CBO expects that DoD would use the authority in 2002 to
enhance retention in those areas where the maximum authorized
retention bonuses are currently being paid and that the
benefit would be offered to a larger population in subsequent
years. Based on information from DoD, about 20,300
servicemembers, with six or more years of service, will
receive a selective re-enlistment bonus in 2002. Under
section 539, CBO assumes that about 3,000 of those would
receive the MGIB transferability benefit, and that this
number would increase to 7,100 by 2011. CBO also assumes that
two-thirds of the transfers would be used by children. Since
most selective re-enlistment bonuses go to servicemembers
with 10 or fewer years of service, few of their children
would be of an age to use post-secondary education benefits
over the next 10 years. CBO's estimate of mandatory outlays
for this benefit, therefore, focuses on the use of the
remaining one-third of the transfers that would go to
spouses.
CBO expects the spouses would, on average, begin training
two years after the transferability option was granted, and
that they would train, on a part-time basis, over a period of
several years. Based on these assumptions, CBO estimates that
about 700 spouses would receive an average annual benefit of
$2,400 in 2004 and that, by 2011, almost 840 spouses would
receive an annual MGIB benefit of about $2,800. Thus, CBO
estimates that enacting this provision would increase direct
spending for MGIB education benefits by $2 million in 2004,
$15 million over the 2004-2006 period, and $91 million over
the 2004-2011 period.
[[Page S9789]]
Changes to Armed Forces Retirement Home Fee Structure.
Section 1045 would authorize changes to the fees levied on
residents of the Armed Forces Retirement Home. These fees are
deposited into the Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund,
which pays the operating and maintenance costs of the U.S.
Soldiers' and Airmen's Home in Washington, D.C., and the U.S.
Naval Home in Gulfport, Mississippi. The legislation would
change the percentage of monthly income charged to residents
of the two homes and alter the monthly caps on resident fees.
Section 1045 would also authorize the Chief Operating Officer
of the Armed Forces Retirement Home, in consultation with the
Secretary of Defense, to make additional changes in the
resident fees in accordance with the financial needs of the
Retirement Home. However, Armed Forces Retirement Home
staff have indicated that no significant changes in the
fee structure, other than those indicated by the bill, are
anticipated in the near future.
Information provided by the Armed Forces Retirement Home
indicates this provision would reduce fees for more than
1,200 residents, almost 80 percent of all residents. CBO
estimates the affected residents would see their fees reduced
by an average of about 15 percent in 2002. Therefore, CBO
estimates that section 1045 would reduce offsetting receipts
(a credit against direct spending) by $2 million in 2002 and
a total of $20 million over the 2002-2011 period.
Land Conveyances. Title XXVIII would authorize a variety of
property transactions involving both large and small parcels
of land.
Enacting this bill would result in direct spending by
authorizing a conveyance that would reduce offsetting
receipts collected by the federal government. Under section
2823, the Navy would be authorized to convey 485 acres of
property to the state of Maine or other governmental
jurisdictions. Under current law, however, the Navy will
declare that property excess to its needs and transfer it to
the General Services Administration for disposal. Under
normal procedures, GSA sells property not needed by other
federal agencies or by nonfederal entities in need of
property for public-use purposes such as parks or educational
facilities. Information from GSA indicates that portions of
the land will likely be sold under current law after the
entire parcel is screened for other uses in 2002. As a
result, CBO estimates that the conveyance in the bill would
result in forgone receipts totaling about $1 million in 2003
and $1 million in 2004.
CBO estimates that other conveyances would not
significantly affect offsetting receipts because according to
DoD some of the properties have values of less than $500,000
while others are not likely to be transferred to GSA for
disposal.
Concurrent Receipt. Upon passage of qualifying, offsetting
legislation, section 651 would allow total or partial
concurrent payment of retirement annuities together with
veterans' disability compensation to retirees from the
military, the Coast Guard, the Public Health Service, and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who have
service-connected disabilities. The provision also would
discontinue special compensation for certain uniformed
service retirees who are severely disabled.
Under current law, disabled veterans who are retired from
the uniformed services cannot receive both full retirement
annuities and disability compensation from the Department of
Veterans Affairs. Because of this prohibition on concurrent
receipt, such veterans forgo a portion of their retirement
annuity equal to the nontaxable veterans' benefit.
Section 651 would become effective only upon passage of
legislation that would fully offset its costs in each of the
first 10 fiscal years after passage of the offsetting
legislation. If qualifying, offsetting legislation were
enacted in 2001, CBO estimates that implementing this section
in 2002 would increase direct spending for retirement
payments and veterans' disability compensation by about $3
billion in 2002, $17 billion over the 2002-2006 period, and
$41 billion over the 2002-2011 period. Because those effects
are contingent upon subsequent legislation, they are not
included in Table 4.
In addition, the military retirement system is financed in
part by an annual payment from appropriated funds to the
military retirement trust fund, based on an estimate of the
system's accruing liabilities. If section 651 were
implemented, the yearly contribution to the military
retirement trust fund (an outlay in budget function 050)
would increase to reflect the added liability from the
expected increase in annuities to future retirees. CBO
estimates that implementing this provision would increase
such payments by about $1 billion in 2002, and $6 billion
over the 2002-2006 period, assuming appropriation of the
necessary amounts.
Other Provisions. The following provisions would have an
insignificant budgetary impact on direct spending:
Section 314 would extend a pilot program for the sale of
air pollution emission reduction incentives. DoD would be
allowed to spend all receipts less than $500,000 on
environmental programs. Any receipts above $500,000 would go
to the Treasury.
Section 505 would allow officers whose mandatory retirement
has been deferred for medical reasons to further postpone
their retirement for up to 30 days.
Section 515 would allow disability retirement for
reservists whose disability was incurred or aggravated while
remaining overnight before inactive-duty training, or between
successive periods of such training. Currently, reservists
are only covered during overnight stays for such periods if
they are outside reasonable commuting distance of their
residences.
Section 552 would require the military to review the
records of certain Jewish American war veterans to determine
if any of these veterans should be awarded the Medal of
Honor. A $600 a month pension is available to living Medal of
Honor recipients. Based on similar reviews in the past, CBO
estimates that a small number of awards would be presented
(many posthumously), resulting in an increase in direct
spending of less than $500,000 a year.
Section 586 would allow DoD to accept voluntary legal
services as a way to provide legal help to DoD beneficiaries.
Although the service is voluntary, in the event of a legal
malpractice suit the government would be liable for any
claims against the legal volunteer. Payment of those
claims is considered direct spending, but CBO estimates
that this provision would cost less than $500,000 each
year.
Section 1111 would provide federal retirement credit to
certain former employees of Nonappropriated Fund
Instrumentalities (NAFI). Under current law, most workers who
transfer from NAFI employment to regular federal employment
may transfer any NAFI retirement service credits earned as
NAFI employees to the appropriate federal retirement program.
However, under certain circumstances, some former NAFI
employees have not been permitted to transfer NAFI retirement
credits to their federal service. Section 1111 would permit
many of these employees to use NAFI credits that otherwise
would not have been credited to their federal service in
order to qualify for retirement annuities under the Civil
Service Retirement System or the Federal Employees'
Retirement System.
Although workers would be able to use these credits in
order to qualify for federal retirement benefits earlier than
they would have otherwise, the provision mandates that
annuities be actuarially reduced. The actuarial reduction
would be calculated in such a way that the present value of a
retiree's benefits would be actuarially equivalent to the
value of the annuity that would have been provided without
the NAFI service credit. Information provided by the
Department of Defense and Office of Personal Management
indicates that only between 5 and 15 employees would claim
NAFI service credit under this provision in any given year.
Therefore, CBO estimates that Section 1111 would increase
direct spending for federal retirement benefits by less than
$500,000 a year.
Section 1112 would provide greater pension portability for
certain civilian employees who have been employed by a NAFI
employer and then become federal workers. The provision would
eliminate the requirement that workers who move between a
NAFI employer and the civil service must be fully vested in
order to transfer any accrued service credits from one
retirement system to another. According to the Department of
Defense, relatively few workers would be affected by this
provision; thus, CBO estimates that Section 1112 would
increase direct spending by less than $500,000 per year.
Section 2804 would expand DoD's ability to substitute in-
kind payments for cash from the lease of its property. The
provision would raise direct spending because it would lower
the amount of cash that DoD receives and deposits in the
Treasury as offsetting receipts. CBO estimates that the loss
of offsetting receipts would total less than $500,000
annually.
Asset Sales
The bill would authorize various asset sales totaling $144
million over the 2002-2006 period.
National Defense Stockpile. Section 3301 would authorize
DoD to sell certain materials contained in the National
Defense Stockpile that are obsolete or excess to stockpile
requirements. CBO estimates that DoD would be able to sell
the materials authorized for disposal and achieve receipts
totaling about $2 million in 2002, $10 million over the 2002-
2006 period, and $20 million over the 2002-2011 period.
Section 3302 would amend previous authorization bills
allowing managers of the stockpile to achieve near-term sales
in excess of the established interim targets. Because actual
sales have already exceeded those targets and because the
bill would not increase total program targets, CBO estimates
that enacting this provision would have no net budgetary
impact.
Section 3303 would accelerate by one year the disposal of
cobalt that was previously authorized for sale in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998
(Public Law 105-85). The 1998 bill authorized the sale of all
remaining cobalt starting in 2003. The sales of cobalt
authorized for disposal under earlier bills are projected to
be completed this year. This bill would allow all remaining
cobalt to be sold starting in 2002, thus avoiding a one-year
gap in sales. CBO estimates that DoD would be able to
expedite that disposal without impacting current market
prices, resulting in more receipts from asset sales over the
next five years, but no net budgetary impact over the 2002-
2011 period.
Naval Vessels. Section 1216 would authorize the transfer of
13 naval vessels to foreign countries. It would authorize the
sale of six vessels; the other seven would be given away.
Information from DoD indicates that the
[[Page S9790]]
asking price for the six ships would be approximately $175
million. There is significant uncertainty as to whether all
six vessels would be sold and what the sale price might be.
Reflecting this uncertainty, CBO estimates that receipts from
these sales would total $18 million in 2002 and $82 million
in 2003.
Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act sets up pay-as-you-go
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or
receipts. The net changes in direct spending that are subject
to pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in Table 5. For the
purposes of enforcing pay-as-you-go procedures, only the
effects in the current year, the budget year, and the
succeeding four years are counted.
TABLE 5. ESTIMATED IMPACT OF S. 1416 ON DIRECT SPENDING AND RECEIPTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in outlays............. 0 -8 -314 45 20 48 51 19 21 15 17
Changes in receipts............ Not applicable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: Section 4 of
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes from the
application of that act any legislative provisions that
enforce the constitutional rights of individuals. CBO has
determined that subtitle F (Uniformed Services Overseas
Voting) of title V is excluded because the provision would
enforce an individual's constitutional right to vote.
Section 1062 of the bill would prohibit possession of
significant former military equipment that has not been
demilitarized and require the Secretary of Defense to notify
the Attorney General of any known cases of persons holding
such equipment. The Attorney General would be given the
authority to require holders of such equipment either to
ensure that the equipment is demilitarized or returned to DoD
for demilitarization. In either case, those requirements
would be considered mandates. If the equipment is not
returned to DoD for demilitarization, the recipient must bear
the costs of demilitarizing the equipment. However, the
instances in which this provision would be used are expected
to be small; in most cases DoD demilitarizes equipment prior
to transferring ownership. Consequently, the costs of this
mandate would be minimal.
The remaining provisions of the bill either contain no
mandates or are excluded, as specified in UMRA, because they
would be necessary for national security. The bill also would
affect DoD's Tricare long-term care program by increasing
costs in state Medicaid programs by about $1 million in 2002
and over $2 million in 2003. Such costs would not result from
mandates as defined by UMRA.
Previous CBO estimates: On August 22, 2001, CBO transmitted
a cost estimate for H.R. 2586, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal year 2002, as ordered reported
by the House Committee on Armed Services on August 1, 2001.
The House bill also would authorize approximately $343
billion in defense funding for fiscal year 2002. Both H.R.
2586 and S. 1416 would reduce direct spending over the
2002-2006 period, but the Senate bill contains less such
savings.
On May 22, 2001, CBO prepared cost estimates for S. 170 and
H.R. 303, identical bills titled the Retired Pay Restoration
Act of 2001. S. 170 and H.R. 303 would provide identical
benefits to those specified in Section 651 of S. 1416. If
section 651 is implemented by October 1, 2001, the costs
would be identical to those estimated for S. 170 and H.R.
303. As noted above, however, the provisions of section 651
cannot be implemented until additional legislation is enacted
(to offset the section's costs). S. 170 and H.R. 303 do not
contain such a contingency requirement.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Military Construction
and Other Defense: Kent Christensen (226-2840); Military and
Civilian Personnel: Dawn Regan (226-2840); Civilian
Retirement: Geoffrey Gerhardt (226-2820); Stockpile Sales and
Strategic Forces: Raymond Hall (226-2840); Military
Retirement: Sarah Jennings (226-2840); Health Programs: Sam
Papenfuss (226-2840); Multiyear Procurement: Raymond Hall
(226-2840); Naval Petroleum Reserves: Lisa Cash Driskill
(226-2860); Operations and Maintenance: Matthew A. Schmit
(226-2840). Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments:
Elyse Goldman (225-3220). Impact on the Private Sector: R.
William Thomas (226-2900).
Estimate Approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Amendment No. 1595
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have amendment No. 1595 before the
Senate. I am very distressed right now over some things that are
happening. I have an amendment before the Senate that will change our
relationship with and the understanding many people have concerning the
island of Vieques. The island of Vieques has been a live range for us
for over 50 years. It has had a very successful record. There has only
been one civilian killed during that time period. Contrast that with a
range in the State of Oklahoma. In the State of Oklahoma we have had a
live range much longer than that, and we have lost eight civilians
during that period of time--because of purely political reasons and in
a lust for the votes and a mistaken notion that if you vote to close a
range as a result of people who are protesting, breaking the law,
people who are former terrorists, such as Mrs. Lebron, who led a bunch
of terrorists into the House of Representatives many years ago and
opened fire, wounding five of our Members of the House of
Representatives, and others now protesting, trespassing on property
that we own, property owned by the U.S. Navy, where we train our troops
for their deployments from the east coast to the Persian Gulf.
When we deploy battle groups to the Persian Gulf, those troops are
going to see combat. The chances are better than 50-50 they will see
combat. They have relied on this live-fire training for a long time. It
has always been there. It is the only place we can do that type of
training. We have had all kinds of committees to find another place
that is just as good, but they cannot do it.
The reason they cannot find a new range is because there has to be
unified training: a battle group of aircraft carriers and the F-14s, F-
18s, using live munitions, bombing, and at the same time our Navy using
live munitions, and at the same time our Marine expeditionary units
going in under that live fire.
For those of us in this room--and I do not know how many besides the
two I am looking at have actually been in the service --there is a huge
difference between inert and live ammunition. I can remember when I was
in basic training. It is easy to crawl under that barbed wire when it
is not real bullets, but when it is real ammunition, that is different.
That is exactly what we have to have to train these people who are
going off to the Persian Gulf.
We have been unable to do it because of these protests. This is the
first time in the history of America we have allowed a bunch of illegal
protesters to change our policy. They will not be successful, but if
they were successful, think about our other ranges. I have talked to
the chiefs of every service. The Air Force is in desperate need of
ranges right now.
I have talked to people in Lawton, OK. There are 100,000 people who
live right next to a live range, and a few of them said: All you have
to do is protest and they close the range?
There is a clear right and wrong. I have 2\1/2\ years of my life in
this issue. I have been around the world. I have looked at every
possible area where we could have an alternative training source. Some
people say let us send the F-18s over there and let them go to England
or some place and drop their loads. Let us train over here with live
fire and let us let the marines train over in this area, and I was
suggesting at least that notion to some of the Navy pilots that were on
one of the--this is probably over a year ago--on one of the aircraft
carriers on which they were supposed to be training, and he said, well,
wait a minute, that is like having the very best football players you
can have anyplace in the world; you have the best quarterback, the best
halfback, the best defense but they never scrimmage together. So what
happens on the day of the opening game? They lose it. They have to
train together.
Now, people say you get the same training with inert. You do not get
the same training with inert, but when we allowed that bunch of illegal
trespassers to take us out of live fire and put us in inert, we lost
five American lives. Did we lose these lives because of that? Yes, we
did. They had to go over and they were trying to carry out an exercise
in Kuwait. It did not work,
[[Page S9791]]
and six people died, five of whom were Americans.
I have the investigation. It shows clearly those individuals who were
unable to have live fire training--they had inert training on Vieques
but not live fire training. There is a huge difference. Talk to anyone
in the Navy who has to handle those live missiles. When they are
deploying them, when they are handling live ordnance, it is a big
difference from inert. Anyway, we have already lost that many, and I am
hoping we will be able to resolve this problem.
Senator Corzine is going to offer an amendment if I bring up my
amendment. It is a second-degree amendment, and that amendment would
have the effect of killing what I am trying to do. That would make it
so we would not have a range to practice at or to train on on these
deployments from the east coast. I have had to think long and hard
about this as to whether or not it is better not to have an amendment
at all and resolve this problem in conference, or whether we go ahead
and succumb to the second-degree amendment.
I say to Senator Corzine, I think the votes are there to pass his
amendment. If we did that, we would be closing the range and at the
same time we would be giving that responsibility to the President on a
year-by-year basis. If one stops and thinks about the 200-and-some
ranges we have, if the President had to go through and debate this
every year as to whether or not to allow that range to stay open as a
live range, he would not have time to do anything else. That would not
work.
Secondly, that puts politics right back in it. My amendment is a good
amendment. It said call off the referendum. We should never have had a
referendum. Then it says we will use the range we own--and at this very
time we are in the middle of war--to train our troops until such time
as both the CNO of the Navy and the commandant of the Marine Corps
certify we do not need it. Those are military people. They are not
political people.
I have this gnawing feeling that the way this is worded I would lose
that amendment, and rather than have the Corzine language in there, we
are far better off not to have any language at all.
I regrettably say I think we will end up in the same situation as we
would be if we passed this amendment, or if we did not pass it or if we
just left it like it is in conference.
As we speak, in Puerto Rico they are considering a resolution. That
resolution says we, Puerto Ricans, as proud American citizens with the
same responsibilities as our brethren in the continental United States,
have the obligation of contributing to this fight, allowing and
supporting military training and exercises in the island municipality
of Vieques.
This may not pass. It is being debated right now. But certainly there
is a very large number of people saying--and that number is much larger
today after September 11 than it was before--we are American citizens
first. We have to train our people and we have to train them with
quality training so they do not lose their lives when they get over to
the Persian Gulf.
That is my situation. That is the dilemma that we have right now.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. INHOFE. I will be glad to yield.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, frankly, there is no Senator in this
Chamber, on either side of the aisle, who has worked more
conscientiously on this extremely complex issue than our distinguished
colleague from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe.
I had indicated to him I felt his amendment was one that certainly
merited my support, and my support remains. I wonder if we laid his
amendment aside, perhaps in further consultations we could come up with
some affirmation of a position that fostered, No. 1, the current
obvious willingness among responsible people in Puerto Rico to
recognize the extenuating circumstances in which our American
servicemen are now preparing to embark, as we speak, for various points
worldwide in response to an issue taken by a very courageous and bold
President of the United States.
I wonder if we could lay it aside, enabling the Senator from Oklahoma
to counsel with our colleague from New Jersey in the hopes that perhaps
he could reach a position again that would foster the strengthening of
this opportunity to continue the use of this base as the Puerto Ricans
at the present time are doing.
Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate that counsel, and I think it is very wise
counsel. If I could count the votes, and I knew I could defeat the
Corzine amendment and have mine, I would do it, but I think we would be
in far worse shape if we had that language.
For that reason, I am down to two choices: one to go ahead and
withdraw my amendment, and the other to lay it aside so we can talk to
see if something can happen. I think I will choose the latter and ask
at this time to lay aside amendment No. 1595 for a period of time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the chairman of the committee and I will
confer on what matter we next have at hand.
Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if we have any cleared amendments we can take up?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Amendment No. 1677
Mr. LEVIN. On behalf of Senators Cleland and Hutchinson, I offer an
amendment which would give the Secretary of Defense direct hiring
authority for certain health care professionals, and I believe this
amendment has been cleared by the other side.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Cleland, for
himself, and Mr. Hutchinson, proposes an amendment numbered
1677.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Defense to exempt certain
health care professionals from examination for appointment in the
competitive civil service)
On page 377, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
SEC. 1124. AUTHORITY TO EXEMPT CERTAIN HEALTH CARE
PROFESSIONALS FROM EXAMINATION FOR APPOINTMENT
IN THE COMPETITIVE CIVIL SERVICE.
(a) Authority To Exempt.--Chapter 81 of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following
new section:
``Sec. 1599d. Appointment in competitive civil service of
certain health care professionals: exemption from
examination
``(a) Authority To Exempt.--The Secretary of Defense may
appoint in the competitive civil service without regard to
the provisions of subchapter I of chapter 33 of title 5
(other than sections 3303, 3321, and 3328 of such title) an
individual who has a recognized degree or certificate from an
accredited institution in a covered health-care profession or
occupation.
``(b) Covered Health-Care Profession or Occupation.--For
purposes of subsection (a), a covered health-care profession
or occupation is any of the following:
``(1) Physician.
``(2) Dentist.
``(3) Podiatrist.
``(4) Optometrist.
``(5) Pharmacist.
``(6) Nurse.
``(7) Physician assistant.
``(8) Audiologist.
``(9) Expanded-function dental auxiliary.
``(10) Dental hygienist.
``(c) Preferences in Hiring.--In using the authority
provided by this section, the Secretary shall apply the
principles of preference for the hiring of veterans and other
persons established in subchapter I of chapter 33 of title
5.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``1599d. Appointment in competitive civil service of certain health
care professionals: exemption from examination.''.
Mr. WARNER. We both urge adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1677) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was
agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
[[Page S9792]]
Amendment No. 1678
Mr. WARNER. On behalf of Senators Collins and Landrieu, I send an
amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Ms. Collins,
Ms. Landrieu, and Mr. Allard, proposes an amendment numbered
1678.
Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To authorize waivers of a prohibition of requirement for a
nonavailability of health care statement or a preauthorization of
health care, and to make other modifications regarding the prohibition)
At the end of subtitle B of title VII, add the following:
SEC. 718. MODIFICATION OF PROHIBITION ON REQUIREMENT OF
NONAVAILABILITY STATEMENT OR PREAUTHORI-ZATION.
(a) Clarification of Covered Beneficiaries.--Subsection (a)
of section 721 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (as enacted in Public
Law 106-398; 114 Stat. 1654A-184) is amended by striking
``covered beneficiary under chapter 55 of title 10, United
States Code, who is enrolled in TRICARE Standard,`` and
inserting ``covered beneficiary under TRICARE Standard
pursuant to chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code,''.
(b) Repeal of Requirement for Notification Regarding Health
Care Received From Another Source.--Subsection (b) of such
section is repealed.
(c) Waiver Authority.--Such section, as so amended, is
further amended by striking subsection (c) and inserting the
following:
``(b) Waiver Authority.--The Secretary may waive the
prohibition in subsection (a) if--
``(1) the Secretary--
``(A) demonstrates that significant costs would be avoided
by performing specific procedures at the affected military
medical treatment facility or facilities;
``(B) determines that a specific procedure must be provided
at the affected military medical treatment facility or
facilities to ensure the proficiency levels of the
practitioners at the facility or facilities; or
``(C) determines that the lack of nonavailability statement
data would significantly interfere with TRICARE contract
administration;
``(2) the Secretary provides notification of the
Secretary's intent to grant a waiver under this subsection to
covered beneficiaries who receive care at the military
medical treatment facility or facilities that will be
affected by the decision to grant a waiver under this
subsection;
``(3) the Secretary notifies the Committees on Armed
Services of the House of Representatives and the Senate of
the Secretary's intent to grant a waiver under this
subsection, the reason for the waiver, and the date that a
nonavailability statement will be required; and
``(4) 60 days have elapsed since the date of the
notification described in paragraph (3).''.
(d) Delay of Effective Date.--Subsection (d) of such
section is amended--
(1) by striking ``take effect on October 1, 2001'' and
inserting ``be effective beginning on the date that is two
years after the date of the enactment of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002''; and
(2) by redesignating the subsection as subsection (c).
(e) Report.--Not later than March 1, 2002, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of
the House of Representatives and the Senate a report on the
Secretary's plans for implementing section 721 of the Floyd
D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2001, as amended by this section.
medical technology
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to the attention of
our distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee an
issue that we must consider as potential military action is taken to
address our national crisis. There are many aspects to consider in
taking care of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who are sent
into harm's way. However, there is an immediate and critical area that
may not seem like a high priority in these times of deployment and
mobilization of our armed forces, an area that in times of war becomes
absolutely necessary in preserving their well-being. I am speaking of
medical technology and research as it concerns the battlefield.
I have recently been made aware of two efforts that could
dramatically improve the current medical challenges involved in blood
and tissue preservation. These programs would aim to develop stable
blood products, organs, and wound-repairing tissues that could enhance
human survivability under conditions of trauma, shock, anoxia and other
extreme conditions that are common in combat.
Mr. LEVIN. The Senator from Maine is quite correct in her observation
and assessment that medical treatment is a part of war that sometimes
may be taken for granted, and that the medical care of our service men
and women is an area of defense that should not be overlooked.
Particularly in the area of military combat casualty care, the
Department must consider any initiative that could have benefits for
saving the lives of men and women whose service to our nation puts them
at risk of severe injury.
Ms. COLLINS. I have recently been briefed on these two medical
research efforts and would like to offer a couple of comments on their
potential impact in combat casualty care. They are research initiatives
by our research laboratories and universities across the country, which
could provide a unique capability to develop new tissue products that
are vitally important for the military. Recent U.S. military actions
have resulted in stationing troops in harsh climates, from Kuwait to
Bosnia to Saudi Arabia. Future locations and missions will require new
capabilities in combat casualty care, and these capabilities would
include stable blood products, organs, and wound repairing tissues that
will enhance human survivability under conditions of trauma, shock,
anoxia and other extreme conditions, including extreme environment.
These projects aim to develop tissue with a long shelf life that are
necessary for combat casualty care. Additionally, the research would
serve as a large-scale source of murine models for the scientific
community to utilize mouse genetics in understanding how the products
of multiple genes interact to develop and maintain entire physiological
systems. I would strongly urge the Department to investigate research
that would permit the long-term storage of blood cells and tissues in
deployed environments.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the distinguished Senator from Maine for
highlighting the critical nature of this research, and for voicing her
support for investments in the well-being of a most precious national
asset--our men and women in uniform, who will fight and risk their
lives for each of us.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this authorizes the Secretary of Defense
to waive the prohibition against requiring statements of
nonavailability to authorized health care services other than mental
health services of beneficiaries receiving care under TRICARE standard.
It is my understanding this amendment is cleared on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1678) was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1679
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Feingold, I offer an
amendment which requires the Under Secretary of Defense to provide a
report on certain matters pertaining to the V-22 Osprey Program before
the aircraft is returned to flying status, and I send the amendment to
the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Feingold,
proposes an amendment numbered 1679.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require a report on the V-22 Osprey aircraft before a
decision to resume flight testing)
At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:
SEC. ____. REPORT ON V-22 OSPREY AIRCRAFT BEFORE DECISION TO
RESUME FLIGHT TESTING.
Not later than 30 days before the planned date to resume
flight testing of the V-22 Osprey aircraft, the Under
Secretary of Defense
[[Page S9793]]
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics shall submit to
Congress a report containing the following:
(1) A comprehensive description of the status of the
hydraulics system and flight control software of the V-22
Osprey Aircraft, including--
(A) a description and analysis of any deficiencies in the
hydraulics system and flight control software of the V-22
Osprey aircraft; and
(B) a description and assessment of the actions taken to
redress such deficiencies.
(2) A description of the current actions, and any proposed
actions, of the Department of Defense to implement the
recommendations of the Panel to Review the V-22 Program.
(3) An assessment of the recommendations of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration in its report on
tiltrotor aeromechanics.
Mr. LEVIN. This amendment has been cleared by the other side.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if we can hold.
Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent this amendment be temporarily laid
aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I see colleagues coming to the Chamber.
I will not be lengthy. I surmise we may be debating an amendment. But
until we do, let me just take this time to present kind of a bit of an
overview--I see the Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, perhaps we can just go into morning
business for a period of time.
Mr. WELLSTONE. That is fine. I appreciate that.
I ask unanimous consent that we go into morning business for 10
minutes so that I may speak.
Mr. WARNER. I reserve the right to object.
Can we stipulate some time period?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, 10 minutes.
Mr. WARNER. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Wellstone are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have talked to the managers of the bill
about two amendments I intend to offer. I would like to comment about
these matters now and will be glad to get into a greater discussion
about them later. I believe that these amendments address issues that
are extremely important and directly relate to our fighting men and
women and those service members who have disabled children.
First, I want to thank the committee, especially Senators Levin and
Warner, for taking the first step toward ensuring that disabled
families of our active-duty military have greater access to the health
care they deserve. The first amendment I intend to offer is another
step toward achieving that goal.
Early last year, a young man in the U.S. Air Force, SGT Faye, drove
over 12 hours with his wife and disabled 4-year-old daughter to testify
how important it was to make Medicaid more accessible. Why? The
military health care system does not provide for his daughter's needs,
and Medicaid does.
Unfortunately, in order to continue her eligibility for Medicaid,
this service member could not accept a promotion to the next rank. No
member of the Armed Forces who risks their life for our country should
ever be put in a position of having to decide between health care for a
disabled child and doing their job for our country, nor should these
families have to rely on Medicaid to find health care that works.
My amendment corrects the injustices these families have suffered by
giving these families in TRICARE what they effectively receive in
Medicaid. It allows disabled dependents to receive the health care that
is necessary to maintain their function and prevent further
deterioration of their disability, provides community-based services so
disabled dependents can stay at home with their families and live in
their communities rather than being institutionalized. This is no
different from what Medicaid provides. The amendment includes respite
care and hearing aids which can help a disabled person stay or become
independent. It includes more flexible mental health services, and also
gives the physician the final decision regarding what health care
services are necessary.
These guarantees are effectively what are in existence under the
Medicaid program. But what harmed SGT Faye was that in order to be able
to get these kinds of services for his 4-year-old child, he had to
decline his promotion to the next rank a promotion that would have
raised his family's income above the Medicaid threshold. SGT Faye had
outstanding recommendations and the Air Force wanted to promote him,
but he couldn't accept it because it meant giving up the health care
his daughter needed.
Right now, the President is activating many servicemen and women who
face these very same circumstances. We clearly know that these
servicemen and women should not have to worry about finding adequate
health care for their children, especially when their children have a
disability. Half of all the members of the Armed Forces are married,
more than half have children, and many of those children are under 10
years of age. As in any population, a number of those children are
special needs children and require the services I have outlined.
This amendment ensures that servicemen and women don't have to go to
Medicaid to get the health care their children need.
We know how far we have come, over many decades, to guarantee that
disabled people have the health care and independence they need to be
participating members of their communities. Our military families with
disabled dependents should not be denied that opportunity. These
improvements to TRICARE are some of the most significant steps we can
take in this Congress. They offer a new and better life to large
numbers of military families. I commend Senator Cleland, who did a
great deal of work in this area and provided great leadership in the
development of a number of different programs to reach out to children
with special needs.
This amendment gives servicemen and women and their disabled family
members the health care they need.
My other amendment also addresses the needs of our military families,
but from a different angle. It relates to the needs of the families of
servicemen and women who will be impacted by the call up of the
National Guard and Reserves components. As we examine the immediate and
long-term needs of our military, we cannot forget the families,
especially the children, whose daily lives and routines are disrupted
by their parents' commitments to preserving America's freedoms.
Husbands and wives, parents and children, will be separated more
frequently and for longer periods during the coming months and years.
These separations will be filled with uncertainty about the safety of
their loved ones, and the families will be profoundly affected.
Today, over half of the active-duty members are married, almost half
have children. There are 2 million family members of active-duty
personnel and 900,000 family members of those in the Reserve. There are
nearly half a million children under the age of 6 of active-duty
members, and a majority need some type of child care.
Families of reservists will also be affected because they often lack
the support provided by military installations. Reserve members are
located in more than 4,400 communities nationwide. More than half of
them live at least 75 miles from a military installation. Support is
especially critical to provide needed assistance to these
geographically isolated families.
This amendment uses the lessons learned from Desert Storm and Bosnia
[[Page S9794]]
to authorize additional wartime support for military families. Included
are provisions for child care and youth programs and family support
programs, such as parent education, to help families cope with the
stress of deployments. It also provides assistance for Reserve families
geographically separated from military installations, as well as
support for security for DOD schools and children's facilities in areas
of high risk for terrorist attacks.
We have a number of children attending schools that are off base that
come to mind immediately. In Turkey, children of U.S. service members
ride in buses through areas which could put these children at risk
should there be any deterioration in the security conditions we are
facing throughout the world. This amendment would also provide
additional resources for protecting these children in overseas schools.
Many husbands and wives share child care responsibilities. When a
service member deploys, the burden is left to one spouse, and in some
cases a guardian. The need for child care is greater. If a spouse works
irregular hours, such as nights or weekends, the challenge is even more
difficult. In many instances, the base operating hours are extended and
longer shifts are required. Additional operating funds are needed for
the non-traditional care in centers and family child care homes.
Guard and Reserve families do not typically live close to the
military bases where they can obtain military child care. We should do
all we can to offer these families the same assistance with child care
that we are offering active-duty personnel on their bases. We can do so
through a cooperative agreement with The National Resource and Referral
networks. Modeled on a project called ``AmeriCorps Care'' established
by the National Service Corporation. Child care assistance can be
provided on the same sliding fee scale available to military families
on base. This step will prevent financial hardships for many young
reservists called to active duty.
With parents not available, youth, especially young teens, are
stranded, with no place to go after school or no way to get to after
school activities. Families not located close to installations find
child care problems after school. Youth are often left home alone after
school. During Desert Storm, to help give parents peace of mind that
children were engaged in positive after school activities,
transportation and activities were provided free to over 17,500 Guard
and Reserve families through a partnership between DOD and the Boys and
Girls Clubs of America. The youths participated in after school
programs, sports and recreational activities, and received help with
homework. We ought to be prepared to provide those kinds of services to
these Guard and Reserve families. This is what was done during the
Persian Gulf War. It worked well then and was good for the morale of
the Reserve and the Guard who were serving overseas.
My amendment doesn't reinvent the wheel. We had many of these
programs in place before. We simply need to reauthorize them for
today's deployments.
During Desert Storm, additional aid funds were provided to civilian
community schools when large units were deployed. We also learned
during Desert Storm that there is a need for counselors for family
support activities. This amendment authorizes the additional funds for
counselors.
There are serious school security issues on our overseas bases,
including safety on school buses in foreign countries. Approximately 40
percent of military families living overseas live off their bases.
Their children are bused to schools, either on the base, or, in many
cases, to schools in unprotected foreign communities that are potential
targets for terrorist attacks. We also need to fund bus safety
personnel and equipment for school buses to ensure the personnel are
adequately trained to identify risk.
Military families face an extended period of anxiety and sacrifice
for our Nation. It is our responsibility to ensure they have the
support they need in the face of this extreme danger and sacrifice.
I urge the Senate, when we have the opportunity, to support my
amendments.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
AMENDMENT NO. 1679
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry, I believe the
Feingold amendment is the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. WARNER. At this time I indicate we have no objection to the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to amendment No. 1679.
The amendment (No. 1679) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1683
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Santorum, I offer an
amendment which would authorize an additional $1 million for the Air
Force for research, development, test and evaluation for the Agile
Combat Support, Integrated Medical Information Technology System
Initiative, offset by a reduction of $1 million in the bill from Navy
RDT&E funds provided for Modular Helmet Development. I believe this
amendment has been cleared on the other side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Santorum,
proposes an amendment numbered 1683.
Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To add $1,000,000 for the Air Force for research,
development, test, and evaluation for the Agile Combat Support,
Integrated Medical Information Technology System Initiative (PE
604617), and to offset the increase by reducing by $1,000,000 the
amount provided for the Navy for research, development, and test and
evaluation for Modular Helmet Development (PE 604264N); Aircrew Systems
Development)
On page 23, line 12, increase the amount by $1,000,000.
On page 23, line 11, reduce the amount by $1,000,000.
Mr. LEVIN. We have no objection to the amendment.
Mr. WARNER. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1683) was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1684
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk which I
offer on behalf of Senator Mikulski.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Ms. Mikulski,
proposes an amendment numbered 1684.
Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for an
insensitive munitions program)
At the end of subtitle D of title VIII, add the following:
SEC. 833. INSENSITIVE MUNITIONS PROGRAM.
(a) Requirement for Program.--Chapter 141 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by inserting after section
2404 the following new section 2405:
``Sec. 2405. Insensitive munitions program
``(a) Requirement for Program.--The Secretary of Defense
shall carry out a program to ensure, to the extent
practicable, that munitions under development or in
procurement are safe throughout development and
[[Page S9795]]
fielding when subjected to unplanned stimuli.
``(b) Content of Program.--The program shall include safety
criteria, safety procedures, and requirements to conform to
those criteria and procedures.
``(c) Reporting Requirement.--At the same time that the
budget for a fiscal year is submitted to Congress under
section 1105(a) of title 31, the Secretary shall submit to
Congress a report on the insensitive munitions program. The
report shall include the following matters:
``(1) The waivers of requirements referred to in subsection
(b) that have been granted under the program during the
fiscal year preceding fiscal year in which the report is
submitted, together with a discussion of the justifications
for the waivers.
``(2) Identification of the funding proposed for the
program in that budget, together with an explanation of the
proposed funding.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 2404 the following new item:
``2405. Insensitive munitions program.''.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment would require the Department
of Defense to have a program to address the accidental detonation of
munitions and to report on this program along with the budget request.
I believe this amendment has been cleared.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the chairman is correct. It is cleared.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1684) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1685
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Hutchinson, I offer
amendment which would provide for the retroactive entitlement of Robert
R. Ingram to Medal of Honor special pension. I understand this
amendment has been cleared.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Hutchinson,
proposes an amendment numbered 1685.
Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide for the retroactive entitlement of Robert R.
Ingram to Medal of Honor special pension)
At the end of subtitle D of title V, add the following:
SEC. 556. RETROACTIVE MEDAL OF HONOR SPECIAL PENSION.
(a) Entitlement.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, Robert R. Ingram of Jacksonville, Florida, who was
awarded the Medal of Honor pursuant to Public Law 105-103
(111 Stat. 2218), shall be entitled to the special pension
provided for under section 1562 of title 38, United States
Code (and antecedent provisions of law), for months that
begin after March 1966.
(b) Amount.--The amount of special pension payable under
subsection (a) for a month beginning before the date of the
enactment of this Act shall be the amount of special pension
provided for by law for that month for persons entered and
recorded in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard Medal
of Honor Roll (or antecedent Medal of Honor Roll required by
law).
Mr. LEVIN. We have no objection to this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1685) was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1686
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf
of Senator Kennedy. I ask the pending amendment be laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Kennedy,
proposes an amendment numbered 1686.
Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert:
SEC. . LEASING OF NAVY SHIPS FOR UNIVERSITY NATIONAL
OCEANOGRAPHIC LABORATORY SYSTEM.
Subsection (g) of 10 U.S.C. 2667 (section 1061, National
Defense Authorization Act, 1998, P.L. 105-85) is amended by
adding a new paragraph at the end as follows:
(3) The requirements of paragraph (1) shall not apply to
renewals or extensions of a lease with a selected institution
for operation of a ship within the University National
Oceanographic Laboratory System, if--
(A) use of the ship is restricted to federally supported
research programs and non-federal uses under specific
conditions with approval by the Secretary of the Navy;
(B) because of the anticipated value to the Navy of the
oceanographic research and training that will result from the
ship's operation, no monetary lease payments are required
from the lessee under the initial lease or under any renewals
or extensions; and
(C) the lessee is required to maintain the ship in a good
state of repair readiness, and efficient operating
conditions, conform to all applicable regulatory
requirements, and assume full responsibility for the safety
of the ship, its crew, and scientific personnel aboard.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment would allow the Navy to
renew long-term leases to oceanographic research vessels without
recompeting the award of those leases. I believe this amendment has
been cleared by the other side.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the chairman is correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1686) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1687
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Voinovich, I offer an
amendment that would authorize Federal agencies to pay for employee
credentials, including professional accreditation, licenses, and
certification for civilian employees. This amendment, I understand, has
been cleared.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Voinovich,
proposes an amendment numbered 1687.
Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To authorize agencies to use appropriated or other available
funds to pay the cost of credentials and related examinations for
Federal employees)
At the end of subtitle C of title XI, add the following:
SEC. 1124. PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code,
as amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``Sec. 5758. Expenses for credentials
``(a) An agency may use appropriated or other available
funds to pay for--
``(1) employee credentials, including professional
accreditation, State-imposed and professional licenses, and
professional certifications; and
``(2) examinations to obtain such credentials.
``(b) No authority under subsection (a) may be exercised on
behalf of any employee occupying or seeking to qualify for
appointment to any position which is excepted from the
competitive service because of its confidential, policy-
determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating
character.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of
sections for chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``5758. Expenses for credentials.''.
Mr. WARNER. I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1687) was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
[[Page S9796]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today not to offer an amendment but,
first, to express my thanks and appreciation to the managers of the
bill for responding to a concern that I raised. I have spoken with
Chairman Levin, and his staff, Senator Warner, and his staff, as well
as Chairman Inouye and Senator Stevens, and the Defense Department
about the concern I have over our industrial base for the production of
tactical fighters.
It seems to me that the tragedy of September 11 brings with it the
realization that we are in a long contest with terrorists. We are in a
long, drawn out contest that may require us to provide all kinds of
responses. The tactical aircraft we are planning to build in the future
is just one of the tactical aircraft that we might have to provide in
years beyond.
So it is my concern that when the competition for the joint strike
fighter--the JSF--is over, that if one of the two contestants--Boeing
and Lockheed Martin are competing--is selected, if there is not
production and an active role for the second one, we would be left with
only one major producer of tactical aircraft.
It is for that reason I have raised the concern that, either before
or after the contract is let, the Defense Department and both
contractors must be willing to agree that production will go on in both
facilities.
Boeing and Lockheed Martin are this country's sole remaining tactical
aircraft manufacturers. Whoever wins the contract will have a long-term
foothold in tactical aircraft manufacturing due to the very large
number of aircraft expected to be built for both here at home and the
overseas market.
If nothing else happens, whoever loses out of the jet fighter
business, in about 10 years, when our current production of F-22s, F-
16s, and FA-18s will have reached the end of their production runs,
there will be nothing left for them to do. That would leave us with
just one military house capable of providing the full line of services
necessary to build whatever aircraft will follow. And the JSF, while it
is the state of the art now, will not be the state of the art 10, 20,
30 years from now.
The competitiveness exhibited by Boeing and Lockheed Martin in the
JSF competition has been good for the U.S. and for our military forces.
Without it, we would not now be looking at two sets of prototypes that,
by all independent accounts, meet and exceed the criteria set by the
Department of Defense.
My concern is what happens on the next complex tactical aircraft
program we build. I am a big fan of Boeing; I am a big fan of Lockheed
Martin--the two finest producers in the world. One of them happens to
be located in my State; one of them happens to be located in the
President's State. Both companies have excellent design and
manufacturing teams. And without them we would not now be fielding the
best military aircraft in the world. But I am an even bigger fan of
having them both in the business of making tactical aircraft with
concomitant design, engineering, manufacturing, and support services.
With only one domestic military tactical aircraft producer, we would
seriously cripple our ability to field state-of-the-art tactical
aircraft in the future, as any serious competition would be eliminated.
And as is the case in so many other areas, competition is essential to
the health of our tactical aircraft industry.
We do not have to look far to see examples of how we can ensure a
robust split production program. The two primary competitors for JSF--
Lockheed Martin and Boeing--currently share production of the F-22
Raptor. Boeing has a one-third share and Lockheed Martin a two-thirds
share of the program. Supporting split production would ensure a
minimum of two primary contractors in the tactical fighter industrial
base.
An issue associated with split production is second sourcing. That
has been productive, and it has been a prudent working theory in the
years past. It still is practiced effectively in many areas.
During the defense buildup period, the Department of Defense and
Congress worked diligently to increase the amount of competition in the
development of major defense systems. In the defense aerospace
industry, during those years, there were five primary companies capable
of developing and producing fighter weapons systems.
The benefits of competition were well understood in commerce at large
but difficult to establish in the military. So emphasis in some
programs shifted to second sourcing. The production piece of weapons
systems programs was divided in two. A single design was produced. The
Government financed creation of both production lines. The firms
competed for the largest share of the production run each year, but
both remained in production.
This worked to keep costs under control for large volume purchases
because each firm saw the potential for decent earnings by investing in
cost reduction programs to remain competitive. If one producer let its
costs get out of control, well, then, the purchaser--the Department of
Defense--could go to the more efficient producer.
The same logic was successful in setting up second sourcing for
propulsion systems for the joint strike fighter. And my question is, If
the logic is compelling enough to institutionalize competitive
competition in second sourcing for engine competition, why wouldn't the
same logic work for the prime aircraft manufacturing companies,
especially since there are only two left in the industry?
The second sourcing expands the mobilization base as well as
producing an increased surge capability. And it encourages higher
product quality and reliability at a competitive cost. And that helps
the Government in contract negotiations.
One other example I would cite is the joint cruise missile project,
second sourcing of the Tomahawk missile in 1982. Every review of that
effort demonstrated abundant cost savings to the Government, and a
steady production of missiles which have been used for years by our
Armed Forces.
The success of the program resulted from at least two factors: One,
the cost for entry for a second source was low, given the large
projected production run, and, two, the annual production quantities
were large enough to absorb direct and indirect manufacturing costs.
The Tomahawk experience is directly applicable to the current JSF
Program because we have a large projected number of aircraft deliveries
spread over many years, for both the armed services--all branches--and
those of our allies, and gives us an opportunity to retain the benefits
of second sourcing.
It worked for engines, and it worked for prime aircraft developers
and manufacturers, while preserving the domestic industrial base.
However, second sourcing alone does not ensure the sustainment of full
design and development capability.
I think it would also be unwise for the country to have only one
company capable of designing an appropriate fighter aircraft. I hope,
as we move forward, we will continue to utilize the design and
development capacity of both of the manufacturers.
Despite the fact that there may be some additional costs for having
two production lines--some say costs may be a half billion to a billion
dollars--when you are really talking about a couple of hundred billion
dollars, a multiyear program, it seems to me the protection of the
search capacity, production protection of a second major source, and
the protection of competition are well worth the price. That is why I
have been arguing that we must maintain two tactical aircraft
providers.
We cannot prevent the pendulum from swinging radically in the
opposite direction without maintaining split production. The recent
terrorist attack teaches us that if we skimp on defense, we will pay
for it. Maintaining a strong defensive posture is not done on the
cheap, unless we are willing to expose our national security and
homeland security.
For this reason, I have discussed at length with my colleagues, with
the
[[Page S9797]]
managers of this bill, with the chairman and ranking member of the
Appropriations Committee, as well as the Department of Defense, the
need to continue to keep two tactical aircraft fighters in production.
Based on the discussions I have had and the understanding that has been
developed, I believe now that we are in a position where we will not
see one company alone winning the competition and taking over the
entire tactical aircraft production in the United States. I think that
would be a significant mistake for the Nation, and it would not serve
our military well because we would not ensure that competition to
provide not only this airplane and the most economical and highest
quality product available but future design and manufacture of aircraft
to follow on.
So while we had discussed the possibility of offering an amendment, I
believe the position is well understood. And from the conversations I
have had, I believe there will be efficient steps taken to ensure that
we do maintain two tactical aircraft producers. If we don't move down
that path, then I will be back on the appropriate measure, whether it
is on an authorization or an appropriations bill, to ensure that we do
have two strong tactical aircraft manufacturers in this country.
Mr. President, I thank the managers and the Chair.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, at this time, I withdraw my amendment No.
1595 from consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I express my gratitude, and I understand
the differences of opinion we have regarding this issue. I think we now
have an opportunity to have a good discussion on this issue in
conference committee. In that vein, I ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the Record the amendment I would have proposed.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Strike all after the first word and insert in lieu thereof
the following:
SEC. 1066. CLOSURE OF VIEQUES NOVEL TRAINING RANGE.
(a) Section 1505 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 is amended by adding
at the end the following new subsection:
``(e) National Emergency.--
``(1) Extension of Deadline.--The President may extend the
May 1, 2003 deadline for the termination of operations on the
island of Vieques established in Subsection (b)(1) for a
period of one year (and may renew such extension on an annual
basis), provided that--
``(A) The President has declared a national emergency, and
such declaration remains in effect; and
``(B) The President determines that, in light of such
national emergency, the actions required by subsections (b),
(c) and (d) would be inconsistent with the national security
interest of the United States.
``(2) Effect of Extension.--An extension of the deadline
pursuant to paragraph (1) shall suspend the requirements of
subsections (b), (c) and (d) for the duration of the
extension.''
(b) Subsection (a) of Section 1505 of the Floyd D. Spence
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 is
repealed and subsections (b) through (e) are redesignated as
subsections (a) through (d) respectively.
(c) Section 1503 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 is repealed.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, before I discuss the provisions of this
amendment, let me make something clear. I am very sensitive--painfully
and personally so--of the human tragedy and national emergency created
by the cowardly attacks of the terrorists on our nation on September
11. Just as much as my colleagues, I stand united with our President,
our military personnel, and the people of America in accepting, as
President Bush put it, our ``mission and moment'' to end this scourge
of terrorism.
But just as so many of America's leaders have implored the nation to
be measured and thoughtful in our actions in the wake of this tragedy,
and just as President Bush has asked that Americans go on about their
lives, so too should the workings of America's democracy. That's why I
believe it would be a a mistake to approve the amendment by the Senator
from Oklahoma, which represents a significant change in direction from
the policies formulated by both Presidents Bush and Clinton, while
frankly undermining the President's authority as commander in chief.
Why should the Chief of Naval Operations, and the commandant of the
Marine Corps, be given the authority to make decisions that go well
beyond military considerations? In my view, full access given the
extended public debate and deep concerns, surrounding this Vieques
facility this decision rightfully rests, as it did before September 11,
with the President of the United States.
Mr. President, I believe, in the long run, we should respect the
views of the people of Puerto Rico and Vieques. Their voice has been
clear on this issue, certainly before the current circumstances. Just a
few months ago, more than 70 percent of those living in Vieques voted
to suspend operations and there was a broad element of support for that
view throughout Puerto Rico's leadership and public.
At the same time, I understand and am sympathetic to the concerns of
many of my colleagues about the need for combined Navy and Marine
amphibious training in this time of national emergency. But, as
Presidents Clinton and Bush both have said, in the long-term, we should
respect the will of the people. And, in my view, while there is
justification for changing the timing of implementation of current
policies given the current circumstances, we should return to agreed
upon policy as soon as practical. Any exceptions to the agreed upon
policy should be at the judgment of the president of the United States-
our commander in chief.
And that, Mr. President, is exactly what this amendment does. It
would provide for the termination of operations on Vieques by May 1,
2003, subject to the national security judgment of the President. In
fact, my amendment would codify the policy already established by
President Bush. However, in an effort to give the President necessary
flexibility in these extraordinary times, the amendment would allow the
President to continue operations on Vieques for one-year periods in
times of national emergency beyond the May 1, 2003 deadline, if the
President determines, in light of the emergency, that the termination
of operations would be inconsistent with national security interests.
I also would note, that my amendment eliminates the requirement for a
second referendum required by last year's DOD authorization. Finally
Mr. President this is a compromise endorsed by the Resident
Commissioner of Puerto Rico, Congressman Anibal Acevedo Vila and
supported by the National Puerto Rican coalition. After all, there
already has been a referendum with the results showing that 70 percent
of Vieques residents favor closure.
Mr. President, I think that's a reasonable compromise that makes
commonsense. And I hope it can win the support of my colleagues.
Mr. President, I've heard some people say that the Navy bombings in
Vieques are merely a political issue. But to the 9,000 residents of
Vieques who live immediately adjacent to the field of fire and have
suffered with constant and severe noise, and whose environment and
health have been threatened by related pollutants, the bombing of
Vieques is a humanitarian issue. And to all the people of Puerto Rico,
it's an issue about respect and democracy.
I have personally visited Vieques and seen the disastrous impact that
constant bombing has had on the island's natural resources and
environment, on its resident's health and on its economy. The people of
Puerto Rico are Americans. They raise our flag. They have fought
valiantly in our wars. Many hundreds--maybe as many as 800--died on
September 11th in the World Trade Center tragedy. Puerto Ricans deserve
to be treated justly.
Both President Clinton and President Bush have recognized this
reality in formulating their responses to this difficult issue.
Mr. President, like all Americans, I believe that the people of
Puerto Rico have shown throughout history that they are willing to make
sacrifices if asked to protect America. But we shouldn't use the
current circumstances to justify continued bombing over some
indeterminate period. We should and must find an alternative training
site and more on as soon as possible.
[[Page S9798]]
So, in summary, Mr. President, this amendment recognizes our current
military needs and provides the President flexibility to deal with
America's war on terrorism. But, over time, this action would respect
the will of the people of Puerto Rico, and end the Vieques debate on
the bombings.
I hope my colleagues will support this amendment.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, in consultation with our colleagues on
both sides of the aisle, I feel the need to propound another unanimous
consent request. I know there have been requests made throughout this
debate regarding the list of finite amendments.
I ask unanimous consent that the list that I will send to the desk at
a later time tonight be the only first-degree amendments remaining in
order to S. 1438, the Department of Defense authorization bill; that
these amendments be subject to relevant second-degree amendments; that
upon disposition of all the amendments, the bill be read the third time
and the Senate vote on passage of the bill with no intervening action
or debate.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, reserving the right to object, most
readily, I say to our leader that I have to object. There are still
Members on our side with concerns.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, will the leader yield.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I am happy to yield to the Senator from
Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, if the majority leader will yield for one
moment, this bill has provisions in it which we need to pass. There is
a special pay provision in it for short wartime specialties, for
instance. We have special provisions which will allow us to hold onto
enlisted members in high priority units who otherwise might leave the
military. We have special reenlistment and enlistment bonuses in this
bill. We have a targeted pay raise of 4\1/2\ percent for everybody. And
we have targeted pay raises of between 5 and 10 percent for special
categories.
This is a vital bill for the success of our military.
The problems we have now are no longer related to the jurisdiction of
this committee. We think we have resolved the last problem, or we are
close to resolving the last problem that relates to the jurisdiction of
this committee. Everybody else is willing to have their amendments
placed on this list so we have a finite list. We are not trying to
preclude anybody from offering amendments of any kind. It is just a
list of their amendments and a finite list.
I thank the majority leader for his patience. I thank Senator Reid
for his extraordinary effort to get us to where we are. I express
disappointment that we can't get that finite list so we can proceed to
complete this important bill, but to report to him and to our
colleagues that the problem we think we have now is not related to the
jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee, and that is too bad.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, if I could just add to what the
distinguished Senator from Michigan has said, and let me repeat also
the compliment of our two managers. I think they have done an admirable
job. They have shown remarkable patience with all of their colleagues.
But I don't know of a bill that deserves more urgency than this one. I
don't know of a bill that ought to be the source of unity as we look at
the array of challenges that our country is currently facing.
This afternoon, we were given one of the finest briefings that I have
heard in recent years by the Secretary of State and the Secretary of
Defense. They did an outstanding job in laying out the challenges that
we have to face, not only in the short term but in the longer term. At
the very least, it seems to me, the Senate ought to respond to the
tremendous challenges we face by providing the support that we can to
this administration at a time of need.
I must say that I know we have worked off the earlier objections. And
now, as the Senator from Michigan said, we have objections tonight that
I am told have nothing to do with the Defense bill but have to do with
the schedule on other issues. I am willing to work with my colleagues.
No one wants to pass an energy bill more than I do. We know we have to
do that. That has to be an important part of the Senate's agenda. I am
willing to enter into a colloquy with Senators who have concerns about
how high a priority that is. But, for heaven's sake, let us not hold up
one of the most urgent bills before the Senate tonight.
I must say, I will tell my colleagues, that we may be left with no
other option than to pull this bill and go straight to Defense
appropriations when that bill is ready. We can resolve this on Defense
appropriations. I don't want to have to do that, but I will do that if
there is no other choice. Tomorrow we are going to go to the military
construction bill.
This is our last opportunity tonight until sometime later.
There are so many other urgent pieces of work that have to be done.
We have an airport security bill that we all have talked about that we
know is important. That has to be brought up, hopefully next week.
We can't continue to deliberate, object, delay, and confound the two
managers here as we try to address this important question. We have a
window. If we lose this window, we are going to have to look for
another window under the appropriations process.
I put my colleagues on notice. We will either work this out this way
or we will work it out another way. But these laborious objections are
very troubling to me and ought to be troubling to all of our
colleagues.
I will work with our managers.
I appreciate as well the distinguished assistant majority leader for
his efforts tonight.
If I sound frustrated, I am. I will be patient. But patience wears
thin. We have a lot of work to do.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Madam President, before the leader leaves the floor, I am a
member of the Committee on Appropriations. We are not an authorizing
committee. We should not have to do the Defense authorization bill
because the hard work that these two managers and the committee members
have put in will be for naught.
Yesterday, I had to make some phone calls. Eighty-three National
Guardsmen who have been called to active duty out of Ely and Las Vegas.
These are MP's--military policemen. We had 100 out of Reno call the
same day. They are military intelligence. They are leaving as I am
speaking.
There are provisions in this bill to help them and their families. At
Nellis Air Force Base, we have 10,000 military personnel, and at Fallon
we have 7,000.
How can I go back to Nevada and face these people? This bill is going
to go down as a result of something that has nothing to do with this
bill.
The leader talked about these two managers. They have worked so hard.
They have worked so hard. They are two veteran legislators. They are
two of the best we have. They have done everything they can to move
this legislation.
Ninety-eight percent of the Senate wants to move this bill. It is too
bad that 2 percent decided they don't want this bill to move anyplace.
It is too bad for the country. It is too bad for the military personnel
in Nevada and all over this country, and for those serving outside the
United States' continental limits. It is just too bad.
If the leader is frustrated--and I know he is because he has been on
this all day--I can't imagine how these two managers feel who have
spent months working on this legislation. And they are being told,
well, you can have the appropriators do it. That is what it is coming
to. It is a sad day in the history of the Senate and this country.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, in light of our circumstances, I
reluctantly concluded that there will be no more votes tonight. There
is so much work we could do. Clearly, we are not at a point where we
can move any further on the bill. If Members wish to express
themselves, they are welcome to
[[Page S9799]]
do that. But there will be no more votes tonight.
I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, the fiscal year 2002 National Defense
Authorization Act that was reported out of the Committee on Armed
Services was a good bill. In particular, it included important
provisions regarding missile defense.
It required prior Congressional approval of any activities during the
next fiscal year that are barred by the ABM Treaty. This provision
assured Congress its proper role in any decision to walk away from a
cornerstone of strategic stability which has served the United States
well for the past 30 years.
It strengthened transparency and Congressional oversight over the
Administration's missile defense programs. If the Congress is to
authorize billions of dollars for national missile defense, we deserve
a clear blueprint for how the administration will spend that money.
And it reallocated $1.3 billion from missile defense to other
pressing defense priorities.
As a result of the managers' amendment adopted last week, the first
two provisions were dropped. The third one was altered to permit the
President to spend the $1.3 billion on missile defense or on counter-
terrorism.
As every other Member, I understand the need to forge a unity of
purpose in fighting the difficult war which lies ahead. That is why I
did not prevent action on the managers' amendment last week. Let the
record show, however, that I strongly disagree with the decision to
delete those very sensible provisions.
The prior approval provision did nothing to prohibit the President
from withdrawing the United States from an international treaty. Nor
did it prohibit the Department of Defense from undertaking any activity
in violation of the ABM Treaty. Rather, it simply enabled the Congress
to exercise its rightful power of the purse to approve or disapprove
the use of funds for any DoD activity barred by a major U.S. treaty.
I believe that the President has the constitutional authority to
withdraw from a treaty in the face of congressional silence. I also
believe, however, that Congress must exercise its appropriate
responsibility. That is why it was also a mistake, in my view, to
delete the missile defense transparency provisions in this bill.
Finally, in my view, there is no question how marginal dollars must
be spent. The tragic and unconscionable attacks of September 11, 2001,
have thrust upon us a war that we absolutely must win, not only for our
own sake, but for all civilized nations. The wisdom of any element of
defense spending must be evaluated in that light.
As President Bush has made clear, this war will be complex. The
battle to dry up terrorist funding will be as crucial as any military
offensive. Both battles may hinge on the support we receive from other
countries.
President Bush has done a wonderful job of turning world reaction
into positive and specific support for an effective campaign against
international terrorism and those who aid and abet it. That is
precisely what is needed.
Today, that international support is broad and strong, at least in
words. It extends from NATO to Russia, Pakistan, and even North Korea.
We must maintain and strengthen that international coalition, however,
in the months, and years, to come.
Russia may very well play a crucial role in any military action
against Osama bin Laden or those who aid him in Afghanistan. By virtue
of both geography and its involvement in the region, Russia can do much
to aid or hinder our operations. Already, some of its military leaders
are cautioning against military action that we may find essential to
the defeat of terrorism.
What will happen, if the President chooses this time to walk away
from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in the face of Russian
objections? Russia's official stance is that anti-terrorism is a
separate issue, and that cooperation will continue. But I fear that
both military and public opinion in Russia could shift substantially
against cooperation with the United States.
Neither can we take our European allies for granted. Their
governments overwhelmingly oppose any unilateral abandonment of the ABM
Treaty. Even Prime Minister Tony Blair, the leader of our staunchest
ally, warned that Great Britain's support was not a ``blank check.''
Alliance cohesion requires our willingness, too, to cooperate with
other nations in pursuit of a common aim. Our leadership role in the
battle against terrorism is clear today, but will be maintained in this
conflict only by convincing others of both our wisdom and our care to
take their concerns into account. That is why precipitate actions to
deploy a missile defense, such as our unilateral withdrawal from the
ABM Treaty, could undermine our vital war efforts.
A defense against ICBM's will have little impact on international
terrorism. Terrorists are not likely to develop or acquire such weapons
and the complex launch facilities that they require. Rather, terrorists
are likely to seek to attack the United States through infiltration,
smuggling in a nuclear weapon in a ship into a city's harbor or
carrying lethal pathogens in a backpack.
A national missile defense would do nothing to defend against these
more likely threats. Indeed, too much investment in it now could drain
needed resources from the war effort, not just in money, but also in
technical manpower and production capability.
Let me give some examples of how $1.3 billion could be used to
further the war on terrorism: The greatest threat of a nuclear weapons
attack on the United States is from a weapon smuggled into the United
States. Terrorists cannot build such a weapon, but they could hope to
buy one. According to the bipartisan Baker-Cutler task force report
issued earlier this year, Russia has tens of thousands of nuclear
weapons, sensitive nuclear materials and components. Some are secure,
but others are not. Some nuclear facilities don't even have barbed wire
fences to keep out potential terrorists. The task force called for
spending $30 billion over the next 8 to 10 years, to address what it
called ``the most urgent unmet national security threat to the United
States today.''
Biological terrorism is a real threat to both our military personnel
and our civilian population. It is a challenge we can sensibly face,
but only if we invest in the necessary preparation today. For instance,
the Department of Defense should produce or acquire the necessary
vaccines and antibiotics to protect our armed forces against a range of
pathogens. It should assist civilian agencies in procuring and
stockpiling similar medicines for emergency use. According to Dr. Fred
Ikle, who testified at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing earlier
this month, $300 to $500 million will be needed just to ramp up our
vaccine stockpile. This is a common-sense response to an otherwise
frightening threat.
The Department of Defense should also test and procure inexpensive
bio-hazard masks that could save lives both in the event of a terrorist
attack and through everyday use in military hospitals. By conducting
the necessary testing and creating an initial market for such masks,
the Defense Department will pave the way for use of these masks in our
civilian health care system.
A more immediate step to help our armed forces would be to improve
the security of our domestic military bases and installations. Many of
them lack the basic anti-terrorism protections that our overseas bases
have.
Another war-related need is to speed up the Large Aircraft Infra-Red
Counter-Measures program that gives our military transport aircraft
increased protection against surface-to-air missiles. We gave Afghan
groups hundreds of Stinger missiles in the 1980's, and scores of them
could be in the Taliban's inventory today. We owe it to our fighting
men and women to give them maximum protection as they move into combat
or potentially hostile staging areas.
[[Page S9800]]
Winning the war on terrorism, a war that we face here and now, is
infinitely more important than pouring concrete in Alaska or an extra
$1.3 billion into combating the least likely of threats.
We can take the time to perfect our technology and to reach
understandings with Russia and China that will minimize the side-
effects of missile defense. But we have precious little time to do what
is essential: to win the war against terrorism, to dry up the supply of
Russian materials or technology, or to prepare our military, our
intelligence community, our health care system, and our first
responders to deal with a chemical or biological weapons attack by the
terrorists of tomorrow.
In the fury of the moment, Congress will let the President have the
final say on the use of these funds. So be it. It will be up to the
President to take the sensible course.
In the midst of a war, let us not be diverted by the least likely
threat. Let us turn our attention, our energies, and our resources to
winning the war that is upon us, and to building our defenses against
terrorism of all sorts.
____________________