[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.

                          ____________________