[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 74 (Monday, May 19, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6587-S6598]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). The Democratic leader.


                           Amendment No. 689

  Mr. DASCHLE. I have an amendment at the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 689.

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

  (Purpose: To ensure that members of the Ready Reserve of the Armed 
 Forces are treated equitably in the provision of health care benefits 
     under TRICARE and otherwise under the Defense Health Program)

       On page 157, strike line 8 and all that follows through 
     ``time of war,'' on line 14, and insert the following:
       ``(f)(1) At any time after the Secretary concerned notifies 
     members of the Ready Reserve that the members are to be 
     called or ordered to active duty,

       On page 157, line 19, strike `` `(2)'' and insert the 
     following:

[[Page S6588]]

       ``(2) The screening and care authorized under paragraph (1) 
     shall include screening and care under TRICARE, pursuant to 
     eligibility under paragraph (3), and continuation of care 
     benefits under paragraph (4).
       ``(3)(A) Members of the Selected Reserve of the Ready 
     Reserve and members of the Individual Ready Reserve described 
     in section 10144(b) of this title are eligible, subject to 
     subparagraph (I), to enroll in TRICARE.
       ``(B) A member eligible under subparagraph (A) may enroll 
     for either of the following types of coverage:
       ``(i) Self alone coverage.
       ``(ii) Self and family coverage.
       ``(C) An enrollment by a member for self and family covers 
     the member and the dependents of the member who are described 
     in subparagraph (A), (D), or (I) of section 1072(2) of this 
     title.
       ``(D) The Secretary of Defense shall provide for at least 
     one open enrollment period each year. During an open 
     enrollment period, a member eligible under subparagraph (A) 
     may enroll in the TRICARE program or change or terminate an 
     enrollment in the TRICARE program.
       ``(E) A member and the dependents of a member enrolled in 
     the TRICARE program under this paragraph shall be entitled to 
     the same benefits under this chapter as a member of the 
     uniformed services on active duty or a dependent of such a 
     member, respectively. Section 1074(c) of this title shall 
     apply with respect to a member enrolled in the TRICARE 
     program under this section.
       ``(F)(i) The Secretary of Defense shall charge premiums for 
     coverage pursuant to enrollments under this paragraph. The 
     Secretary shall prescribe for each of the TRICARE program 
     options a premium for self alone coverage and a premium for 
     self and family coverage.
       ``(ii) The monthly amount of the premium in effect for a 
     month for a type of coverage under this paragraph shall be 
     the amount equal to 28 percent of the total amount determined 
     by the Secretary on an appropriate actuarial basis as being 
     reasonable for the coverage.
       ``(iii) The premiums payable by a member under this 
     subparagraph may be deducted and withheld from basic pay 
     payable to the member under section 204 of title 37 or from 
     compensation payable to the member under section 206 of such 
     title. The Secretary shall prescribe the requirements and 
     procedures applicable to the payment of premiums by members 
     not entitled to such basic pay or compensation.
       ``(iv) Amounts collected as premiums under this 
     subparagraph shall be credited to the appropriation available 
     for the Defense Health Program Account under section 1100 of 
     this title, shall be merged with sums in such Account that 
     are available for the fiscal year in which collected, and 
     shall be available under subparagraph (B) of such section for 
     such fiscal year.
       ``(G) A person who receives health care pursuant to an 
     enrollment in a TRICARE program option under this paragraph, 
     including a member who receives such health care, shall be 
     subject to the same deductibles, copayments, and other 
     nonpremium charges for health care as apply under this 
     chapter for health care provided under the same TRICARE 
     program option to dependents described in subparagraph (A), 
     (D), or (I) of section 1072(2) of this title.
       ``(H) A member enrolled in the TRICARE program under this 
     paragraph may terminate the enrollment only during an open 
     enrollment period provided under subparagraph (D), except as 
     provided in subparagraph (I). An enrollment of a member for 
     self alone or for self and family under this paragraph shall 
     terminate on the first day of the first month beginning after 
     the date on which the member ceases to be eligible under 
     subparagraph (A). The enrollment of a member under this 
     paragraph may be terminated on the basis of failure to pay 
     the premium charged the member under this paragraph.
       ``(I) A member may not enroll in the TRICARE program under 
     this paragraph while entitled to transitional health care 
     under subsection (a) of section 1145 of this title or while 
     authorized to receive health care under subsection (c) of 
     such section. A member who enrolls in the TRICARE program 
     under this paragraph within 90 days after the date of the 
     termination of the member's entitlement or eligibility to 
     receive health care under subsection (a) or (c) of section 
     1145 of this title may terminate the enrollment at any time 
     within one year after the date of the enrollment.
       ``(J) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the 
     other administering Secretaries, shall prescribe regulations 
     for the administration of this paragraph.
       ``(4)(A) The Secretary concerned shall pay the applicable 
     premium to continue in force any qualified health benefits 
     plan coverage for an eligible reserve component member for 
     the benefits coverage continuation period if timely elected 
     by the member in accordance with regulations prescribed under 
     subparagraph (J).
       ``(B) A member of a reserve component is eligible for 
     payment of the applicable premium for continuation of 
     qualified health benefits plan coverage under subparagraph 
     (A) while serving on active duty pursuant to a call or order 
     issued under a provision of law referred to in section 
     101(a)(13)(B) of this title during a war or national 
     emergency declared by the President or Congress.
       ``(C) For the purposes of this paragraph, health benefits 
     plan coverage for a member called or ordered to active duty 
     is qualified health benefits plan coverage if--
       ``(i) the coverage was in force on the date on which the 
     Secretary notified the member that issuance of the call or 
     order was pending or, if no such notification was provided, 
     the date of the call or order;
       ``(ii) on such date, the coverage applied to the member and 
     dependents of the member described in subparagraph (A), (D), 
     or (I) of section 1072(2) of this title; and
       ``(iii) the coverage has not lapsed.
       ``(D) The applicable premium payable under this paragraph 
     for continuation of health benefits plan coverage in the case 
     of a member is the amount of the premium payable by the 
     member for the coverage of the member and dependents.
       ``(E) The total amount that may be paid for the applicable 
     premium of a health benefits plan for a member under this 
     paragraph in a fiscal year may not exceed the amount 
     determined by multiplying--
       ``(i) the sum of one plus the number of the member's 
     dependents covered by the health benefits plan, by
       ``(ii) the per capita cost of providing TRICARE coverage 
     and benefits for dependents under this chapter for such 
     fiscal year, as determined by the Secretary of Defense.
       ``(F) The benefits coverage continuation period under this 
     paragraph for qualified health benefits plan coverage in the 
     case of a member called or ordered to active duty is the 
     period that--
       ``(i) begins on the date of the call or order; and
       ``(ii) ends on the earlier of the date on which the 
     member's eligibility for transitional health care under 
     section 1145(a) of this title terminates under paragraph (3) 
     of such section, or the date on which the member elects to 
     terminate the continued qualified health benefits plan 
     coverage of the dependents of the member.
       ``(G) Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
       ``(i) any period of coverage under a COBRA continuation 
     provision (as defined in section 9832(d)(1) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986) for a member under this paragraph shall 
     be deemed to be equal to the benefits coverage continuation 
     period for such member under this paragraph; and
       ``(ii) with respect to the election of any period of 
     coverage under a COBRA continuation provision (as so 
     defined), rules similar to the rules under section 
     4980B(f)(5)(C) of such Code shall apply.
       ``(H) A dependent of a member who is eligible for benefits 
     under qualified health benefits plan coverage paid on behalf 
     of a member by the Secretary concerned under this paragraph 
     is not eligible for benefits under the TRICARE program during 
     a period of the coverage for which so paid.
       ``(I) A member who makes an election under subparagraph (A) 
     may revoke the election. Upon such a revocation, the member's 
     dependents shall become eligible for benefits under the 
     TRICARE program as provided for under this chapter.
       ``(J) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations 
     for carrying out this paragraph. The regulations shall 
     include such requirements for making an election of payment 
     of applicable premiums as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.
       ``(5) For the purposes of this section, all members of the 
     Ready Reserve who are to be called or ordered to active duty 
     include all members of the Ready Reserve.
       ``(6) The Secretary concerned shall promptly notify all 
     members of the Ready Reserve that they are eligible for 
     screening and care under this section.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this amendment would strengthen our 
National Guard, our Reserve force, and our Nation by offering these 
troops the option to receive year-round health coverage through 
TRICARE, the military health program. If approved, this would be the 
first fundamental change in Guard and Reserve benefits since the end of 
the Cold War.
  This amendment not only honors the sacrifices that our Guard and 
Reserve troops have been making on our behalf for decades, but also 
recognizes that there has been a fundamental expansion in recent years 
in their roles and missions.
  Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the military has increasingly 
relied on the skill and sacrifice of America's Reservists. When I go 
home to South Dakota and talk to the citizens of my State, I see and 
hear first-hand the impact this increasing reliance has on communities 
all across my State. Nearly 2,000 South Dakotan Guard and Reservists 
are currently on active duty serving their Nation. In addition to 
performing their traditional combat roles, Guard and Reserve personnel 
have assumed a larger share of the peacekeeping role in hot spots all 
around the world.
  Since September 11, Guard and Reserve members have assisted in 
homeland security, including protecting our airports, and have provided 
force protection at bases at home and abroad. According to a recent GAO 
study, Guard and Reservist mobilizations increased by 700 percent in 
the aftermath

[[Page S6589]]

of the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center.
  So more frequently and for longer periods of time, Guard and Reserve 
personnel from South Dakota and all over the Nation have answered their 
Nation's call to duty, leaving behind their families, their jobs, and 
their communities.
  While the demands we place on Reservists have grown markedly, the 
Federal Government's commitment to this dedicated group of men and 
women has not kept pace. As a result, leaders of the National Guard and 
Reserves are finding it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain 
top-notch individuals. Guard leaders tell me that offering health 
coverage would be the single most powerful tool we could give them to 
help with recruiting and retention.
  This proposal offers a moderate, targeted, affordable proposal that 
deserves the bipartisan support of the Senate.
  This amendment is the result of 2 years of work by myself and a 
bipartisan group of my colleagues from the Senate Guard Caucus. In 
2001, we introduced S. 1119, calling for research into problems 
surrounding health coverage for the Guard and Reserve. For 2 years, we 
have been holding regular meetings with leaders from the guard and 
reserve community and soliciting grassroots input. We have made some 
modifications to reflect the experiences of reservists mobilized after 
September 11 and problems encountered by others mobilized for service 
in Bosnia and Iraq. Last fall, we received a helpful study on the issue 
from the General Accounting Office.
  Incorporating the lessons from that report, last month we were able 
to introduce S. 852, the National Guard and Reserve Comprehensive 
Health Benefits Act of 2003, on which this amendment is based.
  This amendment offers Reserve and National Guard members and their 
families the opportunity to participate in the same TRICARE program 
available to active duty service members and their families.
  Reservists and their families will share the cost of premium payments 
with the Department of Defense, with the same cost distribution as used 
in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan.
  The National Guard Association of the United States reports that the 
average cost of a family health care plan through a civilian HMO is 
$7,541 per year.
  In contrast, the Guard Association estimates that the TRICARE cost 
per family is only $5,173 per year, even without government sharing any 
of the cost.
  With government cost-sharing, this will be an attractively priced 
option for securing health coverage.
  Beyond recruitment and retention, this program will improve 
readiness. More than 20 percent of the Ready Reserve--and as much as 40 
percent of young enlisted personnel--do not currently have health 
insurance.
  Providing access to quality health care during all phases of service 
can drastically reduce the chances that a unit is unable to deploy due 
to medical reasons.
  Maintaining a healthy force is absolutely essential to maintaining a 
prepared force.
  Our legislation will also address another problem that invariably 
occurs during mobilization.
  When a reservist is called to active duty, he or she must leave their 
private-sector health plan and enter a wholly new plan, TRICARE. In 
March, I worked with the Secretary of Defense to end a nationwide 
problem among families of mobilized reservists. Simply put, they were 
being forced, unfairly and improperly, to join a more expensive TRICARE 
plan.
  We did solve that problem, but many families spent weeks without 
knowing whether they should try to extend their private coverage or 
whether they could afford TRICARE. That is simply unacceptable.
  At a time when a reservist is preparing for deployment to a war zone, 
the last thing he or she should have to worry about is health benefits.
  This amendment is an affordable way to honor the commitment of our 
guard and reserve members. The bill before us provides the Defense 
Department with more than $400 billion in FY2004.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, my amendment costs 
about $300 million in that same period. For .7 months of a percent of 
the Pentagon budget, we can guarantee that all reservists have access 
to health care--either through civilian employers or TRICARE. We can 
ensure that this force is ready to fight at a moment's notice.
  We can improve the readiness of the current reserve force and improve 
our ability to recruit and retain the best and brightest men and women 
for the National Guard and Reserves.
  The high rate of reservist mobilizations will most likely continue. 
Indeed, with ongoing needs in Iraq and the upsurge in homeland defense 
activities, reservists will probably continue to be mobilized at record 
levels.
  By providing access to quality, affordable health care for reservists 
and their families, this legislation will ensure that when we need 
them, they will be there, healthy and ready to go.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask our distinguished colleague, the distinguished 
leader on the other side of the aisle, the cost implications.
  Mr. DASCHLE. As I noted in my opening comments, the cost implications 
are very minimal given the extraordinary opportunities it presents for 
all of our Guard and Reserve personnel. The estimated cost for the 
first year is $300 million--.7 of a percent of the entire defense 
budget.
  Mr. WARNER. I say to my distinguished friend and colleague, there are 
a number of provisions that will be addressed as we proceed to this 
bill to try to improve the compensation benefits for the Reserve and 
Guard. I generally recognize the need to do so, but I must say to my 
good friend, the regulars are beginning to say, well, what is the 
distinction between a Regular and a Guard and Reserves man? A Regular, 
the clearest distinction is he or she is subject to 365 days of service 
to country and probably moving from base to base every third year. 
Also, they do not have the benefit of both Reserve and Guard pay.
  As someone said, and I hope the distinguished leader will not take 
this the wrong way, maybe everybody will leave the Regular Forces and 
join the Guard and Reserve because there is a little more flexibility 
and a little more pay and benefits.
  We have to watch as we move along in this direction to not get out of 
balance what has been in balance for many years. I recognize that the 
Guard and Reserve are pulling heavily on the oars these days and they 
have the inconvenience of being called up at times as they have 
experienced in Afghanistan and the Iraqi operations and having to leave 
their families rather abruptly and depart their businesses, employers 
confronted with getting replacements in some instances but allowing 
them to return to their positions, which I think is the proper thing to 
do. We have not had any hearings. We do not know what the ramifications 
are.
  I say to my distinguished colleague, at the moment I will have to 
indicate my intention to oppose.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if I could respond briefly, first of all, 
I compliment the distinguished chair and ranking member for their work, 
once again, in producing a bill that passed out of committee, as I 
understand it, unanimously. That is a real tribute to their leadership 
and to the willingness that they continue to demonstrate to work in 
such a bipartisan and constructive manner in committee. That is 
laudable. I congratulate the chair and ranking member for their ability 
to do it consistently--not just on this occasion.
  First, I recognize, as the distinguished chair has noted, we have to 
be appreciative of our active-duty personnel. They make a commitment 
second to none. We saw yet again a demonstration of that commitment in 
the battle in Iraq.
  I don't know that an issue has been studied as much as this issue 
over the course of the last couple of years. I am happy to share the 
findings of many of the studies that have been done. One study that 
attracted me in particular was a study done by the General Accounting 
Office.
  I ask unanimous consent the summary of the study be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S6590]]

                               Background

       Reserve components participate in military conflicts and 
     peacekeeping missions in areas such as Bosnia, Kosovo, and 
     southwest Asia, and assist in homeland security. From fiscal 
     year 1996 through fiscal year 2001, an average of about 
     11,000, or 1 percent, of the roughly 900,000 reservists were 
     mobilized each year. The length of mobilizations can be as 
     long as 2 years with the mean length of mobilizations for the 
     6-year period we reviewed being 117 days. As of April 2002, 
     about 80,000, or 8 percent, of reservists had been mobilized 
     for 1 year for operations related to September 11, 2001. At 
     the same time, additional reserve personnel continued to be 
     deployed throughout the world on various peacekeeping and 
     humanitarian missions. . . .
       Overall, the percentage of reservists with health care 
     coverage when they are not mobilized is similar to that found 
     in the general population--and, like the general population, 
     most reservists have coverage through their employers. 
     According to DOD's 2000 Survey of Reserve Component 
     Personnel, nearly 80 percent of reservists reported having 
     health care coverage. In the general population, 81 percent 
     of 18 to 65 year olds have health care coverage. Officers and 
     senior enlisted personnel were more likely than junior 
     enlisted personnel to have coverage. Only 60 percent of 
     junior enlisted personnel, about 90 percent of whom are under 
     age 35, had coverage--lower than the similarly aged group in 
     the general population. Of reservists with dependents, about 
     86 percent reported having coverage. Of reservists without 
     dependents, about 63 percent reported having coverage.

  Mr. DASCHLE. The GAO noted since the attack on the World Trade 
Center--
  Mr. WARNER. Could you give the date of the publication?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The date was September of 2002, just in the last 6 
months.
  The GAO study noted that since the attacks on the Pentagon and the 
World Trade Center, utilization, mobilization of the Guard and Reserve 
has gone up 700 percent. We are not only seeing an increase in 
integration with Active-Duty Forces, but we are seeing a remarkable, 
continued mobilization of the Guard and Reserve for other roles having 
to do with the war on terror.
  As these continued mobilizations arise, the disruption, the 
extraordinary pressures and demands put on the Guard and Reserve almost 
require that we look upon them as active-duty personnel because they 
play far more an active-duty role.
  As I talk to the Guard and Reserve and the recruiters, it it has 
become increasingly clear that is one reason recruitment and retention 
has become much more of a challenge. We have done very well in South 
Dakota. We are at 106 percent, but that is not without a great deal of 
effort. We cannot say that nationally.
  The fundamental question is, Do we owe them the right--not for 
additional compensation, no to be treated like Regulars--the right to 
buy health insurance so they have the coverage for their families and 
themselves both in war and in peace.
  Why is it appropriate to buy coverage for war but not appropriate to 
buy coverage for peace when they are purchasing it themselves? I don't 
know that it takes more study. I don't know that it takes any more 
analysis. You see the mobilization. You see the need. You see what I 
consider to be the disparity that exists today and what I would 
consider to be a certain extent an unfairness. I don't know that one 
has to go beyond that.

  So I hope the distinguished chairman, the manager of the bill, might 
reconsider prior to the time we vote. But I will respect his point of 
view regardless of what ultimately he decides.
  Mr. WARNER. If I could ask a further question?
  I should examine this report. It is timely. But I am advised there is 
a provision in the report indicating that 80 percent to 90 percent of 
the Guard and Reserve have private sector health insurance. Are you 
familiar with that?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would say, if I recall what the report 
says, it is 80 percent or 90 percent of the Guard and Reserve who have 
coverage at some time during the year. We have as high as 30 percent of 
our recruits in the National Guard in South Dakota who do not have 
health insurance because younger people, younger personnel, oftentimes 
are not in a position to buy it. It is younger personnel who are 
currently the subject of recruitment and retention.
  There is a great need out there. As I say, there are a large number, 
there is a significant percentage who are vastly underinsured, if you 
read further in the report.
  I urge my colleague to take a good look at the report before he comes 
to any conclusions about the need.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will do that. I value the wisdom and 
initiative of our distinguished leader. So I will do that.
  Mr. DASCHLE. If I could add one other--I apologize to the Senator 
from Vermont--I will just read from page 8 of the report.

       Officers and enlisted personnel are more likely than junior 
     personnel to have coverage. Only 60 percent of junior 
     enlisted personnel, about 90 percent of whom are under age 
     35, had coverage.

  That means 40 percent of the junior personnel had no coverage at all.

       Of reservists and dependents, about 86 percent reported 
     having coverage, but of reservists without dependents, only 
     63 percent reported having coverage. Again, about 40 percent 
     have no coverage whatsoever.

  Again, this becomes a recruiting, a retention, and, I believe, a 
fairness question that I hope this Senate will address this year with 
this bill.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our colleague.
  I would just ask I be able to consult with the majority leader as to 
the time at which this vote should take place. He, of course, will 
consult with you. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if I might interject for a moment?
  The distinguished chairman knows the great respect I have for what I 
many times refer to as my Senator away from home because I spend part 
of the week--seems to be the longer part of the week, with the hours we 
have been putting in around here lately--in Northern Virginia. Of 
course my dear friend, the senior Senator from North Dakota, knows my 
respect for him.
  I think this is a good amendment. Senator DeWine of Ohio has taken a 
very active role in this, too. I hope the distinguished chairman would 
hold off making a snap judgment. I know he doesn't do that, in any 
event. But think about what the distinguished Senator from South Dakota 
has said.
  The Senator from Ohio and I will speak on this matter at another time 
rather than hold the floor to do it. But there are a number--and the 
numbers are rather shocking--of those who are without health insurance, 
especially in the enlisted area. You have, so many times, this hiatus. 
They are leaving their job, getting called up, and being without it. It 
leaves families in this limbo.
  I would rather, if they were being called up, they be concentrating 
on what they are going to be doing, not on whether they are covered by 
health care insurance. This is a matter we have raised with the health 
care committee.
  I am a cochair of the National Guard caucus. We raised it within our 
caucus. We heard from Guard units all over the country of their needs. 
As the distinguished Democratic leader has said on the floor today, 
this is a case where we are asking they have the ability to pay into 
this and do this. So I hope maybe during the evening, before we come 
back in tomorrow, everybody might be able to look at it.
  I know the distinguished Senator from Ohio, Mr. DeWine, will also 
want to be speaking on it. I will withhold my further comments. There 
are Senators on the floor waiting to speak on this bill.
  I totally concur with the distinguished Democratic leader on what he 
has said. His experiences with the brave men and women in South Dakota 
are very similar to what I hear in Vermont. I suspect most States are 
hearing it also from their Guard. So maybe we will keep our powder dry 
until tomorrow. We will get some of these facts and figures and see 
where they go.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our colleague for his kind 
remarks.
  Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield for a minute?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I point out one other fact for the consideration of my 
good friend, the chairman. The chairman, of course, makes an important 
point about the fact there is a distinction between Active Duty and 
Reserve and there are certain benefits that people in Active Duty have 
which make it a little more attractive, perhaps, than it

[[Page S6591]]

otherwise might be in comparison to being in the Reserves.
  There is a distinction in this amendment, as I read it, which 
requires the reservists while not on active duty to pay the premium. It 
is 28 percent of the total amount determined by the Secretary. That is 
a distinction between Active Duty and Reserve, where the active-duty 
personnel, of course, do not have to pay their own share; whereas, 
under the amendment offered by Senator Daschle, the reservists while 
not on active duty would have to pay, as I understand it, the share of 
about 28 percent.
  That does retain that important distinction, while it does clearly 
confer a benefit, which is an important benefit because of all the 
reservists we have who simply do not have health insurance. We want 
them to be in a healthy state if and when they are called up--and we 
ought to want them in a healthy state even if they are never called 
up--but surely if they are called up it is important they be in good 
health.
  Having access here to what is equal to what Federal employees have, 
that is what the Senator from South Dakota and the cosponsors are 
attempting to do, to give reservists the same kind of health care 
Federal employees have. That includes paying their own part of the 
premium but again having access to health insurance, which is so 
important for us to have a healthy Reserve Corps.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will be in a better position tomorrow to 
reply to our distinguished colleagues. We have some material coming 
over from the Department of Defense. It has not been authenticated with 
a signature yet. Until such time as it is authenticated as accurate, in 
fact, this Senator is reluctant to draw any conclusions with respect to 
points about which he would be comfortable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a few remarks I 
make be as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Hatch are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the Defense 
authorization bill that we are debating today and for the remainder of 
this week.
  I first want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their 
courtesy, for their thoughtfulness, and for their collegiality in the 
conduct of the committee in the preparation of this bill. They are two 
Senators I respect and admire greatly. I thank them for their help and 
participation.
  This is, overall, a very good bill that meets the needs of our 
fighting men and women. I have some reservations which I will talk 
about tonight, and during the course of the week I will suggest some 
improvements in the bill. But overall, this represents a thorough and 
consistent and appropriate discharge of our responsibility to ensure 
that the men and women of our Armed Forces are the best prepared and 
best cared for in the world.
  Let me also say this year I had the privilege and the opportunity to 
serve as the ranking member of the Emerging Threat and Capability 
Subcommittee. I had the pleasure of working with Senator Pat Roberts of 
Kansas. I also want to thank Senator Roberts for his courtesy and 
thoughtfulness and for his collegiality. He created a cooperative 
spirit on the committee which resulted in legislation that is both 
thoughtful and which I think is a vast improvement for the men and 
women of our military services.
  The package supported and presented by the subcommittee dealt with a 
range of subjects. The subcommittee itself was created 4 years ago to 
deal with new emerging threats and our response to these threats. The 
subcommittee looked at issues such as the proliferation of weapons of 
mass destruction, terrorism, and information warfare, and it also 
focused on ways in which we can respond to these threats.
  One of the areas, for example, is the Defense Science and Technology 
Program--providing the research and the analysis that makes our forces 
the most technologically advanced in the world.
  Another area we are concerned about is the Cooperative Threat 
Reduction Program. There is a rather simple and obvious point: If we 
can reduce the threats, that is a better way than to respond to those 
threats if they are poised against us.
  We are also concerned about our special operations forces. I think we 
have all seen in the past few months how effective and how important 
these forces are. They really are the tip of the spear when it comes to 
our efforts on the war on terrorism.
  Needless to say, the Emerging Threats Subcommittee is obviously 
involved in many issues that are of critical importance today.
  Let me speak just briefly about some of the issues as we approach the 
committee markup.
  Science and technology is a critical component of our warfighting 
capability. This was brought home to me graphically in August of 2001. 
About 20-plus years ago, I commanded an infantry company--a parachute 
company--of the 82nd Airborne Division. And in August of 2001, I went 
back to Fort Bragg to watch a live fire demonstration by a division of 
the 82nd Airborne Division. I was, of course, very pleased with the 
toughness and skills of the paratroopers. But I was also impressed with 
the technology. Each soldier had a night vision device, and each 
soldier had a laser-aiming device on their weapon. Twenty-five years 
ago, there was one star-light scope for the whole platoon. It was a 
big, bulky device which we carried around and used sparingly. There was 
no laser-aiming device on their weapons.

  These are graphic examples of the impact of science and technology on 
our ability to fight. They have made our soldiers, marines, and airmen 
the most formidable in the world because when we couple this technology 
with their skills and spirit and their courage, they are unstoppable.
  I am pleased this bill includes provisions that strengthen the 
coordination between the Science and Technology Program. We really want 
to ensure that we get the maximum value from our technological 
investment.
  I am also very pleased the bill includes Senator Lieberman's 
legislation which will increase research on technologies to help 
improve communications and networking and to help address our bandwidth 
crisis in the field.
  Again, 25 years ago when I commanded troops, bandwidth was a concept 
which no one talked about. Today, it is an item that is critical to the 
success of any military force.
  When members of the committee go out--as I know my colleagues do--and 
visit troops and talk to commanding officers, one of their consistent 
complaints is, We just do not have enough bandwidth. We don't have 
enough space on the spectrum to push out all the digital information we 
have to all of our warfighters instantaneously.
  So I think Senator Lieberman's proposal will give us an added impetus 
to examine these issues of bandwidth and conductivity. It is literally 
the electronic backbone of our military forces. There are some issues 
of concern which I have with respect to science and technology. All of 
our experts looking at the appropriate level of funding for science and 
technology suggest that we should be investing about 3 percent of the 
defense budget in those programs. Secretary Rumsfeld has said the 
Quadrennial Defense Review made that point, and the Defense Science 
Board has endorsed this laudable goal of 3 percent expenditure on 
science and technology. However, last year the final defense budget did 
not reach 3 percent, and this year the President's request was $1 
billion below last year's vital defense budget.
  While I am pleased to note that this bill adds nearly $500 million to 
the Defense Science and Technology Program and supports significant 
investments in university research, advanced research to support 
special operations, and advanced undersea warfare technologies, the 
funding levels fall short of this 3 percent.
  I think we have to maintain robust investment in our science and 
technology. We tried to close the gap, but there is still a gap. I hope 
in the next reauthorization--indeed in the conference--we can try to 
close this gap.
  In the area of nonproliferation programs, we all understand that 
weapons

[[Page S6592]]

of mass destruction is one of the key threats, particularly if they get 
into the hands of terrorists. One of the most cost-effective ways to 
deal with this issue of nonproliferation is to support the Threat 
Reduction Program. I am pleased to report again that this bill 
authorizes full funding of these threat reduction and nonproliferation 
programs, including the Nunn-Lugar program.
  This full funding is critical if we are going to eliminate the 
proliferation threat and if we are going to lower the danger that these 
materials pose to us, particularly if they get into the hands of 
terrorists.
  Also, the bill includes authority to use Cooperative Threat Reduction 
Program funds outside the former Soviet Union under appropriate 
circumstances, as requested by the President.
  Again, I think we have to recognize there are many places in the 
world, regrettably, where material could fall into the wrong hands. 
This gives the President authority for a much wider geographic approach 
on proliferation.
  One of the problems we particularly worry about is the presence of a 
vast stockpile of lethal, chemical weapons--some of them small enough 
to fit into a briefcase--in Russia. This is the residue of years and 
years of Soviet research.

  Under the Nunn-Lugar program, we have a project to destroy all those 
weapons so they cannot be used and do not fall into the hands of 
terrorists. There is a set of conditions that requires a Presidential 
certification before the money can be spent, but this bill provides the 
President a 1-year waiver of the certification so funds can be used to 
destroy these chemical weapons. Again, I thank Chairman Roberts, 
particularly, for his consideration of this request and for his 
willingness to provide this 1-year waiver.
  As I said before, our special operations community each day 
demonstrates their incredible value in our war against terrorism. In 
recognition of the expanded role of the special operations forces, the 
Secretary of Defense has declared that rather than simply being a 
supporting command, special operations would be a command in itself.
  Let me try to parse that. Before special operations command supported 
the CINCs, CENTCOM, SOUTHCOM. Today, they not only support these CINCs, 
but they are their own command in and of themselves with new 
responsibilities.
  I applaud this decision, but I believe Congress should have a better 
appreciation of the new role that special operations command is taking 
on. Therefore, the committee included, at my suggestion, a 
recommendation so the Secretary of Defense can report to us information 
regarding this new role.
  The information would include items such as the military strategy for 
utilizing special operations troops to fight the global war on 
terrorism and how the proposal contributes to the overall national 
security strategy with regard to the war on terrorism; the scope of the 
authorities granted to the commander of the special operations command 
by the Secretary of Defense; the operational and legal parameters 
within which special operations forces will exercise these authorities; 
the impact on existing special operations missions; the decisionmaking 
mechanisms, to include consultation with Congress, that will be 
involved in authorizing, planning, and conducting these operations; and 
future organizational and resource requirements for conducting the 
global counterterrorism mission.
  I believe the answers to these questions will help us frame our 
oversight responsibility, and I also think it will help provide the 
details for the special operations commander and the Department of 
Defense in relation to their responsibilities and their missions in 
this new responsibility they have been given.
  These are just some of the highlights with respect to the Emerging 
Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee. I want my colleagues to know of 
these threats. There are other issues I would like to comment upon in 
addition to those related to my responsibilities on the subcommittee.
  There was, in the committee, a proposal to, in my view, change the 
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. I thank my colleagues because, 
through collaboration with Senators Ensign, Allen, and others, we were 
able to do what I think the committee wanted to do: to provide the 
opportunity to temporarily suspend these regulations if property is 
needed by a State for emergency purposes but not to undermine 
completely and irrevocably the responsibility we have to provide 
suitable excess Government facilities for homeless purposes. I am very 
pleased and proud the committee was so responsive and so cooperative in 
that regard.
  I also included in the bill an amendment which again was adopted 
unanimously--I thank my colleagues--that would direct the Secretary of 
Defense to provide guidelines to the Defense Policy Board. This is an 
advisory committee consisting of distinguished Americans who provide 
advice and insight, without compensation, to the Secretary of Defense. 
It is a very important board but recently it has come under some 
criticism.
  I think in order to dispel that criticism but also to convince and 
assure the public that access to information and access to key 
decisionmakers is not being used for profit-making purposes but solely 
is an exercise in the patriotism of the individual members of the 
board, I ask that the Secretary of Defense provide guidelines. I hope 
these guidelines are forthcoming. I think they will be useful. I am 
pleased they are now included within the bill.
  Let me turn to several other topics quickly because I see my 
colleagues are also in the Chamber to speak.
  Within the context of missile defense is an area of the bill that I 
have some grave reservations. We have decided to pursue missile 
defense. The President has made the decision, and it is his prerogative 
to do so, to withdraw from the ABM Treaty. The question before us today 
is, will we do this in a logical, thorough, systematic way? Will we do 
it in a way in which we can assure the American public we are 
proceeding with all deliberate speed but also in a way that we can 
justify a product that eventually will be useful to national defense? 
These are the basic issues that come before us today.
  The President has announced, however, that he intends to field a 
national missile defense system by September 2004, despite the fact the 
Pentagon's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation concluded, in 
his fiscal year 2002 annual report, that the system ``has yet to 
demonstrate significant operational capability.'' So the plan, in 
effect, is to field the system before we even know if it will work.
  I think that raises grave questions about the usefulness of such a 
system and grave questions about the level of funding that is going to 
support a system if we are not ready to declare it operationally useful 
yet we are ready to declare it will be deployed.
  We also understand after 9/11 there are other ways to attack the 
homeland of the United States and that it is not just through the use 
of long-range missiles. We have to, in our debate and our discussions 
and our decisions, be very careful with resources that could be spent 
in other ways to protect our country and our homeland, particularly.
  One of the other aspects of the system that is proposed for 
deployment is that the decision has been made to field this system 
without a radar capable of distinguishing between a warhead and a 
decoy. The radar is a key aspect of any missile defense system.
  Indeed, the Clinton administration was criticized very harshly for 
their national Missile Defense Program, yet this administration has 
decided to deploy a system that appears, at least on the surface, to be 
far less capable than the one proposed by President Clinton, 
particularly when it comes to the radar architecture.
  Another issue, with respect to missile defense, is the decision to 
significantly reduce the number of tests. Ironically, it seems that one 
of the byproducts of the President's decision to rapidly field a 
national missile defense is a concomitant reduction in the amount of 
testing. It seems to me that is sort of doing things exactly the wrong 
way; that if you are going to accelerate deployment, you would 
accelerate testing also.

  I believe if we are going to have confidence in a system that we 
field, we have to make the investment in testing now, and not just 
simply reply upon our faith in technology that has not yet been 
adequately tested.

[[Page S6593]]

  Originally, 20 national missile defense tests had been scheduled to 
occur between mid-2002 and 2007, but after the President's deployment 
decision, 9 of these 20 tests were canceled without explanation. 
Furthermore, the scheduled date to complete this new, very minimal test 
plan is now 2009 instead of 2007. That is 5 years after the advertised 
deployment of this system in 2004.
  We have to recognize this Missile Defense Program is the largest 
single acquisition program in the Department of Defense, with a budget 
request of more than $9 billion in fiscal year 2004 alone.
  For perspective, this funding could buy 9 DDG-51-class destroyers, 45 
F-22 Raptor fighter aircraft, or more than 2,800 Stryker armored 
vehicles. So the decisions we make are not without cost, not without 
opportunity costs.
  The investment we make in missiles means, quite literally, we cannot 
buy new destroyers; today we cannot buy more F-22 Raptor fighter 
aircraft; we cannot buy more Stryker armored vehicles. So again, I 
think we have to look very carefully at the deployment, at the testing.
  I think we are all committed to the notion of someday putting in 
place a missile defense system that will effectively defend the United 
States, but we cannot do it hastily, and we cannot do it simply on a 
wish that it works. I believe we have to prove it works before we 
deploy it or simply declare it is deployed.
  Over the last several years, we have tried to put some structure, if 
you will, in the Missile Defense Program. For example, at the beginning 
of fiscal year 2002, Congress required that the Bush administration 
establish cost, schedule, testing, and performance goals for missile 
defense, and we directed the General Accounting Office to review 
whether progress was being made toward these established goals.
  By the end of 2002, the Bush administration had still not established 
any meaningful goals for missile defense. Consequently, in November 
2002, the Director of Acquisition and Sourcing Management at the GAO 
wrote to the committee to say that since no goals had been established, 
GAO could not complete its review.
  I think, at a minimum, there should be costs, there should be 
schedules, there should be goals, certainly at a level so the GAO can 
at least offer a preliminary assessment of whether these goals are 
being achieved or what effort must be expended to achieve these goals. 
That is something that has not been done.
  I support prudent research and development and testing on national 
missile defense, but I think ultimately we all want to assure the 
American people that when we put something in the field, it will work, 
and that we know precisely what it will do when it is in the field. I 
don't think that is too much to ask the administration.

  Finally, let me cover a topic that will receive a great deal of 
attention over the next couple days. That is the issue of nuclear 
policy. I have grave concerns over some of the provisions in the bill. 
Under the guise of maintaining flexibility and keeping all options 
open, this bill approves and encourages the administration to continue 
its push to develop, test, deploy, and possibly use nuclear weapons. I 
heard my colleague Senator Levin earlier today referencing the quote by 
former Ambassador Brooks, the head of NSSA, who said his bias is to 
something that can be used. For many decades, our bias was against even 
thinking about the use of nuclear weapons if we could avoid it.
  One of the consequences of the proposal for a low-yield nuclear 
weapon, for a robust nuclear earth penetrator is, if not a fact, an 
observation that as you make weapons such that their collateral damage 
is minimal, there is a tendency to use them. We have to ask ourselves 
in our recent conflict in Baghdad, would we have dropped dumb bombs in 
the middle of crowded neighborhoods in an attempt to attack the 
leadership of Iraq? It would have been a much harder call. But because 
we had precision weapons with low collateral damage, as a result the 
call was much easier--a tough call, nevertheless, but easier.
  I fear that as we move down this path for low-yield nuclear weapons, 
more usable nuclear weapons, the threshold, the inhibition against use 
will come down also. This is just not another tool in our tool kit. 
Nuclear weapons have been, since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a weapon every 
nation has tried to avoid using in combat. I hope we can continue that 
effort, but I fear the language, the momentum, the incentives that have 
created these exceptions in the bill are driving us down the wrong 
path.
  We should respond by amending the legislation to reflect the 
continuing desire to put nuclear weapons outside of use, to 
delegitimize their use in conflict. We will have opportunity over the 
next several days to debate in much more detail the issue of nuclear 
weapons, the issue of missile defense.
  I believe this legislation overall is sound. If we could make 
successful amendments to some of the provisions with respect to missile 
defense and particularly the provisions with respect to nuclear 
weapons, we can send to conference a bill of which we will all be very 
proud. I hope in the next few days we can do that.
  I thank the chairman and ranking member for their thoughtful approach 
and for their continued efforts over the next few days.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the very valued member of the 
committee, a graduate of West Point, served on active duty. I am not 
sure I would want to be in that company you commanded; pretty rough 
character. You are too modest.
  You referenced the $500 million added to this bill for S&T, and it 
sort of came out of the subcommittee. You and Senator Roberts deserve a 
lot of credit for that. That is money well invested.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if I could ask the Senator to yield for 30 
seconds so I could add my thanks to the Senator from Rhode Island for 
his indispensable contribution to the Armed Services Committee. He 
mentioned a few issues where he had some very strong feelings. These 
issues are just a few of the many where he has made an extraordinary 
contribution by experience and by intellect. He is really in a position 
to add immeasurably to the work of our committee. We are all very much 
in his debt for it.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to express my 
support for the Department of Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 
2004. I particularly thank Chairman Warner and ranking member Senator 
Levin for the extraordinary job they do each and every day to ensure 
our national security priorities are adequately addressed. I also thank 
them both for continuing to work in a bipartisan way to ensure that 
decisions are made in the best interests of the country.
  As the new ranking member for the Personnel Subcommittee, I have 
enjoyed working with the subcommittee chairman, Senator Chambliss. I 
hope the President will take note of the complimentary remarks I am 
going to make about the chairman. I congratulate him for the 
outstanding leadership of this subcommittee. Together we have kept our 
focus on doing what we can to improve the quality of life of our 
service members, Active and Reserve, their families, our retirees, and 
civilian employees. I particularly appreciate his personal attention 
and cooperation with me.
  I am particularly pleased about several provisions in the 
subcommittee mark that reflect our appreciation for the sacrifices of 
our service members and our desire to see they are adequately 
compensated when placed in harm's way. These include a minimum pay 
raise of 3.7 percent especially for the junior service members who have 
received less under the administration's proposal; a change in the high 
PERSTEMPO allowance that will actually put money in the pockets of our 
service members who deploy frequently; increases in imminent danger 
pay, family separation allowances and, as Senator Collins mentioned, 
the death gratuity; and authorization for full replacement coverage for 
lost or damaged household goods.
  Our mark also includes provisions that address concerns and needs of 
our Reserve and National Guard service members who are serving so 
successfully. These include extending survivor benefit plan annuities 
to surviving spouses of reservists who died from an injury or illness 
incurred in the line of

[[Page S6594]]

duty during inactive duty training; a requirement for specially trained 
beneficiary counseling and assistance coordinators to help our National 
Guard and Reserve members and their families navigate the complex 
TRICARE health system; medical and dental screening and care for 
Reserve component members as soon as they are alerted for deployment; 
and a requirement for the Secretary of Defense to report on the 
mobilization of the reserves that will give us the data we need to make 
needed changes in the force mix and use of our Guard and Reserve 
personnel.
  I am also pleased the committee responded to legislation I introduced 
to provide a special pay incentive for Reservists, National Guard, and 
Active Duty service members who deploy for long durations. This 
incentive will help alleviate some of the hardships suffered by 
military families when their loved ones are called up for lengthy or 
numerous deployments. With the Armed Forces depending on military 
reserves for such a large percentage of troops, more and more sailors, 
soldiers, air personnel, and marines are facing long call-ups that keep 
them away from their regular employment. These call-ups produce a 
severe financial hardship for the troops as their normal employment 
lives and income are disrupted, often for months, and in some cases for 
up to 2 years.
  Finally, I fully endorse the supplemental impact aid contained in our 
mark. We simply have to ensure the schools that educate our sons and 
daughters of military personnel have adequate funding to provide for a 
quality education. Our service members will leave, and we will be 
unable to recruit if we don't provide this for their families.
  I greatly appreciate the bipartisan manner in which the chairman, 
Senator Chambliss, has chaired the Personnel Subcommittee, and I 
believe we have worked as a team and with a common goal of improving 
the lives of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, DOD civilians, 
retirees, and the families of all these groups. I thank him for his 
excellent leadership, and also thank his staff, Dick Walsh and Mrs. 
Lewis, and Mr. Gary Leeling from the Democratic staff.
  I again thank Chairman Warner and Senator Levin for their leadership.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his work on the 
committee. We value very much his contributions. He is very fair and 
open-minded in the manner in which he makes decisions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is very appropriate that our Presiding 
Officer is the chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee. He and Senator 
Ben Nelson have worked closely together to give us a product of which 
we can be proud. We are very indebted to the two of you.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.


                 Amendment No. 696 to Amendment No. 689

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I have an amendment to the pending 
amendment, and I send it to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Graham] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 696 to amendment No. 689.

  Mr. GRAHAM. 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:

       On page 157, line 8:
       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted insert the 
     following:
       ``(f)(1) At any time after the Secretary concerned notifies 
     the commander of a unit of the Selected Reserve of the Ready 
     Reserve that all members of the unit are to be called or 
     ordered to active duty under a provision of law referred to 
     in section 101(a)(13)(B) in support of an operation mission 
     or contingency operation during a natural emergency or in 
     time of war. This shall become effective one day after 
     enactment of the bill.
       On page 157, line 19 in lieu of the matter to be inserted 
     insert the following:
       ``(2) A member provided medical or dental screening or care 
     under paragraph (1) may not be charged for the screening or 
     care. This section shall become effective two days after 
     enactment.

     SEC. ____. EXPANDED ELIGIBILITY OF READY RESERVISTS FOR 
                   TRICARE.

       (a) Eligibility.--Chapter 55 of title 10, United 5 States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 1097b the 
     following new section:

      ``Sec. 1097c. TRICARE program: Reserves not on active duty

       ``(a) Eligibility.--A member of the Selected Reserve of the 
     Ready Reserve of the armed forces not otherwise eligible for 
     enrollment in the TRICARE program under this chapter for the 
     same benefits as a member of the armed forces eligible under 
     section 1074(a) of this title may enroll for self or for self 
     and family for the same benefits under this section.
       ``(b) Premiums.--(1) An enlisted member of the armed forces 
     enrolled in the TRICARE program under this section shall pay 
     an annual premium of $330 for self only coverage and $560 for 
     self and family coverage for which enrolled under this 
     section.
       ``(2) An officer of the armed forces enrolled in the 
     TRICARE program under this section shall pay an annual 
     premium of $380 for self only coverage and $610 for self and 
     family coverage for which enrolled under this section.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to section 1097b the following new item:

``1097c. Section 101 head.''.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Zell 
Miller be added as a cosponsor to my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I compliment Senator 
Daschle and the folks he worked with to try to come up with the 
solution to the retention problem we are going to have. It is 
inevitable because these forces are being utilized at such rates.
  Senator Daschle put forward an amendment that would basically allow 
Guard and Reserve personnel the benefit of health care as a condition 
of membership. I congratulate him for doing that. I have an amendment 
that has a little bit different approach to it. We have similar 
cosponsors. The reason I am doing this is to get my amendment out so we 
can have two looks at the same problem and see if we can address the 
concerns that are growing in the country regarding the utilization 
rates of Guard and Reserve personnel.
  The comment the chairman had about Senator Daschle's amendment he 
will have about this amendment. We need to look at it. There is no 
money in the budget resolution for it. But I think what we are trying 
to do, in a bipartisan fashion, is put on the table for the country to 
digest, as well as the Senate, House, and Department of Defense, what 
it is going to be like 10 or 20 years from now if we keep using Guard 
and Reserve members at the level we are doing it now.
  The honest answer is, if you are in the Guard and Reserve, you are 
going to be called on more and not less because the war on terrorism 
will go on for a while. It is not anywhere near over. Iraq has a 
component to it for the Guard and Reserve. People are in Bosnia, and 
that is a Guard function. This amendment, along with what Senator 
Daschle is trying to do, puts some new programs on the table to make it 
more attractive to enlist in the Reserve or Guard and to stay.
  Senator Warner's concerns are very legitimate. The force has changed. 
The utilization rates of Guard and Reserve forces have changed. In the 
last gulf war, I was serving at MacIntire National Guard base as a 
staff judge advocate for the base. During that service, it was eye 
opening for me. When a Guard member is called to active duty, as our 
units were, half of the people went over to the desert; the other half 
stayed behind. I stayed behind to provide legal services to the members 
and their families.
  When you are called to active duty, more times than not the pay you 
receive versus that as a civilian goes down. There are provisions under 
the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act to allow renegotiation of 
interest payments, and to do some short-term things to make the burden 
of being called to active duty for a Guard or Reserve family a bit 
easier to bear. But more times than not, there is a dramatic reduction 
in income for the Guard and Reserve member called to active duty. 
Sometimes these tours can last a year or more.
  What we are trying to do is create a benefit package that is not 
better than the Active Forces and that complements the Guard and 
Reserve forces

[[Page S6595]]

and provides an incentive that will make it more attractive to stay. If 
you are a small business owner, as a Guard or Reserve member, sometimes 
your business suffers greatly. As a lawyer, I was called to active duty 
for about 100 days, so my partners had to take over my obligations. If 
I had been a sole practitioner, it would have been tough. But that is 
what you sign up for--to help your country.

  We are suggesting to create a benefit package more like that of the 
Active Forces, and one that is more user friendly. When a Guard or 
Reserve member is called to active duty, family counseling is not 
usually available at those bases. Some are at civilian airports. 
Military families have counseling available. They have many assets 
available on Air Force and Army bases that provide support for the 
families. Literally, the Guard and Reserve families have to make it up 
as they go.
  Our Presiding Officer is a cosponsor of the bill. He has been a great 
advocate of the Guard and Reserve and Active Forces.
  We have to understand this is one big family. The Guard and Reserve 
component serves in a unique way, but it is vital to the overall 
mission. What we are trying to do--Senator Daschle and myself and 
others, in a bipartisan fashion--is address the health care problem. 
Here is what happens. If you are called to active duty and you are in 
the civilian community, you have one set of doctors and health care 
network available to you. When you are activated, you have to change 
systems. So we are trying to create continuity of health care.
  My main goal is to allow a Guard or Reserve member to access health 
care in a fashion that makes health care better for the overall 
military family unit. This is the difference between our approach and 
Senator Daschle's. His bill has two ways that a Guard or Reserve family 
can have access to health care. One is that they can sign up for 
TRICARE at the same participation rate as Federal employees, and that 
would be $420 for a single individual, $1,446 for a Guard or Reserve 
family.
  Our bill allows you to be a member of TRICARE as an active-duty 
military family, and your premiums would be $330 for a single enlisted 
person, $560 for enlisted families, $380 for a single officer, $610 for 
an officer's family. Basically, we have taken what a military retiree 
would pay in premiums to be a member of TRICARE and added $100 in 
additional costs for an enlisted person, $150 for an officer. That is 
still a great deal. It lowers the cost. It is cheaper to the military 
families in Senator Daschle's approach.
  The big difference between our amendments is that, under Senator 
Daschle's amendment, the Federal Government--the military could pay a 
subsidy to the private sector health insurance company covering the 
military person, the Guard or Reserve person.
  My concern with that is the study that we have seen suggests it may 
be that up to 90 percent Guard or Reserve people will choose an option 
where the Government subsidizes health care in the private sector. My 
goal is to get more people into TRICARE to make it better for the 
overall military family, and at affordable rates.
  It is a distinction that matters somewhat. But the point of both of 
these amendments is to provide health care to Guard and Reserve 
families that has a continuity component and that is affordable. We 
need to address this as a nation because you have given some numbers on 
the other side about how many Guard or Reserve families don't have 
health care or adequate health care. Both bills take us in that 
direction. The key difference is, under my proposal, it would work in a 
bipartisan fashion with Senator Clinton and others. A Guard or Reserve 
family, or military person, would be in the TRICARE system like their 
active-duty component, giving a boost to TRICARE overall.
  I wanted to bring this amendment to the floor. I congratulate Senator 
Daschle and all the Republicans and Democrats, including both of my 
colleagues from Georgia, Senators Miller and Chambliss. Senator Clinton 
appeared at a news conference when we unveiled the bill. Let me tell 
you, she has been terrific to work with. We are probably polar 
opposites in terms of political ideology most times, but to have her 
join this cause and help push this bill is a testament to the power of 
this bill and of this issue.
  With that said, I offer the amendment. I hope our colleagues will 
look at what both amendments do. I hope colleagues will look seriously 
at this body trying to provide, as soon as possible in the future, in a 
responsible way, health care to the entire military family unit.
  That unit does include in a substantial way Guard and Reserve 
members, and they are part of the military family. We cannot do a 
mission without the Guard and Reserve. We do not want to have a better 
benefits package. We want to have an attractive benefits package that 
will be good for retention and recruitment. That is the spirit in which 
this amendment is offered.
  The chairman's concerns are legitimate. This has been scored at $1.4 
billion a year. Senator Daschle's amendment is $1.2 billion a year, but 
they are not taking into account that under their proposal, many people 
would not go into TRICARE but ask for payments for their health care in 
the private sector.
  I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue.
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Absolutely.
  Mr. WARNER. I feel obligated to be consistent, even though there is a 
very clear difference between Senator Graham's amendment and that of 
the distinguished Democratic leader. There is no offset; is that my 
understanding?
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. That is correct. It is not paid for.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator clearly has indicated the first year may be 
$400 million to $500 million.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Yes, $400 million.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in the event this is carried by the 
Senate, goes to conference and survives, conferees will have to search 
within the confines of the bill to raise that money. My understanding 
is it is about $2 billion in the outyears per year; is that correct?
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. I think it is $1.4 billion, and Senator 
Daschle's amendment is $1.2 billion, but the points are well made.
  Mr. WARNER. At this time, I have to indicate my opposition. 
Regrettably, I do that, but I wish to be consistent and fair to all 
Senators. I am fearful if we do not carefully evaluate the whole 
panoply of amendments that are likely to come forward to improve the 
benefits for the Guard and Reserve, we are going to end up with a bill 
that might go tilt.
  I must say, though, I certainly share the Senator's views that the 
Guard and Reserve have done wonderful service, together with their 
families. It is exceedingly hard for these families to let their loved 
ones go on these missions. We shall look at it on the morrow. I thank 
the Senator for his courtesies.
  (Mr. ENSIGN assumed the chair.)
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator will yield--we are trying to 
figure out the numbers on this--just for a question?
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Yes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Perhaps we can get the numbers clarified overnight. 
Senator Daschle's estimate, after the first few years, where, I guess, 
there is a phase-in of some kind, is $1.2 billion, as the Senator from 
South Carolina indicated. I am trying to understand why that number 
might be lower than the number of the Senator from South Carolina, 
given the fact that under Senator Daschle's approach, the service 
members could keep their private insurance and then have it reimbursed 
by the Defense Department, which would seem to be a better deal for the 
service member. The service member has an option to maintain his 
private insurance but, on the other hand, might have a larger cost to 
the Government. I wonder if the numbers of the two amendments come from 
the same place and looking at the same time.

  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. That is a very good question. Here is 
my understanding of how those numbers relate to each other.
  The cost to the Government under Senator Daschle's package is $1.2 
billion per year. The package I am offering is $1.4 billion. So it is 
more costly to the Government with the way it is constructed at this 
point. To the military member, it is several hundred dollars a month 
and more advantageous with our proposal.

[[Page S6596]]

  Senator Daschle's proposal takes a 78-percent participation rate that 
all of us pay in the Federal health care program. What I do is take the 
retiree contribution to TRICARE and add $100 for enlisted and $150 for 
officers.
  Here is the big difference: By having the second option where the 
Federal Government will pay an unknown amount of the premium that a 
Reserve or Guard member has in the private sector and is not identified 
how much we will pay, that changes the participation rates 
dramatically.
  We have been told, under our proposal, it is a 70-percent 
participation rate. Under Senator Daschle's proposal, it is 50 percent. 
When you include the component of where we would pay to subsidize the 
private health care, it could go up to 90 percent in terms of that 
component, and nobody knows what that cost is.
  Mr. LEVIN. Is the Senator indicating the cost of maintaining the 
private care option is not included in the estimates that Senator 
Daschle received?
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. The participation rates are at 80,000. 
They are basing the current numbers on the 2002, 80,000 reservists 
mobilized. They are telling us that is not a true number; that, in 
reality, if this second option were offered, they would go from 80,000 
to almost 350,000, and that has to be included.
  Mr. LEVIN. So the Senator is suggesting--it is important to get these 
numbers straightened out overnight--that the cost to the Government of 
the second option that Senator Daschle offers, which is to maintain 
private insurance, that cost is not included in the estimate which was 
given to Senator Daschle?
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. It is not included in the true form. It 
has as a cost estimate using 80,000 reservists when, in fact, they tell 
us the participation rates will be three times higher than that.
  Mr. LEVIN. In which case the estimate would not be accurate.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. That is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. We are going to ask our staffs to take a look at this 
issue overnight. There is a real difference.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. I understand.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 1050, 
the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004. Before 
talking about this bill, I wish to comment on what my colleague from 
South Carolina just talked about with respect to his amendment on 
health care.
  I commend both he and Senator Daschle for their leadership on this 
particular issue. We are in some very difficult times in America from a 
military perspective. We are calling on our Guard and Reserve more and 
more every single day. We want to do more to provide the benefits to 
attract high-quality men and women into the Guard and Reserve and 
retain them once we get them there.
  We are getting our fair share of America's finest into the Guard and 
Reserve, and anything we can do from a benefits standpoint to make sure 
we continue to do that and to keep them there are issues we certainly 
need to look at.
  I personally like the concept of Senator Graham a little better than 
Senator Daschle's, although I am not in any way critical of Senator 
Daschle's amendment. What I like about Senator Graham's amendment is 
that we have a health care benefit within the active military that is 
called TRICARE. TRICARE is a fairly new health program which provides 
health care benefits to our active-duty personnel.
  We have had some problems with TRICARE in getting it implemented, but 
we have gotten most of those kinks in TRICARE worked out. What Senator 
Graham's amendment will do versus Senator Daschle's amendment is to 
strengthen TRICARE, and I think anything we can do to strengthen 
TRICARE and have it benefit the active duty, as well as the Guard and 
Reserve, is an approach we ought to use.
  I commend both Senators. Senator Graham has particularly taken a 
leadership role with regard to this issue. I certainly have enjoyed 
working with him on it.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Personnel within the Armed 
Services Committee, it has been a distinct honor and privilege for this 
freshman Senator to work with Senator Warner and Senator Levin. They 
are two men during my 8 years in the House of Representatives for whom 
I came to have great respect and great admiration, not just for their 
leadership on armed services issues, but on other matters as well, and 
to have the opportunity to work with them in the very close way I have 
had the chance to do over the last several months since becoming a 
member of the Armed Services Committee has been a distinct pleasure for 
me. They have certainly worked well together and worked in a bipartisan 
way within the committee to make sure we did produce a bipartisan bill.
  America's defense is not a political issue. It is not a Republican 
issue or a Democratic issue. It is an American issue. These two 
gentlemen have provided the type of leadership America so desperately 
likes to see when it comes to any issue, but particularly with respect 
to defense issues.
  I commend my ranking member, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska. First of 
all, Senator Nelson is a very gracious and grand American gentleman. 
The Senator from Nebraska has a number of military installations he 
represents, and to have the chance to visit with him on issues that are 
unique to Nebraska versus issues that are unique to Georgia has really 
been a delight for me.
  What I have enjoyed doing most of all in working with Senator Nelson 
is talking about issues that are of concern to our men and women in the 
military with respect to quality of life, educating their children, 
paying them greater benefits, whether it is pay raises or health care 
benefits or whatever. There is no greater champion for the men and 
women in our military uniforms than Senator Ben Nelson. I have truly 
enjoyed working with him and am very pleased we were able to craft a 
section of the Defense Authorization Act for 2004 together, and to do 
so in a very bipartisan way.
  The committee recommended authorization of $99.2 billion for military 
personnel, an increase of $4.8 billion over the fiscal year 2003 
authorization. It also approved several key provisions I will outline 
that fulfill our committee's express goal of continuing our commitment 
to improving the quality of life for the men and women of the Armed 
Forces--active duty, Reserve, Guard, and Retired--and their families.
  S. 1050 authorizes an across-the-board pay raise of 3.7 percent for 
all military personnel. Additionally, targeted pay raises ranging from 
5.25 percent to 6.25 percent are authorized for warrant officers and 
the Service's most experienced noncommissioned officers. These pay 
raises, along with existing incentive pays and bonuses, will continue 
to make careers in the military more attractive and send the message to 
all active and Reserve component personnel that their service in 
uniform is invaluable.
  Following up on the initiative taken by the Senate in the Emergency 
Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2003, the 
committee recommended permanent increases in the family separation 
allowance, from $100 to $250 a month, and in hostile fire, imminent 
danger pay from $150 a month to $250 a month. The subcommittee also 
supported legislative changes to high deployment pay proposed by DoD 
that will require close tracking of individual deployments and 
appropriately compensate those members who are repeatedly called away 
from their home bases for extended periods of time. These increases 
recognize the sacrifices made by military personnel and their loved 
ones who endure separations and the harsh realities of defending the 
Nation in the global war on terrorism.
  The committee approved an incentive pay of $100 a month for military 
personnel stationed in Korea. Arduous working conditions, substandard 
housing, and tours of duty unaccompanied by family members are 
hallmarks of duty in Korea. As the Nation marks the fourth and final 
year of the United States' 50th Anniversary of the Korean War 
Commemoration, and as the need for continuing vigilance on the Korean 
Peninsula becomes ever clear, thus additional compensation for service 
members in Korea is fully justified.

  The subcommittee members were very concerned about the welfare of

[[Page S6597]]

survivors of all deceased military personnel--active duty, Reserve, and 
Retired. The committee accepted our recommendations to double the death 
gratuity from $6,000 to $12,000 retroactive to 9/11, 2001, and to 
extend automatic survivor benefit plan benefits to survivors of 
inactive duty Reservists who die while serving on active duty.
  The committee responded to requests from the Department of Defense 
for assistance in force shaping by authorizing a new incentive pay for 
military personnel in overmanned ratings to encourage them to accept 
the challenge of converting to ratings and military occupational 
specialties that are experiencing shortages.
  The committee responded to concerns about the operation of TRICARE 
standard, directing the Secretary of Defense to take necessary measures 
to ensure the adequacy of this TRICARE option.
  The committee approved a proposal that will authorize unlimited use 
of military commissaries by qualifying members of the Ready Reserve. 
The ``citizen soldiers'' of the Guard and Reserve, who have so ably 
answered the Nation's call, before and after the attack of September 
2001, deserve full access to this important benefit of service.
  The committee authorized additional Army National Guard and Air 
National Guard full-time support personnel to assist in fielding 12 
additional weapons of mass destruction civil support teams. Upon 
implementation, this will raise the total number of teams nationwide to 
44.
  The committee included a provision that will facilitate medical and 
dental screening and medical care for members of the Selected Reserve 
who are assigned to units that have been alerted for mobilization. The 
committee also included a provision that will ensure that Guard and 
Reserve leaders are eligible for command responsibility pay.
  These are only a few highlights of S. 1050 which, I believe, indicate 
our sincere commitment to our troops and their families. As chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Personnel, I am proud to be a part of ensuring that 
we meet that commitment.
  I will take a minute to commend our staff. As many hours as we put 
in--it is now 7:15 tonight and we will be going later than that--staff 
put in many more hours than we did. To my committee staffers, Dick 
Walsh and Patty Lewis, we say thank you for a great job and for all of 
your hard work and dedication to the men and women in uniform, and to 
Gary Leeling, who is the Democratic staffer who has worked so closely 
with Dick and Patty.
  This has been a joint effort on the part of all three of these 
staffers. The same way Senator Nelson and I have worked in a bipartisan 
way, these folks have worked in a bipartisan way.
  Gary, we say thanks to you for a terrific job on behalf of all of our 
men and women.
  Again, I thank Senator Nelson for his outstanding work and his 
cooperation. It has been a pleasure to work with him. We cannot say 
enough about the great leadership Senator Warner and Senator Levin, and 
their service to our country, particularly their service to the men and 
women who serve in uniform in every branch of our military. They are 
doing a terrific job of making sure the American military is second to 
no other military in the world.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, before our distinguished colleague departs 
the floor, I appreciate his thoughtful comments, but I guarantee him--
Senator Levin and I have been doing this now for 25 years, but we are 
no stronger than the members we have on the committee. When the Senator 
from Georgia joined us, our strength increased. I intend to get that 
work product out of him 100 percent. I thank him for joining us, and 
for all he does on this committee and for the men and women in the 
Armed Forces.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Members of the Senate who 
participated in the progress today. We have had good colloquies and 
strong statements. We have two pending amendments. I hope the 
respective leaders tomorrow can establish a time for voting on those 
amendments. Senator Levin and myself are going to be right here from 
roughly 10 a.m. on. I am hopeful that other amendments can be brought 
forward. We are anxious--and it is a bipartisan desire--to move this 
bill at its earliest time because we have important legislative 
measures that must be addressed this week prior to the recess that is 
scheduled.

  One more of great significance is action on the debt limit. I am 
quite sure we are not going to leave town until that is in place.


                           Amendment No. 697

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I send an amendment to the desk and I ask unanimous consent 
the pending amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for himself, Mr. 
     Dorgan, and Mr. Nelson of Florida, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 697.

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

  (Purpose: To permit retired members of the Armed Forces who have a 
 service-connected disability to receive both military retired pay by 
 reason of their years of military service and disability compensation 
     from the Department of Veterans Affairs for their disability)

       At the end of subtitle D of title VI, add the following:

     SEC. 644. FULL PAYMENT OF BOTH RETIRED PAY AND COMPENSATION 
                   TO DISABLED MILITARY RETIREES.

       (a) Restoration of Full Retired Pay Benefits.--Section 1414 
     of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``Sec. 1414. Members eligible for retired pay who have 
       service-connected disabilities: payment of retired pay and 
       veterans' disability compensation

       ``(a) Payment of Both Retired Pay and Compensation.--Except 
     as provided in subsection (b), a member or former member of 
     the uniformed services who is entitled to retired pay (other 
     than as specified in subsection (c)) and who is also entitled 
     to veterans' disability compensation is entitled to be paid 
     both without regard to sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38.
       ``(b) Special Rule for Chapter 61 Career Retirees.--The 
     retired pay of a member retired under chapter 61 of this 
     title with 20 years or more of service otherwise creditable 
     under section 1405 of this title at the time of the member's 
     retirement is subject to reduction under sections 5304 and 
     5305 of title 38, but only to the extent that the amount of 
     the member's retired pay under chapter 61 of this title 
     exceeds the amount of retired pay to which the member would 
     have been entitled under any other provision of law based 
     upon the member's service in the uniformed services if the 
     member had not been retired under chapter 61 of this title.
       ``(c) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not apply to a member 
     retired under chapter 61 of this title with less than 20 
     years of service otherwise creditable under section 1405 of 
     this title at the time of the member's retirement.
       ``(d) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `retired pay' includes retainer pay, 
     emergency officers' retirement pay, and naval pension.
       ``(2) The term `veterans' disability compensation' has the 
     meaning given the term `compensation' in section 101(13) of 
     title 38.''.
       (b) Repeal of Special Compensation Programs.--Sections 1413 
     and 1413a of such title are repealed.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by striking the items 
     relating to sections 1413, 1413a, and 1414 and inserting the 
     following:

``1414. Members eligible for retired pay who have service-connected 
              disabilities: payment of retired pay and veterans' 
              disability compensation.''.

       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on--
       (1) the first day of the first month that begins after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act; or
       (2) the first day of the fiscal year that begins in the 
     calendar year in which this Act is enacted, if later than the 
     date specified in paragraph (1).
       (e) Prohibition on Retroactive Benefits.--No benefits may 
     be paid to any person by reason of section 1414 of title 10, 
     United States Code, as amended by subsection (a), for any 
     period before the effective date applicable under subsection 
     (d).

  Mr. REID. This is an amendment we have offered on a number of 
occasions.

[[Page S6598]]

We worked well with the two managers of the bill. This deals with 
concurrent receipts. This amendment is offered on my behalf and that of 
Senator Dorgan. I understand, with the strict rules we are working 
under this year, that this amendment may not be relevant according to 
the rule now before the Senate.
  I ask the Chair to rule on whether or not this amendment is relevant.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment is 
not relevant.
  Mr. REID. I accept the ruling of the Chair. I am disappointed. This 
is a very important issue. As I say, Senator Dorgan and I feel very 
strongly about this, and the two managers of the bill have been most 
generous in their work in conference. In the past, we have gotten 
nothing in the House; everything we have done has been in the Senate.
  I will look for another vehicle to move this forward in the future.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished leader. For many years now the 
Senator has taken strong leadership on this issue. At some point in 
time, the Senate and Congress as a whole will have to face this issue. 
I recognize that this is not a relevant amendment pursuant to the 
consent agreement and we cannot proceed.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me add my thanks to the Senator from 
Nevada for two things: First, for his faithful commitment to this 
issue. Currently, we see it as an issue of the Senator from Nevada and 
the Senator from North Dakota and a number of other Senators who have 
joined to try to bring equity in this area. We made at least some 
progress; it is because of their energy we have made the progress we 
have.
  Second, I thank him for his acceptance of the ruling of the Chair. It 
is very important he does that because all Members need to accept the 
rulings of the Chair in the absence, it seems to me, of some 
overwhelming unusual precedent that would allow us to try to overrule 
the Chair. The whip's, the Democratic whip's approach is one which I 
think reflects the best traditions and the best instincts of this body. 
I thank him.
  It also helped Senator Warner and I to complete this bill within the 
parameters of the unanimous consent agreement.
  Mr. REID. I ask my amendment be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 697) was withdrawn.

                          ____________________