[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 75 (Wednesday, June 2, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6312-S6323]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005--Continued


                           Amendment No. 3258

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, as to the points of the pending amendment 
that the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from South Dakota 
have spoken very eloquently about with regard to their amendment, I 
will interject briefly my own observations and strong opposition 
because I believe that the Armed Services Committee structured a very 
adequate program for the Reserves.
  I direct the attention of Members to page 135 and thereafter in the 
bill on each desk, which outlines what the committee did. Roughly, the 
President's bill had $300 million in allocations toward additional 
benefits for the Reserve and Guard. The committee went beyond that and 
added another $400 million, and now along comes this proposal which 
would add on top of that another $700 million.
  We are really beginning to face quite a severe dollar problem because 
unless this amendment is defeated, it would require the conference to 
seek out cuts in other military programs, all of those programs having 
been carefully evaluated by the two committees, the House and the 
Senate, and reduce them by some $700 million. That is the bottom line.
  The other reason I feel very strongly about that this proposed 
legislation is not in the best interest of the services, it really 
begins to provide for the Reserve and Guard Forces in a manner that is 
commensurate with the Active-Duty military personnel.
  Stop and think. When a young person--and oftentimes that person now 
has a family with a wife and vice versa as the case may be--sits down 
and evaluates their life and how they would like to make a commitment 
to service in uniform to this country, suddenly they look at the 
alternatives. Well, there is the Active and we get a certain degree of 
benefits under the Active; then there is the Reserve or the Guard, and 
they compare the benefits that they would get under that program. If 
this legislation is passed, it is beginning to close the last gap 
between the benefits on the Active side and the benefits on the Reserve 
and Guard side.
  Now, one might say, well, Senator, when the Reserves are called to 
active duty, they perform just as the Active member, and that is 
correct; they take the same risk as the Active member, and that is 
correct; the family assumes much the same hardships as the Active 
member, and that is correct. But when the Reserve completes his or her 
obligation of a callup, they return to the Reserve status, they return 
to their homes, they return to their civilian jobs and their life in 
the civilian community with such obligations as their Reserve or Guard 
requirements require.
  The Active person perhaps finishes their overseas commitment, they go 
back to the training base, they are fully in the military, fully 
subjected to the regimen of the military, fully subjected to going 
right back overseas on a very short turnaround basis. We have witnessed 
that during this conflict period covering the AORs of Afghanistan and 
Iraq. But the regular soldier, sailor, airman, and marine, when they 
commit to a tour of duty of 3 or 4 years' obligated service, or the 
officers accept their commissions and obligate themselves for 4 or 5 
years, whatever the case may be, they understand that, but it makes for 
equity and fairness that the Active rolls have some benefits that 
compensate for the rigors, the constant risk, the constant disruption, 
the constant moving of the Active-Duty Force, unlike the reservist who 
is called back for a period of time, then released to go back to their 
civilian jobs and their homes. They could own that one home, whereas 
the military soldier, the careerist on active duty, often has to get a 
home, sell it, go get another one, sell it, move, move, sell, rent. 
Those are hardships for which I think through the years the Congress 
has carefully balanced out an equitable formulation of the benefits for 
the Active Force and the Guard and Reserve.

  This amendment makes a very substantial closing of that gap, and I 
think it will be an inducement for young people now to go into the 
Reserve and Guard because they are going to have just about the same 
benefits as the individual on active duty, but they can stay in their 
homes, stay in their jobs, perform their weekends and 2 weeks in the 
summer active field training. They can match both their civilian life 
and their Guard and Reserve life and balance it in such a way as to 
basically stay home. That is not so with the regular force.
  So when we reported out the bill S. 2400, we went further than the 
Senate has ever gone before to improve health care benefits for Reserve 
members, and it reflects our Nation's growing reliance on their 
service. When a Reserve or Guard is called up, within 30 days--and I 
think in a respectful way I brought this to the attention of the 
distinguished Democratic leader--they are treated just as an active 
Regular once they go on that active duty. We have added permanent 
TRICARE coverage before and after mobilization and created a new option 
for the Reserves and their families to participate in TRICARE while 
they are enjoying the benefits of civilian life. They have an option 
but they have to pay something for it.
  The bottom line is we are dealing with the taxpayers' money. That is 
what we are dealing with, the taxpayers' money, and it is quite a 
considerable commitment under this amendment.
  Our fundamental disagreement is how we achieve these goals. The 
difference, again, is cost. The amendment would be $700 million for 
this 1 fiscal year, $5.7 billion over the ensuing 5 years, and $14.2 
billion over a 10-year period from adoption. We are under stringent 
budgets these days, and our military is very much in need of 
modernization, new equipment, additional training, reconfiguration, 
particularly the U.S. Army, and all those are costly

[[Page S6313]]

items. If this amendment were adopted, it would draw down on that 
ability of modernization.

  Our statistics show the vast majority of reservists and their 
families, at least 85 percent according to the Comptroller General, 
have health coverage from their employers. Recruitment and retention 
among Reserves at the present time is not a crisis. So this is not a 
recruiting tool.
  So I ask my colleagues, why, then, should we respond to increasing 
calls to the Reserve providing health care compensation in a civilian 
capacity that is so costly as to guarantee erosion of funding needed 
for readiness requirements of the other military branches? Under S. 
2400, all become eligible for TRICARE when they are mobilized in 
support of a contingency. All are eligible for 6 months additional 
coverage after they are demobilized. Mr. President, $200 million is set 
aside for a demonstration project to provide coverage for the 
unemployed and the uninsured.
  In addition to these new benefits, let us not forget that all 
reservists and their families are eligible to enroll in the Reserve 
dental insurance program, in which the government pays 60 percent of 
premiums for reserve families whose sponsors are mobilized for more 
than 30 days; and all reservists who retire with 20 years of creditable 
service are eligible for TRICARE for life when they reach age 60.
  Colleagues, the amendment will duplicate private insurance, handing a 
windfall to the insurance companies who are now paying full premiums 
for coverage of civilian-employed reservists. The amendment asks the 
taxpayers to take the place of employers in providing health care 
coverage for reserve members while they enjoy the benefits of civilian 
employment and civilian life.
  The underlying bill also includes authority for appointment of an 
independent commission on the future roles and mission of the reserves. 
This commission would examine all the proposals for enhancements to 
compensation and benefits of Reserve members that have been proposed in 
light of changes in current and future roles.
  We should not more blindly into a permanent and costly government 
entitlement for reservists while, unlike their active duty 
counterparts, they are enjoying the benefits of civilian life, and 
earning benefits in their civilian roles.
  This is the fundamental basis for the reserve: an option, desirable 
to many, to maintain civilian employment and benefit status and 
civilian lifestyles for the majority of their careers, while serving in 
reserve for the nation's active military components.
  Let us not ignore the significant investment and improvements in the 
underyling bill for reserve members and their families, which are 
affordable for this country, today and in the future.
  So I think we have hit a very balanced program in the committee bill 
acted upon by all members of the committee. To the best of my knowledge 
it was voted out unanimously by committee. I hate to see this treatment 
of the hard work of the committee. They are entrusted, by virtue of 
their assignments on this committee, with making the tough decisions as 
to how best to balance the benefits given to the Guard and Reserve and 
those in the Active Force. And I come back to the American taxpayer who 
has to foot a very considerable permanent guarantee, the entitlement 
under this program for many years.
  At this time I yield the floor.
  Would the Chair advise the Chamber with regard to the time remaining 
under the control of the Senator from Virginia and the control of the 
two proponents of the measure?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At this time there is no pending time 
agreement.
  Mr. WARNER. I see. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator from South Carolina yield?
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Yes.
  Mr. REID. I have spoken to the two managers of the bill and the 
proponent of the underlying amendment, together with Senator Daschle. 
They would be willing to start a vote at 3:30. However, I don't think 
there is that much more talk on this amendment. We will have a vote at 
3:30 for the convenience of some Senators. We could complete the debate 
fairly soon, within the next 10 or 15 minutes, and then if the Senator 
from Virginia wanted to lay down the $25 billion amendment, we could do 
that and get started on that, and then we would stop at 3:30 and have 
our vote?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think that is a very good suggestion. We 
then seek unanimous consent to vote, now, at 3:30, with the 
understanding that in the interim period we could set the amendment 
aside, bring up another amendment, and then terminate debate on that 
amendment at the established 3:30?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WARNER. I understand we will soon be carefully scripted by our 
very able staff.
  Mr. REID. We can be carefully scripted, but the point is, what the 
intent of the manager of the bill is that we will vote at 3:30 on the 
Daschle-Graham amendment. Then prior to that time we would have a few 
minutes remaining on this amendment. Then we would go off this, go to, 
I believe it will be a bipartisan amendment of Senator Warner and 
Senator Levin about $25 billion, debate that for a while, vote, and 
then go to the recognition time for the World War II veterans. Then, if 
the leader decides to come back after all that is done, tonight we 
would be on the $25 billion amendment and either vote on that tonight 
or some other time because under the order, as I understand it, that is 
now entered, tomorrow morning we go to the Cantwell-Graham problem we 
have.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, as usual our distinguished colleague has 
stated the facts with accuracy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending request is 
withdrawn. Who seeks time? The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. WARNER. Not on time yielding, as I understand it; whoever seeks 
recognition. I have had a time to speak. As I understand it, my 
colleague from Michigan----
  Mr. LEVIN. I just have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as I understand it, this is going to be a 
unanimous consent that is going to be entered formally, but it has not 
yet been entered; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The suggestion has 
been made.
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. I just need 10 minutes to speak on the 
amendment.
  Just to conclude this debate, this debate has been going on for a 
very long time, more than a year, on how to best take care of the Guard 
and Reserve Forces in terms of their health care needs. It is an honest 
debate, sincere debate. Mr. President, 85 Members of the Senate voted 
last year on this very amendment. I think I understand why they voted 
to extend health care benefits to the Guard and Reserve, full time, and 
with the premium to be paid for them. It makes sense for our military 
needs. Forty percent of our people in Iraq and Afghanistan are going to 
be Guard and Reserve members.
  Let me explain as best as I can how this works. If you are a member 
of the Guard and Reserve today, while you are serving in that capacity 
you have absolutely zero health care benefits offered to you from the 
military. A part-time Federal Government employee, a temporary Federal 
Government employee receives health care benefits. So go home and 
explain that one. You can be a part-time Federal employee, work in the 
Senate or the House, and you get health care. You can be a part-time 
citizen soldier, training to defend America, and you get zip.
  Now, it is true when you are called to active duty you get everything 
an Active-Duty person gets. The reason is because you are on active 
duty. That is not that great of a benefit, to pay you like somebody 
right next to you and to give you the same benefits because you are 
doing the same job. The point we are trying to make is, there is a 
problem in the Guard and Reserve community when it comes to health 
care. Mr. President, 25 percent of the people called to active duty, as 
I stated before, from the Guard and Reserve community are unable to go 
on active duty

[[Page S6314]]

because of health care problems. I would argue that we need a better 
health care network covering our Guard and Reserve members and their 
families, from a readiness point of view.
  Let's talk a little bit about retention. The head of the Army Reserve 
said yesterday--and this is back in January--that the 205,000-soldier 
force must guard against a potential crisis in its ability to retain 
troops, saying serious problems were being masked temporarily because 
reservists are barred from leaving the military while the units are 
mobilized in Iraq.
  In this prison abuse scandal what we found was that the MPs in that 
jail, and some of their associates, were due to go home, but they 
couldn't go back home because they were needed in Iraq, and they had 
the rug pulled out from under them, causing tremendous morale problems.
  ``This is the first extended duration war our Nation has fought with 
an all-volunteer force,'' said LTG James R. Henley, the head of the 
Reserves. ``We must be sensitive to that and we must provide proactive, 
preventive measures to prevent a recruiting retention crisis.'' 1-21-
04.
  ``We got a real retention issue,'' said Republican Governor of South 
Carolina, Mark Sanford, our Governor and a member of the Air Force 
Reserve. ``We are going to see it emptying when people's tickets are up 
and when Guardsmen are not stepping up to the plate.''
  You know, I am not sure that is true. Patriotism is high. To prevent 
them from getting out, we need to be thinking of what we can do to make 
it a more attractive job. But let's say you stay in. What can you do to 
honor your service to our country? This Congress has spent $400 billion 
on Medicare improvements. Let's talk about money for a minute. We are 
trying to get every senior in the country to sign up for a discount 
card because we want to help seniors. Great, good idea.

  We are trying to spend $1 billion a year for 5 years to give Guard 
and Reserve members continuity of health care coverage, and we are 
arguing about the money? We spent $20 billion of hard-earned taxpayer 
money in Iraq. We gave it to the Iraqi people, to build their 
hospitals, to build their schools, to build their roads, to build their 
fire departments, and their police stations, to train their army. Do 
you know what. The money is needed.
  I wanted to loan some of it because they are sitting on $1 trillion 
worth of oil. I like helping people but I want people to help 
themselves. So when it came time to write this amendment we did strike 
a balance. Here is the balance.
  Right now, as a Guard and Reserve member, you are a part-time Federal 
employee. Unlike every other part-time Federal employee, you get 
nothing. So here is what we are suggesting. If you want to, you can 
sign up for military health care year round. It will be eligible for 
you and your family--you will be eligible for that program. But while 
you are a Guard or Reserve member you are going to have to pay a 
premium like a Federal employee. I wish we could get the Iraqi people 
to help pay some of the money back, but we are not. So they are going 
to make a contribution. This is not a free deal. They have to pay like 
every other part-time Federal employee. Put them in that same category. 
They deserve to be in that category.
  Here is the difference between an Active-Duty troop and a Guard and 
Reserve member. No. 1, an Active-Duty troop is doing a great job, and 
we should pay them more. Senator Warner has done a great job improving 
benefits for Active-Duty people. Our Armed Services Committee in the 
Senate has been second to no one in trying to make a better life for 
those who serve our country. My hat is off to them. We just have a 
disagreement over this particular amendment. But we are daily improving 
the benefit package of Active-Duty people. By God, they deserve it.
  But here is why it will not affect recruiting. The Pentagon has 
started this argument. It is the most bogus argument I have ever heard. 
It is that if you offer TRICARE eligibility for the military members 
who would have to pay $1,800 a year for the benefit, as a premium for a 
family, that somehow that will hurt recruiting for active duty.
  Here is your choice if you are going to pick between the two 
programs. You have a Reserve job or a Guard job that allows you to work 
one weekend a month, 2 weeks a year, and you get to retire when you are 
60. The Active-Duty person gets a full paycheck, gets full health care 
benefits, gets a retirement after 20 years. There is no way that is 
going to compete and take people away from Active-Duty Forces. How are 
you going to raise a family working 2 days a month? They are part-time 
employees in a vital job, to defend America. Unlike every other part-
time Federal employee, they are not eligible for Federal Government 
health care, and they should be. We are asking them to pay a premium 
unless they are called to active duty.
  That is a fiscally responsible balance. We spent $20 billion of the 
taxpayers' money to make Iraq a better place. We spent $400 billion and 
counting on a prescription drug program for our seniors. Here we are, 
trying to get $5.4 billion over a 5-year period to cover 300,000 
families who have suffered beyond description, in terms of leaving 
their homes and their jobs for pay cuts. Most Guard and Reserve 
members, when called to active duty, leave obligations behind, greater 
than the military paycheck. They make more money in the civilian world 
and when they are called to active duty they take a pay cut and we 
don't make up the difference. But they know that going in.
  There are small things that mean a lot to these people, and this is 
truly small, in terms of money. It is two-tenths of 1 percent of the 
budget. Mr. President, 25 percent of the people are unable to go on 
active duty when called to the Guard and Reserve community because of 
health care problems. This amendment more than pays for itself. The 
money is well spent. It is affordable, and there are many programs in 
this budget that cost more than $700 million that, if you ask the 
taxpayer to choose, I think the Guard and Reserve community would win 
every time.
  How many bills do we pass every year that spend billions of dollars 
on questionable programs? This is the one area upon which we can all 
agree. The Guard and Reserve community needs a better benefit package 
because they are being asked to do more than ever. They are dying at a 
greater rate this year than last year. What has happened in the year 
when we first debated this? There are more of them and they are dying 
at a faster rate.
  The father of TRICARE is Senator Warner.
  This is why I object to committee markups. No. 1, the entire cost of 
TRICARE under the committee markup is borne by the employer community 
and the reservists. The Government doesn't contribute one penny to the 
health care needs of our Guard and Reserve members. That is wrong.
  The unsung hero of this whole war effort, when it comes to the Guard 
and Reserve community, is the employer. Wouldn't it be nice if we could 
take a load off of small businesses and large businesses which have 
guardsmen and reservists and share in the cost of health care along 
with the Guard members themselves and take them off the payroll? It is 
a small thing. It would mean a lot to employers.
  Employers have paid the difference between active pay and civilian 
pay voluntarily, and in huge numbers. We have done nothing to thank 
them. Taking care of the health care needs of our Guard and Reserve 
Forces is one less problem an employer has to worry about.
  I ask the 85 Members of the Senate who voted last year for this very 
same measure, which is now $300 million cheaper and going down every 
minute because we are trying to make it cheaper, to step to the plate 
and say to the Guard and Reserve community: We got it. We understand 
your sacrifice. We understand your stress. We understand your family is 
having health care coverage problems. Twenty percent of them have no 
health care. They are bouncing from one group to the next, and we are 
going to fix that. We are going to give you an option. We are going to 
ask you to pay some, but we are going to make your health care life 
better.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters of 
support for this amendment from the National Guard Association of the 
United

[[Page S6315]]

States, the Reserve Officers Association of the United States, the 
Reserve Enlisted Association, the Air Force Sergeants Association, 
along with the National Guard Association of the United States.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                        National Guard Association


                                         of the United States,

                                     Washington, DC, May 19, 2004.
     Hon. Lindsey Graham,
     U.S. Senator, Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: On behalf of the 50,000 members of the 
     National Guard Association of the United States (NGAUS), I 
     want to thank you for doing so much for our membership in the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (NDAA 
     FY05). Your leadership, along with your colleagues, has given 
     our soldiers and airmen the much-needed opportunity to 
     participate in the TRICARE health program when not in a 
     mobilized status.
       This health coverage will not only provide Guard members 
     and their families with continuity of care, but also with a 
     chance to positively contribute to the betterment of the 
     TRICARE program. As we all know, the system of care will 
     respond in a positive way to these additional beneficiaries, 
     especially in remote areas. The three new provider networks--
     TriWest, Health Net, Humana--have made a commitment to ensure 
     TRICARE beneficiaries are satisfied with their health care. 
     Along with Congress, we will also be keeping an eye on the 
     path of transition from 11 TRICARE regions to three.
       We recognize section 706 in the NDAA FY05 is an excellent 
     starting point to providing a health care program to our 
     Guardsmen as a measurement of the country's appreciation for 
     all they have done. We support the initial intent of S. 2035, 
     as sponsored by you and Senator Daschle, which was to have 
     the Department of Defense pay 72 percent of the premium cost, 
     thereby taking the burden off private and public employees 
     completely. The NGAUS fully understands the pressure of 
     budget constraints in the FY05 budget, but we are hopeful 
     that soon the burden will be taken off the employers and rest 
     fully in its intended, and rightful place, in the Department 
     of Defense.
       The fashion in which the National Guard is being utilized 
     has forced America to take notice and recognize the full 
     worth of these exceptional men and women serving in harm's 
     way. Guardsmen are our neighbors, teachers, co-workers and 
     students. Once again, thank you for all you have done for the 
     soldiers and airmen in the National Guard.
           Sincerely,

                                         Richard C. Alexander,

                                        Major General (Ret.), AUS,
     President.
                                  ____



                                 Reserve Enlisted Association,

                                                     May 21, 2004.
     Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Lindsey O. Graham,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Daschle and Senator Graham: The mobilizations 
     over the past three years since September 11th have once 
     again shown that the readiness of our reserve components has 
     been affected by medical issues. When called upon our 
     nation's citizen-soldiers need to be prepared to answer that 
     call, but without proper healthcare we cannot maintain a well 
     trained and ready reserve force.
       The Reserve Enlisted Association supports Daschle-Graham 
     amendment to the Senate Armed Service Committee, FY2005, 
     National Defense Authorization Act, S.2400, requiring the 
     Department of Defense to assume responsibility for the 
     employer cost of a Reservist's healthcare under TRICARE.
       REA is dedicated to making our nation stronger and our 
     military more prepared and look forward to working together 
     towards these goals. Please feel free to call me at 202-646-
     7758 or via email at [email protected] or our Legislative 
     Director, Seth Benge.
           Sincerely,

                                                 Lani Burnett,

                                           CMSgt, USAFR (Retired),
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                              Air Force Sergeants Association,

                                   Temple Hills, MD, May 15, 2003.
     Hon. Lindsey Graham,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: On behalf of the 136,000 members of 
     AFSA, I would like to offer our support of S. 1000. This 
     association has been on the leading edge of the effort to 
     lower the earliest Guard and Reserve retirement age. We feel 
     very strongly that the retirement age should be lowered at a 
     minimum to age 55, consistent with the retirement age of all 
     other federal retirees. Although the provisions contained 
     within S. 1000 addressing this issue fall short of what we 
     believe is fair, it is a step in the right direction.
       Without question, reservists and their families will 
     benefit from the opportunity to receive health coverage 
     through TRICARE. So will DoD. Beyond recruitment and 
     retention, this program will improve readiness since nearly 
     20 percent of reserve component members do not currently have 
     health insurance. Maintaining a healthy force is absolutely 
     essential to maintaining a prepared force.
       The success of our national defense is dependent on a 
     ``Total Force'' effort, and the availability of Guard and 
     Reserve members is critical. The various tax credits 
     contained in S. 1000 will encourage employee and citizen 
     participation in Guard and Reserve programs, thereby 
     facilitating the availability of these important 
     servicemembers when they are needed.
       I thank you for taking the initiative to introduce such an 
     important piece of legislation. As always, I offer you this 
     association's support on this and other matters of mutual 
     concern.
           Sincerely,
                                                  James D. Staton,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                      Reserve Officers Association


                                         of the United States,

                                     Washington, DC, May 18, 2004.
     Senator Thomas A. Daschle,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Hart,
     Washington, DC.
     Senator Lindsey O. Graham,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Russell,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Daschle and Senator Graham: It has been over a 
     decade since Desert Shield and Desert Storm occurred and 
     medical readiness problems were identified; yet the Reserve 
     Components face the same problems with medical and dental 
     fitness when mobilized for Iraq and Afghanistan. We cannot 
     continue losing the service and experience of Reserve 
     Component members who cannot mobilize due to medical 
     readiness.
       The Reserve Officers Association supports the Daschle-
     Graham amendment to the Senate Armed Services Committee, 
     FY2005, National Defense Authorization Act, S. 2400, 
     requiring the Department of Defense to assume responsibility 
     for the employer cost of a Reservist's healthcare under 
     TRICARE.
           Sincerely,

                                           Robert A. McIntosh,

                                      Major General (Ret.), USAFR,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                        National Guard Association


                                         of the United States,

                                     Washington, DC, May 21, 2003.
     Hon. Lindsey Graham,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: On behalf of the men and women of the 
     National Guard Association of the United States (NGAUS), I 
     would like to personally thank you for your leadership in 
     helping ensure passage your amendment to the National Defense 
     Authorizations Act for fiscal year 2004 based off S. 1000 and 
     S. 852. This important amendment provides the opportunity for 
     Guardsmen to participate in the Tricare program on a cost-
     share basis. As you know, this initiative to improve 
     healthcare readiness for members of the National Guard and 
     Reserve components and their families is at the forefront of 
     our priorities.
       Your staff, especially Steve Flippin and Aleix Jarvis, has 
     put forth a tremendous effort toward this initiative. You 
     should be proud to have such an outstanding team.
       Again, thank you for your continued support of a strong and 
     viable National Guard.
           Sincerely,

                                         Richard C. Alexander,

                                        Major General (Ret.), AUS,
                                                        President.

  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, these letters are not 
just words on paper. I challenge every member of the public and every 
Senator to go back home and spend a few minutes in a Guard and Reserve 
unit and ask about TRICARE for those who have been on active duty.
  Does it work? Senator Warner deserves great praise because it is 
working. Ask the question: If you could sign up for TRICARE year round 
and pay a premium, how many of you would do it? Hands would be raised. 
It would be a great benefit to the 300,000 forces. It would be good for 
their families. It would be good for retention. It is affordable, and 
it is the right thing to do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, my colleagues have just heard an eloquent 
and extraordinarily persuasive case for the amendment offered by our 
colleague from South Carolina. It illustrates yet again why it has been 
such a pleasure for me to work with him on this amendment. He has made 
the case.
  But for emphasis let me reiterate a couple of points which he made 
better than I could. First, with regard to cost, our distinguished 
Chair this morning--and I think on other occasions--has raised an 
understandable concern. He correctly noted that the cost of this 
amendment this year is about $696 million. The cost over 5 years is 
$5.7 billion. He correctly noted that there isn't any particular offset 
listed for this benefit. Of course, what we haven't said is that is 
exactly the situation we will face with the amendment he is about to 
offer. The only difference is

[[Page S6316]]

his is $25 million and ours is $696 million.
  I said the only difference but there is another difference. The 
amendment requested by the administration for our efforts in Iraq 
indirectly benefits the United States but directly benefits the people 
of Iraq. This amendment benefits directly 300,000 people--men and women 
who are putting their lives on the line in support of their country's 
efforts in Iraq. It is two-tenths of 1 percent of the entire budget.
  That is all we are asking--to say with an exclamation point that we 
support our troops. We support the efforts made by our members of the 
Reserve, the Guard, and the extraordinary heroism, patriotism, and 
dedication they demonstrate each and every day on the job.
  We give our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee credit and our 
thanks for making an effort to address this problem in the bill, but 
with great respect and tremendous admiration for them. In particular, 
we have indicated in the past our concern and, frankly, our opposition 
to the language--as well intended as it is--to require that employers 
and the guardsmen themselves shoulder 100 percent of the 
responsibility, in light of the fact the colleagues they work next to 
every single day on the job get that critical benefit; it is part of 
their package for serving in the military. That is wrong.

  To give an employer veto power over whether this guardsman can access 
the benefit is wrong. To say we are going to benefit our active-duty 
personnel and not provide any help or appreciation for the 
extraordinary difficulties in accessing health care for guardsmen is 
wrong.
  The 85 Senators who supported this legislation in the past need to 
demonstrate once again that our commitment has not eroded and we will 
continue to press for parity, for fairness, for a recognition of the 
commitment made by our members of the Guard and Reserves every single 
month, week, and year until this action becomes law.
  My colleague from South Carolina has done it so well, laying out our 
arguments and the persuasive case to be made. All that remains is, on a 
bipartisan basis, to again reiterate our strong support for the 
fairness represented in the Graham-Daschle amendment.
  I thank him for his leadership. I thank our colleagues for their 
support. I hope we can send a clear message today, as we have said on 
so many occasions, that when we say we support our troops, we mean it 
with more than our words. We intend to step up to the plate and show it 
with our deeds. That is what this amendment does.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank the committee for their hard work 
on this bill. I am always impressed by how Senator Warner and Senator 
Levin manage this bill and for the excellent work of their staff. Their 
continued commitment to our troops, and to our Nation is evident in 
this bill. It is especially important right now.
  I also thank the committee for their very important inclusion of 
expanded TRICARE coverage to several members of the Guard and Reserve. 
While limited, the Committee's inclusion of any extended health care 
benefits to the reserve component is unprecedented. The committee's 
mark is an important step in the right direction, but the benefits 
included in the committee's mark simply aren't enough. They don't go 
far enough to reach the folks we need to; the current provisions don't 
provide the kind of coverage that we owe these individuals and their 
families. They also don't recognize the continued sacrifice of the 
employers of our Reservists and Guardsmen.
  That is why I join my colleagues--Senator Lindsay Graham, Senator 
Daschle, and Senator Leahy--in support of this important amendment. 
Unfortunately, benefits for our Guard and Reserve simply have not kept 
pace with the increasing role these folks are expected to play. With 
the increasing demands we are placing on these individuals, it is the 
right thing to do. I look forward to working with my colleagues 
throughout the coming months to make these important initiatives a 
permanent reality.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, at this time I would like to lay this 
amendment aside and proceed with another matter, with the understanding 
that prior to the vote, assuming we do establish the vote to be at 
3:30, there may be some desire by the proponents as well as the 
opponents to speak for a few minutes.
  We will proceed at this time.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield, is there any reason we cannot 
lock in a vote at 3:30 today?
  Mr. WARNER. I now ask unanimous consent that following the granting 
of this consent, the pending amendment be temporarily set aside in 
order for the chairman to offer an amendment regarding a $25 billion 
contingent fund. I further ask consent the vote in relation to the 
pending TRICARE amendment occur at 3:45 today, with the 15 minutes 
prior to that vote equally divided in the usual form, with no second-
degree amendment in order prior to the vote. I further ask consent 
following the vote, the Senate begin the 60-minute period during 
morning business and provided for earlier. That will address the 
recognition of the World War II veterans who are currently Members of 
the Senate.
  I amend one thing, if I may, from my reading, and that is at 20 
minutes prior to the vote, I understand there is another speaker on my 
side who may wish to speak.
  Mr. REID. That would interrupt the amendment you are going to lay 
down.
  Mr. WARNER. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. And go back to TRICARE, 20 minutes before the vote on 
TRICARE?
  Mr. WARNER. Correct.
  Mr. REID. Rather than 15 minutes, we have 20 minutes equally 
controlled between the 2 managers.
  Mr. WARNER. Correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, to clarify, is it 20 
minutes on top of the 15 minutes?
  Mr. WARNER. No, extending 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3260

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

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for himself and Mr. 
     Stevens, proposes an amendment numbered 3260.

  Mr. WARNER. I think that should say Senator Warner, for himself, Mr. 
Levin, and Mr. Stevens.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  Mr. WARNER. 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 authorize appropriations for a contingent emergency 
          reserve fund for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan)

       On page 239, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 1006. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR A CONTINGENT 
                   EMERGENCY RESERVE FUND FOR OPERATIONS IN IRAQ 
                   AND AFGHANISTAN.

       (a) Authorization of Supplemental Appropriations.--In 
     addition to any other amounts authorized to be appropriated 
     by this Act, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated 
     for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2005, subject 
     to subsections (b) and (c), $25,000,000,000, to be available 
     only for activities in support of operations in Iraq and 
     Afghanistan.
       (b) Specific Amounts.--Of the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated under subsection (a), funds are authorized to be 
     appropriated in amounts for purposes as follows:
       (1) For the Army for operation and maintenance, 
     $14,000,000,000.
       (2) For the Navy for operation and maintenance, 
     $1,000,000,000.
       (3) For the Marine Corps for operation and maintenance, 
     $2,000,000,000.
       (4) For the Air Force for operation and maintenance, 
     $1,000,000,000.
       (5) For operation and maintenance, Defense-wide activities, 
     $2,000,000,000.
       (6) For military personnel, $2,000,000,000.
       (7) An additional amount of $3,000,000,000 to be available 
     for transfer to--
       (A) operation and maintenance accounts;
       (B) military personnel accounts;
       (C) research, development, test, and evaluation accounts;
       (D) procurement accounts;
       (E) classified programs, and
       (F) Coast Guard operating expenses.

[[Page S6317]]

       (c) Authorization Contingent on Budget Request.--The 
     authorization of appropriations in subsection (a) shall be 
     effective only to the extent that a budget request for all or 
     part of the amount authorized to be appropriated under such 
     subsection for the purposes set forth in such subsection is 
     transmitted by the President to Congress after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act and includes a designation of the 
     requested amount as an emergency and essential to support 
     activities in Iraq and Afghanistan.
       (d) Transfer Authority.--(1) Of the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated under subsection (b)(7) for transfer, no 
     transfer may be made until the Secretary of Defense consults 
     with the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the congressional 
     defense committees and then notifies such committees in 
     writing not later than five days before the transfer is made.
       (2) The transfer authority provided under this section is 
     in addition to any other transfer authority available to the 
     Department of Defense.
       (e) Monthly Report.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit 
     to the congressional defense committees each month a report 
     on the use of funds authorized to be appropriated under this 
     section. The report for a month shall include in a separate 
     display for each of Iraq and Aghanistan, the activity for 
     which the funds were used, the purpose for which the funds 
     were used, the source of the funds used to carry out that 
     activity, and the account to which those expenditures were 
     charged.

  Mr. WARNER. Quickly, our colleagues are pretty well familiar with 
this, but I will take a short few moments to address it.
  When the administration presented its budget request for fiscal year 
2005 in February, the request did not include funding for costs 
associated with the ongoing global war on terrorism. This is in keeping 
with longstanding tradition of funding ongoing military operations 
through supplemental appropriations. At that time, the administration 
stated that it expected to request a supplemental to cover these costs, 
after the start of calendar year 2005. Prior to the passage of a 
supplemental, the administration planned to cover the cost of the war 
with funds from other military accounts--a process commonly called 
``cash flowing.'' Administration officials stated in February and March 
that ``cash flowing'' ongoing military operations presented acceptable 
and manageable risk.
  On May 5, President Bush announced his intention to request a $25 
billion contingent reserve fund for fiscal year 2005 for United States 
military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The President stated that, 
``While we do not know the precise costs for operations next year, 
recent developments on the ground and increased demands on our troops 
indicate the need to plan for contingencies. We must make sure there is 
no disruption in funding and resources for our troops.'' In my 
judgment, this is a prudent course of action, and it has my strongest 
support.
  It is important to note that, even with this reserve fund, the 
administration will still request a full fiscal year 2005 supplemental 
after the first of the year, when it can better estimate the costs of 
the ongoing war on terror.
  When the President made his announcement 3 weeks ago, the committee 
was in the process of marking up the fiscal year 2005 national defense 
authorization bill. At the request of Senator Byrd, the committee 
deferred action on this request for additional funding until we could 
hold a hearing to receive more information on this request.
  On Thursday, May 13, the committee held a hearing on the 
administration's amended budget request. Committee staff then met with 
administration and Defense Department officials to address concerns 
raised by committee members during that hearing. After careful study of 
the administration's request and consultation on both sides of the 
aisle, the committee supports inclusion of a $25 billion reserve, with 
some additional restrictions and reporting requirements.
  As proposed by the administration, this contingency reserve fund 
would essentially have been a $25 billion transfer account. Many 
members expressed concern over this in our hearing. As drafted, the 
amendment requires that $22 billion of the fund be spent on specific 
accounts. Only $3 billion would be in the form of a transfer account 
which could be spent only after prior consultation and notification.
  Increased demands on our troops, particularly in Iraq, have led to 
concerns that additional funding may be needed prior to the start of 
calendar year 2005, thus the need for contingency funding. As proposed, 
the contingent emergency reserve fund would act as a ``bridge'' between 
the fiscal year 2005 budget request and the fiscal year 2005 
supplemental expected in February 2005.
  Without a contingent reserve fund, to mitigate the risks, the 
department may be forced to ``cash flow'' ongoing operations with other 
funding sources until supplemental funds are appropriated, which could 
be well into the second quarter of fiscal year 2005. Ongoing 
procurement programs, modernization efforts, and even training could be 
adversely affected from having to pay up front for ongoing military 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  I agree with the President that our first commitment must be to 
America's security and that our troops ``have the resources they need, 
when they need them.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, let me commend my good friend, the 
chairman of our committee, for this amendment. This amendment is very 
much needed, first of all. We know we are going to need these funds for 
the operations we are planning in the next fiscal year.
  The budget that was submitted to us in January did not have the extra 
funding which we knew would be required because of our operations in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. Many Members pointed that out. Indeed, I wrote a 
letter to the Budget Committee on February 24th pointing out the budget 
request for Defense represented a reasonable estimate of the cost for 
supporting the normal operations of the activities, but that the 
request does not include any request to support the incremental costs 
of our military forces for continuing operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  At that point, the administration indicated it would not seek any 
additional funds, supplementally, to pay for these incremental costs 
this calendar year. It was their intention at that time to wait until 
the next calendar year to do that. I, and many others here, thought 
that was not a responsible way to budget. There was a political tone to 
it because it delayed paying the piper for the costs of this war until 
after the election, and there was no point in being that disingenuous 
about what we all know is going to be required.
  I very much support--and I think every Member of this body supports--
paying for the needs of our troops, regardless of what one's position 
is as to how we got to Iraq, how we are doing in Iraq, whether we ought 
to be doing things differently in Iraq. Regardless of the difference of 
position of Members of this body on those subjects, when it comes to 
the support of the operations of our forces and their pay and benefits 
and needs, I think there is overwhelming if not total unanimous support 
for funding those troops.
  The recent approval by the Department of Defense of increased force 
levels in Iraq has made this need even more urgent. Even before the 
Department approved the additional 30,000 troops, approximately, for 
Iraq, there was an acknowledgement by the uniformed military leaders 
that the additional costs of ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan 
are approximately $4 billion to $5 billion per month. So there was no 
reason, in terms of sound budgeting, for us to hide that fact from the 
American people.
  Just to give one example of that, a recent headline, which perhaps 
says the whole thing, from the May 5 Washington Post read: ``138,000 
Troops to Stay in Iraq Through 2005.'' Well, that kind of says it all. 
We need this supplemental because we know there is going to be that 
many troops--more than planned at the time this budget was submitted to 
us--staying in Iraq through 2005.
  The fact that we do not know the exact, precise amount for the 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is not an excuse to do nothing. Of 
course we do not know precisely the cost, but we know approximately the 
cost from our experience there. We have estimates of these costs from 
our uniformed and civilian leadership now that the civilian leadership 
is committed to this course of action.
  One thing we do know for certain: We know, for certain, the amount in 
the

[[Page S6318]]

President's budget--which was zero--is the wrong number. We don't know 
whether the right number is going to be $4.8 billion or $4.9 billion 
per month, but we know the approximate number, and we know what is $4 
billion to $5 billion short per month, which is what the President's 
budget was.
  Both the House and the Senate, in their budget resolutions, advanced 
the ball on this issue. The Senate made $30 billion available on a 
contingent basis if the President requested the additional funds, as he 
now has. That was intended to be approximately half the year so we 
would not have to use funds forward from accounts early in the year, 
leaving those accounts short later in the year.
  It was my belief that if we added just 6 months of what we knew would 
be the supplemental amount needed, that would be enough for us to then, 
early next year, adopt a supplemental appropriations bill for the 
balance. The amendment that Senator Warner and I and Senator Stevens 
are now offering authorizes the level requested by the President, which 
is $25 billion, which is within the Senate-passed level of $30 billion.
  Again, we know this money is not going to be enough to cover all of 
fiscal year 2005, but it will cover at least, we expect, October 1--the 
beginning of the fiscal year--through January 31. Since Congress is 
scheduled to be out of session during that entire period, we would not 
be in a good position to act then. We are in a position to act now, and 
we should do so.
  The budget request from the President was really a blank check. We 
have amended it, changed it, modified it in many ways. First of all, it 
is more detailed. We assign money from two various accounts, such as 
operation and maintenance, such as personnel.
  The amendment we are offering also does not allow the administration 
to move money around as it wanted to with total flexibility. We have 
put limits on their ability to move money within that account, as we 
should in terms of carrying out our responsibility as the appropriating 
and authorizing body.
  This amendment is more structured, more stringent and, I believe, 
more responsible from a legislative point of view than was the proposal 
that was given to us by the administration. We allocate the $25 
billion: $14 billion, for instance, for operation and maintenance 
armor, which is the biggest chunk of money needed. And everybody 
acknowledged that was the biggest chunk. But the administration 
proposal provided that after we listed all these allocations between 
Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and so forth, that--and this is 
what their proposal read:

       In addition to the transfers authorized in the previous 
     proviso, after consultation with the director of Office of 
     Management and Budget, the Secretary of Defense may transfer 
     the funds provided herein to any appropriation or fund of the 
     Department of Defense or classified program.

  So after looking as though it was allocating the $25 billion to 
various accounts, the language which was submitted to us, which we are 
now deleting, would have in effect given the administration and the 
Department of Defense a blank check because it said, in addition to the 
numbers enumerated, they can, after consulting with themselves--that 
is, the Department of Defense consulting with the OMB Director--move 
the funds provided to any appropriation or fund of the Department of 
Defense.
  Again, that was the definition of the blank check. We have eliminated 
that language from the proposal that was submitted to us by the 
administration. It was the responsible thing to do.
  Our amendment basically reflected the same numbers that the 
administration proposed. For instance, the Army's operating funds, 
which were the primary reason that we need these funds this year, are 
now guaranteed, if we can, of course, get this passed in the Senate, 
get it passed in the House, signed by the President. This will be 
guaranteed to the Army for their operating cost this year. That will 
avoid some of the real problems which we would have had otherwise in 
spending next year's money this year, borrowing huge amounts of money, 
disrupting normal activities in the Army and the other services in 
order to cash-flow expenditures.
  If we did not provide more funding when needed, there would have been 
a very real chance that the Army, possibly the Marine Corps Special 
Operations Command, could be out of funds by the time the Congress 
would be ready to act next February.
  So this is the right thing to do, to act now for our men and women in 
Iraq and Afghanistan who need and deserve the support, for those 
serving in the United States and in other locations around the world 
from whose budgets funds would have been borrowed to provide the 
support if we do not act.
  Finally, the Secretary of Defense is now authorized the additional 
30,000 extra Army personnel. What this budget does is to recognize that 
fact. It was appropriate that the administration acknowledged that 
those troops were going to remain in Iraq. That is a fact of life. And 
that being a given--that is the reality--it seems to me we are now 
carrying out our responsibility to our troops by reflecting that 
reality with the funds that we are hereby authorizing this year and not 
simply delaying until next year when a number of undesirable effects 
could have been felt and surely should be avoided. Our troops deserve a 
lot better than our stealing from next year's funds to pay their costs 
this year, when we should be budgeting this year for this year's cost. 
That is precisely what we are doing now.
  I thank particularly our uniformed leadership. General Abizaid 
appeared in front of us. He was very direct when we asked him what the 
additional funding needs were. He indicated that, after accounting for 
the extra approximately 20,000 troops then, he expected the monthly 
rate of spending to be even higher than it had been up until then.
  And it is because we were able to get such testimony from our uniform 
leadership that I think that spurred us on and encouraged us to insist 
that we be responsible in the authorizing bill this year rather than 
simply saying, well, we will steal from next year's funds and take up a 
supplemental next year. We are going to need the money. This isn't the 
final answer. It is the first installment. Again, I emphasize this is 
just the first 5 or 6 months. There is going to have to be a 
supplemental next year. But we will be able to pass that when we come 
back in the beginning of next year and not force our services to steal 
from future funding in order to pay for the needs that are going to 
exist at the end of this year.
  So it is a foreseeable problem. We are acting now to avoid it. It is 
the responsible way for this body to act. I commend Senator Warner, 
again, for his leadership on this amendment, Senator Stevens, and the 
willingness to put this together on a bipartisan basis.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter I wrote to Senators Nickles and 
Conrad be printed in the Record.
   There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

        Dear Don and Kent: In accordance with your request, I am 
     forwarding my recommendations for the fiscal year 2005 budget 
     resolution.
        I believe that the President's defense budget request for 
     $420.7 billion represents a reasonable estimate of the cost 
     of supporting the normal operations of the activities within 
     the national defense budget function for fiscal year 2005. 
     However, this request does not include any request to support 
     the incremental costs that our military forces will incur in 
     continuing operations in Iraq or Afghanistan. Administration 
     officials have further indicated that they do not intend to 
     seek any funds for a supplemental to pay for these 
     incremental costs this calendar year.
        There are a number of potential military personnel 
     benefits issues that we will need to address in the 
     authorization and appropriations process to accommodate a 
     number of concerns. I believe, however, that having a budget 
     resolution total the same as that requested by the President 
     should provide sufficient funding to address these issues.
        What it will not permit us to do is address the costs of 
     the ongoing war in a responsible manner. We should provide 
     for those costs that we can reasonably predict our forces 
     will incur. We should not force our armed forces to rob from 
     existing requirements to pay for these operations on a ``cash 
     flow'' basis.
        Our nation's armed forces have been heavily stressed again 
     this year in supporting the war on terrorism and supporting 
     operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. To that end, Congress 
     provided an extra $65 billion to support these operations 
     during the current fiscal year. There are concerns about 
     whether these funds will even be sufficient to cover all of 
     the incremental costs of the war until the end of fiscal year 
     2004. We should not be counting on excess carry-over funding 
     from

[[Page S6319]]

     this previous supplemental to provide sufficient funding to 
     address these problems in fiscal year 2005 until a mid-year 
     supplemental can be enacted.
        At hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee 
     earlier this month, three of the chiefs of staff of the Armed 
     Services expressed concern about waiting until after the end 
     of calendar year 2004 to submit a supplemental budget 
     request. I believe that we should listen to those concerns. 
     We should not wait until some time during fiscal year 2005 to 
     submit a supplemental budget request as the Administration 
     did last year. Circumstances are different this year. Last 
     year, the war had not begun. Now, having U.S. troops on the 
     ground is a fact and recognizing this reality and paying for 
     it is the responsible thing to do.
        While it is certainly true that no one can predict with 
     precision what these fiscal year 2005 costs will be, we could 
     certainly provide funds to cover likely requirements for some 
     period of the year. This would allow the Administration an 
     opportunity to submit a supplemental request to cover the 
     balance of these costs and for Congress to review and act on.
        I suggest increasing the budget authority in the national 
     defense function by $30 billion in fiscal year 2005, 
     specifically to cover up to six months of the incremental 
     costs, at the current pace of operations, of the ongoing 
     operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is the responsible 
     thing to do for our troops and for budget accuracy.
            Sincerely,
                                                       Carl Levin,
                                                   Ranking Member.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have come to the Senate floor to 
support the amendment offered by my good friend, the chairman of the 
Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner from Virginia.
  This amendment will authorize appropriations for a $25 billion 
contingent emergency reserve fund. It is an amendment I am proud to 
support. It is not often, I might add, that the chairman of the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee comes to the floor of the Senate to support 
an amendment from the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, but 
maybe we will set a new trend this year and I will welcome his support 
when we get to the floor.
  But, in any event, this amendment is in direct support of our ongoing 
military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it is limited to that. 
It should be adopted. It covers emergency concepts in Afghanistan and 
Iraq.
  It is important that the Congress act on the President's request for 
this reserve fund. It will ensure that our men and women in uniform 
continue to have the resources they need. We have worked very hard to 
make certain that was the case in the past. This serves as a clear, 
unambiguous signal that while our troops are deployed and in harm's 
way, they will have the unequivocal and unwavering support of the 
Congress.
  I believe it is important to support the President's request. It is a 
different type of concept. I want to be sure Members understand. It is 
not a blank check. It is one that is well defined, in a request that 
came to the Armed Services Committee and to the Appropriations 
Committee. The Armed Services Committee held a hearing on this issue 
with both civilian and military witnesses from the Department of 
Defense and the Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget, 
and the chairman is commended for holding that hearing. The bill now 
before us is the result of the Armed Services Committee's 
consideration.
  This morning, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee also held a 
hearing to fully consider the President's request for this contingency 
emergency reserve fund. I was pleased to point out to our committee 
that this is a continuation of what we call the IFF that we created 
before both in 2003 and 2004.
  This amendment is for the 2005 appropriations. We intend to include 
some form of a reserve fund as part of our fiscal year 2005 Defense 
appropriations bill. Although this has come as a supplemental request, 
we will add it to the 2005 appropriations bill, and our subcommittee 
has agreed to that, in effect, this morning.
  The exact form of the reserve fund is being reviewed by our 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, but I assure the Senate that 
our Appropriations subcommittee will provide our armed services the 
funds they need, as requested by the President. Second, we will provide 
adequate and reasonable financial flexibility. Third, we will provide 
for full and fair congressional oversight.
  We have developed, I believe, bipartisan support for this request of 
the President's this morning in our hearing before the Appropriations 
Committee. Certainly, the developments on the ground in Iraq make it 
plain that there is an absolute need to plan for contingencies. Our 
military commanders have prudent operational plans, but they must be 
prepared to respond to the dynamic events that are going forward now in 
Iraq. We can expect nothing less of our military leadership, and the 
Congress must give them the tools they need. This reserve fund will do 
that. It is a fund that is available for emergencies. They have funds 
available for the predictable needs of the military. These funds are 
for the unpredictable needs of the military over the period beginning 
in 2005.
  The troops that are there are doing hard work. They must not find 
that fiscal issues might impede their doing the job they have to do in 
Iraq at this time. They should not be constrained in any way by the 
availability of money. The last thing I--and I believe all Senators--
would want would be for an operational commander to be concerned about 
whether there is enough money to do the job he has to do in an 
emergency.
  This is an emergency fund. It does not mean they can add to the money 
they have automatically through regular appropriations without finding 
first--and the President must find--that there is an emergency for this 
money to be released. But it will be there. It will be a means where 
the President, on request, can notify the Congress with 5 days' notice 
that he intends to put some of this money to work.
  I pointed out to our committee this morning, there have been 33 times 
that IFS funds have been released by the Department of Defense before 
on request of the President. Now we must provide this same kind of 
contingency emergency reserve fund because the alternatives available 
are too risky. The alternative would be we would have to meet and pass 
a separate bill, another supplemental. We want the reserve fund to be 
there for emergencies that could occur. I point out to the Senate, it 
may be that we would be out of session during that period. I hope we 
are out of session after the election. I have to stop and say that. I 
do think the concepts of the past, whereby the President has used the 
food and forage concept to dip into funds that were available for 
training for the next year or dip into funds for procurement, the 
President has that power. He can go to any fund that is available to 
meet an emergency.
  This is to foresee that, to foresee the interruption of plan 
development, plan utilization of our forces, training of forces in 
order to get moneys for an emergency.
  That practice should be avoided. I don't say it is wrong, but to 
borrow money from the third and fourth quarters to pay for urgent bills 
of the first and second quarters is not the way to do business. We set 
up a fund and say, if there is an emergency, tell us what you are going 
to use the money for and use it, unless we say no.
  I applaud the decision of the President to ask for these resources 
now. I am one who went to the President and the administration and 
asked them not to send a supplemental for 2005 because I believe we 
should not have that until the first quarter of the next year. We 
thought we had enough money to go through this calendar year, but 
because of the turn of events in Iraq, that is not the case. The 
President decided the option of waiting was too risky, and he has asked 
us to provide this fund as a reserve fund. The President made the right 
choice. It was not an easy decision.
  The people who have reviewed this so far in both committees, Armed 
Services and Appropriations, have agreed that the armed services need 
this flexibility to have funds available in an emergency and for use 
only in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is a good concept. I applaud the 
Senator from Virginia in offering the amendment, and I urge the Senate 
to adopt his amendment.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page S6320]]

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee and his colleagues for supporting this issue. 
As he most eloquently stated, the purpose is clear. It is to avoid the 
repetition of the past where we have gone into the forage fund to meet 
contingencies. We know they exist today. It is best we face up to it 
and put it on record.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, while the Senator from Alaska is in the 
Chamber, I thank the Senator for his work on the Appropriations 
Committee relative to this subject. As I indicated, I think the 
testimony before his committee indicated--I believe this morning--that 
we know it is about $4.7 billion or $4.8 billion at the current level 
of spending that we will need above what was in the budgeted amount. 
This provides that additional funding. It is the responsible thing to 
do. It has strong support on this side of the aisle as well as his. 
That is the way it should be when we have men and women in harm's way.


                           Amendment No. 3258

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague. At 
this time, I suggest that we go off of the Warner amendment, which I 
ask be laid aside, and return to the pending amendment by the Senator 
from South Carolina, at which time I think a number of colleagues are 
anxious to address the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by my friend Senator Graham of South Carolina, the so-called 
TRICARE amendment offered by himself and Senator Daschle. I have great 
respect for both Senator Graham and Senator Daschle. I just oppose 
their amendment.
  The amendment is very expensive. Their amendment costs billions and 
billions of dollars. Their amendment, in my opinion, is a serious 
mistake. I can see where people would say: I want to vote for it. I 
want to show my support for the National Guard.
  I also want to show my support for the National Guard, but we do show 
our support for the National Guard in this bill. We take care of their 
health care. If they go on active duty, we take care of their health 
care. That is a Government expense. They don't have copays. We take 
care of them.
  In fact, when they sign up and go into active duty, we take care of 
them. But this is when they are on inactive status, when they basically 
show up for 2 days a month.
  I used to be in the Guard. I also used to be in the private sector. I 
was in the private sector during the month, for 28 or 29 days of the 
month, and then in the National Guard for 2 days of the month. I think 
the primary responsibility for health care should be on the employer 
for the 28 or 29 days of the month, not on the Government because 
somebody served for 2 days in a month.
  Incidentally, if you are on Guard duty and you are injured, they are 
going to take care of you. If you are climbing hills, or practicing at 
a gun-firing range, and you are injured, you will be taken care of. If 
you are on 2-week duty during the summer and you have an injury, they 
are going to take care of that. Those expenses are covered.
  So, basically, do we want to take care of an individual who happens 
to be in the Guard or Reserve and pay for their health care throughout 
the year for thousands of dollars?
  TRICARE costs $7,000 or $8,000 for a family. Should that be the 
Federal Government's responsibility if an individual is serving only 2 
days a month? Under the pending amendment, it would be the Federal 
Government's responsibility.
  Eighty-some percent of Guard and Reserve members have health care. So 
this would be a great motivation for people who may be in the private 
sector to say: Since you are in the Guard or Reserve, we don't have to 
pay for you. Thank you very much, the Government will pay for yours--
even though you work for this company or this organization for 28 days 
a month and you work for the Government 2 days a month. Why should the 
Federal Government pick up 100 percent of that cost?
  Then when you have the transfer from the private sector health care 
coverage to the public, wow, it gets expensive. The cost was already 
mentioned. I think CBO estimated it at almost--I have one cost at $696 
million for 2005, and $5.7 billion for 5 years, and $14.2 billion over 
10 years. So it adds to the bill. It either adds to the deficit or it 
crowds out other defense spending. That other defense spending might be 
replacement munitions or body armor or new technology for night 
vision--who knows. It is saying we want to take care of these 
individuals' health care even when they are in inactive status. That is 
a mistake.
  Senator Warner's bill takes care of them when they are activated. 
They are given physicals. We pay 100 percent of it. We take care of our 
Active-Duty men and women. If they are activated, we should take care 
of them. I believe Senator Warner's bill takes care of them for several 
months after Active-Duty status.
  To say we want a new Federal entitlement saying if you sign up for 
the Guard or Reserve, we are going to pay up to 72 percent of an 
individual and their family's health care cost, at a cost estimated to 
be $7,700 in benefits under the TRICARE program, with individuals 
paying 28 percent, this gets real expensive. It spends billions and 
billions of dollars. It would be transferring money. This money has to 
be appropriated. Defense is only going to get so much money. I am 
afraid we will be crowding out some of the money needed to protect our 
men and women in the field. We protect our men and women in the field 
who are on active duty. We give them the best quality health care we 
can. They don't have to pay anything.

  I don't believe the Federal Government should pay for an individual 
and/or their families' health care cost for a month because they do 2 
days a month of Guard duty.
  I think it is a serious mistake, especially when the private sector 
already provides it for over 80 percent of those individuals. You may 
be able to score political points, but this is not money well spent. We 
should use our money to maximize our defense capabilities. This will 
spend a lot of money, saying let's have the Federal Government pay for 
the health care cost of Guard and Reserves, instead of having the 
private sector pay for it, even though they work for the private sector 
90 percent of the time during that month. I don't think we can afford 
it.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in opposition to the so-called TRICARE 
amendment at 3:45.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield to our distinguished colleague 
from Alabama such time as he may require, to be followed by our 
distinguished colleague from Oklahoma, with the understanding that the 
vote will commence, as described under the standing order, at 3:45.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator controls 5\1/2\ minutes in 
opposition. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will seek additional time for my 
colleagues if that becomes necessary.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I join with the chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee, Senator Warner, in his concern over this TRICARE 
amendment for our Guard and Reserve. I had 10 years in the Army 
Reserve. My chief of staff is a retired lieutenant colonel. We have 
discussed these issues a lot--what we can do to help our Guard and 
Reserve. But a $14 billion expenditure over 10 years for this one 
project is not the best way to spend $14 billion to help the Guard and 
Reserve.
  I have met with top generals in command of our Guard and Reserve. As 
a member of the Armed Services Committee, and as a person who cares 
about improving the quality of life of our superb Guard and Reserve 
members, I care about it deeply. I want to make their lives better. I 
want to make serving through retirement and beyond minimum retirement 
time attractive for them. I want their lives to be happy and as 
fulfilling as possible. We need to reward them financially in every way 
we possibly can.
  To take $14 billion and in effect have it spent for a lot of people 
who already

[[Page S6321]]

have good health care insurance is not a smart way to do it. It is not 
the right way.
  I have asked the leadership of the Guard and Reserve and the 
Department of Defense to help us develop a package of bills that will 
be beneficial to a broad-based number of our Guard and Reserve. They do 
terrific work.
  When I was in the 1184th in Mobile, our drills and work got tougher 
and tougher every single year. More was demanded. That is why they are 
so excellent in performance today.
  I really believe in what they do. The skill level is higher than it 
has ever been. The training is better than it has ever been. They are 
better equipped than they have ever been. They are performing better in 
difficult situations than we have ever seen before, and I am proud of 
them, but this is not the best way to go about this.
  I know there is a concern about this issue. I believe we can address 
it. I believe the chairman has come up with a way we can address this 
issue. That is what we need to do.
  Let's listen to that. Let's not commit the funds for this one 
particular problem for 20 percent of the Guard and Reserve, those who 
do not have insurance today, and drain this large sum of money we could 
use in another fashion.
  I thank the chairman for his leadership, and I give my support for 
the $25 billion supplemental. I believe it is the right thing to do. It 
will allow our Defense Department to proceed. It will make sure our 
equipment that has been damaged in the course of this is repaired and 
maintained.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague from Alabama, as well as the senior 
Senator from Oklahoma, and now I am privileged to have the wisdom of 
the junior Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate the time.
  I think one thing the last three speakers, including myself, have in 
common is no one has been more highly supportive of the Guard and the 
Reserve than Senator Nickles, Senator Sessions, and myself. In fact, I 
daresay I probably have spent more time talking about the dilemma of 
the Reserve component in all of the deployments as we continue this, 
and the reason we are having to do it is because we are, of course, at 
war.
  During the 1990s, we saw what happened to the military. It went down 
and consequently we had an end-strength problem. We are now talking 
about maybe 30,000 more troops and we are going to have to do something 
to help the Reserve component. Most of these people are gainfully 
employed. They have occupations. We cannot expect them to continuously 
be deployed while at the same time the employer is letting them go. 
That is the whole idea of a Reserve component.
  So although I oppose this amendment, I have to qualify it by saying 
how much I have always supported the Guard and the Reserve. I think all 
members of the Guard and Reserve, certainly in my State of Oklahoma, 
are aware of that.
  I just returned from Afghanistan where the 45th is stationed. They 
are doing a great job training the ANA to fight their own battles. They 
are doing a tremendous job. The problem is this does not have to happen 
in a vacuum. If it happened in a vacuum and we were able to give them 
full-time TRICARE, I would vote to do it in spite of the fact there 
would be, as my senior Senator from Oklahoma stated, many people who 
would go ahead and drop their coverage, saying the Government already 
supplies it, and that would be a problem.

  They talk about the costs being $11 billion, $12 billion, and as high 
as $18 billion. That is because we have yet to have any kind of a study 
to see how many people are out there who already have coverage or how 
many people are out there who actually would want to even have this 
coverage.
  Our chairman and our committee did a great job--it has not been said 
on the floor enough--because in this area of TRICARE, 90 days prior to 
deployment they have coverage. For 6 months after coming back, they 
have coverage. So it is not something we have not already looked at and 
decided to be very fair. I think we have a good compromise that is in 
the mark that is up for consideration on the floor today.
  I say to my good friend from South Carolina, he has another amendment 
that frankly I am very much for. It is one having to do with the 
movement of nuclear waste. I think he is dead right on it. That was a 
good policy until the National Resource Defense Council came in and 
filed a lawsuit against the DOE. Before then, everything was going 
fine. This would rectify that problem. This amendment is being offered 
by Senator Graham of South Carolina. I am a strong supporter of that 
particular amendment, but on this amendment one cannot assume this is 
going to happen and it is going to come out of nowhere.
  We have to come up with $11 billion, $12 billion, $14 billion, or $18 
billion somewhere. It has to come out of Defense. This is the problem 
we have. I served as the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee all 
during the 1990s, and I saw what was happening to our military, knowing 
one day this day would come and we would have to make some decisions 
regarding end strength, modernization, and all of the other programs 
that are bleeding today.
  Now if the Senator from South Carolina wants that money to come out 
of the MOX, mixed oxide, fuel facility in South Carolina, $368 million 
is authorized in this bill, maybe he feels strongly enough about it he 
would like to do that, or the waste incidental to reprocessing the WIR 
program, $350 million. These programs I am sure are worthwhile, but the 
money has to come from somewhere.
  My fear is it will come out of the modernization account, and right 
now I think we all know some of our potential enemies and adversaries 
out in the field are better equipped than we are. We have to correct 
this thing. So the money has to come out of somewhere. It is going to 
have to come out of some of the Defense accounts.
  I feel sorry for our chairman, Senator Warner, who is going to have 
to lead us in making some decisions on where to make cuts if this 
amendment passes. It is very serious.
  Again, there is no stronger supporter of the Guard and Reserve than I 
am, but this is something that is more money spent and not directed 
properly and it has to come out of some place where we have a very 
serious problem. There is nothing free in this bill. I do not know of 
any Guard and Reserve members from my State of Oklahoma who have talked 
to me about this and have offered places it should come out of or even 
called me up to support it.
  It is an amendment that is going to have to be defeated. We need to 
save all the money we can in order to keep our current authorization 
program. There is nothing we can cut, that I can think of right now, 
that would be appropriate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished chairman if I might 
have 30 seconds.
  Mr. WARNER. First, I thank my distinguished colleague from Oklahoma, 
as well as those we have just spoken. These are individuals who, like 
me, have first and foremost in their hearts the welfare of the men and 
women of the Armed Forces in every possible way, but we must also bear 
in mind the fiscal realities with which we are confronted, the equities 
between the balance of benefits to the Active Duty and Reserve and the 
Guard and the need at this time.
  It is available should anyone want it, but it has to be on a shared-
cost basis with the taxpayers of the United States.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are 7 minutes 
remaining under the control of the proponents of the amendment. Who 
yields time?
  Mr. WARNER. I suggest the distinguished Senator from Vermont be given 
such time as he may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. I would like a couple of minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. I will be very brief so the Senator from South Carolina 
can speak.
  Mr. President, I agree with the distinguished chairman of the Armed

[[Page S6322]]

Services Committee. As he knows, I came from the funeral of a Guard 
member in Vermont, and I might say to my distinguished friend, the 
senior Senator from Virginia, the widow of this Guard member was very 
touched by a message the distinguished Senator from Virginia had 
expressed to her via me, and I appreciate that. It was his typical 
generosity of spirit to do so. It tells me in the war on terror, our 
Guard and Reserves are a 21st century fighting force, but they have a 
20th century health insurance, and this partnership with Senator Graham 
of Florida, Senator Daschle, Senator Clinton, and others has been very 
good. I hope it will help.
  For the past 2 years, we have worked to expand the availability of 
health insurance to members of the 800,000-person National Guard and 
Reserve. It is squarely and strongly in our national interest, as well 
as in the interests of our Guard and Reserve soldiers and their 
families, to ensure that this force is strong, that our citizen-
soldiers are healthy, and that these proud men and women know that 
there is an extensive benefit network to reward them for their 
sacrifice.
  Two years ago, a GAO study found that almost 20 percent of the 
reserves, more than 150,000 citizen-soldiers, do not have access to 
adequate health insurance when they are on drilling status. The bulk of 
the uninsured reside in the lower ranks, and the study reported that 
almost 40 percent of the enlisted force in uninsured. In other words, 
many of the men and women who are prepared to leave their full-time 
jobs and their families at a moment's notice have no assurance of 
having access to basic health insurance.
  Our Guard and the Reserves are doing more for us than ever before, 
both at home and abroad. In fairness to them and their families, and in 
the interest of military readiness, these health care upgrades should 
be a high priority.
  Last year, I was pleased to be part of a bipartisan coalition that 
worked and succeeded in enacting a strong program to allow members of 
the Guard and Reserve, who are unemployed or do not have access to 
health insurance through their employers, to be able to buy into the 
military's TRICARE program on a cost-share basis. This program 
guaranteed that every member of the Guard and Reserve would have 
insurance access from some source, whether from their employers or 
through the military.
  It was surprising and disappointing to me that the administration 
opposed this program last year, going so far as to threaten a veto of 
the Defense bill. I am even more disappointed that the Department of 
Defense has still yet to put the TRICARE buy-in program for reservists 
in place. That sends a terrible signal to the members of the Guard and 
Reserve who comprise a substantial portion of our forces deployed 
abroad and who stand ready to face other national emergencies as they 
arise. We need to get this program going and to expand it even further, 
and without needless delay.
  This amendment will open up the TRICARE cost-share program to every 
member of the National Guard and Reserve, providing an affordable 
source of insurance to every reservist. The amendment also allows the 
families of activated reservists to maintain their civilian health 
insurance, which will reduce some of the invariable turbulence from 
deployments.
  This amendment mirrors almost exactly what passed out of the Senate 
87 to 10 last year. Since then, the Guard and Reserve have been tapped 
even more heavily to carry out the military occupations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  I urge the Senate to vote in favor of this critical readiness 
initiative.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wonder if I might be allowed one-quarter 
minute to reply to my colleague from Vermont?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. My colleague very kindly referred to our conversation 
earlier today when he, as every Member of this Chamber, has taken time 
to attend funerals in their respective States for those who lost their 
lives in the conflicts now ongoing, principally in Afghanistan and 
Iraq.
  I mentioned to him a soldier's grave at the Battle of Normandy. It 
was a British soldier, and he was killed in the invasion. As custom in 
the British military, the families may put a brief inscription on the 
tombstones. On this tombstone is the phrase:

       To the world he was known but as one. To his family he was 
     known as the world.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the proponents of 
the amendment have 4\1/2\ minutes remaining. The Senator from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, following those eloquent 
words of the chairman, this is not about who cares about our military; 
we all do. This is about priorities and what we are going to do when we 
say we care.
  The law of the country is such that, if you are a part-time Federal 
employee working 16 hours, you are eligible for Federal Government 
health care. If you are a part-time citizen soldier training to defend 
your country, answering calls for hurricanes and natural disasters in 
your State and providing homeland security, you get zero. We need to 
fix that.
  The committee bill puts a proposal on the table that goes as follows: 
The guardsmen and reservists pay some; the employer pays the other 72 
percent. Your Government doesn't contribute 1 penny to the health care 
needs of the Guard and Reserve community. Mr. President, 25 percent of 
the Guard and Reserve called to go on active duty can't go because of 
their lack of health care. We need to invest in their health care 
because they are keeping us free.
  Medicare has a $400 billion prescription drug benefit that has just 
been passed. I voted no because I am worried about the explosive cost 
to the future and our grandchildren not being able to afford it. I got 
outvoted. It is a program that is in existence. You can sign up for a 
discount card today. You ought to look into it.
  We gave $20 billion to the Iraqi people who are sitting on $1 
trillion worth of oil and we are not asking for 1 penny back in 
payment. We are going to build schools, roads, highways; we are going 
to spend $25 billion--more, probably, before the day is over--
supporting our troops to support Iraq.
  Our bill allows Guard and Reserve families and Guard and Reserve 
members to be part of the military health care system year round. When 
they are not called to active duty they have to pay a premium of $1,800 
a year for their family, just like a part-time Federal employee. People 
in Iraq are not paying anything back. It is a total gift.
  Mr. President, $400 billion to provide discounts for every senior in 
America--$400 billion. This costs $1 billion a year for 300,000 
families. There are bills in this Senate and this House where one 
bridge costs more than the health care program needs of 300,000 
families.

  I will take a backseat to no one about trying to save taxpayer 
dollars. I would argue, if the taxpayers could be here today and if 
they could vote to spend this $1 billion to make sure the citizen 
soldier is treated as every other part-time Federal employee, they 
would say: Here is my wallet, take what you need. This idea we can't 
afford it is bogus.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Absolutely.
  Mr. NICKLES. Is there any job in the Federal Government where an 
individual would work 2 days a month and receive $7,000 or $5,000 worth 
of benefits in health care?
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. The way the program works, you can be a 
temporary employee working 16 hours, work a year, then get health care, 
and you pay a premium. If you work 16 hours a week, you can get full-
time health care benefits paying a premium. What a Guard member does, 
he works 2 days a month, 2 weeks a year, and 40 percent of the people 
in Afghanistan and Iraq come out of that pool. Now they are getting 
killed. It is not an average, everyday part-time job. The people who 
are left behind, the families, take a pay cut. The average Guard and 
Reserve member, when they get called to active duty their pay goes 
down, but they don't complain. They go, I say with all due respect.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield for additional question?
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Yes.

[[Page S6323]]

  Mr. NICKLES. If somebody is activated and they go to Afghanistan or 
Iraq, don't they receive full health care costs without paying the 28 
percent?
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. They do, and when they come back home 
because of what we did last year they get health care for 6 months. But 
after that 6 months, 25 percent of them go back into the civilian world 
where they have no health care, zero. That is not right. That is not 
like every other Federal employee who is part-time. That is not right 
and we cannot afford to let that continue to happen because we are 
going to be needing these men and women more than ever. Their families 
are stressed. This is a chance to spend a little bit of money on people 
who are giving everything, including their lives and their limbs.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Daschle 
amendment which would provide TRICARE benefits for reservists and their 
family members while in a non-active status, and direct the DoD to pay 
private insurance premiums for reservists when ordered to active duty. 
Under the Graham/Daschle proposal, if enrolled in TRICARE, Reserve 
members would pay 28 percent of the annual premium and the Department 
of Defense would pay the remaining 72 percent.
  The benefit is cost prohibitive. CBO recently estimated the benefit 
would cost $700 million in fiscal year 2005, $5.7 billion over 5 years; 
and $14.2 billion over 10 years.
  The Department of Defense estimates are much higher, at $1.9 billion 
in fiscal year 2005 and $11.6 billion over 5 years.--About $2 billion a 
year.
  In future years, this enhanced benefit will carve out essential 
funding that DoD needs to maintain readiness, meet procurement needs, 
transform the Armed Forces and continue the Global War on Terrorism.
  The Senate is already making significant investment in our Guard and 
Reserve forces. In the fiscal year 2004 Defense Appropriation bill, we 
provided: $15.1 billion for pay and allowances, $14.3 billion in 
Operation and Maintenance funding for training, education and support, 
and about $2.5 billion for National Guard and Reserve Equipment--in 
total, an investment of about $31.9 billion for the Guard and Reserve.
  A substantial portion of this investment is within the active 
component accounts for equipment and weapons that go directly to our 
Guard and Reserve forces. These items include: HUMMWVs, LITENING 
Targeting Pods for Aircraft, Construction Equipment, Heavy Trucks, and 
Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures to defeat shoulder fired 
missiles--LAIRCM.
  If the proposed amendment is adopted, there should be great concern 
that this enhanced entitlement program will come at the expense of 
other Guard and Reserve requirements for training and equipping the 
force.
  The chairman's bill already offers several permanent provisions to 
enhance the medical readiness and ensure continuity of care for reserve 
members and their families, including a provision that provides the 
opportunity for Reserve members and their employers to participate in 
TRICARE while the member is in a non-active duty status--a cost shared 
by the Reserve member and his or her employer.
  The chairman's bill also provides for a demonstration program to 
determine the need for, and feasibility of providing TRICARE benefits 
to members of the Ready Reserve who are eligible for unemployment 
compensation or ineligible for employer-provided health care coverage.
  In a September 2003 report, GAO found that DoD data does not identify 
a need to offer TRICARE to reservists and their families when members 
are not on active duty. Many of the unknown factors include: the effect 
on recruiting and retention, the impact on active duty personnel, the 
impact on the TRICARE system and the military treatment facilities, and 
the number of reservists that might participate.
  The proposed demonstration program and enhanced benefits included in 
the chairman's bill will clearly enhance the medical readiness and 
ensure continuity of care for reserve members and their families.
  The Department of Defense and Congress should take the time to 
further study the appropriate level of health care benefits for our 
Guard and Reserve, and allow the enhanced benefits included in the 
chairman's bill to be implemented and studied before we commit to 
spending billions of dollars on a new entitlement program.
  The Department is in the process of appointing an advisory committee 
on military compensation to review these types of issues. I believe it 
is prudent to conduct these studies before Congress acts on this 
legislation.
  Due to the high cost of the proposal and because of the enhanced 
benefits already contained in the chairman's bill, I must urge my 
colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all time for debate 
has expired.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. I ask unanimous consent to add the 
following cosponsors: Senators Allen, Murkowski, Lott, Coleman, DeWine, 
Leahy, Clinton, Lincoln, Corzine, Dorgan, Bingaman, Murray, and 
Landrieu.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the vote will occur on the amendment of the 
Senator from South Carolina for which the yeas and nays have been 
ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. 
Campbell) and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the 
Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), and the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 70, nays 25, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 105 Leg.]

                                YEAS--70

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Talent
     Voinovich
     Wyden

                                NAYS--25

     Allard
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Dole
     Enzi
     Frist
     Grassley
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     McConnell
     Miller
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Baucus
     Campbell
     Domenici
     Edwards
     Kerry
  The amendment (No. 3258) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote in 
relation to the pending Warner-Levin-Stevens amendment occur at 6:30 
tonight, with no second degrees in order to the amendment prior to the 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________