[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2772-2782]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                 KOSOVO

  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Presiding Officer. I thank the distinguished 
Senator from Michigan and my distinguished friend and colleague from 
Colorado for their time.
  This is sort of a news update on Kosovo, if I could describe it that 
way, because several Senators have indicated a strong desire to offer 
amendments to this bill in regard to the United States' role in Kosovo. 
I hope that we won't do that. We need this bill to be expedited to send 
a strong message to our American men and women in uniform. This is not 
to say, however, that we do not need a frank discussion of ongoing 
discussions about the United States' role in regard to Kosovo.
  I have, as of 3 o'clock this afternoon--we are about an hour after 
that--the latest report from the peace talks in Rambouillet, France. 
Secretary of State Albright has just indicated that:

       After 17 days of laborious negotiations, Secretary of State 
     Madeleine Albright said today that ethnic Albanians have 
     agreed to sign a Kosovo peace agreement within two weeks but 
     the Serbs continue to balk at a deal.

  I will go on with this very briefly.

       According to senior U.S. officials, the Serbs still refuse 
     to permit ethnic Albanians to have a president and are 
     unwilling to cooperate with a war crimes tribunal looking 
     into atrocities against civilians.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       At a news conference by the six-nation Contact Group 
     overseeing the talks, French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine 
     announced that a new conference on the Kosovo conflict would 
     be held in France beginning March 15.

  So we have a lull. So the peace talks can continue. A cynic might say 
we drew a line in the sand. And yet, at another time we have gone 
beyond that line in the sand and our credibility is at stake.
  Robin Cook, Foreign Secretary of Great Britain, called for the 
parties to ``use these three weeks, use them to build peace. . . . We 
have done a lot here, even if we have not done enough.''
  The agreement came 1\1/2\ hours after the deadline for the peace 
conference had passed. However, in regard to the Serbs, the news is not 
that good, to say the least. Their Deputy Prime Minister has described 
the talks as a bust, blaming the United States officials, who he said 
``want the blood of the Serbs.''
  He said, ``I am afraid the Rambouillet conference failed and we must 
say very clearly who is guilty for that. But peace appeared as 
elusive''--right during these talks, Mr. President. ``New fighting''--
or continued fighting. Actually, it is old and continued and new 
fighting--``broke out between the Yugoslav army troops and the Serb 
police and the ethnic Albanian rebels.''
  So we still have war.
  The reason I brought all of that up is that there was an article in 
Monday's Washington Post written by Dr. Henry Kissinger. I think Dr. 
Kissinger has pretty well summed up some of the concerns, at least, and 
the frustrations that many Senators have in regard to the lack of 
clarity in regard to the situation in Kosovo. And, of course, it 
affects everything we do in the Balkans, not to mention Bosnia.
  Dr. Kissinger said this:

       In Bosnia, the exit strategy can be described. The existing 
     dividing lines can be made permanent. Failure to do so will 
     require their having to be manned indefinitely unless we 
     change our objective to self-determination and permit each 
     ethnic group to decide its own fate.

  But in Kosovo, Dr. Kissinger certainly pointed out that option 
doesn't exist. There are no ethnic dividing lines and both sides 
actually claim the

[[Page 2773]]

entire territory. Our attitude, the U.S. attitude toward the Serbs 
attempts to insist that their claim has been made plain. It is the 
threat of bombing. But how do we and NATO react to Albanian 
transgressions? Are we prepared to fight both sides and for how long?
  As a matter of fact, Secretary Albright indicated if the Albanians 
didn't get along, we could not bomb the Serbs. That seems to me to be a 
little bit unprecedented and unique. As a matter of fact, I think it is 
a little nutty.
  But at any rate, are we prepared to fight both sides and for how 
long?

       In the face of issues such as these, the unity of the 
     contact group of powers acting on behalf of NATO is likely to 
     dissolve. Russia surely will increasingly emerge as the 
     supporter of the Serbian point of view.

  And then Dr. Kissinger goes on, and I will not take the time of the 
Senate in regard to his entire statement, but he sums up by saying: 
``Each incremental deployment into the Balkans is bound to weaken our 
ability to deal with Saddam Hussein and North Korea.''
  You draw the line in the sand. That time expires, and it is a problem 
in terms of our credibility.

       The psychological drain may be even more grave. Each time 
     we make a peripheral deployment, the administration is 
     constrained to insist that the danger to American forces is 
     minimal--the Kosovo deployment is officially described as a 
     ``peace implementation force.''
       Such comments have two unfortunate consequences: They 
     increase the impression among Americans that military force 
     can be used casualty-free,--

  And obviously that is a big concern on the part of everyone--

     and they send a signal of weakness to potential enemies. For 
     in the end our forces will be judged on how adequate they are 
     for peace imposition, not peace implementation.

  I ask unanimous consent that the full statement of Dr. Kissinger be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Feb. 22, 1999]

                   No. U.S. Ground Forces for Kosovo


      leadership doesn't mean that we must do everything ourselves

                          (By Henry Kissinger)

       President Clinton's announcement that some 4,000 troops 
     will join a NATO force of 28,000 to help police a Kosovo 
     agreement faces all those concerned with long-range American 
     national security policy with a quandary.
       Having at one time shared responsibility for national 
     security policy and the extrication from Vietnam, I am 
     profoundly uneasy about the proliferation of open-ended 
     American commitments involving the deployment of U.S. forces. 
     American forces are in harm's way in Kosovo, Bosnia and the 
     gulf. They lack both a definition of strategic purpose by 
     which success can be measured and an exit strategy. In the 
     case of Kosovo, the concern is that America's leadership 
     would be impaired by the refusal of Congress to approve 
     American participation in the NATO force that has come into 
     being largely as a result of a diplomacy conceived and 
     spurred by Washington.
       Thus, in the end, Congress may feel it has little choice 
     but to go along. In any event, its formal approval is not 
     required. But Congress needs to put the administration on 
     notice that it is uneasy about being repeatedly confronted 
     with ad hoc military missions. The development and 
     articulation of a comprehensive strategy is imperative if we 
     are to avoid being stretched too thin in the face of other 
     foreseeable and militarily more dangerous challenges.
       Before any future deployments take place, we must be able 
     to answer these questions: What consequences are we seeking 
     to prevent? What goals are we seeking to achieve? In what way 
     do they serve the national interest?
       President Clinton has justified American troop deployments 
     in Kosovo on the ground that ethnic conflict in Yugoslavia 
     threatens ``Europe's stability and future.'' Other 
     administration spokesmen have compared the challenge to that 
     of Hitler's threat to European security. Neither statement 
     does justice to Balkan realities.
       The proposed deployment in Kosovo does not deal with any 
     threat to American security as traditionally conceived. The 
     threatening escalations sketched by the president--to 
     Macedonia or Greece and Turkey--are in the long run more 
     likely to result from the emergence of a Kosovo state.
       Nor is the Kosovo problem new. Ethnic conflict has been 
     endemic in the Balkans for centuries. Waves of conquests have 
     congealed divisions between ethnic groups and religions, 
     between the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic faiths; between 
     Christianity and Islam; between the heirs of the Austrian and 
     Ottoman empires.
       Through the centuries, these conflicts have been fought 
     with unparalleled ferocity because none of the populations 
     has any experience with--and essentially no belief in-- 
     Western concepts of toleration. Majority rule and compromise 
     that underlie most of the proposals for a ``solution'' never 
     have found an echo in the Balkans.
       Moreover, the projected Kosovo agreement is unlikely to 
     enjoy the support of the parties for a long period of time. 
     For Serbia, acquiescing under the threat of NATO bombardment, 
     it involves nearly unprecedented international intercession. 
     Yugoslavia, a sovereign state, is being asked to cede control 
     and in time sovereignty of a province containing its national 
     shrines to foreign military force.
       Though President Slobodan Milosevic has much to answer for, 
     especially in Bosnia, he is less the cause of the conflict in 
     Kosovo than an expression of it. On the need to retain 
     Kosovo, Serbian leaders--including Milosevic's domestic 
     opponents--seem united. For Serbia, current NATO policy means 
     either dismemberment of the country or postponement of the 
     conflict to a future date when, according to the NATO 
     proposal, the future of the province will be decided.
       The same attitude governs the Albanian side. The Kosovo 
     Liberation Army (KLA) is fighting for independence, not 
     autonomy. But under the projected agreement, Kosovo, now an 
     integral part of Serbia, is to be made an autonomous and 
     self-governing entity within Serbia, which, however, will 
     remain responsible for external security and even exercise 
     some unspecified internal police functions. A plebiscite at 
     the end of three years is to determine the region's future.
       The KLA is certain to try to use the cease-fire to expel 
     the last Serbian influences from the province and drag its 
     feet on giving up its arms. And if NATO resists, it may come 
     under attack itself--perhaps from both sides. What is 
     described by the administration as a ``strong peace 
     agreement'' is likely to be at best the overture to another, 
     far more complicated set of conflicts.
       Ironically, the projected peace agreement increases the 
     likelihood of the various possible escalations sketched by 
     the president as justification for a U.S. deployment. An 
     independent Albanian Kosovo surely would seek to incorporate 
     the neighboring Albanian minorities--mostly in Macedonia--and 
     perhaps even Albania itself. And a Macedonian conflict would 
     land us precisely back in the Balkan wars of earlier in this 
     century. Will Kosovo then become the premise for a NATO move 
     into Macedonia, just as the deployment in Bosnia is invoked 
     as justification for the move into Kosovo? Is NATO to be the 
     home for a whole series of Balkan NATO protectorates?
       What confuses the situation even more is that the American 
     missions in Bosnia and Kosovo are justified by different, 
     perhaps incompatible, objectives. In Bosnia, American 
     deployment is being promoted as a means to unite Croats, 
     Muslims and Serbs into a single state. Serbs and Croats 
     prefer to practice self-determination but are being asked to 
     subordinate their preference to the geopolitical argument 
     that a small Muslim Bosnian state would be too precarious and 
     irredentist. But in Kosovo, national self-determination is 
     invoked to produce a tiny state nearly certain to be 
     irredentist.
       Since neither traditional concepts of the national interest 
     nor U.S. security impel the deployment, the ultimate 
     justification is the laudable and very American goal of 
     easing human suffering. This is why, in the end, I went along 
     with the Dayton agreement insofar as it ended the war by 
     separating the contending forces. But I cannot bring myself 
     to endorse American ground forces in Kosovo.
       In Bosnia, the exit strategy can be described. The existing 
     dividing lines can be made permanent. Failure to do so will 
     require their having to be manned indefinitely unless we 
     change our objective to self-determination and permit each 
     ethnic group to decide its own fate.
       In Kosovo, that option does not exist. There are no ethnic 
     dividing lines, and both sides claim the entire territory. 
     America's attitude toward the Serbs' attempts to insist on 
     their claim has been made plain enough; it is the threat of 
     bombing. But how do we and NATO react to Albanian 
     transgressions and irredentism? Are we prepared to fight both 
     sides and for how long? In the face of issues such as these, 
     the unity of the contact group of powers acting on behalf of 
     NATO is likely to dissolve. Russia surely will increasingly 
     emerge as the supporter of the Serbian point of view.
       We must take care not to treat a humanitarian foreign 
     policy as a magic recipe for the basic problem of 
     establishing priorities in foreign policy. The president's 
     statements ``that we can make a difference'' and that America 
     symbolizes hope and resolve'' are exhortations, not policy 
     prescription. Do they mean that America's military power is 
     available to enable every ethnic or religious group to 
     achieve self-determination? Is NATO to become the artillery 
     for ethnic conflict? If Kosovo, why not East Africa or 
     Central Asia? And would a doctrine of universal humanitarian 
     intervention reduce or increase suffering by intensifying 
     ethnic and

[[Page 2774]]

     religious conflict? What are the limits of such a policy and 
     by what criteria is it established?
       In my view, that line should be drawn at American ground 
     forces in Kosovo. Europeans never tire of stressing the need 
     for greater European autonomy. Here is an occasion to 
     demonstrate it. If Kosovo presents a security problem, it is 
     to Europe, largely because of the refugees the conflict might 
     generate, as the president has pointed out. Kosovo is no more 
     a threat to America than Haiti was to Europe--and we never 
     asked for NATO support there. The nearly 300 million 
     Europeans should be able to generate the ground forces to 
     deal with 2.3 million Kosovars. To symbolize Allied unity on 
     larger issues, we should provide logistics, intelligence and 
     air support. But I see no need for U.S. ground forces; 
     leadership should not be interpreted to mean that we must do 
     everything ourselves.
       Soonor or later, we must articulate the American capability 
     to sustain a global policy. The desire to do so landed us in 
     the Vietnam morass. Even if one stipulates an American 
     strategic interest in Kosovo (which I do not), we must take 
     care not to stretch ourselves too thin in the face of far 
     less ominous threats in the Middle East and Northeast Asia.
       Each incremental deployment into the Balkans is bound to 
     weaken our ability to deal with Saddam Hussein and North 
     Korea. The psychological drain may be even more grave. Each 
     time we make a peripheral deployment, the administration is 
     constrained to insist that the danger to American forces is 
     minimal--the Kosovo deployment is officially described as a 
     ``peace implementation force.''
       Such comments have two unfortunate consequences: They 
     increase the impression among Americans that military force 
     can be used casualty-free, and they send a signal of weakness 
     to potential enemies. For in the end our forces will be 
     judged on how adequate they are for peace imposition, not 
     peace implementation.
       I always am inclined to support the incumbent 
     administration in a forceful assertion of the national 
     interest. And as a passionate believer in the NATO alliance, 
     I make the distinctions between European and American 
     security interests in the Balkans with the utmost reluctance. 
     But support for a strong foreign policy and a strong NATO 
     surely will evaporate if we fail to anchor them in a dear 
     definition of the national interest and impart a sense of 
     direction to our foreign policy in a period of turbulent 
     change.

  Mr. ROBERTS. The reason that I brought this up is that we have 
several Senators who are considering amendments on Kosovo. One I think 
would simply say that the Congress would have to vote before any 
deployment of any American pilot in any kind of a military mission and/
or ground troops would set foot on Kosovo. That is the extra step, if 
you will, to certainly include the Congress in any decisionmaking. But 
I would point out to my colleagues, and I made mention of this when I 
spoke on behalf of this bill, i.e., the bill in regard to retirement 
reform and pay reform, and I pointed out that we have in the law--and 
let me just point out it is Public Law 105-262, October 17, 1998. It is 
a public law, and the President signed it. And there is section 
8115(a), and we say:

       None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     under this Act may be obligated or expended for any 
     additional deployment of forces of the Armed Forces of the 
     United States to Yugoslavia, Albania, or Macedonia unless and 
     until the President, after consultation with the Speaker of 
     the House of Representatives, the Majority Leader of the 
     Senate, the minority leader of the House of Representatives, 
     and the minority of the Senate, transmits to Congress a 
     report on the deployment that includes the following:

  And I want my colleagues to understand this. This is the law of the 
land. And the National Security Council is aware of this. As a matter 
of fact, my staff just an hour ago contacted the staff at the National 
Security Council, and we said, ``Where is the report?'' We keep hearing 
about progress and incremental steps or lack of progress with the peace 
talks and yet we have 4,000, 5,000, maybe 7,000 American troops ready 
to deploy in regard to Kosovo. This requires the administration to come 
to the Congress and report on the following things:

       The President's certification that the presence of those 
     forces in each country to which the forces are to be deployed 
     is necessary in the national security interests of the United 
     States.

  That is pretty basic. Does our involvement really involve our vital 
national security interests? Can a case be made?
  Now, the President spoke to it in terms of his radio address. I think 
that is good. That is the first time he has spoken to it on national 
radio. But we really need to know why is our intervention in Kosovo in 
our vital national security interests? Is it the future of NATO? I 
think so to some degree. Are we talking about we don't want another 
Palestine in the middle of Central Europe? I know that. But vital 
national security interests? I don't know.

       (2) The reasons why the deployment is in the national 
     security interests. . . .
       (3) The number of United States military personnel to be 
     deployed. . . .
       (4) The mission and objectives of forces to be deployed.
       (5) The expected schedule for accomplishing the objectives 
     of the deployment.
       (6) The exit strategy--

  Mr. President, the exit strategy--

     for United States forces engaged in the deployment.

  We are talking about a 3-year engagement here. This is 4 years in 
regard to Bosnia.

       The costs associated with the deployment and the funding 
     sources for paying those costs.

  Now, I have quite a bit of blood pressure in this regard since we 
have spent literally billions of dollars in Bosnia but we didn't pay 
for it up front. We didn't pay for it with a supplemental. We do pay 
for it when the pressure comes on the appropriators to come up with an 
emergency funding request. So we need to find out what the costs would 
be in regard to this deployment.
  And finally:

       The anticipated effects of the deployment on the morale, 
     retention and effectiveness of United States forces.

  I made mention that one of the considerations why the people are 
leaving the service today is the quality of mission, and we have the 
situation where 60 percent of our service people today are married, 
obviously part of families, and they go to Bosnia, and perhaps Kosovo, 
and the Mideast and Korea, and we do not have enough people to really 
fill those billets now so they are deployed for 6 months, 9 months, 
come back for a month, bang, they are right over there again, plus the 
Reserve and the Guard. That is one of the considerations in regard to 
operation tempo, personnel tempo, as to why people are leaving the 
service, but mission quality is also a good reason. That is No. 8 in 
regard to the anticipated effects of the deployment on the morale, the 
retention and effectiveness of U.S. forces.
  Now, we say if there is an emergency here in terms of our national 
security, obviously the President can intercede.
  Now, I want to see this report. We met with Secretary Albright, 
Secretary Cohen, and our national security director, Sandy Berger, 
about 2 weeks ago during the impeachment trial. It was early in the 
morning. We made them aware of this particular provision in this 
report. Now, I understand from staff of the NSC that a report will be 
coming, because in the words of the staff member, ``There is a lull 
over in Kosovo.'' We have a 3 week time period to try to work something 
else out in regard to the peace agreement.
  Let me just point out something, Mr. President. The Secretary of 
State said that we would not commit American men and women to a 
peacekeeping role in Kosovo unless there were benchmarks for peace. I 
would only remind this administration and my colleagues, on behalf of 
all those in the military, that if you are a peacekeeper, there better 
be a peace to keep because when there is not a peace to keep, you 
become a target. That is a whole different situation.
  So, consequently, I am very hopeful that the National Security 
Council will be coming forth with this report and giving the report to 
our leadership and the appropriate committee chairs. Since this is the 
law, perhaps we can think about delaying any other amendments to this 
bill in regard to the Kosovo situation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does any Senator seek recognition?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we are making progress on this bill. I 
hope in short order we can address the pending amendment by the 
Senators from Texas and North Carolina, but I am not ready yet. I am 
trying my very, very best to determine what are the cost

[[Page 2775]]

ramifications of each of these amendments as they come along. At the 
moment, we are close to isolating the financial repercussions of the 
amendment of the Senators from Texas and North Carolina.
  I see the Senator from Maine, so at this moment I will yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I am honored to serve as an original co-sponsor of the 
Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999 
in the name of the hundreds of thousands of men and women trained to 
deter, fight, and win our wars.
  I also thank Senators Warner, Allard, Levin, and Cleland for their 
bipartisan support of the legislation's universal 4.8 percent pay raise 
and thrift savings proposals as well as the constructive amendments on 
G.I. bill reform incorporated in the committee-reported version of the 
bill.
  The Bill of Rights Act legalizes the concept that military personnel 
should receive the same retirement benefits based not on the arbitrary 
factor of when they joined, but on the timeless standard of willingness 
to sacrifice.
  It is notable, therefore, that the Senate's opening legislation of 
the year increases soldier pay for the first time in a generation and 
strips away the layers of unfairness in a military retirement system 
based solely on the date of entry rather than the length of service. 
Unlike the current arrangement, which is more generous to active duty 
personnel who started working before 1986, our proposal of benefits and 
bonuses offers the same retirement package to all men and women in 
uniform who build a military career of at least 20 years.
  Today, we also commit ourselves to a comprehensive pay raise of 4.8 
percent--the largest since 1982--that narrows the gap between military 
and civilian salaries.
  We commit ourselves, as Secretary Cohen did last month in 
recommending salary increases for noncommissioned and mid-grade 
commissioned officers, to retention and promotion bonuses that reward 
the skills of 21st century war fighters.
  We commit ourselves for the first time ever to making long-term 
savings plans available to uniformed service members so that they can 
build a foundation for family security.
  We commit ourselves to increase the monthly G.I. benefit for Service 
people who serve at least for 2 years while eliminating the punitive 
$1,200 entry fee for young men and women who want to take advantage of 
a college education under this historic program.
  And we commit ourselves to financial independence for the junior 
enlisted ranks by making available a special subsistence allowance of 
$180 per month as an alternative to food stamp subsidies. This 
provision will remove from the welfare rolls an estimated 11,900 
military personnel in the lowest pay grades.
  Beginning last September and continuing through the new year, the 
committee constructed a public record of the financial and operational 
strains that our military people have endured in recent times.
  We found that the total value of the Army's retirement package had 
eroded by 25 percent since 1986. We also found that inadequate pay left 
the Navy short of 7,000 sailors, the Air Force short of 2,000 pilots, 
and the Marine Corps short of combat engineers by a threshold of 30 
percent.
  Last month, General Henry Shelton, the nation's senior official in 
uniform, told the Armed Services Committee that ``reforming military 
retirement remains the Joint Chiefs highest priority.''
  Echoing General Shelton, the Air Force Chief of Staff told the 
committee that ``restoring the retirement system as a retention 
incentive is our top priority.''
  The Commandant of the Marine Corps told the committee that ``unit 
commanders routinely cite dissatisfaction with . . . retirement . . . 
as one of the foremost reasons for separation.''
  And the Chief of Naval Operations told the Committee that ``pay and 
retirement benefits rank among our sailors' top dissatisfiers.''
  As the chairwoman of the Armed Services Seapower Subcommittee, I must 
report that inadequate pay has directly strained our maritime Special 
Operations forces--famously known as the Navy SEALS.
  The SEALS conduct vital intelligence-gathering and enemy infiltration 
activities in advance of, or as an alternative to, higher risk 
conventional military campaigns. Intense training schedules and 
exciting missions have traditionally held SEAL recruitment and 
retention levels traditionally exceed those for most other naval 
components by between 20 and 30 percent.
  But today, the SEAL re-enlistment rate exceeds that for the rest of 
the Service by only 2 percent. The SEALS now face an overall shortfall 
of 300 men, and the senior enlisted member of the organization told the 
San Diego Tribune last week that while morale was still high, the pay 
was too low.
  Beyond the SEALS, Mr. President, the Navy struggles with skilled 
personnel shortages throughout the Service. Thirty-five percent of 
naval aviators elect to take retention bonuses while the Pentagon's 
goal in this area stands at 50 percent. Enlisted retention overall has 
decreased 6 to 8 percent below normal requirements.
  Finally, the most acute turnover rates faced by our sailors come from 
the ranks of those who lead them: the mid-level officers who command 
our surface ships and submarines.
  The Bill of Rights Act responds in an aggressive way to these 
disturbing developments. With this law, we declare that while Congress 
cannot equalize the financial benefits of all Armed Services and 
private sector jobs, it can devise compensation plans upholding the 
value of military careers regardless of the state of the economy.
  It's fair to ask, Mr. President, why the Joint Chiefs did not 
identify problems like a ballistic missile strike from North Korea or 
Iraq's chemical weapons as more serious threats to military 
preparedness than pay levels or retirement benefits.
  The answer rests with a fundamental but overlooked fact: only people 
can deliver the capabilities to protect America and her interests 
overseas. We must therefore ensure that the military's pay and 
retirement policies provide strong retention incentives to skilled and 
motivated troops.
  Military strength not only comes from adequate spending on technology 
and hardware. It also comes from compensation packages that inspire 
officers and enlisted personnel alike to remain in service with fair 
pay and to anticipate a secure retirement with a fair pension.
  Because the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of 
Rights Act of 1999 recognizes the critical human dimension of defense 
preparedness, I urge the Senate's enthusiastic support for this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in consultation with the ranking member 
here, and with the respective offices of the leadership, it is our hope 
and expectation that we could have a vote at 5:30 on the amendment 
proposed by the Senator from Texas and the Senator from North Carolina. 
I urge all those who wish to address remarks concerning that amendment 
to proceed to the floor. And as they arrive, hopefully they can seek 
recognition. This is a very important bill. It is one in which there 
will be further discussion.
  Our colleague from Minnesota has an amendment, it is my 
understanding.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.

[[Page 2776]]


  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, let me thank both my 
colleagues, the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Michigan.


                            Amendment No. 16

(Purpose: To provide for enhanced protections of the confidentiality of 
  records of family advocacy services and other professional support 
services relating to incidents of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, and 
                           intrafamily abuse)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of myself and Senator Murray.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself and 
     Mrs. Murray, proposes an amendment numbered 16.

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

       On page 46, after line 16, add the following:

     SEC. 402. REPORT AND REGULATIONS ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                   POLICIES ON PROTECTING THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF 
                   COMMUNICATIONS WITH PROFESSIONALS PROVIDING 
                   THERAPEUTIC OR RELATED SERVICES REGARDING 
                   SEXUAL OR DOMESTIC ABUSE.

       (a) Requirement for Study.--(1) The Comptroller General 
     shall study the policies, procedures, and practices of the 
     military departments for protecting the confidentiality of 
     communications between--
       (A) a dependent of a member of the Armed Forces who--
       (i) is a victim of sexual harassment, sexual assault, or 
     intrafamily abuse; or
       (ii) has engaged in such misconduct; and
       (B) a therapist, counselor, advocate, or other professional 
     from whom the dependent seeks professional services in 
     connection with effects of such misconduct.
       (2) The Comptroller General shall conclude the study and 
     submit to the Secretary of Defense a report on the results of 
     the study within such period as is necessary to enable the 
     Secretary to satisfy the reporting requirement under 
     subsection (d).
       (b) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe 
     in regulations the policies and procedures that the Secretary 
     considers necessary to provide the maximum possible 
     protections for the confidentiality of communications 
     described in subsection (a) relating to misconduct described 
     in that subsection, consistent with:
       (1) the findings of the Comptroller General;
       (2) the standards of confidentiality and ethical standards 
     issued by relevant professional organizations;
       (3) applicable requirements of federal and state law;
       (4) the best interest of victims of sexual harassment, 
     sexual assault, or intrafamily abuse; and
       (5) such other factors as the Secretary in consultation 
     with the Attorney General, may consider appropriate.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment is simple and it is 
important. It calls on the Defense Department to issue new guidelines 
that will strengthen the privacy rights of victims of domestic violence 
who are spouses and children of our military employees.
  Just a little bit of background. And it calls for this to be done in 
an expeditious manner, I think within a 9-month period.
  Mr. President, domestic violence--actually, I am sorry to say on the 
floor of the Senate--is a huge problem and a huge issue in our country. 
About every 15 seconds a woman is battered in her home. A home should 
be a safe place, but all too often it is not. And this affects women 
and children. And I say this is nationwide, because I would not want 
any colleague to think that the focus here is just on the military.
  Battering is one of the single greatest causes of injury to women. 
According to the Department of Justice statistics, of the 1.4 million 
hospital emergency room admissions in 1994, about a quarter of them 
were treated for injuries from domestic violence. The prevalence of 
violence against women associated with the U.S. Armed Forces is deeply 
disturbing. The dependent victims of violent crimes in the Armed Forces 
are particularly vulnerable due to isolation, the mobile lifestyle, and 
financial security--some of which we are trying to deal with in our 
legislation.
  The Department of Defense data estimates that on average 23.2 per 
1,000 spouses of military personnel experienced domestic violence in 
the last 5 years. According to an Army survey released to Time 
Magazine, spousal abuse is occurring in one of every three Army 
families each year. So unfortunately it is a problem.
  Here is the problem that we are trying to rectify: In civilian 
society we recognize the confidentiality of communications so that if a 
woman sees a doctor or she sees someone else, a mental health worker or 
someone she needs to see to give her help, there is confidentiality. 
But we do not have the same confidentiality for spouses of our Armed 
Forces personnel and their children. And so what we are trying to do is 
to make sure that we have the same guarantees of confidentiality.
  When you do not have the confidentiality--and, again, we believe and 
we agree that our military is absolutely correct that when it comes to 
those that are enlisted in the military, there is a problem with 
confidentiality because you want to know what is going on with that 
soldier if you are about to put that soldier in a combat situation. But 
I am not talking actually about the military; I am talking about the 
spouses and the children. We want to make sure that the victims are not 
retraumatized.
  What happens too often, I say to my colleagues, right now--and I 
think there is an acknowledgement of this; I think this amendment is a 
positive step; I really do--what happens all too often is that many 
women are afraid to step forward because the conversation they have 
with their doctor, or wherever they go, is not confidential; it becomes 
public, it becomes released to too many people. And therefore what 
happens is she has to worry that her husband may, in fact, take action 
against her. So many women are afraid. They are afraid to tell anyone 
about what is happening to them. They are afraid to tell anyone that 
they themselves are being battered or that their children are being 
battered.
  So let me just kind of conclude with an example. Annette--I do not 
want to use any full names--is the former wife of a naval chief petty 
officer and the mother of two young children. She was routinely beaten 
by him from June 1994 through 1996. Military protective orders and 
civilian restraining orders failed to protect her and her children. Her 
ex-husband was charged with 21 offenses by the U.S. Navy, including 
eight assault charges involving Annette. He was ultimately court-
martialed.
  During the military's investigation of abuse, she was interviewed in 
the presence of her batterer, and her batterer's command was notified, 
which resulted in a brutal escalation of the violence toward Annette. 
At his court-martial proceedings, her dating and marital history were 
reviewed publicly by prosecuting attorneys.
  We need to ensure that military wives and dependents like Annette are 
given the same rights of privacy and confidentiality as civilian 
victims. That is what this is about. It calls on the Defense Department 
to basically issue some guidelines that will give these military wives 
and dependents the same rights of privacy and confidentiality that any 
other civilian victim has right now.
  This will make an enormous difference, I say to my colleagues. We 
bring these amendments to the floor. I am so pleased it is supported. I 
thank both my colleagues for this. I certainly hope that we will keep 
this in conference committee. I hope I will have their support because 
this really will make an important difference. It is really very 
important.
  I thank Senator Murray. I hope she will have time to come down. I 
thank both my colleagues for their support.
  (Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The gallery will please refrain from 
commenting on comments made by Senators.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to urge my Colleagues 
to support the pending Wellstone amendment. I want to thank Senator 
Wellstone for his efforts on behalf of battered spouses in the military 
and commend him for his diligence on this issue.

[[Page 2777]]

  As many of you know, both Senator Wellstone and I have worked hard to 
address the needs of victims of domestic violence. Stopping domestic 
violence should be a priority regardless of whether or not the batterer 
is a civilian or member of the military. Unfortunately, we have not yet 
done enough to protect military dependants who are victims of abuse.
  The Wellstone amendment would protect the privacy of military 
dependent's medical and counseling records. Currently, dependents of 
the military are not afforded the same assumption of privacy as 
civilian are for their medical records. If a spouse of a member of the 
military is battered and she seeks health care services for the 
treatment of the abuse, her records should not become public where they 
could later be used against her.
  We know one of the most important factors for domestic violence 
victims is privacy. If a battered woman seeks help in an emergency room 
or through a counselor, her medical records remain private. The records 
cannot be released without her consent. This assumption of privacy is 
crucial for women to come forward and ask for help. Because there is no 
assumption of privacy for military dependents, the chances that these 
women to will seek medical help and counseling is severely reduced.
  We have heard from advocates that work with battered military 
dependents. They have seen how this lack of privacy protection affects 
their ability to help victims of domestic violence and their children. 
They have told us that this change is necessary and important. I urge 
my Colleagues to listen to the recommendations of those who are truly 
on the front lines in preventing domestic violence. They know this is 
the right thing to do.
  This amendment has been adopted in the past by the Senate and I urge 
my Colleagues to again send the message to battered military dependents 
that they should never fear seeking medical help or counseling and that 
they do not have to remain in violent, abusive relationships.
  I urge my Colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. We thank the Senator for bringing this important 
initiative to the attention of the committee. And the committee accepts 
this amendment. I hope that it will be accepted by all of our 
colleagues. Does the Senator require a rollcall or a voice vote?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased not to have a call for the yeas and nays, 
but rather a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me congratulate our good friend from 
Minnesota for this amendment. This is a very, very, perceptive 
amendment.
  What he is doing here is requiring that the Comptroller General make 
a study in a report to the Department of Defense on policies that would 
protect the confidentiality of communications between military 
dependents who are victims of sexual harassment, sexual assault or 
intrafamily abuse or who have engaged in such misconduct; and 
therapists, counselors and advocates from whom the victim seeks 
professional services. The Senator has pointed out that without this 
confidentiality, the victims of this kind of abuse and behavior are a 
lot less likely to use what is available to them in terms of 
counseling, medical services and protection. This becomes a very 
essential ingredient in protecting the victims of this kind of abuse. 
Without this confidentiality, we don't have the necessary protection 
that will give the assurance to these victims.
  I want to commend Senator Wellstone and Senator Murray for this 
amendment. I hope it has prompt and swift approval of this body.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleagues. Before we have the voice vote, 
I thank Charlotte Oldham-Moore of my staff for doing a lot of work, and 
I thank the people around the country for helping us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the 
amendment, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 16) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to advise colleagues that we are 
proceeding toward a vote at 5:30. I am anxious to receive the further 
comments from those Senators actively supporting the bill of the 
Senator from Texas and the Senator from North Carolina. I anticipate 
their appearance here very shortly.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, leadership has now authorized the managers 
of the bill to advise the Senate that there will be a vote at 5:30 
tonight on the amendments of the Senators from Texas and North 
Carolina. I see both Senators present. I yield the floor for their 
concluding remarks.
  I wonder if I might just propound a question that I hope the Senator 
will address in the course of her remarks. My colleague and I, as 
managers of the bill, want to be careful about trying to limit the 
amount of additional funds put on. After careful study of the Senator's 
amendment, it is my view that all authorization and funding is 
discretionary. Am I correct in that?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes. I say to the distinguished chairman that we are 
obviously saying to the Department of Defense that we want to improve 
the TRICARE system if they find that it is feasible to do so. 
Obviously, they are going to have to find it feasible. But the 
priorities that are set will improve TRICARE and particularly allow 
immediately--well, when the amendment takes effect a year from now. But 
there will be no cost to allowing people to be able to go to another 
base and keep their TRICARE system in place. There is no cost in that.
  Mr. WARNER. So the Secretary of Defense would have the discretion to 
exercise within his appropriated fund budget in the health care 
account. Am I correct on that item?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. Is the Senator from North Carolina agreeing to that?
  Mr. EDWARDS. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. Therefore, it is the joint judgment of both sponsors that 
there is no point of order.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Absolutely. In fact, I think what we are trying to 
do, of course, is to give the Department the ability to do some of the 
things that it would like to be able to do to improve the service.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank both of my colleagues. Thank you very much. I 
yield the floor. We will have a vote at 5:30.
  First, has the Chair established that vote at 5:30?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator wish to make that in the form 
of a unanimous consent?
  Mr. WARNER. I so make that request of the Chair.
  Mr. LEVIN. We have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Amendment No. 18

               (Purpose: To improve the TRICARE program.)

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

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for herself, Mr. 
     Edwards, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Helms, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Coverdell, 
     Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Santorum, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 18.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.

[[Page 2778]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 46, after line 16, add the following:

                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 501. IMPROVEMENT OF TRICARE PROGRAM.

       (a) Improvement of TRICARE Program.--(1) Chapter 55 of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
     section 1097a the following new section:

     ``Sec. 1097b. TRICARE: comparability of benefits with 
       benefits under Federal Employees Health Benefits program; 
       other requirements and authorities

       ``(a) Comparability of Benefits.--The Secretary of Defense 
     shall, to the maximum extent practicable, ensure that the 
     health care coverage available through the TRICARE program is 
     substantially similar to the health care coverage available 
     under similar health benefits plans offered under the Federal 
     Employees Health Benefits program established under chapter 
     89 of title 5.
       ``(b) Portability of Benefits.--The Secretary of Defense 
     shall provide that any covered beneficiary enrolled in the 
     TRICARE program may receive benefits under that program at 
     facilities that provide benefits under that program 
     throughout the various regions of that program.
       ``(c) Patient Management.--(1) The Secretary of Defense 
     shall, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize the 
     authorization or certification requirements imposed upon 
     covered beneficiaries under the TRICARE program as a 
     condition of access to benefits under that program.
       ``(2) The Secretary of Defense shall, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, utilize practices for processing claims under 
     the TRICARE program that are similar to the best industry 
     practices for processing claims for health care services in a 
     simplified and expedited manner. To the maximum extent 
     practicable, such practices shall include electronic 
     processing of claims.
       ``(d) Reimbursement of Health Care Providers.--(1) Subject 
     to paragraph (2), the Secretary of Defense may increase the 
     reimbursement provided to health care providers under the 
     TRICARE program above the reimbursement otherwise authorized 
     such providers under that program if the Secretary determines 
     that such increase is necessary in order to ensure the 
     availability of an adequate number of qualified health care 
     providers under that program.
       ``(2) The amount of reimbursement provided under paragraph 
     (1) with respect to a health care service may not exceed the 
     lesser of--
       ``(A) the amount equal to the local usual and customary 
     charge for the service in the service area (as determined by 
     the Secretary) in which the service is provided; or
       ``(B) the amount equal to 115 per cent of the CHAMPUS 
     maximum allowable charge for the service.
       ``(e) Authority for Certain Third-Party Collections.--(1) A 
     medical treatment facility of the uniformed services under 
     the TRICARE program may collect from a third-party payer the 
     reasonable charges for health care services described in 
     paragraph (2) that are incurred by the facility on behalf of 
     a covered beneficiary under that program to the extent that 
     the beneficiary would be eligible to receive reimbursement or 
     indemnification from the third-party payer if the beneficiary 
     were to incur such charges on the beneficiary's own behalf.
       ``(2) The reasonable charges described in this paragraph 
     are reasonable charges for services or care covered by the 
     medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security 
     Act.
       ``(3) The collection of charges, and the utilization of 
     amounts collected, under this subsection shall be subject to 
     the provisions of section 1095 of this title. The term 
     `reasonable costs', as used in that section shall be deemed 
     for purposes of the application of that section to this 
     subsection to refer to the reasonable charges described in 
     paragraph (2).
       ``(f) Consultation.--The Secretary of Defense shall carry 
     out any actions under this section after consultation with 
     the other administering Secretaries.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 55 of 
     such title is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 1097a the following new item:

``1097b. TRICARE: comparability of benefits with benefits under Federal 
              Employees Health Benefits program; other requirements and 
              authorities.''.

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect one year after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (c) Report on Implementation.--(1) Not later than 6 months 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Defense, in consultation with the other administering 
     Secretaries, shall submit to Congress a report assessing the 
     effects of the implementation of the requirements and 
     authorities set forth in section 1097b of title 10, United 
     States Code (as added by subsection (a)).
       (2) The report shall include the following:
       (A) An assessment of the cost of the implementation of such 
     requirements and authorities.
       (B) An assessment whether or not the implementation of any 
     such requirements and authorities will result in the 
     utilization by the TRICARE program of the best industry 
     practices with respect to the matters covered by such 
     requirements and authorities.
       (3) In this subsection, the term ``administering 
     Secretaries'' has the meaning given that term in section 
     1072(3) of title 10, United States Code.
       (d) Inapplicability of Reporting Requirements.--The reports 
     required by section 401 shall not address the amendments made 
     by subsection (a).

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to announce the cosponsors for 
whom I am offering this amendment. The cosponsors are Mr. Edwards, Mr. 
Hagel, Mr. Helms, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Johnson, Mr. 
Kennedy, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Santorum.
  Mr. President, this is an amendment that I think goes very well in 
the bill before us. This is a military Bill of Rights. This bill is 
going to try to help alleviate a very bad situation that we have with 
our military. Right now we are having a hard time recruiting. We have 
had the worst recruiting year in the Army for the United States since 
1979. We are having a hard time retaining our best people. For every 
two pilots that we lose, we are only gaining one to replace those 
pilots. So you can see, if we are losing two pilots and gaining one, 
pretty soon we are going to have a pilot shortage in the Air Force, and 
the time has come.
  It is also going to add to the expense of training the pilots in the 
Air Force. The Navy has had to lower its educational standards to 
recruit. This is not good. So many of us in Congress on a bipartisan 
basis said, What can we do? What can we do to make sure we are giving 
quality of life to those who are giving their lives to protect our 
freedom? What can we do to make it worthwhile for them?
  The basic things we have heard that are a problem that cause us to 
lose personnel are pay, health care, and pension benefits. This bill, 
with our amendment, will address all three. The bill before us today is 
a pay raise. It does increase pension benefits. But what it hasn't 
addressed until our amendment is health care. And when I go across my 
State or when I visit a base in Saudi Arabia, or Tuzla, Bosnia, I hear 
that people are worried about health care. They are worried that their 
families back home are not able to get the quality health care they 
need.
  So the amendment that Senator Edwards and I are proposing today, 
along with all of our cosponsors, would reform the TRICARE system. It 
would require that benefits be portable across the regions that are 
established in the current system.
  We all know that military personnel have to move every 2 to 3 years. 
We want them to be able to take the benefits of their TRICARE system 
with them when they go to another base. That costs nothing, but it 
certainly does help ease the transition for the military family.
  We would ensure military coverage as comparable to the average 
coverage available to civilian Government employees. Many times on our 
bases we have civilian Federal employees working side by side with 
military personnel. We want them to have comparable health care. So 
within the bounds that the Department of Defense can produce, we want 
to try to make that comparable and equal if we can get it there. We 
want to minimize the bureaucratic red tape and streamline the claims 
processing.
  One of the big complaints of the doctors who serve our military 
personnel from the community is that there is so much bureaucratic red 
tape that they can't get their claim, and it is not worth the hassle. 
So what happens? The doctor says, ``I'm not going to serve military 
families.''
  Well, we want to stop that right now. We would increase the 
reimbursement levels to attract and retain quality health care 
providers. Where a base city does not have the capability to attract 
pediatricians or OB-GYN or key areas of specialty to serve the military 
families, we want to authorize the Department of Defense to reimburse 
at greater levels in order to attract that service for our military 
families. That is what the amendment does.

[[Page 2779]]

  We also allow our military treatment facilities, our military 
hospitals, to be reimbursed at Medicare rates from third party givers. 
This is not adding a cost. In fact, it will help these military 
hospitals to be reimbursed at a better rate so that they will be able 
to give better care to our military participants.
  So that is what our amendment does. We think it is a good amendment, 
that the Department of Defense will be able to do some of the things 
they have said they want to be able to do to get better health care in 
the TRICARE system, and our amendment will allow them to do it.
  So I appreciate very much that the distinguished chairman and ranking 
member of the Armed Services Committee are supporting this amendment. I 
think it is essential to make a true improvement in the quality of life 
for our military to improve their health care benefits at the same time 
that we are giving them pay raises.
  At this time, I would like to yield to the Senator from North 
Carolina, my cosponsor, Senator Edwards.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the Chair.
  It is a great honor for me to help cosponsor this particular piece of 
legislation. The truth is that the TRICARE system, which covers over 6 
million Americans and over 300,000 North Carolinians is broken and it 
needs to be fixed.
  Senator Hutchison's amendment goes a long way toward addressing the 
problems of the TRICARE system. It begins by setting minimum standards 
which the system clearly needs.
  What I would like to do is talk just briefly today about why this is 
so important to Americans, and why it is so important to the people of 
North Carolina. And there are three or four examples that I think show 
that very clearly.
  We have had lots of correspondence, lots of calls about problems with 
the TRICARE system. Comdr. Ronald Smith, who is from the Greensboro 
area in North Carolina, Guilford County, which is one of the most 
populous counties in North Carolina, tells us stories about the fact 
that in Greensboro there is no primary care provider who is willing to 
provide medical care for his soldiers and their dependents.
  One example of the problem that creates is of a female soldier who 
had to travel to a different county to be treated, and when she went 
there, she had to actually write a check for a copayment before they 
would allow her to leave.
  A second problem that Commander Smith tells us about is the problem 
pharmacies have getting reimbursed for their prescriptions. An example 
he gave was a soldier who had a case of the flu, a bad case of the flu, 
and needed prescription medication. But when the soldier went to get 
the prescription medication, she learned that she had to make a 
payment, cash payment, and didn't have the money. So this soldier had 
to actually go out and obtain a loan in order to get the prescription 
medication that she needed to treat the flu.
  Another example of this problem is a soldier who was taking blood 
pressure medication that was critical to that soldier's health. The 
soldier put off for over a week taking the blood pressure medication 
because she didn't have the money to pay the cash that was needed to 
get the prescription medication.
  This is a serious problem. These are problems that need to be 
addressed. A Sergeant Williams, who is from Fayetteville, NC, where the 
Womack Army Hospital is located, told me a story about his daughter 
which was really amazing. His daughter had a problem with a small rash. 
She went to the Womack Army Hospital and got a dermatology consult. 
That was easy to do because the hospital is located nearby.
  Then he tried to schedule a number of office appointments for his 
daughter, but they kept being canceled. And then he decided, well, 
maybe I need to take her to see a private physician, perhaps at Duke in 
Durham, which is a little over an hour away. And he was told if he did 
that, he would have to make an out-of-pocket cash payment of $300 to 
have her seen. He was finally able to get something scheduled for her. 
At the time of his letter to me, it had been over 80 days since her 
initial consult and this rash, which began as a very small, 
inconsequential rash, had then spread over her entire body.
  This is a serious problem. It is one that needs to be addressed, and 
it is one that Senator Hutchison's amendment addresses very directly. I 
do think that what we are here about is not increasing health care 
costs, but increasing efficiency. I think Senator Hutchison has some 
wonderful provisions in this amendment to address that problem.
  We have an obligation to honor the commitment that the soldiers and 
their dependents have made to this country, and we need to provide 
quality health care to these folks. They deserve it. They have made an 
extraordinary commitment to this country. This country needs to show 
its commitment to the soldiers who have served and are serving and 
their dependents. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this 
amendment. This TRICARE system needs to be fixed, and this amendment 
goes a long way towards fixing it. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I really appreciate the one-on-one 
experiences that Senator Edwards has mentioned because that really 
brings it home, when that poor child started with a small rash and by 
the time she could get an appointment with a doctor the rash had 
covered her body. That is a terrible story, and I have heard stories 
like that as well. It is why I became interested in trying to fix a 
problem that was really hurting the military families and our ability 
to retain those military families.
  Just last week I toured Lackland Air Force Base. That is the basic 
training base for all Air Force personnel. A young drill instructor 
came up to me and said, ``Senator, keep up the good work and fix 
TRICARE.'' I told him that we would. Certainly, this is the answer to 
that drill instructor, because he clearly was having a hard time 
getting care for his family.
  In a letter that was written to me recently, a retired veteran 
explained the difficulties he was experiencing with TRICARE. But, he 
said, ``Senator, please don't concentrate your efforts on my individual 
problems--this is a systemic problem * * *''
  It is a problem. We are losing access to care because of the 
nightmare associated with claims processing and the dismal rate of 
reimbursement for services. In fact, if you go to a smaller community 
that has a base, often you cannot see a heart surgeon because they just 
will not see a military person because they know the rate of 
reimbursement is so low. We cannot allow that to be the case for our 
military personnel.
  General Dennis Reimer is the Chief of Staff of the Army. He recently 
said, ``This is about readiness and this is about quality of life 
linked together. We must ensure that we provide those young men and 
women who sacrifice and serve our country so well * * * the quality 
medical care that is the top priority for them * * *'' General Reimer 
said, ``We must help them or else we're not going to be able to recruit 
this high quality force.''
  When we are talking about readiness, we are talking about the high 
quality people that make up our Armed Forces and we are talking about 
keeping them. The last thing we want is a lot of great equipment but 
not people to run that equipment.
  We have to realize that times have changed in the military. No longer 
are most of our military personnel unmarried. They are now married and 
they have families. They expect to have health care for those families 
and housing and good pay. That is what they expect, and that is what 
they deserve. We need to give it to them.
  That is why our amendment is so important, to be part of adding to 
the quality of life of our military. We cannot allow the retention 
problems to continue to erode the powerful military that we have. Our 
military strength is based on people, good people, quality people, 
people who are dedicated, people who care about this

[[Page 2780]]

country and want to protect it. They want to protect our freedom. If 
they are going to give their lives to protect our freedom, I think in 
return they deserve a quality of life for themselves and for their 
families that would make us all proud.
  That is why Senator Edwards and I, Senator Hagel, Senator Helms, 
Senator Fitzgerald, Senator Coverdell, Senator Johnson, Senator 
Santorum, Senator Kennedy, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Sessions have 
come together on this amendment to try to add quality health care and 
improvements to the TRICARE system to the military pay raise and the 
pension improvements that are already in this bill.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of the leadership, there will be 
no further votes after the vote now scheduled to begin at 5:30. I wish 
to advise Senators that we are scheduling votes for tomorrow morning at 
9:45 a.m. It is a vote on an amendment by myself and Senator Sarbanes 
relating to civil service pay. That would be followed--and I presume 
with a 10-minute vote--by an amendment by Senator Cleland, who will 
address that vote tonight. But it is a further expansion, and an 
important one, of the Montgomery GI bill provisions, which Senator 
Cleland put in the basic bill.
  So I just wished to give those pieces of information to our 
colleagues.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Also, I ask unanimous consent that a fellow with Senator Jeffords, 
Ernie Audino, be granted the privilege of the floor during the pendency 
of S. 4.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in just a moment we are about to request 
an order for the two votes in the morning. I say to my colleagues, I 
certainly appreciate the cooperation of Senators. I think this bill has 
moved along at a very good pace. We had good debate on important 
subjects. I especially thank our two leaders, Senator Lott and Senator 
Daschle, for giving strong support to the managers.
  Having said that, I now ask unanimous consent the Chair place an 
order that we will have two votes in the morning, at 9:45 a.m., on the 
Warner-Sarbanes amendment, and a second vote to follow thereafter, not 
to exceed 10 minutes, on an amendment by the distinguished Senator from 
Georgia, Senator Cleland. He will lay that down immediately following 
the 5:30 vote. We will have a certain amount of debate, and it will be 
pending the following day.
  Do I have the concurrence of my colleague?
  Mr. LEVIN. No objection. We support that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if there is a moment, I wish to commend the 
Senator from Texas and the Senator from North Carolina again on their 
amendment. The DOD has been working hard to improve the delivery of 
medical care through the TRICARE program. This amendment gives strong 
encouragement to the Secretary of Defense to broaden the services which 
were provided under the TRICARE system. It is important that these 
services be provided to military members and their families. It is 
important to improve the claims and the reimbursement process, and to 
make benefits under the TRICARE program uniform across the country. So, 
again, I thank the Senators from Texas and North Carolina and their 
supporters for their leadership on this issue.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I may, I associate myself with those 
remarks. Indeed, it is a very important contribution. I have counseled 
with the good Senator from Texas for some several months. This has been 
a very important part of her overall legislative goals for a period of 
time.
  Now is the time. I think we are about ready.
  Mr. President, I think the hour of 5:30 having arrived--are the yeas 
and nays ordered on that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
Texas. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced, yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 21 Leg.]

                               YEAS--100

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 18) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we have two Senators desiring to lay down 
amendments tonight which will be voted on tomorrow, pursuant to an 
order entered into a short time ago, beginning at 9:45, back to back.
  The first amendment is from my distinguished colleague, the Senator 
from Maryland, and I am his principal cosponsor; the second amendment 
is from the Senator from Georgia.
  I yield the floor.


                            Amendment No. 19

 (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress that there should continue 
to be parity between the adjustments in the compensation of members of 
   the uniformed services and the adjustments in the compensation of 
                civilian employees of the United States)

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

       The Senator from Maryland [Mr. Sarbanes], for himself, Mr. 
     Warner, Mr. Robb, and Ms. Mikulski, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 19.

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

       On page 28, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

     SEC. 104. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING PARITY BETWEEN 
                   ADJUSTMENTS IN MILITARY AND CIVIL SERVICE PAY.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Members of the uniformed services of the United States 
     and civilian employees of the United States make significant 
     contributions to the general welfare of the United States.
       (2) Increases in the levels of pay of members of the 
     uniformed services and of civilian employees of the United 
     States have not kept pace with increases in the overall 
     levels of pay of workers in the private sector so

[[Page 2781]]

     that there is now up to a 30 percent gap between the 
     compensation levels of Federal civilian employees and the 
     compensation levels of private sector workers and a 9 to 14 
     percent gap between the compensation levels of members of the 
     uniformed services and the compensation levels of private 
     sector workers.
       (3) In almost every year of the past two decades, there 
     have been equal adjustments in the compensation of members of 
     the uniformed services and the compensation of civilian 
     employees of the United States.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     there should continue to be parity between the adjustments in 
     the compensation of members of the uniformed services and the 
     adjustments in the compensation of civilian employees of the 
     United States.

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President I will be very brief. I appreciate the 
courtesy of the distinguished Senator from Georgia in allowing me to 
present this amendment before he presents his. We will take this up in 
the morning. There will be a very limited amount of time.
  Very simply, this is a sense-of-the-Congress resolution that there 
should be parity between the adjustments and the compensation of 
members of the uniformed services and the adjustments and the 
compensation of civilian employees of the United States. In almost 
every year over the past two decades, there have been equal adjustments 
in the compensation of members of the uniformed services and the 
compensation of civilian employees of the United States, and this 
expresses the sense of the Congress that this parity in adjustments 
should continue.
  I know a number of Members wish to join in cosponsoring, and I add 
Senators Robb and Senator Mikulski as cosponsors at this point. Members 
will obviously have a chance to do that first thing in the morning. 
Senator Warner and I can speak to it briefly in the morning.
  It is a very straightforward amendment. I don't know of any 
opposition to it. I very strongly urge my colleagues to be supportive 
of this amendment.
  I again thank the Senator from Georgia for his kindness, and I yield 
the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this is my 21st year in the Senate, and I 
have had the privilege to work with my good colleague and other members 
of the delegation from Maryland and Virginia through these many years. 
I think we have done our duty as trustees to protect the parity of the 
civil servants who are just as key players in defense and other areas 
as any other individuals. So many of them have made their lifetime 
careers serving the country. Many of them are very highly technically 
qualified.
  Mr. President, I rise today to co-sponsor a sense of Congress 
amendment to S. 4 along with my colleagues Senator Sarbanes, Senator 
Mikulski, and Senator Robb on behalf of the hard working federal 
civilian employees.
  This sense-of-Congress amendment states that there should continue to 
be parity between the adjustments in the compensation of members of the 
uniformed services and the adjustments in the compensation of civilian 
employees of the United States. In the past, military employees and 
federal civilian employees have received equal pay adjustments in 
compensation.
  Throughout my tenure in the Senate, I have fought to ensure the fair 
and equitable treatment of all of our federal employees. Our federal 
employees play an important role in the efficient and intelligent 
operation of our government. These dedicated public servants should be 
compensated justly.
  Mr. President, increases in the levels of pay of members of the 
uniformed services and of civilian employees of the United States have 
not kept pace with increases in the overall levels of pay of workers in 
the private sector so that there is now up to a 30 percent gap between 
the compensation levels of Federal civilian employees and the 
compensation levels of private sector workers. Retention and labor 
shortage issues in areas related to high technology jobs, and 
specialized trade occupants in the current economy poses significant 
gaps in pay for our federal civilian employees from their private 
sector counterparts. This is particularly prevalent in the Greater 
Metropolitan Washington area due to the high demand for high tech 
workers in the private sector where salaries continue to increase.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mr. SARBANES. I want to add that there was a time not too far back 
when Maryland and Virginia watermen used to shoot at each other on the 
Potomac River and the Chesapeake Bay. I am happy to report that has 
never been the tenor of the relationship between myself and the 
distinguished Senator from Virginia. I have enjoyed working in 
cooperation with him on a whole range of issues which have been to the 
benefit of our respective constituencies, and, indeed, to the benefit 
of the country. I am delighted to be aligned with him once again on an 
important issue.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my distinguished colleague.
  It is quite true, there were vicious battles--over oysters primarily. 
I hope now the striped bass matter--and crabs--will not further 
engender that type of dispute.
  Mr. President, that will be the first vote in the morning.
  The distinguished Senator from Georgia has been patiently waiting, 
and therefore I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.


                            Amendment No. 6

 (Purpose: To permit members of the Ready Reserve to contribute to the 
 Thrift Savings Plan for compensation attributable to their service in 
                           the Ready Reserve)

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

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Cleland], for himself, Mr. 
     Jeffords, Mr. Bingaman, and Ms. Landrieu, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 6.

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

       On page 33, line 16, strike ``for a period of more than 30 
     days'' and insert ``and a member of the Ready Reserve in any 
     pay status''.

       On page 34, beginning on line 10, strike ``on active duty'' 
     and insert ``: members on active duty; members of the Ready 
     Reserve''.

       On page 35, strike lines 3 through 6 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(c) Maximum Contribution.--(1) The amount contributed by 
     a member of the uniformed services for any pay period out of 
     basic pay may not exceed 5 percent of such member's basic pay 
     for such pay period.
       ``(2)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), the amount 
     contributed by a member of the Ready Reserve for any pay 
     period for any compensation received under section 206 of 
     title 37 may not exceed 5 percent of such member's 
     compensation for such pay period.
       ``(B) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     subchapter, no contribution may be made under this paragraph 
     for a member of the Ready Reserve for any year to the extent 
     that such contribution, when added to prior contributions for 
     such member for such year under this subchapter, exceeds any 
     limitation under section 415 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986.

       On page 35, line 9, insert ``, or out of compensation under 
     section 206 of title 37,'' after ``out of basic pay''.

       On page 35, line 12, strike ``308a, 308f,'' and insert 
     ``308a through 308h,''.

       On page 36, in the matter following line 15, strike ``on 
     active duty'' and insert ``: members on active duty; members 
     of the Ready Reserve''.

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to offer an 
amendment to S. 4 with my colleagues, Senator Jeffords, Senator 
Bingaman, and Senator Landrieu. Of course, S. 4 is the Soldiers', 
Sailors', Airmen's and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999. This 
legislation will give the men and women of the National Guard and 
Reserve the opportunity to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan. S. 4 
offers this benefit to their active duty counterparts. Our amendment 
will offer this to men and women of the National Guard and Reserve.
  The Thrift Savings Plan is an excellent way for military families to 
save for the future. It is not meant to take the place of a retirement 
system. It is a tax-deferred savings plan that will grow while a 
service member is actually serving, unlike the delayed benefits of the 
military retirement system.

[[Page 2782]]

Furthermore, the Thrift Savings Plan is a portable benefit that can be 
rolled over into a civilian 401(k) plan, in the event the service 
member, for whatever reason, must leave military service.
  In my opinion, the men and women of the Guard and Reserve must be 
given the same opportunity to participate in this excellent savings pan 
as their active duty counterparts. Although the amount of money they 
will be able to deposit in the Thrift Savings Plan may not be 
substantial at first, every dollar counts. The Thrift Savings board 
themselves allows contributions ``as little as a dollar each pay 
period.''
  With the increase in worldwide taskings, Guardsmen and Reservists are 
participating significantly above and beyond their mandatory one-
weekend-a-month and two-weeks-a-year duty, their contributions will 
grow over time. While some Guardsmen and Reservists may have savings 
plans through their civilian employers, allowing them to participate in 
the Thrift Savings Plan allows them to contribute based on their 
military earnings. For many Guardsmen and Reservists, their military 
duty has become a second job.
  Since the end of the cold war, the services have increasingly relied 
upon their Reserve components to meet worldwide obligations. The active 
duty force has been reduced by one-third, yet worldwide commitments 
have increased dramatically.
  In recent years, thousands of Reservists and Guardsmen have supported 
contingencies, peacekeeping operations and humanitarian missions around 
the world: in the Persian Gulf, Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, and Kenya, just 
to name a few. Guard and Reserve units responded immediately to 
requests for assistance after Hurricane Mitch, delivering over 10 
million pounds of humanitarian aid to devastated areas in Central 
America.
  Closer to home, Reserve and National Guard personnel answered the 
cries for help after devastating floods struck in our Nation's 
heartland. They braved high winds and water to fill sandbags, provide 
security, and transport food, fresh water, medical supplies, and 
disaster workers to affected areas. The Air Force Reserve's ``Hurricane 
Hunters'' routinely fly into tropical storms and hurricanes in 
specially configured C-130s to collect data to improve forecast 
accuracy, which dramatically minimizes losses due to the destructive 
forces of these storms.
  As we transition into the high-tech 21st century, the Guard and 
Reserve will continue to take on new and exciting roles. The Guard and 
Reserve now have units performing satellite control and security 
functions in order to maintain our country's lead in space-based 
technology. And, because our country faces the increased threat of 
chemical and biological weapons, the White House, the Department of 
Defense, and Congress have joined to develop a ``Homeland Defense'' 
policy designed to respond to threats against the United States. The 
Guard and Reserve will play a significant role in the implementation of 
the policy, because their knowledge of local emergency response plans 
and infrastructure is critical to an effective response.
  The days of holding our Reserve Component forces ``in reserve'' are 
long gone.
  Just who are these citizen soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines? 
They are doctors, they are lawyers. They are farmers, grocers, teachers 
and small business owners. They have longstanding roots in communities 
across our great country. And, like their active-duty counterparts, 
they have volunteered to serve. Remarkably, they must balance their 
service with the demands of their full-time civilian jobs and families.
  In September 1997, Secretary of Defense Cohen wrote a memorandum 
acknowledging an increased reliance on the Reserve Components. He 
called upon the services to remove all remaining barriers to achieving 
a ``seamless Total Force.'' He has also said that without Reservists, 
``we can't do it in Bosnia, we can't do it in the Gulf, we can't do it 
anywhere.
  Giving the men and women who serve in the Reserve Components the 
opportunity to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan would carry on 
the spirit of Secretary Cohen's Total Force policy. This amendment has 
received the resounding support of the Reserve Officers Association, 
the National Guard Association of the United States, the Enlisted 
Association of the National Guard of the United States, and other 
members of the military coalition representing 5.5 million active and 
retired members.
  The Reserve Components face many of the same challenges and dangers 
as their active duty counterparts in this time of high operations 
tempo. We should give them the same opportunity to participate in the 
Thrift Savings Plan. It is important to send the right message to our 
citizen soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines: that we recognize and 
appreciate their sacrifices. It's the right thing to do.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I, first, want to state my complete 
support and concurrence for the amendment which we will have tomorrow 
morning by our distinguished colleague and member of the Armed Services 
Committee jointly. The provisions relating to the GI bill, this 
benefit, originated with our colleague. I thank him for his 
participation. He has this Senator's strong support, and I anticipate 
the Senate's as a whole. I thank our colleague very much.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.

                          ____________________