[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6256-6259]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr. Lott, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Inhofe, 
        Ms. Snowe, Mr. Allard, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Craig, Mr. Gregg, 
        Mr. Bond, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Helms, Mr. Daschle, 
        Mr. Levin, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Mack, 
        Mr. Reed, Mr. Cleland, and Mr. Kerry):
  S. 2486. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to improve 
access to benefits under the TRICARE program; to extend and improve 
certain demonstration programs under the Defense Health Program; and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.


             military health care improvements act of 2000

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an enhanced 
piece of legislation the Military Medical Improvement Act of 2000. This 
revised legislative initiative incorporates the major concerns of 
beneficiaries I heard pertaining to the original legislation.
  S. 2087, the Military Health Care Improvement Act of 2000 that I 
introduced on February 23, 2000, contains a provision authorizing a 
mail order pharmacy benefit for military retirees, dependents and 
survivors over age 64. Since S. 2087 was introduced, the Personnel 
Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee has conducted a 
hearing on medical issues where beneficiary representatives conveyed 
the importance of a comprehensive pharmacy benefit to committee 
members. I chaired sessions of the Senate Armed Services Committee 
where senior Department of Defense officials, both uniformed and 
civilian, addressed the importance of the medical benefit and meeting 
health care commitments to retirees as recruiting and retention issues.
  Due to my grave concern about meeting the needs of military 
beneficiaries, and the importance of health care as a component of the 
compensation package, I have continued to solicit views of military 
beneficiaries on medical benefits. I recently conducted a town hall 
meeting in Norfolk, Virginia, devoted exclusively to military health 
care issues. A recurring concern mentioned by the participants was that 
the pharmacy provision of S. 2087 did not include a retail pharmacy 
component. I have come to the conclusion that it is critical that we 
expand access to a retail benefit for all military beneficiaries.
  The legislation I am introducing today responds to the concerns I 
have heard from military beneficiaries and includes a modified pharmacy 
provision that expands the mail order pharmacy program to all military 
beneficiaries with no enrollment fee or deductible and that would 
provide access to retail pharmacy networks for all military 
beneficiaries, including those eligible for Medicare. This benefit 
would mirror the current Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) pharmacy 
benefit. The BRAC pharmacy benefit is currently restricted to only a 
few Medicare-eligible military retirees. The modified pharmacy benefit 
I am suggesting would, in effect, extend the BRAC benefit to all 
Medicare-eligible beneficiaries of the military health care system.
  Based on lower than expected costs associated with this enhanced 
provision, and my recent amendment to the budget resolution which 
allows for

[[Page 6257]]

funding of medical reserve account to accommodate incorporation of 
programs to address military retiree's health care needs, I am 
confident this body will embrace this further commitment to meeting the 
health care needs of those who have so faithfully served their nation.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairman Warner 
in bringing this enhanced military medical improvement legislation to 
the floor today. As chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee, I have 
chaired several oversight hearings which have contributed to 
identifying areas of improvements to the original legislation. While 
the pharmacy benefit included in S. 2087 is significant, beneficiaries 
have expressed concern over meeting their acute prescription drug 
needs.
  The version of the Military Medical Improvement Act of 2000 that I 
join the chairman in introducing today, builds upon the previous 
legislation and provides for enhancement of the pharmacy benefit by 
adding a retail component on the pharmacy program to address the acute 
medical needs of our military retiree population. The new legislation 
provides for system wide expansion of the Base Realignment and Closure 
of ``BRAC'' pharmacy benefit. The BRAC benefit includes access to 
retail networks with a 20 percent beneficiary cost share. The benefit 
also includes the mail order pharmacy program with current co-pays of 
$8 for a 90 day supply of drugs with no enrollment fees or deductibles.
  I feel it is critically important to provide a uniform benefit for 
all our military retirees and their families. Revised cost assumptions 
associated with S. 2087, and a provision in the Budget Resolution, 
allow us to enhance the original provision to more closely meet the 
needs of those who were promised health care.
  Mr. President, as I travel and meet with military beneficiaries, I 
will continue to examine opportunities to improve and enhance the 
health care package provided to our service members, their families, 
retirees, their dependents, and survivors. The medical component of the 
compensation package continues to grow in significance as health care 
costs increase and the recruiting environment becomes more difficult. 
Meeting the commitment to military retirees sends a strong message to 
those young people we seek to draw to military service.
  This enhanced legislation continues the ongoing process of working 
toward meeting the needs of the military population. As chairman of the 
Personnel Subcommittee I am committed to further examination of follow 
on opportunities to improve the military health care system.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 2487. A bill to authorize appropriations for Fiscal Year 2001 for 
certain maritime programs of the Department of Transportation; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


     maritime administration authorization act for fiscal year 2001

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for the Maritime Administration. 
The introduction of this bill continues the Senate Commerce Committee's 
commitment to insuring our nation's maritime industry can compete in 
the world market.
  The bill contains the authorization of appropriations for the 
Maritime Administration [MarAd] for fiscal year 2001 covering two 
appropriations accounts: (1) operations and training and (2) the loan 
guarantee program authorized by title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 
1936. Operations and training activities include the costs incurred by 
MarAd headquarters and regional staffs in the administration and 
direction of programs that support the American maritime industry. 
These funds also cover operations of the United States Merchant Marine 
Academy (USMMA) and assistance to the six state maritime academies. The 
title XI loan guarantee program for shipbuilding authorizes the 
Secretary of Transportation to guarantee private sector financing for 
the construction or reconstruction of U.S.-flag vessels in U.S. 
shipyards.
  Additionally, the bill amends Title IX of the Merchant Marine Act of 
1936 to provide a waiver to eliminate the three year period that bulk 
and breakbulk vessels newly registered under the U.S. flag must wait in 
order to carry government-impelled cargo. The bill also provides a one 
year window of opportunity for vessels newly registered under the U.S.-
flag to enter into the cargo preference trade without waiting the 
traditional three year period.
  Finally, the bill provides the Secretary of Transportation the 
authority, regardless of any other law, to scrap 39 obsolete vessels in 
the National Defense Reserve Fleet that pose an immediate hazard to 
navigation and the environment and to scrap additional vessels if the 
Secretary determines they pose a hazard. It requires the Secretary to 
report to Congress within one year of the date of enactment with a plan 
to dispose of the remaining obsolete vessels and extends the deadline 
for completing disposal of all obsolete vessels by three years.
  I look forward to working on this important legislation and hope my 
colleagues will join me and the other sponsors in expeditiously moving 
this authorization through the legislative process and I ask unanimous 
consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2487

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Maritime Administration 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Transportation for the Maritime Administration the following 
     amounts:
       (1) For the expenses necessary for operations and training 
     activities, not to exceed $80,240,000 for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2001.
       (2) For the costs, as defined in section 502 of the Federal 
     Credit Reform Act of 1990, of guaranteed loans authorized by 
     title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended (46 
     U.S.C. App. 1271 et seq.), $2,000,000, to be available until 
     expended. In addition, for administrative expenses related to 
     loan guarantee commitments under title XI of the Merchant 
     Marine Act, 1936, as amended (46 U.S.C. App. 1271 et seq.), 
     $4,179,000.

     SEC. 3. DOCUMENTATION OF CERTAIN DRY CARGO VESSELS.

       (a) In General.--Title IX of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 
     (46 U.S.C. App. 101 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
     thereof the following:

     ``SEC. 910. DOCUMENTATION OF CERTAIN DRY CARGO VESSELS.

       ``(a) In General.--The restrictions of section 901(b)(1) of 
     this Act concerning a vessel built in a foreign country shall 
     not apply to a drybulk or breakbulk vessel over 7,500 
     deadweight tons that has been delivered from a foreign 
     shipyard or contracted for construction in a foreign shipyard 
     before the earlier of--
       ``(1) the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment 
     of the Maritime Administration Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 2001; or
       ``(2) the effective date of the OECD Shipbuilding Trade 
     Agreement Act.
       ``(b) Compliance with Certain U.S.-build Requirements.--A 
     vessel timely contracted for or delivered pursuant to this 
     section and documented under the laws of the United States 
     shall be deemed to have been United-States built for purposes 
     of sections 901(b) and 901b of this Act if--
       ``(1) following delivery by a foreign shipyard, the vessel 
     has any additional shipyard work necessary to receive a Coast 
     Guard certificate of inspection performed in a United States 
     shipyard;
       ``(2) the vessel is not documented in another country 
     before being documented under the laws of the United States;
       ``(3) the vessel complies with the same inspection 
     standards set forth for ocean common carriers in section 1137 
     of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1996 (46 U.S.C. App. 
     1187 note); and
       ``(4) actual delivery of a vessel contracted for 
     construction takes place on or before the 3-year anniversary 
     of the date of the contract to construct the vessel.
       ``(c) Section 12106(e) of Title 46.--Section 12106(e) of 
     title 46, United States Code, shall not apply to a vessel 
     built pursuant to this section.''.
       (b) Conforming Calendar Year to Federal Fiscal Year for 
     Section 901b Purposes.--Section 901b(c)(2) of the Merchant

[[Page 6258]]

     Marine Act, 1936 (46 U.S.C App. 1241f(c)(2)) is amended by 
     striking ``1986.'' and inserting ``1986, the 18-month period 
     commencing April 1, 2000, and the 12-month period beginning 
     on the first day of October in the year 2001 and each year 
     thereafter.''.

     SEC. 4. SCRAPPING OF CERTAIN VESSELS.

       (a) In General.--Section 510(i) of the Merchant Marine Act, 
     1936 (46 U.S.C. App. 1160(i)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``The Secretary''; and
       (2) by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     following vessels of the National Defense Reserve Fleet may 
     be scrapped in foreign countries under terms and conditions 
     prescribed by the Secretary:
       ``(1) EXPORT CHALLENGER.
       ``(2) EXPORT COMMERCE.
       ``(3) BUILDER.
       ``(4) ALBERT E. WATTS.
       ``(5) WAYNE VICTORY.
       ``(6) MORMACDAWN.
       ``(7) MORMACMOON.
       ``(8) SANTA ELENA.
       ``(9) SANTA ISABEL.
       ``(10) SANTA CRUZ.
       ``(11) PROTECTOR.
       ``(12) LAUDERDALE.
       ``(13) PVT. FRED C. MURPHY.
       ``(14) BEAUJOLAIS.
       ``(15) MEACHAM.
       ``(16) NEACO.
       ``(17) WABASH.
       ``(18) NEMASKET.
       ``(19) MIRFAK.
       ``(20) GEN. ALEX M. PATCH.
       ``(21) ARTHUR M. HUDDELL.
       ``(22) WASHINGTON.
       ``(23) SUFFOLK COUNTY.
       ``(24) CRANDALL.
       ``(25) CRILLEY.
       ``(26) RIGEL.
       ``(27) VEGA.
       ``(28) COMPASS ISLAND.
       ``(29) DONNER.
       ``(30) PRESERVER.
       ``(31) MARINE FIDDLER.
       ``(32) WOOD COUNTY.
       ``(33) CATAWBA VICTORY.
       ``(34) GEN. NELSON M. WALKER.
       ``(35) LORAIN COUNTY.
       ``(36) LYNCH.
       ``(37) MISSION SANTA YNEZ.
       ``(38) CALOOSAHATCHEE.
       ``(39) CANISTEO.
       ``(3) If the Secretary determines that additional vessels 
     in the National Defense Reserve Fleet will become hazards to 
     navigation or the environment, those vessels may be scrapped 
     in a manner consistent with this subsection.''
       (b) Report.--No later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Maritime 
     Administration shall submit to the Congress a report on the 
     implementation of the Administration's program to rid the 
     National Defense Reserve Fleet of obsolete vessels, 
     including--
       (1) the number of vessels scrapped to date;
       (2) the proceeds realized from the sale of vessels to be 
     scrapped; and
       (3) the number of vessels remaining to be scrapped.
       (c) Extension of Disposal Deadline.--Section 6(c)(1)(A) of 
     the National Marine Heritage Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 
     5405(c)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``2001;'' and inserting 
     ``2004;''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI:
  S. 2492. A bill to expand and enhance United States efforts in the 
Russian nuclear complex to expedite the containment of nuclear 
expertise that presents a proliferation threat, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Armed Services.


             nuclear weapons complex conversion act of 2000

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I'm introducing legislation, the 
Nuclear Weapons Complex Conversion Act of 2000, to dramatically improve 
our programs that deal with non-proliferation risks associated with the 
Former Soviet Union. My legislation will also significantly enhance our 
ability to consider future arms control agreements.
  Today, we face challenges involving the warheads, materials, and 
expertise developed during the days of the Cold War. With that war 
behind us, arguably the greatest global security challenge involves 
containment and management of proliferation threats--many of which are 
in danger of being fueled with former Soviet capabilities.
  Congress has repeatedly demonstrated frustration with the 
Administration's progress in this key area. A significant part of this 
concern arises from today's wide range of uncoordinated programs, all 
dealing with non-proliferation issues. Programs aren't integrated into 
one coherent thrust led by a focused and committed Administration. Our 
non-proliferation programs resemble a patchwork quilt designed and 
executed by several artists.
  The net effect of our non-proliferation programs is far less than it 
could be and needs to be. These programs are begging for coherent 
oversight and inter-agency cooperation. To address this need, which is 
far from new, the 1996 Nunn-Lugar-Domenici legislation called for 
appointment of a new-level non-proliferation czar.
  This Administration never acted on this law. Without this 
coordination, inter-agency turf fights remain unresolved, potential 
synergies aren't exploited, and redundancy and inefficiency can run 
rampant. My legislation therefore expresses a Sense of Congress that 
the time is long overdue for this coordination.
  My legislation also deals specifically with the largest unmet 
challenges of the former Soviet Russian nuclear weapons complex. That 
complex contains three main challenges: weapons production capacity, 
materials for those weapons, and people.
  Programs associated with the materials, where goals and progress are 
easier to define and measure, are demonstrating credible progress. But, 
the other areas present more complex challenges.
  The ``brain drain'' issue reflects a concern that scientists and 
engineers with critical knowledge might sell their knowledge to rogue 
states. The weapons production issue raises concern about Russia's 
ability to rapidly reconstitute forces that could invalidate future 
arms control agreements. These twin issues then, non-proliferation and 
the credibility of future arms control agreements, urgently need 
improved approaches.
  We already have a Nuclear Cities Initiative within the Department of 
Energy, but it has barely begun to scratch the surface in dealing with 
the problem of their cash-strapped and over-sized nuclear complex. To 
date, NCI has not garnered enough Congressional support to have stable 
and realistic funding, largely because it hasn't set goals and 
milestones against which progress can be documented and measured.
  The concerns on weapon production capabilities highlight very large 
asymmetries. The U.S. has significantly reduced the size of our nuclear 
weapons production complex. These reductions were accomplished openly, 
and are transparent to Russia. Russia, in contrast, has barely started 
to downsize its complex. Their complex is still sized at Cold War 
levels.
  Little information about the Russian complex is shared, and ten of 
its most sensitive cities remain closed. Although the Russian Federal 
Ministry of Atomic Energy has announced its intent to significantly 
downsize its workforce, it has been slow in accomplishing this goal and 
any progress is very closely held.
  The current Nuclear Cities Initiative was established to assist 
Russia in creating job opportunities for employees who are not required 
to support realistic Russian security requirements and to facilitate 
conversion of the production facilities. It has focused on creation of 
commercial ventures that provide self-sustaining jobs, primarily in 
three of the closed cities. The current program scope, progress, and 
funding are not consistent with the scale of the threats to us.
  I want to significantly advance our progress in the nuclear cities. 
However, to gain sufficient advocacy for a major funding increase, the 
program must demonstrate rapid progress in downsizing and an ability 
for the U.S. to track progress against verifiable milestones that 
support a Russian complex consistent with their future national 
security requirements.
  My legislation substantially increases the funding and scope of our 
programs with the Russian nuclear weapons complex to assist the Russian 
Federation in restructuring its complex, but does this conditioned on a 
commitment from the Russian Federation to measure progress against 
realistic, transparent milestones. Without their commitment, and 
without an ability to track progress against such milestones, it is 
simply not appropriate for us to continue to fund programs within their 
complex.
  My legislation supports the ongoing commercialization programs in 
their

[[Page 6259]]

complex. In addition, however, it authorizes the federal government to 
contract for research in support of United States agencies in cases 
where the Russians have unique capabilities and facilities.
  My legislation demands that funding for this expanded program, for 
the 2002 fiscal year and beyond, be contingent on making significant 
measurable progress on key issues of strategic interest to both 
countries, including:
  Demonstrable conversion from military to civilian activities at the 
four cities participating in the FY 2001 program.
  Development of a ten year plan by the Russian Federation for a 
nuclear weapons complex downsized to reflect the changing national 
security needs of Russia. This plan should reflect a production 
capacity consistent with future arms control agreements.
  Increased transparency of Russian production capacity and nuclear 
materials inventories to eventually match that of the United States.
  In addition, my legislation authorizes funding for educational 
initiatives both in the United States and in the Former Soviet Union 
focused on developing new non-proliferation experts. There are now few 
people who can assist in these difficult downsizing processes while, at 
the same time, minimizing the threat presented by residual weapons 
material or expertise.
  Significant cooperation from the Russian government must occur for 
milestones to be set and met. That won't happen unless they concur that 
these steps are also in their best interests. From interactions with 
senior levels of their Ministry of Atomic Energy, I've learned that 
they share the view that progress in this area is in the best interests 
of both nations.
  It is certainly in our mutual interests to accomplish the transition 
of both nations' nuclear weapons complexes with as much care and as 
little proliferation risk as possible. It is also in each nation's 
interests for the other to maintain a sufficiently credible complex to 
support realistic national security objectives. To the extent that we 
can take these steps in a mutually transparent way, we should be able 
to assure each other of our future intentions.
  Mr. President, this legislation can significantly impact our non-
proliferation and future arms control national security objectives.

                          ____________________