[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5534-5559]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEARS 
                          2001-2011--Continued

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, at the outset, let me say to the 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia, who holds an extraordinary 
record in this body, and asked me 45 minutes ago if I would mind 
yielding for a question, I want the Record to show that I agreed to 
yield for a question. I had no idea that the answer would be so long, 
Mr. President. I thought it worthy of note.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if my dear friend will yield briefly, just 
that I might apologize to him for the questions having gone on and on 
and the answers and the joining by other Senators, which I think added 
to the importance of the question. I think we performed a service. I 
certainly thank the Senator most kindly.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, like the incident with the Navy plane, no 
apology is in order. I have worked with the distinguished Senator from 
West Virginia for many years when he was the Democratic leader and then 
majority leader, President pro tempore, and chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee. I greatly admire what he has done.
  I sat and listened to the whole proceeding, but I thought it was 
worth just a minute of the Senate's time to note I yielded for a 
question and 45 minutes later I got the floor.


                           Amendment No. 186

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

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for himself, 
     Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, Ms. Collins, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. 
     Kerry, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. DeWine, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Sarbanes, 
     and Ms. Snowe proposes an amendment numbered 186.

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

    (Purpose: Increase discretionary health funding by $700,000,000)

       On page 28, line 23, increase the amount by $700,000,000.
       On page 28, line 24, increase the amount by $700,000,000.
       On page 43, line 15, decrease the amount by $700,000,000.
       On page 43, line 16, decrease the amount by $700,000,000.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this is an amendment which adds $700 
million to increase the health function in this resolution to assure 
that the funding for the National Institutes of Health be doubled by 
the year 2003 as provided for in a resolution of the Senate which goes 
back to 1997, a 98-0 resolution that we double the funding for the 
National Institutes of Health. The offset for the $700 million comes 
from the 920 account, I am advised, which is allowances on 
administrative costs across the board.
  The funding for the National Institutes of Health is a priority 
second to none. There is nothing more important than health. The 
National Institutes of Health have made extraordinary progress in their 
efforts to combat the most serious maladies which confront Americans, 
and for that matter, people around the world. Among those diseases, 
including, but not necessarily limited to, are Alzheimer's disease, 
Parkinson's, epilepsy, cancer of the prostate, breast cancer, cervical 
cancer, leukemia, melanoma, hearing research, heart disease, stroke, 
AIDS, and diabetes. I could go on and on and on.
  Our effort to secure this funding has been a rather bumpy road. We 
have managed to persevere. In 1998, Senator Harkin and I led the attack 
with a resolution to add $1.1 billion to the health function and the 
amendment was defeated 63-37. We came back the next year, having 
sustained that loss for $1 billion and doubled the request to $2 
billion. Again the amendment was defeated, but this time by a lesser 
vote of 57-41.
  In those 2 years, notwithstanding the failure of our efforts to get 
an increase in the budget resolution, we took out our sharp pencils and 
as a matter of priorities allocated the extra billion in fiscal year 
1998 and the $2 billion extra in fiscal year 1999. In fiscal year 2000 
we, again, offered an amendment to the budget resolution, this time of 
$1.4 billion to the health function over and above the $600 million 
which had been provided by the Budget Committee. This time we lost 
again by a narrowing vote of 47-52. Again, we found the extra funds as 
a matter of priority by allocating funds within the overall budget for 
the subcommittee which has jurisdiction over labor, health, human 
services, and education.
  In fiscal year 2001, we offered an amendment to the budget resolution 
to add $1.6 billion to the health function. This time, for the first 
time, the budget resolution was passed 55-45. Our efforts were rewarded 
with increases over that 4-year period of affirmative votes: 37, to 41, 
to 47, and finally to 55.
  This year, on February 13, Senator Harkin and I had as additional 
cosponsors: Senators Breaux, Cochran, Collins, DeWine, Frist, 
Hutchinson, Mikulski, Murray, Santorum, Sarbanes, Schumer, and Snowe on 
S. Res. 19, the Biomedical Revitalization Resolution of 2001.
  This year the administration has come forward with $2.750 billion, so 
it was necessary only to increase by $700 million. We could not do a 
figure in less than $100 million amounts under the resolution rules 
which would enable us to come to the $3.4 billion target which is 
necessary to keep us on the path to doubling the NIH budget within the 
5-year period as called for in the resolution from 1997 which, as I 
say, passed 98-0.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, would the Senator from Pennsylvania yield 
for questions on my time?
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for his leadership 
on this issue. He has brought this body a long way. We have seen it 
over a number of years by his persistence and persuasion. I publicly 
acknowledge the leadership he has provided in an area that is 
critically important. I have seen in the lives of some of my 
constituents how important the NIH can be and what an incredible 
contribution it has made to improving health research and extending the 
longevity of the lives of the American people. The Senator from 
Pennsylvania can be very proud of his advocacy.
  As I understand the Senator's amendment, it provides $700 million to 
the National Institutes of Health in the fiscal year 2002, is that 
correct?
  Mr. SPECTER. Yes.
  Mr. CONRAD. The source of funding for that would be out of the 
projected surplus for that year?
  Mr. SPECTER. No, as I am advised by the experts, out of the 920 
account which covers allowances and administrative costs.
  Mr. CONRAD. If that is the case, I think it may well be we will 
support

[[Page 5535]]

that amendment on this side. I have to check with other colleagues, as 
I am sure the Senator is aware, in order to give that answer. We are in 
the process of doing that. Perhaps as we go through that process of 
checking with other Senators, we can find out what their disposition 
is. We may be able to either accept this amendment or go to a quick 
vote on this amendment. We will try to get an answer quickly.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the distinguished Senator from North Dakota for 
those comments. 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.
  Mr. CONRAD. The Senator from Iowa has arrived.
  Mr. HARKIN. I seek time to speak on behalf of this amendment of my 
colleague.
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. SPECTER. If the Senator from Iowa will yield, I talked about the 
cosponsors of the earlier resolution we offered. Let me note that I 
have offered this on behalf of Senators Harkin, Hutchinson, Mikulski, 
Collins, Landrieu, Kerry, Wellstone, Murray, DeWine, Snowe, and 
Sarbanes, as well as myself.
  I yield to my colleague from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to stand with my colleague 
and subcommittee chairman, Senator Specter, to offer this important 
amendment to the budget resolution. We stand at the cusp of a 
revolution that I believe will result in the overthrow of disease and 
disability in this country. At no time in our history have we been so 
close to major advances in the fight against killer diseases. Every day 
we read about major breakthroughs in medical research: AIDS vaccine, 
decoding the DNA letters that make up the human genome, new therapy for 
breast cancer, less invasive surgical techniques. This resolution is a 
direct result of our investment in medical research.
  Four years ago the Senate went on record 98-0 committing to double 
the NIH budget over 5 years. We are well on our way to doing that. Over 
the past 3 years, Senator Specter and I have made good on that pledge 
by providing the biggest increases ever for medical research. Last year 
we were able to provide an unprecedented $2.5 billion, or 15-percent 
increase, for NIH. We worked hard to make it happen, and I thank all of 
my Senate colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, who worked with 
us on this historic accomplishment.
  Unfortunately, if we pass this budget resolution as it is, we will 
fall short of the 15-percent increase needed to maintain the commitment 
that 98 Senators made to doubling the NIH budget over 5 years. But if 
we pass this budget resolution as it is, we will fall short of keeping 
that commitment.
  This budget resolution in fact shortchanges Americans' health. At the 
same time, this budget skimps on basic investments in America's health 
care. It also cuts taxes for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans by 
almost $700 billion. What this budget should do is spend the additional 
$3.4 billion needed to ensure that all Americans, no matter what 
income, can live healthy and productive lives. In this budget, that is 
only .4 percent of a tax cut for the wealthiest; .4 percent of the tax 
cut just for the wealthiest Americans would help us fulfill our 
commitment of doubling medical research at NIH.
  In the next 30 years the number of Americans over age 65 will double. 
Medical research and its discoveries are essential to reduce the 
enormous economic and social toll posed by chronic diseases that impact 
our elderly, from Alzheimer's and arthritis, to cancer, Parkinson's, 
and stroke disease.
  Let's take Alzheimer's disease. Just the other day Senator Specter 
chaired a hearing with researchers doing cutting-edge work on 
Alzheimer's, and we also had patients there, some of whom were 
diagnosed as having Alzheimer's. One of the witnesses was John Wagenaar 
of Georgia, IA. He was diagnosed with Alzheimer's at age 60, at the 
prime of his life, working at a manufacturing plant, taking pride in 
his children and grandchildren, looking forward to retirement. But in 
spite of this devastating diagnosis, he is a lucky man. Thanks to 
medical research, he can now take a pill that has slowed the course of 
the disease so now he can even continue to work and enjoy his family. 
John Wagenaar can hope, along with the rest of us, that a drug will 
soon come on the market that will not just slow Alzheimer's disease but 
actually stop it.
  Researchers have made extraordinary advances in recent years. A 
decade ago--just 10 years ago--there were no Alzheimer's drugs on the 
market. Today there are four, and more are on the way. Scientists have 
developed a vaccine. We saw startling pictures of this at our hearing 
yesterday. When tested on mice, it takes away, it wards off, the brain-
clogging deposits that are associated with Alzheimer's. Plans are now 
underway to test this vaccine in humans.
  We are clearly on the verge of breakthroughs on Alzheimer's and in 
other areas. At no time in our history have we been so close to major 
advances in the fight against killer diseases. Now is the time to boost 
our investment to make sure our Nation's top scientists can turn these 
dreams into reality.
  The amendment Senator Specter has offered, which I am proud to 
cosponsor, is very simple. It ensures the budget resolution will 
include $3.4 billion for the National Institutes of Health for fiscal 
year 2002. It is a commonsense amendment. It is bipartisan. It is the 
right thing to do. We have gone too far now to cut back and to slow 
down. Millions of Americans, our families, our loved ones, our friends, 
and our neighbors all over this country are counting on us not to back 
down in this fight against the diseases that still plague us.
  As I said, we have made major strides against Alzheimer's, 
Parkinson's disease, stroke disease. We have made great strides in 
doing things that help alleviate the struggle many people have with 
mental illness. We have come a long way. Now we are on the cusp of 
finding the interventions, the vaccines, the drugs that will alleviate 
this human suffering and make life better for so many people. Now is 
not the time to turn back.
  This budget resolution before us would say that investing in NIH is 
not that important. This budget resolution says investing in medical 
research is not as important as giving a big tax cut to people who make 
over $1 million a year.
  I disagree with that priority. I believe the priority is elsewhere. 
Mr. President, .4 percent, that is all it takes. Four-tenths of 1 
percent of the tax cuts of those Americans in the top 1-percent bracket 
would pay for us keeping our commitment to fund medical research at 
NIH.
  I wholeheartedly support this amendment. I hope it has strong 
bipartisan support on the Senate floor.
  I yield my time.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, a quick word on why I voted against the 
Specter amendment which made extra room in the budget for $700 million 
in National Institutes of Health research spending.
  I voted against the NIH amendment not because I oppose the valuable 
research that NIH does, but rather because I wanted to draw attention 
to the fact that we risk focusing on NIH spending to the exclusion of 
other important initiatives.
  Biomedical research at NIH is important, but we must recognize we 
have other priorities as well.
  The NIH is important, but so is the basic scientific research that we 
do at the National Science Foundation. Basic research is the foundation 
on which applied science and technology rests. Understanding how the 
world works has applications in every field, including health. Without 
increased funding for basic research, we will soon find that our basic 
scientific understanding is too limited to get the maximum value from 
the applied research NIH does.
  The NIH is important, but so are community health centers. These 
local clinics provide basic primary care services to close to 12 
million Americans at

[[Page 5536]]

over 3,000 sites in medically-underserved urban and rural communities 
across the country. Yet the demand is still great--millions are still 
uninsured, and millions more simply don't have access to health care 
providers. The NIH does great work expanding the high-tech envelope of 
medicine, but the people that health centers serve often cannot get 
even low-tech services like immunizations and basic doctor visits.
  The NIH is important, but so are children's hospitals. These 
priceless resources care for our sickest children, train a significant 
portion of our children's doctors, and themselves perform much of the 
pediatric research that NIH funds. But for three decades we have not 
treated these children's teaching hospitals fairly. Through the 
Medicare program, we have provided billions of dollars to help other 
teaching hospitals train physicians. But until recently, we barely gave 
children's hospitals pocket change to support their physician training. 
We still do not have parity between children's hospitals and other 
teaching hospitals, we need to get there.
  I support the President's budget and his tax cut, and thus I 
supported this budget resolution, at least as it was introduced. 
Knowing that the appropriations bills that actually provide funds for 
all of these priorities will be written later this year, I was content 
to bide my time and deal with funding totals then.
  But when the NIH amendment was brought up earlier, I started to 
worry. Would our focus during this debate be only on the NIH, and not 
in other areas? Would this mean that later appropriations bills thus 
focus only on the NIH and ignore others areas? Would the NIH become the 
guest at the dinner party who stays too long and eats everyone else's 
food? We must not let this happen.
  We voted to make room in the budget for a total increase in NIH 
spending of $3.5 billion, more than 16 percent above the current 
spending level. None of these other important programs, the National 
Science Foundation, community health centers, children's hospitals, 
receive anywhere close to that much of an increase.
  In the remaining time here on the budget resolution, I intend to 
offer amendments that will address each of these priorities. I hope the 
Senate will recognize that they are just as important as the vital work 
the NIH does. And I hope to see those amendments pass in a similarly 
overwhelming way.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, whatever time Senator Specter had I 
yield back.
  Mr. CONRAD. We yield back our time on our side as well.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on behalf of 
Senator Specter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have already been ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll to ascertain the 
presence of a quorum.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 186. The yeas and nays 
have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 4, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 70 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--4

     Bond
     Gregg
     Smith (NH)
     Voinovich
  The amendment (No. 186) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Under the agreement, is the next business of the Senate 
the Landrieu-Cleland amendment on national defense?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. CONRAD. How much time is available on that amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One hour evenly divided; 30 minutes per side.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I will be sending an amendment to the 
desk in just a few moments on behalf of myself and Senator Carnahan to 
correct the Record. We will be offering this amendment together this 
afternoon, along with Senator Corzine, Senator Breaux, Senator 
Lieberman, Senator Levin, Senator Graham, Senator Nelson, and Senator 
Reed. There may be others who will be joining us in offering what we 
hope will be a bipartisan amendment because this is surely a principle 
that both Democrats and Republicans have supported for many years.
  Before I get to my prepared remarks, I thank my colleagues, Senator 
Conrad and Senator Domenici, for their fine work in handling this 
debate. I will begin by giving a very graphic description of our 
national defense outlays as a share of GDP.
  It is helpful for our party, for the other side, and for our 
constituents to understand that these numbers have varied widely and 
fluctuated dramatically based on the current needs and crisis at hand.
  As my colleagues can see, we were spending in the 1940s almost 40 
percent of our gross domestic product when this country geared up to 
fight the greatest war machine ever built in the history of the world, 
when we defended the world. Then we came down to a low of below 5 
percent as we recovered from that war and then had to invest again for 
the Korean war.
  This number has fluctuated wildly. I hope this chart can be seen 
clearly because it is very important for the public to get a sense of 
this debate and to understand why this amendment is so important and 
why I am hoping we will have many Members support it.
  This is an effort to improve the budget resolution we are debating, 
and it is a very important debate clearly for the future of our Nation.
  As one can see, we came down a great amount in spending, of course, 
from the 1950s to the current year of 2001, and rightly so perhaps 
because we used this as a peace dividend. The world generally being at 
peace, we were able to contribute to our economy, to investments in 
other areas, and to stabilizing our budget. This was done in a 
bipartisan fashion.
  We can see under President Reagan's leadership these numbers went up 
slightly, which is referred to as the Reagan buildup, but the numbers 
have come down. Both candidates for President, Governor Bush and now, 
of course, President Bush, and Vice President Gore talked about the 
need to stabilize this line, to make strategic investments now, to not 
allow this line to continue to slide because the world is not becoming 
safer. The cold war may be over, but there are still many challenges.
  In addition, there has been study upon study, speech upon speech 
given by our chairman, our ranking member,

[[Page 5537]]

and members of the committee talking about the time to invest now in 
our military to help turn around this sliding line; to help stabilize. 
Words they used: Let's be reliable; let's reinvest in our men and 
women; let's increase morale; let's improve housing; let's 
recapitalize. This amendment is a modest step toward that end.
  To remind all, during the 2000 election campaign, President Bush made 
a very compelling national security address at the Citadel, a military 
school with a rich tradition of history and honor. While we commonly 
refer to that as the ``Citadel speech,'' the speech has a name. 
President Bush entitled his remarks that day ``A Period of 
Consequences.''
  That title is not just a casual descriptive phrase. It has an 
important legacy. It was first used by a man facing the most 
consequential period in his nation's history--Sir Winston Churchill.
  Assuming the reins of power at a time when Britain was threatened by 
the greatest war machine ever created, Churchill proclaimed:

       The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing 
     and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In 
     its place, we are entering a period of consequences.

  When he cited those remarks last September, President Bush was right. 
I agree with him, and so do many Members in the Senate.
  Our military has reached a period of consequences, and many difficult 
decisions need to be made. I will ask the Senate today to make one of 
those important decisions. This body will go on record with a clear 
choice of priority: we can either spend everything we have or think we 
have in a surplus that has not yet materialized or we can give 
commonsense tax relief, a realistic level of tax relief and also--which 
is most important--have money to make some strategic investments in one 
particular area with known shortfalls, and that is in defense.
  We just passed Senator Harkin's amendment. I was proud to support 
that amendment because this body, in a bipartisan way, made it clear 
another strategic investment we must make is in education. We must take 
a second step and make an important decision today to invest in 
shortfalls in defense.
  The President seemed to understand this problem during the campaign 
when he said:

       Not since the years before Pearl Harbor has our investment 
     in national defense been so low as a percentage of GNP. Yet 
     rarely has our military been so freely used--an average of 
     one deployment every 9 weeks in the last few years. Since the 
     end of the cold war our ground forces have been deployed more 
     frequently, while our defense budget has fallen by nearly 40 
     percent.

  One cannot argue with the numbers or argue with the trend line on 
this chart. The budget we are debating, unfortunately, without this 
amendment, will not stabilize this line. It will not turn it around. It 
will not invest in the quality of life issues so important to retain 
our soldiers and their families, to build morale, and to strengthen our 
troops, and most importantly, live up to promises we have made to them 
in terms of their pay, in terms of their benefits, in terms of the kind 
of housing we promised them.
  These words do not sound like those of someone advocating the status 
quo. I and many of my colleagues are baffled. I didn't imagine, 
frankly, that this amendment would need to be offered. But here we are, 
7 months after the election, having this debate.
  Let me ask my colleagues, since the election, has the world gotten 
automatically safer? Did our military find a secret storage site filled 
with spare parts? Did the 13-percent civilian pay gap disappear? Did 
the dilapidated facilities we heard about in the campaign start 
repairing themselves? Maybe all of our military families at wit's end 
with TRICARE have been cured.
  We know that is not the reality and the needs still exist. The budget 
we are debating is deficient in that regard. The amendment of Senator 
Carnahan and myself which we are now debating we hope will begin to fix 
this and make a modest investment.
  Let me show a couple of pictures to highlight some of the problems we 
have in our own State. I have the great privilege of representing Fort 
Polk, one of the premier training centers in the Nation, in the view of 
our commanders. This is where our men and women train before being sent 
to Bosnia or to Korea or other places where we have either conflicts or 
have engaged in serious peacekeeping efforts. This is just one picture. 
I could show 100 pictures of housing, of dilapidated structures, of 
mold and mildew.
  If you go to Fort Polk's website, you will see old photographs taken 
at its creation in 1941. These are the same makeshift wooden huts, now 
used as dining facilities, that were there when Churchill was making 
his speech about ``a period of consequences.'' How long does this 
building need to serve its country before it can retire? I would say 
World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Desert Storm, and Kosovo should 
just about cover any building's life span. Not at Fort Polk.
  This is only one of many examples of situations repeated all across 
our country at our military bases. There are a variety of reasons for 
this crumbling infrastructure. However, if you talk to the base 
commanders you hear one refrain again and again. Real property 
maintenance is the first casualty. When officers are forced to choose 
between installing air conditioners for the Louisiana summer, or 
continue training their men and women for war, officers correctly 
choose training. However, it is wrong for Congress to force our 
military leadership to opt between essential quality of life 
initiatives and basic readiness, maintenance and safety. Yet that is 
the choice our post commanders are forced to make year after year. 
Furthermore, while the newer housing that the military is building is 
very nice, there is not nearly enough of it to go around. In the 
meantime, we force our servicemen and women to live in substandard 
housing. I would be willing to bet that you could go on nearly every 
base in America and find military housing that does not meet HUD's 
standards. Nonetheless, we wonder why we have a recruiting and a 
retention problem. If it were not for the extraordinary patriotism of 
our men and women, our ``problem'' would be an epidemic.
  Still, I suspect that many colleagues will respond that we are 
undertaking a strategic review, and we should not prejudge and rush to 
any conclusion. We should wait. To that, I refer my colleagues back to 
Winston Churchill. We are in a period of consequences. We should be 
done with the era of procrastination. In any case, we can study this 
problem to death, and it will not change the fundamental reality. These 
problems need a resolution today, not ten years from now. They will 
require a greater portion of our nation's resources to address. Yet if 
we do not set those resources aside in this budget resolution, they 
will not be there for us to invest later.
  The other irony about the supposed need for delay is the study 
itself. In all the reports that have come out, there has not been any 
indication that these quality of life initiatives are even being 
considered. Even if they were considered, it is extremely unlikely that 
any study would conclude that we need to spend less money on these 
issues. More likely than not, this amendment adding $10 billion a year 
would be viewed as a modest down-payment on a much larger debt coming 
due.
  Perhaps the real savings comes from military transformation? Maybe if 
we adopt new technologies and techniques we can forestall the need for 
more military spending? Not likely. Although Secretary Rumsfeld and Mr. 
Marshall may be the latest to study military transformation, they are 
not exactly the only study. I have brought with me a stack of studies 
that reach the same conclusion. We need military transformation. We 
need to recapitalize our forces. We need to encourage joint 
experimentation and operations, and we must prepare for the emerging 
threats of the 21st century. All the reports have a different emphasis. 
They come from the broadest possible political spectrum, but they all 
endorse these same principles. What is more, they all believe we need a 
top line increase in defense to accomplish these goals. Again you will 
find a range of perspectives from about a $30 billion annual

[[Page 5538]]

increase at the low end, to a $100 billion annual increase at the very 
high end. Either way, the conclusion is the same.
  The problem is that if we do conclude that we need a significant 
investment, there will be no money for us to invest. I support the 
strategic review. I imagine that I will support a good deal of what 
Secretary Rumsfeld has to say. We have reason to believe there is a big 
bill on the horizon. We have the money in the bank. I suggest we 
allocate some of that money toward this bill that is due today. 
Unfortunately, the Republican leadership is taking those savings and 
living for the moment. How they will account for this decision, I do 
not know.
  The other important point to keep in mind is that this amendment does 
not change the bottom line need for reform at the Pentagon. I agree 
with Senator Byrd's insistence that the Pentagon get its books in 
order. Furthermore, the low end estimates for the need to recapitalize 
our current force are an additional $30 billion per year. My amendment 
is providing the services $10 billion. If this is all the services get, 
they still have to cover that two-thirds gap somehow. To do so will 
require the services to rethink what they are doing, and how they are 
doing it. This fundamental rethinking is an exercise we all should 
endorse. It will not be any less necessary should our amendment pass.
  I invite the Senate to look at the build rates for the Navy. Last 
year, the Navy CinC's stated that they could not perform their missions 
with fewer than 360 ships. Yet, for the past eight years, the Navy has 
been procuring only an average of six ships per year. This build rate 
is the lowest since 1932, and will result in a Naval fleet of 180 ships 
if continued. All of our military forces serve the dual function of 
good-will ambassadors and ``cooperation builders'' with our allies. 
This role is even more prominently performed by our Navy. It also 
serves as an important signal of American resolve at crisis points. 
However, we may soon reach a point where our Navy, rather than an 
instrument of American power projection, is relegated to protecting an 
increasingly tenuous forward-presence.
  I might also mention that we take a hard look at what we are saying 
to our NATO allies about their defense budgets. As we insist that our 
allies take greater strides to bridge the capability gap, we also 
remind them that the whole solution will not be found in greater 
efficiency or reform. We consciously assert that transformation costs 
money, and no nation can expect to improve capabilities without an 
increase in the top-line budget. I would submit that the logic of these 
arguments applies no less to the United States than it does Belgium or 
Norway.
  This amendment acknowledges the truth, we are in a period of 
consequences for our military. We can acknowledge that fact and pass 
this amendment, or stick our heads in the sand. With the People's 
Republic of China increasing defense spending 15 percent, with the 
Middle East edging toward open conflict, with the conflict in the 
Balkans spilling over to Macedonia, with increased military cooperation 
between Iran and Russia--this seems like a very dangerous time to 
ignore reality for the sake of political posturing. A tax cut that robs 
our military of much needed reinvestment is wrong-headed and reckless.
  Another great English Prime Minister Lloyd George once said of 
America that ``she always does the right thing, after she has tried all 
other options.'' Today I present the Senate with the option to do the 
right thing. Pass this amendment, put the needs of our military and our 
nation before short-term political gain.
  When we asked people to reenlist, we asked the spouses: Would you 
like your spouse to reenlist? Have your children live in places that we 
don't even allow our Housing and Urban Development to build and to 
fund? We ask our service men and women to live in substandard housing 
with inadequate pay, with health care that is less than what was 
promised when they signed up to serve. These are the things I hope my 
amendment will fix and make the minimum downpayment.
  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Might I inquire how much time we have consumed?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 11 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield 15 minutes off the resolution to the Senator.
  Mr. WARNER. Parliamentary inquiry: It is the intention of the Senator 
from Virginia at the appropriate juncture to offer an amendment in the 
second degree. I value greatly the participation of my distinguished 
colleague on the Armed Services Committee. I find myself in a position 
of requiring to express my views and those of others in the form of a 
second degree. My amendment would be very simple. It would ask for an 
$8.5 billion increase solely for 1 fiscal year, which is 2002, and at 
the appropriate time I will give further details.
  Could I inquire of the leadership, I want to be very careful with the 
protocol toward my good colleague, and presumably I can put the 
amendment at the desk now, but I wish to have the Senator complete her 
opening remarks first, and at that time if I might inquire of the 
distinguished managers, what would be their desire with respect to a 
second degree? I would need but 15 minutes to describe it. There may be 
others who would like to speak.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I would be pleased, if the other side agrees, to make 
it in order that the Senator offer it, but we have to use up the time 
on the amendment before it would be in order under current practice. It 
is in their hands. I would be glad to let you send it up so people 
could see it. It would not be ripe until all time were yielded on the 
amendments.
  Mr. CONRAD. Might I inquire of the Senator from Virginia, would the 
Senator consider offering his amendment in the first degree with an 
understanding that he would get the first vote? If the Senator offers 
his amendment in the second degree----
  Mr. WARNER. In the nature of a substitute, yes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Not as a substitute, as a first degree.
  I am suggesting this for this reason: We are going to want to get a 
vote on the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana. We can go through 
all kinds of parliamentary maneuvers to do that and ultimately succeed. 
We have found so far it works better if we handle both amendments in 
the first degree. You would get the first vote because you would have 
been offering it in the second degree.
  Mr. WARNER. I yield to the distinguished managers. They are handling 
this bill. I want to hear from the Senator from New Mexico on that.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, from what I understand, we don't want to deny 
her a vote. We want a vote on his first. Whatever happens to it, you 
get a vote. But we will have a vote on it first. Is my understanding 
correct?
  Before I do that, if we could proceed and let me make an inquiry. It 
looks as if that is what we ought to agree to. For now, let us proceed 
in the normal course.
  Mr. CONRAD. Fair enough. We appreciate the chairman looking into 
that, and we appreciate the consideration of the chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee as well.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank all colleagues. Basically, I sought recognition 
so the Senate will understand there will be an amendment of some type 
which will be, in a sense, in opposition to my distinguished friend and 
colleague from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I appreciate that. Let me comment briefly as we decide 
the appropriate way to proceed. I must certainly note we will have a 
vote on this amendment that Senator Carnahan and I are offering. I 
suggest to the distinguished managers, our amendment and that of 
Senator Warner could be complementary. His amendment deals only with 1 
year of an increase, which I actually support. I agree we need an 
increase for the 2002 budget. My amendment makes a longer, more 
reliable, stable commitment over 10 years. Given the underlying budget 
resolution does the same, we are not necessarily in disagreement, 
except for the fact that mine has a 10-year outlook and his has only 1 
year. I

[[Page 5539]]

simply argue that while his amendment might be a step to take, we could 
certainly take this step as we make a decision for the strategic 
investment that we need to make over this decade--not just for 1 year.
  On another point, some may say: Senators, you know there is a 
strategic review under way. Shouldn't we wait before we consider this 
amendment?
  I have brought to the floor today studies that I could submit for the 
Record. This one is a ``Strategy For Long Peace,'' by the Center for 
Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. I am just going to refer to two.
  This one is called ``Averting the Defense Train Wreck in the New 
Millennium'' by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in 
Washington, DC. These are two very well known and well-respected think 
tanks.
  As I said, I have with me an additional 15 studies that I have 
brought, from conservative to liberal think tanks, that have looked at 
this issue and are actually probably part of the strategic study 
underway. In no case that I can find, after reviewing all of these 
studies, do any at all indicate that a strategic review would result in 
less of an increase or reduction in defense spending--not one. Even 
with those arguing for transformation from a cold war structure to a 
new structure, even for those who are arguing for very aggressive 
transformation, there is not a study that we can find, no expert on 
either side of this debate, who is going to make an argument that this 
spending line is going to go down. It is going to go up. Yet the budget 
resolution we are debating is not, in the current form, going to allow 
for that.
  So our amendment will set aside $100 billion out of the tax cut, $10 
billion a year, to make room for the strategic study, to make room for 
the quality of life, to make room for the improvements that need to be 
made to boost the morale and to boost the vigor of our Armed Forces. 
Waiting is not only going to force us to make some very tough decisions 
down the road, but waiting is also going to cost the taxpayer billions 
of dollars because of the delay, because of this budget gap. It is not 
fair and it is not right and it is not smart. We can do it all if we 
use common sense and reasonableness and we are careful about what 
numbers we put on the tax cut and on certain strategic investments.
  I am going to try to wrap up in just a moment, only to say the 
President campaigned on this issue when he ran for President. People 
voted for him based on a promise to support an increased military 
investment. Many of us who even voted for the other candidate believe 
it is a very important step to take now, to improve and to strengthen 
our investments, particularly the quality of life issues of housing, 
pay, other compensation, and health care; to strengthen our retention 
of our forces and to provide for them the things that we promised when 
they signed on the bottom line.
  If we are careful, if we make the right decisions today, we can have 
a reasonable tax cut, we can pass strategic investments in education 
and defense, and we can pass a budget that will work, not only for this 
year but for next year and for many years to come. So I am proud to 
offer this amendment on behalf of my colleagues. I could give many more 
examples where it comes to our Navy, to our Army, to our Air Force, to 
Marines, to the things we need to maintain our ships and planes, as 
well as our quality of life issues.
  In closing, let me say with all due respect to my chairman, who is 
going to offer another amendment, whether he does it before I do or 
after I offer mine, I agree with him that we need to increase spending 
by his amendment of $8.5 billion for 2002. But that does not go far 
enough. We are laying down a budget for the next 10 years. Are we just 
going to offer our military an increase for 1 year and say you are on 
your own for years after? We need to be reliable. We need to be 
trustworthy. We need to live up to our promises. We need to support the 
Landrieu-Carnahan amendment that will begin to make a modest investment 
to keep this line stable, to keep our country secure, and to put the 
money where our mouth is. When we say we support our men and women in 
the Armed Forces, let's do it now. If we cannot do it now, when are we 
going to do it?
  Once this budget resolution passes without my amendment, it will not 
matter if 100 strategic studies come back. There is not going to be any 
money to fund it. Let us, while we can, make the investment for our men 
and women in the Armed Forces.
  I yield the remainder of my time back. I think the manager has done a 
beautiful job. Senator Carnahan would like to speak for a few minutes 
on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana, who is 
a distinguished Member of the Armed Services Committee, for her 
amendment. I think it is an important amendment, one of the most 
important amendments we will consider in the context of a budget 
resolution. On the Budget Committee we heard witness after witness tell 
us we needed to add $5 billion to $10 billion a year over the next 10 
years to the defense budget to be responsible. The Senator from 
Louisiana has added that $10 billion.
  Let me say we had a hearing before the Budget Committee with four 
witnesses: two Republican witnesses, two Democrat witnesses. They were 
in agreement on the amount of money needed to be added to defense, 
given the stress on the defense budget, with the higher rate of 
operations, with the need for additional resources to meet demands we 
have put on the Defense Department.
  President Bush has called for a strategic review. We agree absolutely 
that is important and that is appropriate. We also believe there is no 
question that additional resources have to be provided to the Defense 
Department. We need to strengthen our national defense. If we do not 
provide the money in a budget resolution, it is not going to be 
available. So this amendment is critically important.
  I understand the Senator from Missouri, Mrs. Carnahan, would like to 
speak on the amendment as well.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Yes.


                           Amendment No. 188

  Ms. LANDRIEU. If I may interrupt for one moment, I understand the 
amendment is now at the desk, so I would like to officially call it up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) for herself, Mrs. 
     Carnahan, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Reed, Mr. Levin, Mr. Breaux, Mr. 
     Corzine, Mr. Graham, and Mr. Nelson of Florida, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 188.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. CONRAD. The Senator from Missouri has requested 10 minutes? The 
Senator from Missouri is provided 10 minutes off the resolution.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Would it be 
appropriate----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield? Does the Senator from 
Missouri yield to the Senator from Virginia?
  Mr. REID. Without her losing the floor.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the distinguished Republican manager 
wishes to address a unanimous consent request which I think meets the 
objectives, such that our valued colleague from Louisiana can get the 
first vote, then my second-degree would be the second vote. I wonder if 
the managers would refer to that.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
Landrieu amendment be laid aside and Senator Warner be recognized to 
offer an amendment relative to defense. I further ask the debate run 
concurrently on both first-degree amendments and be limited to 60 
minutes

[[Page 5540]]

equally divided, and following that time the Senate will proceed to 
vote in relation to the Landrieu amendment and then in relation to the 
Warner amendment. I further ask consent no amendments be in order prior 
to the votes just described and the votes occur in a stacked sequence 
with 2 minutes prior to each vote for explanation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object, I just have a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I have no objection to the 60 minutes divided for the 
discussion of the Landrieu-Carnahan amendment and the Warner 
alternative. How will the debate proceed? Will we alternate pro and con 
or will we take our 60 minutes first or alternately allocate the time?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, it is our intention that the two managers 
allocate time so there is a fair division.
  Reserving the right to object, since Senator Carnahan was previously 
recognized off the resolution, I assume this would follow her remarks. 
Would that be the intention?
  Mr. WARNER. Certainly that would be satisfactory.
  Mr. DOMENICI. In which event we ask 10 minutes be added to our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object, there are a number of 
other Members who would want to speak on this amendment. I am wondering 
if Senator Lieberman, who was here, and Senator Reed, who was here, 
will be given time to speak on this amendment?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Sixty minutes divided equally. That is what it says. We 
will work on rotation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object, I would hope that we could 
work this out so we have a firm understanding of what will occur so 
feelings are not bruised in the process. It is easy to have happen.
  Let's be clear. As I understand it, then, Senator Carnahan will 
proceed with 10 minutes off the budget resolution, and then there will 
be the 60 minutes between the two sides with respect to these 
amendments. Is that acceptable?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, I thought you just prevailed. She 
will get the 10 minutes she had. And then the 1 hour will become 
operative, at which time we agree we each get half of that; but we will 
accommodate back and forth so no side gets unfair treatment.
  Mr. CONRAD. Good.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I withdraw my reservation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, when families across the country plan 
for the future, they first determine their essential priorities. Then 
they put money aside to make sure they can pay for them. Only after 
those priorities are met, do our families decide whether money is left 
over to pay for other things.
  I believe we would be wise to approach the Federal Government's 
budget the same way.
  First, we should determine how much we need to invest for vital 
national priorities. The remaining funds should be returned to the 
people through a tax cut. We can meet our national priorities and still 
provide for substantial tax relief to America's working families.
  But the budget we are considering seems to have been constructed 
exactly the opposite way. It appears to have been built around the $1.6 
trillion tax cut, leaving us without adequate funds to meet our 
budgetary needs.
  One of the most glaring shortfalls in the President's budget is in 
the area of national defense.
  Of the $5.6 trillion in anticipated surpluses, the budget proposed by 
President Bush spends only $60 billion--about 1 percent--on defense.
  I believe that this level of military funding is inadequate to meet 
our military's current and long-term needs. The amendment that Senator 
Landrieu and I have proposed will remedy this flaw by increasing 
defense spending over the next 10 years by $100 billion above what the 
President has proposed. I commend Senator Landrieu for her leadership 
on this issue and am pleased to join with her in supporting the men and 
women of our Armed Forces and in protecting the national security.
  Leaders of our Armed Forces tell us that we must invest in both 
personnel and equipment to preserve our preeminence in the 21st 
century. The list of military needs is exceptionally long. That list 
includes, but is not limited to, modernizing our tactical aircraft and 
other aging weapons systems, increasing the readiness of our forces, 
building decent housing on our bases at home and abroad, improving the 
quality of military life, increasing military salaries and health 
benefits, maintaining and repairing our aging infrastructure, and 
securing our information technology.
  Virtually every expert that has looked at the state of our military 
agrees that major new investments are required.
  Just last September, the Joint Chiefs of Staff estimated that $50 
billion per year in additional funds were needed to maintain readiness 
and to modernize our forces. And the Joint Chiefs were only talking 
about modernization and readiness. The $50 billion figure did not 
include the investments needed to increase retention of personnel and 
improve the standards of living for military families.
  Examples of urgent funding requirements abound. But let me take a few 
minutes to discuss the situations on the two major bases in Missouri, 
Fort Leonard Wood and Whiteman Air Force Base, with a special focus on 
housing.
  Fort Leonard Wood's housing units were constructed between 1958 and 
1964. Only one out of six units has been fully renovated. The floor 
plans are outdated. There are insufficient playgrounds and storage 
space. Many homes are below Army standards in size and quality. The 
poor grade of housing at Fort Leonard Wood is one of the factors that 
makes it difficult for us to retain our highly trained and skilled 
senior enlisted personnel and officers.
  Numerous other infrastructure improvements are needed at Fort Leonard 
Wood. The most disturbing one that has been reported to me is the lack 
of running water or sewers on the 48 ranges used to train our young men 
and women. The latrines on the ranges are some of the worst in the 
command. Some soldiers are said to limit their water intake to avoid 
using these decrepit facilities.
  Military personnel at Whiteman Air Force Base face other indignities. 
Family housing suffers from termite damage, water seepage, and flooding 
of playgrounds. Twenty percent of all units have been vacated due to 
termite and water damage.
  Unfortunately, I cannot say that help is on the way.
  The backlog of deferred maintenance at Fort Leonard Wood comes to 
about $66 million. The current annual budget of $13 million is $2 
million less than necessary to sustain the current housing stock and 
$6.6 million less than what is necessary to reducing the backlog. To 
make matters worse, high utility costs this year have caused a 
shortfall of $1.8 million, which is being taken from the housing 
maintenance budget.
  At Whiteman, $125 million are needed to fix 900 units, construct 129 
new units, and repair playgrounds, streets, and other common areas. But 
Whiteman's annual housing budget is $7 million less than necessary to 
implement this plan.
  The problems in Missouri are duplicated across the country and at our 
bases abroad. The Commander in Chief of the European Command, General 
Ralston, testified last month before the Armed Services Committee on 
which I

[[Page 5541]]

sit. He said that 70 percent of the housing in Europe did not meet Army 
standards. And the Department of Defense reports that the backlog of 
real property maintenance is $27.2 billion.
  The Landrieu-Carnahan amendment is designed to meet these needs in 
the years to come.
  The amendment will reduce the President's tax cut by $100 billion and 
dedicate these funds to defense spending.
  Reducing the tax cut by this amount will only slightly lessen the 
amount returned to the wealthiest Americans under the President's plan. 
I believe that these Americans would be willing to take this sacrifice 
if they knew that the money would be spent for better equipment, 
housing, and salaries for our military personnel.
  When I asked new appointees to the Pentagon how they plan to address 
the shortfall in the budget, they have all told me that these issues 
are currently being considered in the Pentagon's comprehensive 
strategic review. I applaud the new administration for conducting this 
review and for proposing to ``transform'' the military to meet the 
security threats of this new century. But no one believes that this new 
review is going to lead to reduced defense spending over the next 
decade.
  Quite the contrary. One expert, Dr. Andrew Krepinevich of the Center 
for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, testified before the Senate 
Budget Committee. He said that there is a $120 billion mismatch between 
our current defense plans and projected defense budget. The Pentagon's 
strategic review may result in some cuts to existing programs. These 
cuts, however, will not cover both the $120 billion shortfall, plus 
whatever new costs are required to transform the military.
  The bottom line is that there will be calls to spend more, not less, 
on defense after the strategic review is over.
  We should prepare for that certainty now by adopting a budget that 
contains realistic spending levels for national security.
  The problem with waiting until after the review is over is that 
Congress is poised to pass the President's tax cut now. If this tax cut 
passes, the necessary funds simply will not be available for the 
required level of defense spending.
  This amendment is a much more prudent approach. It sets aside the 
funds for our military needs over the next decade.
  In the unlikely event that the strategic review calls for less 
spending than this amendment provides, that money can always be used 
for tax cuts, or other purposes in the future. But everyone in the 
Chamber knows that we will not be able to undo a tax cut, not even to 
increase defense spending. If the President's tax cut goes forward, our 
military budget is going to feel the squeeze in the years and decades 
to come.
  So I strongly advocate this amendment. I urge the Senate to stand 
behind the men and women who defend our country by adopting this 
important measure.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 189

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Virginia is recognized to offer his amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I send to the desk an amendment. It is a 
first-degree amendment. As I understand, under the UC there will be 
sequential votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for himself, Mr. 
     Hutchinson, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Inhofe, Ms. Collins, Mr. Miller, 
     and Mr. Kyl, proposes an amendment numbered 189 to amendment 
     No. 170.

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

  (Purpose: To increase the levels of new budget authority and budget 
   outlays provided for the National Defense (050) major functional 
 category for fiscal year 2002, and to make corresponding adjustments 
                    necessitated by those increases)

       On page 10, line 21, increase the amount by $8,500,000,000.
       On page 10, line 22, increase the amount by $6,460,000,000.
       On page 43, line 15, decrease the amount by $8,500,000,000.
       On page 43, line 16, decrease the amount by $6,460,000,000.
       On page 48, line 8, increase the amount by $8,500,000,000.
       On page 48, line 9, increase the amount by $6,460,000,000.

  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I first pay tribute to my two 
colleagues, members of the Committee on Armed Services. As I listened 
very intently to their comments, there is not much with which I can 
disagree with respect to the need for additional funds.
  Where we differ, I say with due respect, is that we have a new 
President, a new Secretary of Defense, and there are a number of 
Members in this Chamber on both sides of the aisle who have commended 
President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld in their initiatives to go back 
and reexamine the entirety of America's defense posture and to give 
greater emphasis to the emerging and ever-changing threats poised 
against our Nation and providing everyday risk to the men and women of 
the Armed Forces who are posted beyond our shores standing watch in the 
cause of freedom.
  This amendment prejudges the end result of these studies and 
prejudges the Bush administration and how they are going to reorient 
our defense posture for the outyears. It lays out a 10-year program; in 
a sense it allocates the 10 for each of the years.
  My amendment addresses but 1 fiscal year, 2002. It is the budget 
which we are working on now. President Bush, when he came to office, 
looked at the Clinton budget and decided to add $14.2 billion for this 
particular fiscal year. That was done very early on when he arrived 
into office. Subsequent thereto, the work of our committee produced 
papers, an analysis which showed that even funding of 14.2 falls short 
of what is desperately--I use that word very cautiously but very 
truthfully--needed by all the military departments to get our military 
through the 2002 fiscal year, to maintain its readiness, to maintain 
the quality of life for the men and women of the Armed Forces, and to 
hope to strengthen the ability of the services to retain. I cannot 
emphasize too strongly the need to retain middle-grade officers and 
senior enlisted men and women.
  We are falling short in those areas, and we now realize we must do 
more. Whether it is pay, housing, medical, hopefully less deployment, 
but we are falling short in that way. Every time we lose a pilot, the 
American taxpayers lose several million dollars of investment in the 
training that he or she has received through the years. Only a small 
amount of money, only a small amount of improvement in housing, only a 
small amount of improvement in health care could well have retained 
that highly skilled aviator and/or the maintenance chief down on the 
line working night and day to repair and keep the planes flying.
  This amendment by my two colleagues really prejudges what our 
President and Secretary of Defense will come up with. I would like to 
hypothetically put this to my colleagues. I think we should give this 
President the opportunity to make his judgments and to come back in 
subsequent fiscal years to the Congress and say: This is precisely what 
I need, or I don't need the full 10 billion, should this amendment 
become law.
  Stop to think about that. It could be in fiscal 2003 that our 
President wishes to increase the defense budget by 20 billion and 
represents to the Congress at that time, absent unforeseen 
contingencies, the following fiscal year he could have level funding 
and/or maybe just a billion or two additional funding.
  This President is reorienting the budget more and more towards the 
threat, beginning to scale down the number of deployments and hopefully 
improve the retention.
  On the committee--I speak of the committee in terms of its staff 
because we worked on this in a bipartisan way; I presume my colleague, 
Mr. Levin, will join in this debate--the figures

[[Page 5542]]

that were worked up were produced in conjunction with analyses supplied 
by the Department of Defense. We broke out the following amounts in 
various line items, all in the 05, which is the readiness account:
  Three-tenths of a billion for force protection. More and more we 
recognize that our bases overseas are subjected to terrorism. We have 
experienced very serious accidents this year, the U.S.S. Cole being the 
most severe. So we need three-tenths of a billion to help augment those 
expenditures.
  Six-tenths of a billion for personnel. Again, special pay, pay 
directed at those specialties, whether it is flying or maintenance or 
medical or computers or the like, where we are having difficulty 
retaining those individuals with the competitive forces in the private 
sector.
  Energy costs. It simply requires that we have this to maintain the 
barracks, to maintain the housing, to maintain the office buildings, to 
maintain the hangars, to maintain the ships. Our energy costs have gone 
up not unlike those being experienced by the civilian sector.
  Maintenance. The Senator from Louisiana put up a chart with which I 
agree. Deterioration of the base infrastructure all throughout our 
services, Seven-tenths of a billion for that. Base operations. Again, 
we were underfunded in the accounts. That brings in another nine-tenths 
of a billion--nine-tenths of a billion in real property maintenance, 
the buildings. We will, hopefully, go through a base closure piece of 
legislation within the next 24 months to complete that. But in the 
meantime, it is absolutely essential to maintain the infrastructure we 
now have in a condition so that it protects the airplanes in the 
hangars and protects the personnel in the barracks.
  Then we go to the direct health care system. We passed historic 
legislation last year--TRICARE. It was something that the retired 
community has wanted for many years, something they were really 
promised when they joined the military services. Now that is going to 
be a significant cost item. In years past, we had not even funded 
TRICARE to the levels that were needed to maintain the costs before our 
legislation takes effect. As a consequence, we were drawing funds out 
of the major military hospitals.
  I went by and visited both Bethesda and Walter Reed recently in 
connection with seeing friends there, and the commanding officers, all 
in a very respectful way, said: Senator, we do not have sufficient 
funds to maintain these hospitals that are taking care of the active 
duty, primarily--some retired--and their dependents. And that requires 
$1.2 billion. But that ties directly to retention. The degree that we 
properly care for the families and the active-duty personnel reflects 
the degree to which we can retain these valuable people in uniform.
  Fuel. This is different from base. This is for flying the aircraft. 
This is manning the ships. This is training in the trucks, in the 
tanks, the artillery pieces, mobile. This is where the fuel is needed. 
That is a significant cost. Then, of course, in addition, it is for 
flying hours and the spares.
  I expect every Member of this Senate has learned of the 
cannibalization going on, where you take parts from perfectly good 
equipment and put them in other pieces to make them run. That is no way 
to run a first-class military. But, regrettably, those dollars 
associated with the normal maintenance and the spares have been 
inadequate for a number of years, and we are asking $1.6 billion to put 
back on the shelves sufficient spares to enable our troops to train and 
keep their equipment in readiness. This was very carefully documented.
  It is interesting; in the amendment of my distinguished colleague--
the Senator from Louisiana--she has the exact sum. My guess is that 
she, quite rightly, has access to the same information. I must ask that 
in the form of a question at an appropriate time. But she predicated 
2002 on this figure.
  I say the proper course of action is to be respectful of the fact 
that this President has taken an initiative to study our military very 
carefully, analyze the threat, and then to put together carefully a 
plan to make such revision as he deems necessary for this year and our 
outyears under the normal 5-year fit-up program--not 10. I think, in 
fairness, he should be given that opportunity.
  I will leave it to others to address the question of how this reduces 
the overall proposed tax cut, how it goes to other areas of the budget. 
But my responsibility as chairman of the Armed Services Committee is 
simply to stick, at this moment in the debate, to those facts as they 
relate to how this Nation should go forward in providing for the men 
and women of the Armed Forces. I say out of respect for this President, 
we should give him the right, the authority, to go ahead and do the 
studies. We augment, by my legislation, a single fiscal year for 
necessities, and I don't think anybody can dispute the need. I would be 
anxious to hear from the proponents of the other legislation. I think 
the 2002 figure is direct and for the right reasons. For the years 
beyond 2002, let our President come forward--it may be greater in 2003, 
and 2004 could be less--and we go about our responsibility under the 
Constitution to maintain our Nation strong and free, in accordance with 
the wishes of this President.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time did Senator Warner use?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator used 14 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. This is coming out of the 60 minutes, and then I will, 
obviously, yield to the other side.
  What Senator Warner is saying to the Senate is, under our unanimous 
consent request, the Senate will get to vote on the amendment of the 
Senator from Louisiana, to be followed by a vote on the Senator's 
amendment, which he has described, an $8.5 billion increase for 2002.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, the Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Having said that, I want to tell everybody there is a 
big difference between these two amendments, beyond the fact that this 
distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee is saying fund 
at 2002 and let's wait for the President's request.
  The opposition amendment of the junior Senator from Louisiana is an 
interesting amendment as it deals with defense because it actually cuts 
the taxes--the taxes the people thought they were going to get back. It 
reduces that by $100 billion. At first, it was $200 billion. So it 
reduces that by $100 billion out of the tax cut in order to pay for 
this amendment.
  It seems to me the distinguished Senator who chairs Armed Services 
has a good point, and I hope everybody who wants to follow his lead 
will, indeed, understand that the second vote tonight will be on his 
amendment. He very much desires that this position be made. As 
chairman, he wants it to be taken by the Senate. We will be here for 
the next 15, 20 minutes if anybody has any questions. But I send out a 
little signal that we have a unanimous consent, which means we are 
going to vote pretty soon. I might speculate with Senator Reid that we 
are going to vote within 30 or 40 minutes. So everybody should know 
that. All time will be used up.
  Senator Conrad has indicated he may give me an additional 10 minutes 
if I need it because there was an additional 10 minutes used on that 
side. You can add that to the mix and figure out the time.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:


[[Page 5543]]


                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                  Committee on Armed Services,

                                   Washington, DC, March 19, 2001.
     Senator Pete Domenici,
     Chairman,
     Senator Kent Conrad,
     Ranking Member,
     Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Pete and Kent: In accordance with your request, I am 
     forwarding my recommendations on funding for the programs in 
     the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee for the 
     Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Resolution.
       In the near term, I believe there are some urgent needs for 
     which a Fiscal Year 2001 supplemental is appropriate, 
     including the shortfalls that experts in the Department of 
     Defense have identified in the defense health care program, 
     increased flying hour costs, and full funding for the higher 
     housing allowances currently being paid to military personnel 
     living off base.
       With respect to Fiscal Years 2002 through 2006, I agree 
     with the Secretary of Defense that it is prudent for him to 
     conclude his strategy review and present it to the President 
     and the Congress for our consideration before we make final 
     decisions on the shape and overall funding levels for our 
     future defense program.
       However, I believe there are certain requirements that must 
     be addressed regardless of the outcome of the ongoing 
     strategy review. Some increases above the projections 
     contained in the President's budget outline of February 28 
     will be needed to continue the transformation of our military 
     to meet the threats of the new century, to fulfill the 
     commitments the Congress has made to provide quality health 
     care to active and retired military families, and to continue 
     the progress we have made in recent years to improve 
     compensation, housing and other quality of life programs for 
     our military families. I also recommend that the Budget 
     Resolution provide a sufficient mandatory spending allocation 
     for the Armed Services Committee to permit enactment of 
     legislation providing full funding for (1) the 
     transferability of benefits under the Montgomery G.I. Bill to 
     family members; and (2) reform of the statute prohibiting 
     concurrent receipt of military retirement and veterans 
     disability compensation.
       For these reasons, I believe it would be prudent to 
     establish a reserve fund in the Budget Resolution to 
     accommodate the near-term and long-term adjustments to 
     current defense plans that the Administration and the 
     Congress may decide to implement once the Secretary's 
     strategy review is completed. I recommend that this reserve 
     fund provide in the range of $80 to $100 billion for the 
     national security priorities I have identified above the 
     levels projected by the President over the next ten years, 
     pending the completion of this review.
       In my review, this reserve fund should be over and above 
     amounts set aside to fully protect the Social Security and 
     Medicare Trust Funds, pay down the national debt, and meet 
     other priorities, and should not be lumped into a single 
     reserve fund in which defense funding needs would have to 
     compete against other vital national priorities. I also 
     believe this reserve fund should be established in the Budget 
     Resolution before a decision is reached on the various tax 
     proposals before Congress. I have serious concerns that a tax 
     cut of the size proposed by the President would not leave 
     sufficient funds for future increases in defense and other 
     important programs.
       I look forward to working with you on a Budget Resolution 
     for Fiscal Year 2002 that provides the necessary funding to 
     preserve our strong national defense and the other important 
     programs that are essential to our nation's security and 
     prosperity.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Carl Levin,
                                                   Ranking Member.

  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, this is a letter from Senator Levin, the 
ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, to the distinguished 
Chairman Domenici and the ranking member, Mr. Conrad, of the Budget 
Committee addressing the needs, as we see them, for defense in the 
years to come.
  I will read one paragraph which I think is really dispositive of what 
we are discussing. I quote Mr. Levin:

       In the near term, I believe there are some urgent needs for 
     which a Fiscal Year 2001 supplemental is appropriate, 
     including the shortfalls that experts in the Department of 
     Defense have identified in the defense health care program, 
     increased flying hour costs, and full funding for the higher 
     housing allowances currently being paid to military personnel 
     living off base.

  He continues:

       With respect to Fiscal Years 2002 through 2006, I agree 
     with the Secretary of Defense that it is prudent for him to 
     conclude his strategy review and present it to the President 
     and the Congress for our consideration before we make final 
     decisions on the shape and overall funding levels for our 
     future defense program.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Conrad, the manager 
of the bill, I yield time to the Senator from Rhode Island, but prior 
to doing that, I want to indicate how fortunate we are in the Congress, 
in the Senate, to have someone of his knowledge.
  Senator Jack Reed is a graduate of the United States Military Academy 
at West Point. He was an airborne ranger, a company commander. He was 
part of the 82nd Airborne. He had 35 jumps. His career in the military, 
including his time at West Point, consisted of 12 years. He was a 
professor at West Point.
  He not only is a member of the Armed Services Committee in the 
Senate, but during the time he served as a Member of the House of 
Representatives, he served on the very important Intelligence 
Committee.
  This man has served our country, including his time at West Point, 
some 12 years. I do not know of anyone I would rather have speak on 
issues relating to the military than Jack Reed, the senior Senator from 
Rhode Island. I yield 10 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I associate myself with Senator Reid's 
remarks. Senator Jack Reed is a very valuable and well-informed member 
of the Armed Services Committee, as well as his colleagues, the 
principal sponsors of the amendment.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, the Senator from Virginia and I have a 
mutual admiration society. We have served on the same committee since I 
have been in the Senate. I am always impressed with the seriousness of 
everything he says, especially on the Senate floor.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague. I share his view.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to lend support to the amendment of 
Senator Landrieu and Senator Carnahan and commend my chairman for his 
amendment. All of these individuals recognize the need for additional 
resources in defense spending. In fact, when it comes to Chairman 
Warner, there is no one in this Chamber who has been more solicitous 
and supportive of the welfare of American fighting men and women and 
the readiness of those forces than the Senator from Virginia, but I 
believe this is an important moment in the debate to make a broader 
point about this budget and defense spending.
  Explicitly, this budget calls for a $1.6 trillion or $1.7 trillion 
tax cut over 10 years. It reserves the money for that tax cut. Yet it 
ignores anticipated expenses that we already know will be incurred in 
defense. When it comes to defense spending in this budget, there is 
only one word for it: this budget is disingenuous.
  We are not prejudging President Bush. We are taking him at his word. 
I quote the President:

       At the earliest possible date, my administration will 
     deploy antiballistic missile systems, both theater and 
     national, to guard against attack and blackmail.

  When we look at the estimated costs for a national missile defense, 
it is approximately $115 billion, and that total is growing with each 
new reestimation. The $115 billion was an estimate that was included in 
this week's Defense Week magazine.
  This national missile defense is a centerpiece of the President's 
strategic program. I hardly believe that at the end of the strategic 
review conducted by the Secretary of Defense--and I commend him for 
that review--that the Secretary of Defense or the President will 
recommend that they withdraw their support for national missile defense 
or theater missile defense.
  We already know the President may urge us to spend as much as $115 
billion just on national missile defense, and there is nowhere in this 
budget over 10 years that these costs are recognized. This is in 
addition to the cost that Senator Landrieu was talking about--quality 
of life for troops and readiness issues.
  Let us look again at some of these costs we know will be urged upon 
us. We will debate these costs. We will debate these programs. Some may 
be

[[Page 5544]]

eliminated. But right now we know there is a multibillion-dollar 
defense program coming our way, and this budget does not provide for 
it.
  What this budget does is cut taxes explicitly to the tune of $1.7 
trillion, yet ignores defense programs to which the President is 
emotionally, passionately committed. I think that is disingenuous, as I 
said before.
  If you look at national missile defense, we started and are 
developing a land-based system. It is estimated that the cost of 100 
interceptors, a very rudimentary system, will be $43 billion. Again, I 
do not think that number is properly accounted for in this budget going 
forward 10 years. That system is criticized by many, including 
President Bush, as being not robust enough; that we have to build a 
system that is layered, not just a midcourse interception of enemy 
missiles coming to the United States by land-based systems, but also we 
have to have sea-based systems perhaps that will intercept in the boost 
phase and other systems that can intercept in other phases in flight. 
All of this adds additional cost.
  If the Administration chooses to go to a sea-based system, the likely 
candidate is called the Navy theater-wide missile defense system. That 
is one system. That system is just being developed now. Estimates for 
that system--to buy the ships, deploy the radar, deploy the missiles--
is about $5.5 billion. Again, we are not talking about this cost.
  If we look at another aspect--the spaced-based laser is the program 
the Air Force is developing--this system would be designed to be 
orbiting in space and also intercept enemy missiles. That is another 
multibillion-dollar program that is hardly off the drawing board. Yet 
the administration may choose to pursue this option and the cost is not 
accounted for.
  That is the realm of national missile defense--about $115 billion and 
counting. Indeed, every time there is an estimate of costs, the costs 
go up.
  This is a revolutionary innovative system that the Defense Department 
is already developing. But none of these costs are provided in this 
budget.
  If we look at theater missile defense, we just had good news. The 
PAC-3 missile system has been successfully tested. It is an advanced 
theater missile defense, but the sobering fact is that the PAC-3 
missiles cost has increased more than 100 percent over the last few 
years, another cost not appropriately factored into the system.
  There is another Navy lower-tier missile defense system with 
estimates of about $7 billion to develop. Again, it is not recognized 
in this budget.
  The Army is developing a missile defense called THAAD. Once again, 
that is struggling forward, being tested, being developed, estimated at 
billions of dollars.
  There is the Air Force airborne laser on aircraft, estimated at $6.5 
billion in acquisition costs. That, too, is being considered but not 
budgeted.
  After we look at these programs, one after the other, and the 
President's commitment to have a robust comprehensive national missile 
defense and theater missile defense, we are talking about hundreds of 
billions of dollars. It is not in this budget.
  Just as the President eloquently and passionately called for a tax 
cut, he called for national missile defense. This budget is silent 
about those costs as it trumpets tax cuts.
  I do not think that is the way to do a budget. I do not think that is 
fair to our military forces because we know what will happen. These 
programs will be urged upon us. We will have a choice to borrow money 
because there is no money left after the tax cut to fund military 
programs, or to take money from domestic priorities.
  I do not think we should put ourselves in that position. We should 
honestly and fairly put in this budget those costs we know and the 
significant costs that are coming regardless of the outcome of this 
strategic review.
  We can illustrate, talk about other costs. We have other 
responsibilities. In the last few weeks, as a member of the Strategic 
Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, we have had several 
different commissions report to us. They have already done their 
studies.
  Secretary Schlesinger, former Secretary of Defense and former 
Secretary of Energy, reported to us on the status of our nuclear 
safeguarding procedures and all the laboratories that guard the 
readiness of our nuclear devices. His estimate is $800 million just for 
maintenance backlog; $300 million to $500 million per year for ten 
years for recapitalization--new equipment, new computers--billions of 
dollars a year to clean up nuclear waste sites. We know these costs 
already. They are not in this budget.
  The Department of Energy also runs programs to reduce the threat of 
weapons in the former Soviet Union, in Russia. We have been funding 
multimillion-dollar programs which we have to continue to fund to 
ensure our national security.
  The Strategic Subcommittee has heard the Space Commission's report. 
The Space Commission was chaired by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. This 
Space Commission has urged significant investments in our space 
capability. They rightly point out we don't have the situational 
awareness from space to understand what type of missiles might be 
fired, what might be a threat to us, or not a threat to us. They have 
not put a price tag on it. But again, we are talking about a very 
innovative, very expensive system, that the Secretary of Defense is 
very committed to. Another total not reflected in the budget.
  We just had this week a report about the National Reconnaissance 
Office which is responsible for overhead coverage, our satellites, our 
intelligence satellite. They, too, are indicating additional moneys 
must be spent.
  These studies have been completed. The verdict is in: We need more 
resources. Yet this budget does not reflect those costs. We are talking 
about billions and billions of dollars in military programs. One could 
debate and argue the merit of each, but we know they will be urged upon 
us.
  We have a budget that ignores the obvious costs in order to fund a 
very large tax cut. I think we have to be straightforward and honest 
about this budget. We have to recognize the need for defense. Again, we 
are not prejudging the President; we are taking him at his word that he 
wants to build a national missile defense, that he wants to continue on 
the work of our nuclear stockpile safeguard program, that he wants us 
to be a leader in space as we have been on the oceans and in the skies 
and on land. And all of this costs money. There is none of this money 
in the budget.
  I urge the passage of Senator Landrieu's amendment. I also urge as 
fervently that we look carefully at this budget and honestly reserve 
from this proposed tax cut the real resources we will be asking for and 
this administration will be asking for within months of our vote on 
this budget.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, on my time, if I could ask my 
distinguished colleague a question. I pride myself on being among those 
who are strong supporters of the concept of a limited missile defense. 
I have been on this floor much of the 23 years I have been privileged 
to be in this body arguing for the need for this country to provide for 
its defense against that threat.
  I listened to the very careful recitation of all the options in the 
outyears. I think some of those options require significant 
modification of the ABM Treaty. Do I glean from that the Senator could 
be in favor of modifications to the ABM Treaty, or maybe the abrogation 
of the treaty if we are unsuccessful in modifications?
  Mr. REED. I respond at this juncture the question is premature since 
the systems we are testing have not proven effective technologically. I 
would be reluctant to abrogate a treaty until I knew we had a system 
that worked with a high degree of confidence. I hope some day we have 
that choice.
  Mr. WARNER. I doubt we could proceed to some of the naval systems, 
which would require modification. You certainly have to concur in that.
  Mr. REED. The Senator is likely right about those. As I understand 
the ABM Treaty, there are restrictions on

[[Page 5545]]

anything other than a limited land-based system.
  Mr. WARNER. It is a point of reference. I also add the historic act 
adopted by Congress in response to the bill by the distinguished 
Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, carefully spells out that we can 
only proceed as technologically feasible, and that would be the pacing 
item. I am not so sure we can prejudge here in this limited review that 
we will spend all this money on missile defense that my colleague 
suggests. It seems to me we will have to pace ourselves as technically 
feasible.
  I think to ask this Chamber at this time to accept as a premise that 
all of this money is going to develop in the hundreds-plus of billions 
of dollars at this early date is a little premature.
  Mr. REED. I don't think the Senator is saying he suspects that the 
President is not serious about a missile defense.
  Mr. WARNER. No, I am not saying that. I am dead serious. But I think 
we will pace ourselves, and it is a little early to begin to think 
about the magnitude of the budgets associated with missile defense.
  I didn't hear my distinguished colleague from Louisiana mention 
missile defense in the course of her direct testimony unless I missed 
it.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. No, the Senator from Virginia did not hear me, but our 
colleague did such a beautiful job on missile defense.
  Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, how much time remains on the amendment 
on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 18 minutes, and there are 9 
minutes remaining on the other side.
  Mr. CONRAD. I have agreed that if Senator Domenici thinks he needs an 
additional 10 minutes, we will grant that in the interest of fairness.
  If I might briefly say, I am kind of surprised at what I am hearing 
tonight. I hear from the other side they are fully ready to make a 10-
year commitment to a tax cut, but they don't want to make a 10-year 
commitment to defense. There is not a soul in this body who doesn't 
know when the President's strategic review is completed they will come 
back and ask for additional money. Does anybody believe they will not 
do that? When they come back, the cupboard will be bare; the money will 
be gone.
  What we are saying with this amendment is, let's put some money in 
the cupboard so when we are asked to fund defense with additional 
dollars, we have it. That is a responsible thing to do.
  I commend the Senator from Louisiana. I commend the Senator from 
Missouri. I commend the Senator from Rhode Island. This is responsible 
national defense policy.
  I understand the Senator from Connecticut is seeking time.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I was hoping the Senator would have commended me, too, 
for cosponsoring this amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. I am always glad to commend the Senator from Connecticut, 
and I yield 10 minutes to the Senator.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend and colleague from North Dakota for 
his thoughtful and persistent and effective leadership on these 
budgetary matters. I thank the Chair and will see if I can use less 
than 10 minutes.
  I rise today to support this amendment offered by the lead sponsor, 
my friend and colleague on the Armed Services Committee, Senator 
Landrieu of Louisiana, and also cosponsored by Senator Carnahan, a new 
member of the committee, from Missouri.
  This is an important amendment. The Senator from North Dakota spoke 
some words that struck me as I listened to my chairman from Virginia 
about going ahead with this for 1 year but not for the 10 years. Of 
course, the powerful reality is, we are arguing about priorities and 
fiscal responsibility.
  The concern of so many Members is we are committing to this enormous 
tax plan from the President which, by the Concord Coalition estimate, 
will cost $2.3 trillion over the next 10 years, threatening to take us 
back--not just threatening but likely to take us back--into deficit, 
higher interest rates, higher unemployment and we are prepared to 
consider on a 10-year basis. When it comes to the needs of our 
military, we are only prepared to allot the appropriate amount of money 
for 1 year.
  I think what is appropriate on the revenue side is appropriate on the 
spending side. What is most appropriate is fiscal responsibility. What 
this amendment by Senator Landrieu puts at issue is what this debate on 
the budget resolution is all about, which is priorities. I suppose it 
is not only about that. The other part is fiscal responsibility.
  We say it over and over again, and it is true, when it comes to the 
health of our economy, most of it happens in the private sector. 
Government doesn't create jobs. The private sector does. But there are 
a few things that Government can do to create the environment for jobs 
and give some incentives for jobs and economic growth. The first and 
most important is to remain fiscally responsible. The second is to make 
the kinds of investments that help the private sector grow. 
Incidentally, one of those is to support research and development 
through the Defense Department, which has traditionally, in our 
country, led to enormous economic growth.
  So this is about fiscal responsibility. But then this amendment 
really is about priorities. You cannot have it all. You cannot have it 
all and be fiscally responsible. If you go for the Concord Coalition 
estimate of $2.3 trillion on the Bush tax plan, then you are making it 
impossible to do a lot of other things that we must do and that the 
people want us to do.
  Of course, one of the most fundamental responsibilities that 
Government has is to provide for the common defense of our Nation. That 
does not come cheaply. There is no free lunch when it comes to national 
security.
  Others have said, and I need not belabor the fact, that in the last 
campaign then-Governor Bush and Secretary Cheney were very critical of 
our allocation of resources for the military and assured the military, 
particularly personnel, that help was on the way. Here we are in April 
of 2001. President Bush sends his budget to us, at least in general 
terms. I think we have to conclude that help may be on the way, but 
when it comes to our defense budget, the check must have been lost in 
the mail because we are not meeting the needs all of us know are there.
  This amendment, introduced by the two Senators, one from Louisiana, 
the other from Missouri, of which I am proud to be a cosponsor, would 
right that wrong. It takes $100 billion from money that would be spent 
on the tax cut and allocates it, $10 billion a year, to our national 
security. It also does what folks at the Pentagon will tell you they 
desperately need, which is to allow for an emergency defense 
supplemental of $7.1 billion this year. That would make up for the $1.4 
billion deficit now in the defense health program and provide immediate 
assistance for the real serious near-term readiness and personnel needs 
that have resulted from the military reductions and operating tempo 
increases we have seen since the end of the cold war.
  There are real and present needs now that this amendment would meet. 
I know there has been reference to the strategic review being done in 
the Defense Department. I support that review. I am very encouraged by 
the instructions that Secretary Rumsfeld has given to those who are 
working on the review. We need to transform our military. We need to 
use the technology that is available around the world today to make 
sure that we are ready for the threats that will come in the future and 
that we are not just prepared to fight the last war, or wars of the 
past.
  But two things about that strategic review: One is that everyone 
knows there are needs now and there will be needs next year and the 
year after and for the coming decade that deal with shortfalls--
certainly in the near term--shortfalls that are basic, in items as 
basic to the military as ammunition, flying hours, housing, quality of 
life for our military personnel as documented

[[Page 5546]]

by my colleagues who have already spoken, force protection, and 
aircraft and ship maintenance, including, incidentally, repairs to the 
U.S.S. Cole. There are immediate needs now, regardless of what the 
strategic review brings.
  Second, as my colleagues have said already, and I will say it, 
therefore, briefly, no one should be under the illusion that whatever 
the strategic review brings will it say that we can maintain our 
national defense by spending less money. We are working through our 
committee on a bipartisan basis to push the Pentagon to be as efficient 
as possible. Some members of the committee have come out again with a 
call for another round of the BRAC, of the base realignment and closure 
operation, to avoid wasteful spending. But there has never been a 
strategic review--never been an historic transformation such as we are 
going through in our military today, attempting to apply the lessons 
and the products of information technology and high technology to our 
military--that has cost less. So this is a very measured and moderate 
amendment.
  The fact is, I would wager, my colleagues, that if we had the ability 
to take ourselves 10 years forward and look back, assuming that we in 
our time and those who follow us are responsible, which I hope and 
trust they will be, we will, in fact, spend much more than the extra 
$100 billion that Senator Landrieu's amendment allocates to the 
military because we will feel it is necessary.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? I 
will ask him on my time.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Yes, indeed. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. WARNER. Did I understand the Senator to say his interpretation of 
the amendment is that it covers the fiscal year 2001 for the 
supplemental? I bring to the attention of the Senator the amendment. I 
do not find that provision in it.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Responding to the Senator from Virginia, noting a very 
definitive but subtle shake of the head by the Senator from Louisiana, 
I therefore reached the conclusion that what I thought was the original 
intention of the amendment, which was to include an emergency 
supplemental for the defense, is not true?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield for a clarification?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I yield to my colleague from Louisiana.
  Mr. WARNER. If I may continue the colloquy--but go right ahead.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Which makes it even more important we adopt the 
Landrieu-Carnahan amendment because at least there will be some money 
in the bank to pay some bills we know are coming due, in addition to 
the real and urgent needs that the supplemental represents. So I thank 
my colleague for raising that issue. This amendment does not cover it, 
but if there was a way for it to, we most certainly should because that 
is an additional obligation that we should meet.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I recognize this Senator was one of the 
first to say there is a need for a supplemental, even at the time when 
my respected President wasn't totally in agreement with what I was 
saying, but now there is thinking within the department that this 
supplemental will be necessary and will be forthcoming. But I don't 
want anybody coming tonight thinking that supporting the Landrieu 
amendment is going to provide for the 2001 shortfalls which this 
Chamber will have to address at some point in time when the 
Appropriations Committee brings to the floor a supplemental.
  I think my good friend slightly misspoke. I wanted to correct it in a 
very polite way. If I could move on to the second part of my question--
--
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. If I might respond, on my time, I thank the Senator 
from Virginia, my respected chairman of the committee. I am encouraged. 
I know the military was very hopeful, as this administration began, 
that they would have the opportunity to receive a supplemental 
appropriation. I commend the Senator from Virginia. As I recall, on 
February 7 he sent a letter, along with 8 colleagues, to the President, 
stating that there are bills ``which must be paid now. If money is not 
provided in these areas there could be a significant negative impact on 
readiness for this fiscal year and beyond.''
  So as Senator Landrieu says, this amendment would take care of the 
``beyond.'' I hope you and I and Senator Landrieu and others can stand 
on this floor in this fiscal year and support a supplemental for the 
Pentagon.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, let us proceed on the second part of my 
question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 10 minutes of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. WARNER. I want to ask my questions on my time. Perhaps he could 
just be given another minute or so to respond to the question. Is that 
agreeable? On his time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is up to the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining on this 
side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask the time be charged to the Senator raising the 
question. We have additional time that we can grant to the Senator from 
New Mexico for that purpose.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Are you asking the question?
  Mr. WARNER. I am going to ask my colleague from Connecticut another 
question which I thought I would ask on my time but he can respond on 
his time. It would take him less than a minute, I am sure. He has it 
right on his fingertips.
  Mr. CONRAD. The problem is we do not have the additional time on this 
side.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will yield my colleague a half a 
minute--a minute on my time to answer the following question.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. The Senator from Virginia is showing his normal 
generosity.
  Mr. WARNER. Let me address again the letter to the budget chairman, 
ranking member, from Senator Levin, which is written in very clear, 
plain language:

       In the near term, I believe there are some urgent needs for 
     which a Fiscal Year 2001 [as we have discussed] supplemental 
     is appropriate, including the shortfalls that experts . . . 
     have identified in the defense . . .

  We got that.

       With respect to Fiscal Year[s] 2002 [which we are talking 
     about] . . . I agree with the Secretary of Defense that it is 
     prudent for him to conclude his strategy review and present 
     it to the President and the Congress for our consideration 
     before [Senator] we make final decisions [which this 
     amendment asks] on the shape and overall funding levels for 
     our future defense program.

  Do you agree with him?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Very briefly, I do. Of course, Senator Levin's hope, 
and the rest of us, many on the committee, was that the defense 
supplemental would come to us before the budget resolution. But here we 
are on the budget resolution now, needing to make judgments about next 
year and years after. That is the purpose of this amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the language is clear. I simply ask: Do 
you agree or disagree with his statement again, that we should receive 
the results of these studies ``before we, the Congress, make final 
decisions on the shape and overall funding levels for our future 
defense program?'' Our time has expired.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Very briefly, I say, I think my distinguished 
colleague from Virginia is misapplying what Senator Levin was saying.
  Mr. WARNER. I have read it.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Which is, he wanted an immediate defense supplemental. 
But here we are on the budget resolution, so our responsibility is to 
go forward. I will read one sentence. He says very clearly in another 
sentence:

       However, I believe there are certain requirements that must 
     be addressed regardless of the outcome of the ongoing 
     strategy review.

  Mr. WARNER. The letter is in the Record. I cannot take more of our 
time.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator from Virginia and the Chair. I 
yield the floor.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I believe I have 5 minutes.

[[Page 5547]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 6\1/2\ minutes under the control of 
the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, how much time remains on the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes 15 seconds.
  Mr. CONRAD. Six minutes on the Republican side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Correct.
  Mr. CONRAD. And we have 6 minutes on our side. I should remind the 
Senator from Louisiana that I indicated we would be willing to provide 
another 10 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico in fairness.
  Would the Senator from New Mexico like that time at this point?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes. I think to allocate it would be splendid. I may 
not use it all. I may give some of it back.
  Mr. CONRAD. I think in fairness we should do that. And I so move that 
we provide an additional 10 minutes to the Republican side so that it 
is a fair distribution of time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, thank you.
  Mr. President, how much time do we have now from the amendment and 
the 10 minutes added?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Sixteen minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
  Now, Mr. President, I am sure the distinguished Senator from 
Virginia, Mr. Warner, would desire to speak with some additional time, 
and I am sure I will not use all of it.
  Mr. WARNER. That is all right. Go ahead.
  Mr. DOMENICI. First, let me say, it is important we put into 
perspective, for those who are concerned about defense, what the Warner 
amendment will do for defense this year. This amendment sets a new 
level for national defense spending for the year 2002. It adds $22.4 
billion in budget authority over the 2001 budget. That is a 7.2-percent 
increase. Compared to the President's budget, this proposal adds $8.5 
billion in 2002. The proposal is also a $23.5 billion increase for 
national defense over what President Clinton sought for the year 2002.
  So I believe those who are concerned about what we ought to spend in 
the year 2002 should be rather comfortable that when you have this, 
plus what is in the President's budget, you have a very substantial 
increase for the year 2002.
  I want to make a few assumptions that I don't need anybody to concur 
on, but I want to make sure the Record reflects what I assume.
  First, this amendment assumes all the increases in President Bush's 
plans for pay raises for military personnel--I do not believe there is 
any disagreement over that--for retention, for housing, for TRICARE, 
and research and development.
  I would also assume that it includes $3.1 billion more for the 
Defense Health Program. I am not asking does the distinguished Senator 
agree, but I am suggesting those who support that program expect $3.1 
billion out of that $23.5 billion we are speaking of which is added for 
defense this year. In addition, it will restore the TRICARE costs and 
all direct care in military treatment facilities.
  That is going to be tough. But remember, we voted for it. We voted 
for it. Now we cannot say we are not going to fund it.
  The Defense Health Program has been experiencing annual shortfalls, 
and this has been occurring recently because the budget requests--I am 
not speaking of this budget but the budget requests from the 
administration--have underestimated inflationary costs for health care 
each and every year when they send the allowance up here for health 
care programs.
  This year Defense Health Program officials have been instructed to 
use an inflation rate of 4.2, I say to my friend. But this year the 
Health Care Financing Administration estimates that inflation will be 7 
percent, I say to all those interested in our defense. And that can be 
covered if we are careful in terms of what we use this increase for.
  There is going to be a shortfall in the Defense Health Program, and 
we all know that. I think it is a matter of making sure, with the give-
and-take with the administration, we do right by it. Yes, it is a $3.1 
billion shortfall. That means we underestimated what they need.
  The Surgeons General of the military services have told Congress that 
they will have to furlough healthcare personnel, close pharmacies, and 
refuse service at military treatment facilities if additional funding 
is not found for 2001 very soon. If we do not fully fund the program 
for 2002, we will have the same problem again next year. This is not 
acceptable. Does any Senator know of a worse way to address morale and 
retention?
  There is another important element of this amendment. It also 
restores cuts in the defense activities of the Department of Energy. 
The proposal fully funds DOE's Stockpile Stewardship Program and its 
nonproliferation activities. It adds $800 million for the Stockpile 
Stewardship Program and $100 million for nonproliferation.
  Frankly, I do not expect my friend to agree this money is going to be 
used for that. But I want everybody to know I am going to work hard so 
it will be. Because one of the things that the defense establishment 
forgets about every year is that they have a little buddy over there 
called ``nuclear weapons,'' you see. They pay for all the rest of 
defense when they start allocating, but when they start having to give 
up defense money to the Department of Energy to do stockpile 
stewardship, which I say to my friend from Virginia is a fancy name for 
making sure we maintain healthy nuclear weapons--the totality of it to 
be safe and ready--they do not put enough money in it because it seems 
that it is not defense money.
  But I am here to tell you, we are not going to be doing that in the 
future because this Senator is going to be here saying the nuclear 
arsenal is part of the defense of our Nation. It is underfunded. Its 
buildings are falling down.
  I say to my good friend, while you never get to appropriate for it, 
you take a trip up there to the State where they have this Y-12 in the 
State of Tennessee.
  Do you know what is happening up there, Mr. Chairman? There is a 
great big building that is part of the work being done on three of our 
nuclear weapons. And the roof is falling in on top of the heads of the 
workers. They all wear hardhats, even though it is not a hardhat 
environment. So we have to start by building that building, you see. 
And then there are a lot of others. We are asking, and so is the 
general in charge of nuclear weapons asking, that we fund that.
  I am willing to add some more money later if somebody wants to argue 
about it, but I just want to make sure everybody knows I am voting for 
additional money because I do not think the President funded adequately 
what I am telling you about. I do not think his budget funds them 
adequately.
  They are going to get funded adequately this year because the Senate 
is going to understand the precarious nature of not doing it. It might 
be one of the few times the Senator from New Mexico would ask for a 
closed session, which I have never done on an issue. But I am very 
worried about the condition of the science-based stockpile stewardship.
  Let me close. If any of you do not understand that, it just means we 
are no longer doing underground testing, I say to my friends. We are no 
longer doing that because it is the policy of America.
  Underground testing was how we proved the efficacy of nuclear 
weapons--their health, their effectiveness, their wellness. Now we do 
not do that anymore. So how in the world would you think we would be 
sure that some of our 20-, 30-, and 35-year-old weapons are safe and 
have a well-being about them? We start a science program. We are going 
to do it through science without underground testing.
  That isn't something you get on the cheap. That is one of the most 
expensive science programs ever invented by man, to prove, without 
testing, that a nuclear weapons arsenal is safe. And it is very 
important for America.
  So I am voting for the Senator's amendment tonight because I think we 
need to add some money to defense this year. I do not think we have to 
dream

[[Page 5548]]

about missile systems. I think we have to take care of and create a 
robust, high-morale establishment that maintains and perfects our 
nuclear weapons.
  I never get a chance to tell Senators about this. That is why I asked 
them to give me 10 minutes because I didn't want to take it away from 
you. I can't find a better time to discuss it than here tonight when we 
speak of this very large add-on to the Defense Department. I hope I 
wasn't too technical. I hope everybody understands a little better what 
the nuclear weapons issue is all about.
  I reserve whatever time we have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I understand that I have approximately 5 
or 6 minutes to close this argument.
  First, I thank the Senators from Rhode Island, Connecticut, and 
Missouri for lending their voice to this important amendment and to 
this important debate. I also acknowledge the great respect I have for 
the chairman of the Budget Committee, the Senator from New Mexico, who 
has just spoken passionately about an issue he has spent a great deal 
of time and energy working on for many years. He has called us to task 
many times to try to deal with an issue that is sometimes technical and 
difficult to explain but nonetheless an obligation this Nation has to 
protect our children and our grandchildren.
  He was speaking so beautifully in the 10 minutes given to him, it 
could have been allocated to our time, because he made so many of the 
arguments more eloquently than I can about the fact that this 
underlying budget does not have enough money or resources to do the 
things we know we need to do now. He has really helped make the 
argument of why the Landrieu-Carnahan amendment is so important.
  Point No. 2, regarding the costs mentioned by our distinguished 
chairman for nuclear stockpile stewardship, for the health care 
shortfall, for TRICARE, for housing, I ask this question: Do these 
requirements cease after the year 2002? Do these expenses not continue 
to recur? It defies logic that we could provide for this funding for 1 
year and then simply turn our backs and walk away. That is why a 1-year 
amendment, although it is helpful and I could probably vote for it 
because it is better than nothing, certainly falls short, terribly 
short, of what we need to do to make a long-term, 10-year commitment to 
the basics.
  The third point: With all due respect to Senator Warner, whom I 
admire so much, the distinguished Senator from Virginia submitted this 
letter, dated March 19, to Senator Domenici and Senator Conrad signed 
by Senator Levin. He read the first two paragraphs. The most important 
paragraph is the fourth paragraph, which goes on to say, after saying 
we should consider the study:

       However, I believe there are certain requirements that must 
     be addressed regardless of the outcome of the ongoing 
     strategic review. Some increases above the projections 
     contained in the President's budget outline of February 28 
     will be needed to continue the transformation of our military 
     to meet the threats of the new century, to fulfill the 
     commitments the Congress has made to improve quality health 
     care to active and retired military families, and to continue 
     the progress we have made in recent years to improve 
     compensation, housing and other quality of life programs for 
     our military families.

  He goes on to say:

       I also recommend that the Budget Resolution provide a 
     sufficient mandatory spending allocation for the Committee. . 
     . .

  Point No. 4. Please be clear. Our amendment does not try to prejudge 
the President. We are trying to prepare to implement the strategic 
study. We are not standing in the way of the study. We are laying the 
groundwork that we can walk on, that we can fight on, that we can 
defend. This is about laying down a priority in our budget for the next 
10 years. Are we going to say yes to defense or no? Are we going to 
live up to our promises or turn our backs again? Are we going to 
provide help or say, as the Senator from Connecticut said, the check 
must have been lost in the mail?
  I know the Senators from Virginia and New Mexico too well to think 
they would walk away from obligations we have already made. I know that 
is not their intention. So let us do what is right. Let us choose the 
right priority, take the right step, be fiscally responsible. We know 
this bill is coming due. The question is, Is there going to be any 
money in the bank to pay it? If we don't vote for my amendment, the 
bank will be empty. There is nothing you can tell them. We are sorry; 
we spent the money.
  I am not going to do that. Because I am on the committee, because I 
live in the State of Louisiana, I know how important this is. I know we 
are not asking for too much: $10 billion a year for 10 years. It is a 
minimal requirement to lay the groundwork for this study.
  I ask the Senate to take this amendment seriously. This is a very 
important vote. We need to say yes. We can say yes to next year, with 
Senator Warner at $8.5 billion, and we can say yes the next year 
because the need for health care doesn't stop. People aren't going to 
move out of their homes on the bases. We are not going to end the 
distribution of spare parts. We are not going to run out of the need 
for ammunition. We need it in 2003 and 2004.
  I say to the Senate, let us live up to our promises, let us make the 
right decisions, and let's vote for the Landrieu-Carnahan amendment.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished 
chairman, Senator Warner, in cosponsoring this amendment to increase 
the budget for defense by $8.5 billion in fiscal year 2002. This 
amendment would help address current readiness shortfalls that the 
Department of Defense faces today, even as the new administration 
continues its strategic review.
  I am hopeful that this strategic review will not only examine these 
current readiness challenges, but also take a hard look at the current 
shipbuilding rate and our shrinking industrial base. The numbers are 
astonishing: the U.S. Navy has shrunk from a fleet of 594 ships in 1987 
to 315 ships today, while, during the same period, deployments have 
increased more than 300 percent. Regional Commanders-in-Chief have 
repeatedly warned that the fleet is stretched perilously thin and needs 
to be increased to 360-ships to meet present mission requirements.
  Numbers do matter; on a typical day about half the ships in the Navy 
are at sea, with one-third deployed in the Mediterranean, the Persian 
Gulf, and the Western Pacific, putting wear and tear on our ships and 
sailors. In addition to combat over the last 10 years, naval forces 
have conducted 19 non-combat evacuation operations, 4 maritime 
intercept operations with more than 5,000 boardings in support of 
United Nations sanctions or U.S. drug policy, 32 humanitarian 
assistance operations, and 20 shows of force to send powerful messages 
to friends and foes alike.
  Even though our deployments are at an exceptionally high rate, the 
U.S. shipbuilding industry is at risk of deteriorating if the current 
inadequate build rate for the Navy continues. At the current low rate 
of production, the cost for per ship will go up and the efficiency at 
the yard will go down.
  The new administration and this Congress will be faced with the 
challenge of rebuilding and re-capitalizing the Nation's naval fleet. 
The numbers are just as clear as can be: At the present rate of 
investment our Navy is heading toward a 220-ship fleet, which is 
alarmingly inadequate.
  A few other critical areas that have seemed to get little attention 
in a budget constrained environment are research and development and 
training. Steps need to be taken today to attract and retain a highly-
skilled workforce necessary to build the complex warships required for 
our U.S. naval ships to operate against the emerging and traditional 
threats in the 21st century. Regardless of the result of the strategic 
review, forward deployed combat power will not only be required, but 
will continue to be a key element to our strategic posture.
  I am standing here before you to support Senator Warner's amendment 
and to highlight that the readiness issues facing our Nation's defense 
are only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the

[[Page 5549]]

defense challenges facing the new administration and this Congress. 
Today's shipbuilding account is woefully under-funded and does not 
provide the financial support necessary to maintain a viable industrial 
base. We, as the legislative body, need to take aggressive steps to 
ensure that our armed forces are equipped with the most capable and 
advanced ships in the world to defend our Nation's interests.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I intend to vote for the amendment by 
Senators Landrieu, Carnahan, Conrad, Lieberman, Reed and Levin because 
I believe that providing for a strong national defense is our most 
serious obligation.
  Two years ago, President Clinton sent a letter to Secretary of 
Defense Bill Cohen that stated: ``Although we have done much to support 
readiness, more needs to be done.'' President Clinton made this 
statement in response to a briefing he had attended with Secretary 
Cohen, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Commanders-in-Chief of the 
military combat commands.
  I applauded President Clinton then for his reversal of 6 previous 
years of vastly underfunded defense budgets and for the reversal of the 
Service Chiefs in 1998, who confirmed many of the alarming readiness 
problems that had been identified in countless sources.
  The imperative for increasing military readiness and reforming our 
military is as strong today, as it was two years ago. Anyone who 
dismisses our serious readiness problems, our concerns with morale and 
personnel retention, and our deficiencies in everything from spare 
parts to training is either willfully uniformed or untruthful.
  What concerns me the most is that the highly skilled service men and 
women who have made our military the best fighting force the world has 
ever seen are leaving in droves, unlikely to be replaced in the near 
future. Their reason is obvious; they are overworked, underpaid, and 
away from home more and more often. Failure to fully and quickly 
address this facet of our readiness problem will be more damaging to 
both the near and long-term health of our all-volunteer force than we 
can imagine.
  The cure for our defense decline will neither be quick nor cheap. The 
proper solution should not only shore up the Services' immediate needs, 
but should also address the modernization and personnel problems caused 
by years of chronic under funding. The solution will be found by using 
a comprehensive approach in which the President, civilian and uniformed 
military leadership, as well as Congress, will be required to make 
tough choices and even tougher commitments.
  I further hope that we do not fall into the trap of comparing defense 
expenditures of the U.S. versus potential threat countries, because 
dollar to dollar comparisons are meaningless. Only the U.S. has the 
global responsibilities that come with being the lone superpower. Our 
foes can employ asymmetric forces against our weaknesses and achieve a 
disproportionate level of success.
  I was concerned that recently, the USS Kitty Hawk battle group, 
stationed in Japan, reported less-than-favorable readiness numbers, 
short some 1,000 sailors, at the same time that tensions have increased 
in the South China Sea.
  I hope we do not focus solely on the readiness of front-line forces, 
because the Army divisions that have good readiness numbers are being 
supported by units that have less-impressive ratings. We need a 
comprehensive remedy, not a shotgun approach. These support forces, 
some of them reserve component forces, have become the backbone of our 
fighting forces and need the most attention.
  This degradation of the ``tail'' that trains and supports the 
``teeth'' of the U.S. military must be reversed. We have the world's 
finest military, but that is principally because the people in the 
military, primarily the young enlisted, our NCOs, petty officers, 
chiefs, Gunnies, and sergeants, continue to do more with less. Our 
ability to field credible front-line forces is due to the efforts of 
our service members, as we live off of the deteriorating remnants of 
the Reagan buildup. That is difficult to admit, until you review the 
list of aircraft, ships, artillery, and tanks in our current weapons 
inventory.
  The administration must take several steps: propose realistic budget 
requests; specifically budget for ongoing contingency operations; 
provide adequately for modernization; ensure equipment maintenance is 
adequately funded; resolve the wide pay and benefits disparity that 
precludes the Services from competing successfully for volunteers with 
the private sector; and demonstrate strong support for additional base 
closure rounds.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, as the Senate debates President Bush's 
first budget proposal, I want to join my colleagues in congratulating 
the President on his commitment to revitalize our Nation's economy and 
national security. The President's budget proposal is fiscally 
responsible and represents a prudent first step as he organizes his 
administration and focuses on the issues facing both the Nation and the 
World. I especially want to recognize the President's challenge to 
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to conduct a strategic review of our 
national security requirements. This review is long overdue and I 
anticipate it will bring about significant changes to our national 
security strategy and our military services.
  I have been privileged to be a member of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee since 1959. During this period I have been a witness to both 
the greatness and tragedy of military service. After the tragic 
conflict in Vietnam, we saw a sharp decline in the readiness and morale 
of our armed forces. The Reagan era brought about a revitalization in 
our armed forces that culminated in the end of the Cold War and the 
great victory in the desert of Iraq. Now again, our military is showing 
its age and neglect. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are 
still the best, but the equipment and facilities are wearing out 
because of under funding and overuse.
  In a recent interview on the state of our Armed Forces, the Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shelton, stated: ``If we go back 
15 to 16 years, America was spending roughly 6.5 percent of our gross 
domestic product on defense. Today we spend right at 3 percent. Put 
another way, if we were spending the same percent of our national 
wealth, our GDP, on the armed forces today that we were spending in 
1985, the defense budget would be double what it is today. The Army in 
1989 had 18 divisions. Today it's down to 10. The Air Force had 36 
fighter wings. Today it has 20. The Navy had just short of 600 ships. 
Today it's got just over 300 ships. We have taken 700,000 out of the 
active force. That is greater than the armed forces of the UK, Germany, 
the Danes and the Dutch put together. So we have restructured, and we 
have downsized. As an example, our Army is right now the seventh-
largest in the world.''
  General Shelton's comments show that we have adjusted to the new 
world, although in my judgement we have gone too far both in terms of 
force structure and funding. I am especially concerned over the 
shortfall in funding over the past ten years. We have frequently heard 
about the aging equipment and lack of spare parts. I would like to 
focus on our aging military facilities. According to the GAO, in 1992 
the military had accumulated an estimated $8.9 billion in deferred 
facility maintenance. By 1998, that had grown to $14.6 billion. The 
backlog now exceeds $16 billion and it is still growing. If we do not 
reverse this trend, our military installations will continue to 
deteriorate and quality of life and readiness will continue to decline.
  President Bush has proposed a $14.2 billion increase over last year's 
defense budget. Although this is significant, it will not provide the 
necessary resources to fix the immediate readiness shortfall identified 
to the Armed Services Committee by the military services. Chairman 
Warner's amendment to increase the defense budget by another $8.5 
billion is a modest increase to fund critical manpower and readiness 
issues. In my judgement, it is a down payment to the increase that the 
President will seek after Secretary Rumsfeld completes his strategic 
review. I urge my

[[Page 5550]]

colleagues to support the amendment and prove our support to the men 
and women who wear the uniforms of our military services.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from New Mexico has 8 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my distinguished colleague, when 
I addressed the letter from Senator Levin, I put it in its entirety 
into the record. I didn't in any way try to deceive the Senate as to 
his feelings about a different approach than my distinguished colleague 
from Louisiana, his approach being that we should begin to plan for the 
outyears, but it wasn't sort of a mandatory $10 billion for the 
outyears. It was more in the nature of some sort of a reserve fund.
  The key to it is, who is going to run defense? The Constitution of 
the United States says very clearly that the President is the Commander 
in Chief. It is the function of the executive branch to make the 
determination with regard to the needs and the requirements of our 
Armed Forces. As Senator Levin said very explicitly, he supports the 
reviews, and he says in absolutely clear language: And Congress, before 
we make our final decisions on the shape and overall funding levels for 
our future, let's hear from the President.
  That is consistent with the Constitution. That is the way we have 
done business. I think that is the way we should continue to do 
business. It may well be in the year 2003 we need additional funding 
over and above the 10, but the subsequent fiscal years may require less 
funding.
  I say with all due respect to my colleague, let us follow the 
constitutional mandate: The Commander in Chief, the President, 
proposes; Congress disposes. Someone far brighter than I in the history 
of this venerable institution, the Congress of the United States, made 
that statement. And it has been with us for these years.
  Let our President propose, as he is entrusted to do under the 
Constitution, and then each year we will go through the normal cycles 
that we do year after year.
  What is here is a means by which to reduce the President's tax bill. 
I respect the difference of opinion on this side of the aisle where I 
find myself very comfortably ensconced for the remainder of this 
debate. We should respect your views. But if you are going to do it, 
let's knock out all the business about defense and say you want to 
knock down the tax bill by $100 billion, and put the issue straight 
before the Senate. But as it relates to defense, I don't think we want 
to start a radical departure. I have been associated with defense for a 
number of years, starting in the Navy Secretariat in 1969, and now 23 
years here. I have never seen the Congress allocate specific sums of 
increases without the budget request from the President of the United 
States, which has to be justified. You are speculating--and it may be 
correct--that we will need increases for one or more fiscal years. But 
I don't think it is our responsibility now to subvert the Constitution, 
which says the President is the Commander in Chief. The President will 
propose and, in due course, the Congress will dispose.
  With all due respect to my colleague, I certainly support the basic 
thrust of 2002. Our bills parallel in many respects. Mine takes care of 
2002, lets the President finish his studies, and lets Congress analyze 
them and then makes the decision.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. My colleague from Virginia knows how much I respect him 
for his leadership on this subject and how difficult I know this debate 
is for him because he has been a champion of defense spending and 
strengthening our defenses and actually appropriating money in very 
wise ways, as we say about boosting the morale.
  But I have to go back to this letter. I most certainly know we have 
both turned it in for the Record. I think it is important because 
Senator Levin is on his way to this debate--since this letter is 
written by him--to make sure the Members understand the context of this 
letter. If it is read in its entirety, which I tried to do--not just 
reading the paragraph to which you referred but the next paragraph--it 
is clear that Senator Levin says that, while we do need to support the 
study, we must set aside now the resources necessary to fund the 
outcome of the study.
  I know the Senator from Virginia is familiar with the Congressional 
Budget Office study. I know he is familiar with ``Defending America, 
The Plan to Meet Our Missile Defense''--the numerous studies that have 
been done. Not one study indicates that we will be spending less money, 
but all suggest that we will be spending more, but differently.
  So again, I will conclude because I think my time is up. We are going 
to have a bill coming due. The question is, Is there money in the bank 
to pay it? Please vote for the Landrieu-Carnahan amendment so we have 
money to pay these bills when they come due and live up to our promises 
to our men and women in uniform. I yield back my time.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I simply say to my colleague, we have had 
a good debate. We have framed the issue very clearly. My posture is we 
should proceed to let the Commander in Chief conduct his studies. There 
is nothing in this debate to refute Mr. Levin. He said, ``. . .  before 
we make final decisions on the shape and overall funding levels for our 
future defense programs,'' we should have those studies. I am saying 
that we are encroaching on what my distinguished ranking member said in 
clear English language. I say that with respect to the Senator. I yield 
back any time I have.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back any time I have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Landrieu 
amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.


  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 71 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--52

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Boxer
       
  The amendment (No. 188) was rejected.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment 
was rejected.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page 5551]]


  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 189

  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second. The question is on agreeing to 
amendment No. 189. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 84, nays 16, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 72 Leg.]

                                YEAS--84

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--16

     Boxer
     Corzine
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Kennedy
     Lincoln
     Murray
     Reed
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 189) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand this consent agreement has 
been cleared on both sides.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Collins now be recognized to 
offer her amendment and, following the reporting by the clerk, the 
amendment be laid aside and Senator Conrad or his designee be 
recognized to offer an amendment relative to home health care.
  I further ask consent that the debate run concurrently on both first-
degree amendments and be limited to 60 minutes equally divided, and 
following that time the amendments be laid aside.
  I further ask consent that no amendments be in order prior to the 
votes just described, and the votes occur in a stacked sequence, first 
in relation to the Conrad amendment, and then in relation to the 
Collins amendment, beginning at 9:30, with 10 minutes for closing 
remarks equally divided prior to the 9:30 stacked votes.
  I also ask consent that following those votes, Senator Conrad be 
recognized to offer an amendment relative to deficit reduction, as 
under the previous order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from North 
Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. And I will not object. This is in accordance with what we 
discussed?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes. Has the Chair ruled?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. In light of this agreement, there will be no further 
votes tonight. The next votes will occur in stacked sequence at 9:30 
a.m. tomorrow.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 190

  Ms. COLLINS. 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 Maine [Ms. Collins], for herself, Mr. 
     Bond, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Smith of 
     Oregon, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Hutchinson, and Mr. 
     Santorum, proposes an amendment numbered 190.

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

  (Purpose: To establish a reserve fund to eliminate further cuts in 
               medicare payments to home health agencies)

       At the end of title II, insert the following:

     SEC. __. RESERVE FUND FOR MEDICARE PAYMENTS TO HOME HEALTH 
                   AGENCIES.

       If the Senate Committee on Finance or the House Committee 
     on Ways and Means or Commerce reports a bill, or if an 
     amendment thereto is offered or a conference report thereon 
     is submitted, that repeals the 15 percent reduction in 
     payments under the medicare program to home health agencies 
     enacted by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and now scheduled 
     to go into effect on October 1, 2002, the chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget of the House or Senate may increase 
     the allocation of new budget authority and outlays to that 
     committee and other appropriate budgetary aggregates and 
     levels by the amount needed, but not to exceed $0 in new 
     budget authority and outlays in 2002, $4,000,000,000 for the 
     period 2002 through 2006, and $13,700,000,000 for the period 
     2002 through 2011, subject to the condition that such 
     legislation will not, when taken together with all other 
     previously-enacted legislation, reduce the on-budget surplus 
     below the level of the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund 
     surplus in any fiscal year covered by this resolution.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the amendment is 
laid aside. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, Senator Stabenow is my designee on this 
amendment. She has the amendment to send to the desk. I yield to 
Senator Stabenow.


                           Amendment No. 191

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

       The Senator from Michigan [Ms. Stabenow], for herself and 
     Mr. Johnson, proposes an amendment numbered 191.

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

(Purpose: To eliminate further cuts in Medicare payments to home health 
                               agencies)

       On page 2, line 18, increase the amount by $700,000,000.
       On page 3, line 1, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 2, increase the amount by $1,100,000,000.
       On page 3, line 3, increase the amount by $1,300,000,000.
       On page 3, line 4, increase the amount by $1,500,000,000.
       On page 3, line 5, increase the amount by $1,700,000,000.
       On page 3, line 6, increase the amount by $1,900,000,000.
       On page 3, line 7, increase the amount by $2,100,000,000.
       On page 3, line 8, increase the amount by $2,400,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, decrease the amount by $700,000,000.
       On page 3, line 15, decrease the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 16, decrease the amount by $1,100,000,000.
       On page 3, line 17, decrease the amount by $1,300,000,000.
       On page 3, line 18, decrease the amount by $1,500,000,000.
       On page 3, line 19, decrease the amount by $1,700,000,000.
       On page 3, line 20, decrease the amount by $1,900,000,000.
       On page 3, line 21, decrease the amount by $2,100,000,000.
       On page 3, line 22, decrease the amount by $2,400,000,000.
       On page 4, line 3, increase the amount by $700,000,000.
       On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by $1,100,000,000.
       On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $1,300,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $1,500,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $1,700,000,000.

[[Page 5552]]

       On page 4, line 9, increase the amount by $1,900,000,000.
       On page 4, line 10, increase the amount by $2,100,000,000.
       On page 4, line 11, increase the amount by $2,400,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $700,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $1,100,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $1,300,000,000.
       On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $1,500,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $1,700,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $1,900,000,000.
       On page 5, line 1, increase the amount by $2,100,000,000.
       On page 5, line 2, increase the amount by $2,400,000,000.
       On page 30, line 23, increase the amount by $700,000,000.
       On page 30, line 24, increase the amount by $700,000,000.
       On page 31, line 2, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 31, line 3, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 31, line 6, increase the amount by $1,100,000,000.
       On page 31, line 7, increase the amount by $1,100,000,000.
       On page 31, line 10, increase the amount by $1,300,000,000.
       On page 31, line 10, increase the amount by $1,300,000,000.
       On page 31, line 14, increase the amount by $1,500,000,000.
       On page 31, line 15, increase the amount by $1,500,000,000.
       On page 31, line 18, increase the amount by $1,700,000,000.
       On page 31, line 19, increase the amount by $1,700,000,000.
       On page 31, line 22, increase the amount by $1,900,000,000.
       On page 31, line 23, increase the amount by $1,900,000,000.
       On page 32, line 2, increase the amount by $2,100,000,000.
       On page 32, line 3, increase the amount by $2,100,000,000.
       On page 32, line 6, increase the amount by $2,400,000,000.
       On page 32, line 7, increase the amount by $2,400,000,000.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with several of my 
colleagues, including Senators Bond, Hutchinson, Mikulski, Ensign, 
Snowe, Cochran, Gordon Smith, and Santorum, in introducing this 
amendment to eliminate the automatic 15-percent reduction in Medicare 
payments to home health agencies now scheduled to take effect on 
October 1 of next year.
  Our amendment will create a reserve fund of $13.7 billion that can be 
used solely to eliminate the 15-percent reduction in payments to home 
health agencies now scheduled to go into effect on October 1, 2002. Our 
amendment contains a safety mechanism that protects the Medicare HI 
trust fund for each year covered by the budget resolution. In other 
words--I want this to be clear--the Medicare trust fund will not be 
used to pay for the elimination of the scheduled reduction in home 
health payments.
  Health care has gone full circle. Patients are spending less time in 
the hospital, more and more procedures are being done on an outpatient 
basis, and recovery and care for patients with chronic diseases and 
conditions have increasingly been taking place in the home. Moreover, 
the number of older Americans who are chronically ill or disabled in 
some way continues to grow with each passing year as our population 
grows older.
  As a consequence, home health care has become an increasingly 
important part of our health care system. The kinds of highly skilled 
and often technically complex services that our Nation's home health 
nurses provide have enabled millions of our most frail and vulnerable 
elderly individuals to avoid hospitals and nursing homes and stay just 
where they want to be--in the comfort, security, and privacy of their 
own homes.
  The rapid growth in home health spending, from 1990 to 1997, 
understandably prompted the Congress and the Clinton administration, as 
part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, to initiate changes that were 
intended to slow the growth in spending and make this important program 
more cost effective and efficient. Unfortunately, these measures have 
produced cuts in home health spending far beyond what Congress ever 
intended.
  According to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, home 
health spending dropped to $9.2 billion in the year 2000, just about 
half the amount we were spending in 1997. This is at a time when demand 
and the need for home health services have only increased. On the 
horizon and very troubling is an additional 15-percent cut that would 
put our already struggling home health agencies at risk and would 
seriously jeopardize access to critical home health services for 
millions of our Nation's seniors.
  The Medicare home health benefit has already been cut far more deeply 
and abruptly than any other benefit in the history of the Medicare 
program. It is now abundantly clear that the savings goals set for home 
health in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 have not only been met but 
far surpassed. The most recent CBO projections show that the post-
Balanced Budget Act reductions in home health services will amount to 
about $69 billion between fiscal years 1998 and 2002. This is more than 
four times the $16 billion that the CBO originally estimated for that 
time period and is a clear indication that the Medicare home health 
cutbacks have been far too deep.
  Moreover, the financial problems home health agencies have been 
experiencing have been exacerbated by a host of ill-conceived 
regulatory requirements imposed by the Clinton administration. As a 
consequence of these burdensome and costly regulations, as well as the 
reductions in reimbursements, approximately 3,300 home health agencies 
have either closed their doors or stopped serving Medicare patients.
  Moreover, the Health Care Financing Administration estimates that 
900,000 fewer home health patients received services in 1999 than in 
1997. That is 900,000 frail, elderly, ill individuals who have lost 
their access to home health services.
  This startling statistic points to the central and most critical 
issue: Cuts of this magnitude simply cannot be sustained without 
ultimately harming patient care.
  The impact of these cutbacks has been particularly devastating in my 
home State of Maine. The number of Medicare home health patients in 
Maine dropped by 23 percent in just 2 years' time. That translates into 
more than 11,000 home health patients no longer receiving services. 
There was also a 40-percent drop in the number of home health visits in 
Maine and a 31-percent cut in Medicare payments to home health agencies 
in the State.
  Keep in mind, Maine's home health agencies were already very prudent 
in their use of resources. They were low-cost agencies in the 
beginning. They simply had no cushion to absorb this cut. Indeed, these 
cutbacks cut to the bone and are harming care in the State of Maine.
  Last year I had the opportunity to meet and visit with a number of 
home health patients and nurses throughout my State. I heard 
heartbreaking stories about the impact of Medicare cutbacks and how 
regulatory restrictions have affected both the quality and the 
availability of home health care services, jeopardizing the health and 
well-being of numerous senior citizens. For example, a nurse told me of 
the tragic story of one of her patients, an elderly Maine woman who 
suffered from advanced Alzheimer's disease, pneumonia, and 
hypertension, among other illnesses. This patient was bedbound, 
verbally nonresponsive, and had a series of other troubling health 
problems, including infections and weight loss. This woman had been 
receiving home health services for approximately 2 years. During that 
time, due to the care of the skilled and compassionate home health 
nurse, her condition had stabilized.
  Unfortunately, the care provided to this patient had to end when the 
home health agency received a Federal notice indicating that this poor 
woman no longer qualified for home health care.
  Mr. President, less than 3 months later this woman died as a result 
of a wound from an untreated infection in

[[Page 5553]]

her foot. One cannot help but speculate that this tragedy might well 
have been prevented had this woman continued to receive home health 
care.
  This is only one of the heart-wrenching stories that I have heard 
from both patients and dedicated home health nurses throughout the 
State of Maine. I am, therefore, extremely concerned that there is yet 
another cut in home health care looming on the horizon, that an 
additional automatic 15-percent cut is scheduled to go into effect on 
October 1 of next year. This cut would sound the death knell for many 
of our already struggling home health agencies, and it would further 
jeopardize access to critical home health services for millions of our 
Nation's seniors.
  Since we have already surpassed the savings target set by the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1997, further cuts simply are not necessary.
  Mr. President, the fact that Congress has delayed the automatic 15-
percent cutback for 3 straight years demonstrates that the cut is not 
justified, it is not warranted. To simply keep delaying this cut 1 year 
at a time, year after year, is to leave a ``sword of Damocles'' hanging 
over the heads of these home health agencies. It makes it impossible 
for them to plan how they are going to serve their patients. It causes 
them to turn down patients who are complicated and costly to serve 
because they can't count on the reimbursement. This further cut is not 
needed, and it should be eliminated altogether once and for all.
  Mr. President, the amendment we are introducing today will enable us 
to eliminate this cut once and for all. It will provide a needed 
measure of relief and certainty for cost-effective home health care 
providers across this country that are experiencing serious financial 
difficulties that are inhibiting their ability to deliver much needed 
care, particularly to those chronically ill elderly with complex care 
needs.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support my amendment. I reserve the 
remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to commend my colleague from 
Maine for her comments. I could not agree more about the importance of 
home health care for families all across America. We all know there are 
more and more people who desire to live at home, and they can because 
of modern medicine. There are more and more of us as baby boomers, and 
others, who have parents or grandparents we wish to help care for in 
our own homes or in their homes. Home health care is a critical part of 
the network of health care for our citizens.
  I could not agree more that we need to make sure the next cut--this 
15-percent cut that has been delayed three times by the Congress--does 
not actually take effect in October of 2002.
  My problem with the amendment spoken to is it does not guarantee that 
cut will not take place. In fact, the amendment I am offering would 
guarantee--no ifs, ands, or buts about it--that this cut would not take 
effect. When I look at my colleague's amendment, first of all, it says 
if there is a repeal of the 15-percent reduction, the House and Senate 
Budget Committees ``may'' increase the allocation of new budget 
authority--not that they ``shall'' or that they ``have to'' but they 
``may.'' I believe we have to say that they ``must.''
  Secondly, unfortunately, the way this is put together, it creates a 
shell game once again. While appearing to protect the Medicare trust 
fund and saying that these dollars do not come out of the Medicare 
trust fund, they, in fact, set up a scenario that does, in fact, 
guarantee, I believe, that the $13.7 billion will not be available 
because with all of the things being talked about, with all of the on-
budget surplus being used for the tax cut being talked about, with the 
efforts going on here, and what will be happening with all the other 
priorities, it will be impossible to keep this commitment; in fact, we 
will see that cut happen--at least there is no guarantee under this 
amendment that that horrendous 15-percent cut will not happen.
  Mr. President, the amendment I have offered is for the same amount of 
dollars, $13.7 billion. But instead of having the ifs, ands, maybes, 
and the mays, what we say is that these dollars are taken off of the 
top--a small amount of money--of the tax cut and shall be guaranteed 
and put aside for home health care to guarantee that this 15-percent 
cut will not take place.
  This is a very small amount of dollars. I know people in my State--
the people who want us to put forward a balanced approach, who support 
a tax cut and also want to make sure we are continuing to pay down the 
debt--also are very concerned about putting aside a small amount of 
dollars to make sure that our seniors can live at home in dignity; that 
families can care for loved ones and have the opportunity to have 
valuable home health care services available to them.
  As my colleague from Maine indicated, when the Balanced Budget Act 
was put into place, it was anticipated that the Medicare home health 
cuts would be $16 billion, and we find just a few years later that it 
is estimated to be four times that amount. We did not realize that when 
the BBA was passed. I argue that it was a case of unintended 
consequences, and that we have recognized that by delaying the 15-
percent cut three different times, because we know they are excessive, 
that there is something wrong when there has been a 24-percent drop in 
the number of patients served by home health agencies.
  When we see a 30-percent reduction in the number of agencies serving 
Medicare patients nationwide--30 percent--we are talking about almost a 
third of a cut in those serving Medicare patients in home health care 
across this country, while the demand is going up. The citizens of our 
country are getting older and living longer, and we all celebrate that 
we are living longer. Unfortunately, with that comes a greater and 
greater demand with home health care services.
  So I agree with my colleague that, in fact, we need to be serious 
about this. We can all talk about men and women and children and folks 
of all parts of this country who have been and are today in situations 
where they are in desperate need of home health care. We can also talk 
about how it saves dollars--that through home health care we are saving 
dollars in nursing homes and other institutional care. It means dollars 
and cents, and it makes sense from a quality of life standpoint.
  I strongly agree that we need to protect these dollars and guarantee 
that this cut does not take effect. Again, my concern is that the 
amendment of my friend from Maine, unfortunately, does not guarantee 
that this cut will not take effect. We can do that. We can, in this 
process, say that we are going to, regardless of the other priorities, 
regardless of what else is passed, put aside this small amount of 
dollars to protect the home health agencies and the people they serve 
all across this country. That is what this is about.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the Collins amendment and to support 
the Stabenow amendment, which is a guarantee that, in fact, we will be 
able to protect home health services for our citizens. I can't think of 
an issue that touches so many homes and families more than this one--
families who are hoping that they have the opportunity and the 
resources to care for loved ones at home or for people who wish to live 
in dignity in their own home.
  Again, I commend my colleague on the other side of the aisle for her 
comments about the importance of home health care. I could not agree 
more. I believe very strongly that we need to take as firm a position 
as we can, and the amendment that I offer does.
  The amendment I offered is an absolute guarantee that our home health 
agencies and the people they serve will not lose additional dollars and 
that those services will be protected.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield me 2 minutes?
  Ms. COLLINS. I yield as much time as the Senator wants.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first, so there will be no confusion, 
the distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms.

[[Page 5554]]

Collins, has an amendment that makes the money available when the 
committee of jurisdiction reports back that the repeal has been 
accomplished. It is a real amendment. It is precisely what would have 
to happen--and the Senator is saying that it should happen--in order to 
repeal that statute about which the Senator is talking.
  I do not want anybody to think the Senator offered an amendment that 
does not accomplish her purpose. She has been talking about this 
problem for a long time.
  If the Senator had offered an amendment that was not meaningful, that 
did not get the job done, we would have already fixed the amendment. We 
would have looked at it first.
  It is a real amendment. It is the real way to do it. I thank the 
Senator from Maine for her persistence and for the amendment which we 
will vote on tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has 22\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I neglected to mention Senator Roberts 
wants to be a cosponsor of the amendment as well. He is on the 
amendment I sent to the desk. I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Domenici be added as a cosponsor as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, Senator Domenici has been extremely 
helpful in drafting this amendment. I am grateful for his help. Senator 
Roberts has also been a real leader in this area.
  I must say I am very disappointed to hear the comments of my friend 
and colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow. There is no one who has 
worked harder than I on home health care during the last few years. It 
was the legislation I introduced that was incorporated into the 
Medicare Refinement Act that we passed that restored some of the cuts 
to home health agencies.
  I have been honored to work with the trade associations representing 
our Nation's home health agencies and have been very humbled and 
privileged to receive their awards as legislator of the year.
  For my colleague to suggest that I am offering a sham or phony 
amendment and to somehow question my sincerity in trying to restore 
home health care is really most unfortunate and most disappointing.
  This is, as the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee said, 
a very real amendment. In fact, a reserve account is the fairest way to 
address this problem. We are still going to have to pass legislation, 
whether it is the amendment of the Senator from Michigan that is 
adopted or whether my version is adopted, to actually carry out the 
elimination of the 15-percent reduction. But my reserve fund amendment 
provides a mechanism to bring us closer to that goal by reserving those 
funds that we need, that $13.7 billion that is necessary.
  As I said, I am very disappointed and think it is very unfortunate to 
have my efforts misrepresented. I have worked extremely hard on this 
issue. I have introduced legislation that has bipartisan support, that 
has more than 30 cosponsors expressing support for home health care.
  I have visited elderly people in Maine who are receiving home health 
care, and I know how absolutely critical it is to them.
  On my most recent home health visit, I accompanied a very dedicated, 
professional, and compassionate home health nurse to a town outside of 
Bangor. This woman was receiving home health care while living with her 
daughter. She had lung cancer. But home health care allowed her to 
spend her final months of her life in her daughter's home--not in a 
nursing home, not in a hospital, but surrounded by her loving family.
  I do not want anything to jeopardize the ability of such a woman and 
so many other Maine citizens and citizens across this country to 
receive the home health care services they need.
  I visited another couple in my hometown of Caribou. They were both in 
their mid-eighties. One was in a wheelchair. Each of them had very 
serious health problems. Home health care allowed this elderly couple 
to stay together in their own home where they had lived for more than 
60 years rather than be separated and having one sent to a nursing 
home.
  That is how important home health care is, and there is no one who is 
more committed than I to making sure we undo the damage that was 
inadvertently done by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and the very 
burdensome and onerous regulations imposed by the Clinton 
administration.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment that I and many others 
have offered so that we can bring ourselves a step closer to making 
sure we eliminate once and for all this 15-percent ill-advised cut in 
Medicare home health care reimbursements.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator from Michigan yield?
  Ms. STABENOW. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from Maine wishes to offer a unanimous consent 
request.
  Ms. COLLINS. I am sorry; I could not hear the Senator.
  Mr. REID. It is my understanding the Senator wants to offer a 
unanimous consent request.
  Ms. COLLINS. I believe the Senator from Nevada knew that before I 
did.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. I appreciate the Senator yielding.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the only first-degree 
amendments in order on Friday be those amendments submitted at the desk 
by 2 p.m. on Thursday, with the exception of an amendment to be offered 
by the minority leader and an amendment to be offered by the majority 
leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator 
from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first, I in no way intended to express 
doubt about my colleague's sincerity on this issue. I, in fact, 
indicated in my comments that I appreciated her commitment and 
understand this is an issue with which she has been very involved and 
it certainly is an issue she cares deeply about and an amendment, I am 
sure, that is intended for all purposes to move in the right direction. 
I commend her for that.
  I shared those same experiences when I was in the House of 
Representatives working with the home health groups and having the 
opportunity to be very involved as a House Member.
  I very much appreciate the work of the Senator from Maine.
  What I question is simply the language in the amendment and the 
mechanism being used. The practical reality is that if we adopt an 
amendment that indicates the dollars will be put aside but cannot be 
used if, in fact, the Medicare trust fund is dipped into, that is an 
impossible situation because the vast majority of the contingency fund 
is, in fact, the Medicare trust fund.
  When we look at what the President has proposed to spend from the 
contingency fund, which is the Medicare trust fund predominantly, my 
fear is that we will find a situation where the Senator's well-intended 
amendment, if adopted, might be in a situation where it could not take 
effect without dipping into the Medicare trust fund.
  This bars dipping into the Medicare trust fund, which I support. But 
by using this mechanism, it, in fact, may not provide the protection 
she desires.
  My amendment simply takes the same amount of dollars, but by taking 
it off the top rather than through some language about the contingency 
fund and not using the Medicare trust fund, by simply taking it off the 
top, we guarantee that money can be put aside. We can call it a reserve 
fund. That makes a lot of sense.
  Let us work together and call it a reserve fund and put it aside but 
not make it contingent upon all of the

[[Page 5555]]

other decisions that will be made by the Budget Committee, the Finance 
Committee, and others, in ways in which this contingency fund will be 
structured. That is my concern.
  I appreciate the fact there is a desire to keep intact the 
President's tax proposal. I appreciate that. I have a different view in 
terms of priorities, wanting to see the tax cut as part of the 
priorities and paying down the debt, and making sure we can carve out a 
small amount of the total for home health care. I would like to see it 
written in stone so it is not dependent upon other conditions.
  The amendment says it would be subject to certain conditions, when 
taken together with all other previously enacted legislation. In total, 
if the amount involved would reduce the on-budget surplus below the 
level of the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund, then it would not 
happen.
  The bottom line is, we see this Senate moving in the direction of 
``combining'' when all is said and done because of the desire to move 
the Medicare trust fund into spending, which is the direction the 
Senate has been moving. The President has asked to move the Medicare 
trust fund into spending and because all kinds of things have been 
promised out of that Medicare trust fund and out of the contingency 
fund, unfortunately, this language does not guarantee we can protect 
home health care agencies from the 15-percent cut.
  I will gladly work with my colleague to find a way to make sure we 
can guarantee this 15-percent cut will not take effect. I couldn't 
agree more. We see a 24-percent drop in the number of patients served 
by home health agencies. We are talking about real people, real 
people's lives, families who are struggling, people who need care. I 
couldn't agree more that we need to make a strong statement in support 
of those who use and need to use home health care services. My concern 
is, as with other amendments that relate to the whole question of the 
contingency fund, there is no guarantee that, in fact, this will be 
able to happen.
  I welcome my colleague joining with me to make sure we put aside 
$13.7 billion and that we can work together to make sure that is truly 
available, regardless of what other decisions are made regarding the 
budget.
  As I indicated, in this amendment, unfortunately, it is ``subject to 
the condition that such legislation will not, when taken together with 
all other previously enacted legislation'' dip into the Medicare trust 
fund.
  I argue strongly that given that exception, in fact, the goal would 
not be met. I urge my colleagues to join with me in truly protecting 
home health care. I welcome the opportunity to work with my colleague 
to do that. I know we both share a strong commitment on this issue. I 
want to make sure, as I am sure she does, I want to make sure this 
language is the kind of language that will guarantee at the end of the 
day that this 15-percent cut does not take effect, no ifs, ands, or 
buts about it, that it does not take effect and our families will have 
the opportunity to use needed home health care services.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, let's get this straight. Whether the 
amendment of the Senator from Michigan passes or whether my amendment 
passes, the Senate Finance Committee is still going to have to report 
legislation repealing the 15-percent cut. There is no absolute 
guarantee under either version.
  The fact is, under the Collins amendment there is far more likelihood 
that we will see repeal of the 15-percent cut because I specifically 
set aside the $13.7 billion in a reserve fund that can only be used to 
restore the 15-percent cut to eliminate the cut.
  By contrast, the amendment of my friend and colleague from Michigan 
just increases funding in the Medicare account, with no guarantee that 
the money goes for home health care. Instead, she takes money out of 
the tax cut.
  The approach I have sets aside the $13.7 billion specifically for the 
purpose of eliminating the 15-percent cut. There is far more of a 
``guarantee'' that we will repeal the 15-percent cut under the Collins 
amendment than under the amendment offered by the Senator from 
Michigan.
  I think it is unfortunate the Senator from Michigan has not joined on 
to the Collins amendment. I am very pleased to say, and appreciative of 
the fact, she is a cosponsor of the legislation that I have introduced, 
which more than 30 Members have cosponsored, to eliminate the 15-
percent cut. If we are talking about what version of the amendment is 
more likely to bring about the goal that we both share, it is clearly 
the version I have offered which says that the money can only be used 
for home health care and for eliminating the 15-percent cut.
  I also find it ironic that the amendment is being criticized now for 
exempting and providing a mechanism of safeguard for the Medicare HI 
trust fund. That has been an issue that has been repeatedly raised by 
Members of the minority party, by Members of the Democratic Party, as a 
concern about these amendments. In an attempt to respond to that 
concern, I make sure we shield the Medicare trust fund so it could not 
be tapped for this purpose and that this would be new money. To now 
hear criticisms of the amendment because we put in those safeguards 
strikes me as puzzling, to say the least.
  Again, my goal is to make sure every elderly American who needs home 
health care, who wants to receive services in the privacy, security, 
and comfort of their own homes is able to do so. Home health care has 
become so important and we must ensure that our frail, vulnerable 
elderly receive the services they need.
  I yield the floor but reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I make it clear I agree with protecting 
the Medicare trust fund. That is very laudable. I wish we were totally 
protecting it from any areas of spending. My concern is simply that 
when we protect it, as this amendment does, it makes it impossible to 
find the $13.7 billion when you look at the conditions put in this 
amendment.
  It is excellent to protect the Medicare trust fund, but the reality 
is the contingency fund that has been put forward by the President in 
this resolution uses the entire Medicare trust fund to fund it. It is 
really a Catch-22. That is my concern.
  I certainly am hopeful we will be able to truly put aside the dollars 
and make sure that, regardless of what else happens in the process, we 
have dollars put aside to protect home health care.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from Michigan has indicated she is willing to 
yield back time. I don't know if there is anyone who wishes to speak on 
the other side.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to join with my colleague from Maine, 
Senator Collins, to offer an amendment on Medicare home health care. 
This amendment will give us the ability later this year to pass the 
Home Health Payment Fairness Act, a bill I have sponsored with the 
Senator from Maine and 31 other Senators, that tries to ensure that 
seniors and disabled Americans have appropriate access to high-quality 
home health care.
  Home health care is a crucial part of Medicare through which seniors 
can get basic nursing and therapy care in their home. It is convenient. 
It is cost-effective. But more importantly, home health is the key to 
fulfilling a virtually universal desire among seniors and those with 
disabilities, to remain independent and within the comfort of their own 
homes despite their health problems.
  Yet we have a crisis in home health, too many seniors who could and 
should be receiving home health are not getting it. This is tragic.
  We all know the basic history, Congress made cuts in the Balanced 
Budget Act, the Health Care Financing Administration went too far in 
implementation, providers struggled or disappeared, and now patients 
are having a harder time getting care. This has

[[Page 5556]]

been true for hospitals, for nursing homes, and for home health.
  But there are two things that distinguish the home health crisis from 
all of the other Balanced Budget Act problems. First and most 
importantly, no other group of Medicare patients and providers, 
absolutely none, has suffered as much. The numbers don't lie: In 1999, 
two years after the Balanced Budget Act, almost 900,000 fewer seniors 
and disabled Americans were receiving home health care than previously. 
More than 3,300 of the Nation's 10,000 home health agencies have either 
gone out-of-business, or have stopped serving Medicare patients.
  Medicare home health spending has actually gone down for three 
straight years, dropping by 46 percent from 1997 and 2000.
  In my home state of Missouri, 27,000 fewer patients are receiving 
home care than before, a drop of 30 percent. And almost 140 home health 
care providers, almost half, have disappeared since the Balanced Budget 
Act.
  The second thing that is unique about home health, the biggest cuts 
may be yet to come.
  While other Medicare providers will still face some additional 
Balanced Budget Act cuts, nobody faces anything like the 15-percent 
across-the- board home cuts that are now scheduled for October of 2002. 
That's a 15-percent cut on top of everything else that has happened 
thus far.
  I do not believe this should happen, and I actually don't know of 
anybody who believes the 15-percent health cuts should take effect. 
That's why Congress has already delayed the 25-percent cuts three 
separate times.
  Our amendment would give us the room in the budget to fix this once 
and for all, no more mere delays, no more half-measures. This amendment 
will allow us to pass legislation later this year to permanently 
eliminate these 15-percent cuts.
  Home health care has been through enough. Our Nation's dedicated home 
health providers deserve to be left alone and given a break so they can 
focus on patient care rather than survival. The last thing they need is 
more cuts. And that is all our bill tries to do, we try to spare home 
care patients and agencies additional cuts that threaten to make a bad 
situation worse. The seniors and disabled Americans who rely on home 
health for the health care, and for their independence, deserve no 
less.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request. 
Senator Burns would like to be added as a cosponsor of the amendment. I 
ask unanimous consent that he be so added.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 11 minutes.
  Ms. COLLINS. I would like at this time to reserve my time, but if 
other Senators wish to speak I have no objection.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield, we have reserved 5 minutes for 
the Senator in the morning and 5 minutes for Senator Stabenow. Senator 
Grassley wishes to speak as in morning business.
  Unless the Senator has some urge to speak tonight on this subject, my 
point is, if she has nothing more to say, we will yield back all time 
and allow Senator Grassley to speak as in morning business. He wants to 
speak for an extended time.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, is all the time yielded back on the 
amendment on the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I would just like to make certain there 
are no Members on our side----
  Mr. REID. I have checked with staff and they indicated they know of 
no one.
  Ms. COLLINS. In view of those assurances, even though this is one of 
my favorite topics and I would like to continue to talk about it, as a 
courtesy to my colleagues, I will yield the remainder of my time.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 174

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, to move the budget process forward, I 
voted to support the Grassley amendment today to raise the levels of 
spending for agriculture programs in the budget resolution. Despite my 
favorable vote, I wish to express my deep concerns about the form and 
level of spending included in this amendment.
  The Grassley amendment will add an additional $63 billion in 
mandatory spending to agricultural programs over ten years, which is 
assumed to be paid from projected budget surpluses. This is above the 
amount proposed by my Republican colleagues on the budget committee. By 
designating the extra $63 billion as mandatory spending, much of this 
funding will be targeted toward farm subsidy programs.
  The needs of American family farmers are not being ignored. Congress 
is in the process of drafting a new Farm bill to reauthorize USDA 
programs, which many would view as the appropriate vehicle to tackle 
necessary reform and address farm crises. In the past few years, 
Congress has approved more than $20 billion in emergency farm aid for 
crop losses and disaster assistance. The agriculture appropriations 
bill for fiscal year 2001 was padded with $300 million in porkbarrel 
spending for towns, universities, research institutes and a myriad of 
other entities. This is already an exorbitant commitment by the 
American taxpayer.
  I believe it is fundamentally wrong that we are asking taxpayers to 
pay billions more, above already inflated levels of spending for farm 
programs and subsidies, particularly when the federal government is not 
meeting its current obligations for other designated mandatory spending 
programs such as education. For example, this budget resolution does 
not account for the federal government's responsibility to pay 40 
percent of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, for 
special education. I believe many of my colleagues would agree that we 
should prioritize mandatory spending for existing responsibilities not 
being fulfilled without requiring the taxpayers to spend an additional 
$63 billion for farm programs that have already been more than 
compensated.
  After consultation with the leadership on this particular amendment, 
my colleagues stated that if Senator Grassley's amendment failed, many 
would be in the position of having to vote for the Johnson amendment, 
which would have raised mandatory spending on agriculture programs by 
$97 billion, as the only available alternative. Therefore, while I 
believe this to be irresponsible fiscal policy, I ultimately decided to 
vote in favor of the Grassley amendment to move the process forward on 
the budget resolution and to avoid even greater wasteful spending. I 
remind my colleagues, however, that we still have an important 
obligation to American taxpayers to ensure that any spending we approve 
through the annual appropriations process pursuant to this budget 
resolution is fair, fiscally responsible, and targeted at those truly 
in need.


                       JUDICIARY COMMITTEE VIEWS

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record the Judiciary Committee's views and estimates letter from 
Senator Hatch.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                   Washington, DC, March 21, 2001.
     Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, Washington, 
         DC.

     Hon. Kent Conrad,
     Ranking Democrat, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Pete and Kent: Thank you for your recent letter 
     requesting my views pursuant to Section 301(d) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act. As you know, the Committee on the 
     Judiciary has jurisdiction over Department of Justice 
     programs, as well as matters relating to the U.S. Patent and 
     Trademark Office. After consultation with members of the 
     Committee, I have prepared the following comments regarding 
     the budget of the Department of Justice and the Patent and 
     Trademark Office.
       As I noted last year, the fiscal discipline exhibited by 
     Congress in the past several years, culminating with the 
     historic 1997 balanced budget agreement, has helped maintain 
     and ensure a robust economy not just for now, but for the 
     next generation as well. Maintaining a balanced federal 
     budget will, of course, require us to make tough choices

[[Page 5557]]

     about spending priorities. Such changes must be executed in a 
     fashion to ensure that each dollar is spent in a productive 
     fashion. No department should be exempt from careful 
     scrutiny.
       Exercising fiscal responsibility, however, does not absolve 
     us of our responsibility to carry out the core functions of 
     government. As I am certain you agree, the administration of 
     justice, including the protection of the public from crime 
     and terrorism, are core functions of government. Indeed, as 
     we begin the new millennium, these threats are becoming more 
     sophisticated and dangerous, making vigilance more important 
     than before. I look forward to working with you to develop a 
     budget resolution that reflects the importance of this 
     category of spending.
       With these thoughts in mind, I am pleased to provide you 
     with the views and estimates of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary for the FY 2002 budget.


               state and local law enforcement assistance

       State and local law enforcement assistance programs, funded 
     largely through the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), are a 
     major component of the Department of Justice Budget. These 
     federal grants to state and local law enforcement allow the 
     federal government to contribute directly to the fight 
     against crime without involving the Department of Justice in 
     prosecuting crimes that are not federal in nature. As you 
     know, most violent crimes, such as murder, rape, and assault, 
     are state crimes, not federal crimes. By providing these 
     grants, the federal government can help to reduce crime in a 
     manner consistent with our constitutional system of 
     government.
       Local Law Enforcement Block Grants: The Local Law 
     Enforcement Block Grant program (LLEBG) provides assistance 
     on a formula basis to local law enforcement agencies. The 
     LLEBG has made it possible for local police and sheriffs 
     departments to acquire efficiency-enhancing technology and 
     equipment. The LLEBG was funded at approximately $500 million 
     in FY 2000 and FY 2001. I urge continued funding of this 
     valuable grant program at a level consistent with the two 
     previous fiscal years.
       Byrne Grants: The Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law 
     Enforcement Assistance Grant program is a successful and 
     popular program which provides needed assistance to state and 
     local law enforcement for a wide variety of purposes, such as 
     purchasing capital equipment. Like the LLEBG, this program 
     provides needed assistance to state and local law enforcement 
     without entangling the federal government in the prosecution 
     of crimes that are not federal in nature. I urge continued 
     funding of this valuable grant program at a level consistent 
     with the two previous fiscal years.
       Juvenile Accountability Block Grants: This program provides 
     valuable grants to states for a variety of law enforcement 
     purposes targeting juvenile crime, including graduated 
     sanctions, drug testing, and juvenile detention and 
     incarceration.
       Juvenile crime continues to be among the greatest criminal 
     justice challenges in America. Juveniles account for nearly 
     one-fifth of all criminal arrests. Even with the recent 
     reductions in juvenile crime, there is a potential for 
     significant increases in juvenile crime as the children of 
     the baby boom generation mature into the prime age for 
     criminal activity.
       In the last several years, the Juvenile Accountability 
     Block Grants received approximately $250 million per year. 
     This is the only federal money dedicated to juvenile law 
     enforcement and accountability programs. By contrast, the 
     federal government spends billions of dollars in prevention 
     funds for at-risk youth. There should be a balanced approach 
     to juvenile crime with resources dedicated to prevention and 
     accountability. Therefore, I urge continued funding for this 
     program at a level consistent with the two previous fiscal 
     years.
       State Criminal Alien Incarceration Grants: The State 
     Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) reimburses states 
     and local governments for the costs incurred in incarcerating 
     illegal aliens who commit crimes in this country. Immigration 
     is the responsibility of the federal government. The SCAAP 
     reimbursements fulfill the federal responsibility to at least 
     partially indemnify states for the costs of illegal 
     immigration. These grants should be funded at an adequate 
     level. Last year, the SCAAP grants received approximately 
     $600 million. I urge continued funding for this program at an 
     adequate level which is consistent with the two previous 
     fiscal years.
       DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Grants: DNA samples must 
     be analyzed by accredited laboratories before the samples can 
     be placed in CODIS, the national DNA evidence database. 
     Unfortunately, there is an approximate two-year nationwide 
     backlog of 700,000 unanalyzed convicted offender DNA samples 
     and unanalyzed DNA evidence from unsolved crimes. Authorities 
     estimate that at least 600 felonies will be solved by 
     eliminating the backlog of convicted offender DNA samples 
     alone. Consequently, I urge funding of the recently enacted 
     DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Grants to help States 
     analyze DNA samples and evidence and expedite their inclusion 
     in CODIS.
       In addition, state laboratories desperately need funding 
     for buildings, equipment, and training of personnel in order 
     to eliminate the backlog and to process crime scene evidence 
     in a timely manner. Therefore, I urge adequate funding for 
     the recently enacted Paul Coverdell National Forensic 
     Sciences Improvement Act.
       Criminal Technology Grants: Crime technology is critical to 
     effective law enforcement. Millions of dollars have been 
     invested in national systems, such as the Integrated 
     Automated Fingerprint Identification System and the National 
     Criminal Information Center 2000, which require state 
     participation in order to be effective.
       Additionally, state and local governments are at a crucial 
     juncture in the development and integration of their criminal 
     justice technology. The Crime Identification Technology Act 
     (CITA) provides for system integration, permitting all 
     components of criminal justice to share information and 
     communicate more effectively on a real-time basis. There is 
     also a tremendous need to integrate the patchwork of federal 
     programs that fund only specific areas of anti-crime 
     technology. Therefore, I recommend funding for CITA at a 
     level consistent with the previous two fiscal years.


                               drug abuse

       Combating drug trafficking remains one of the Judiciary 
     Committee's top priorities. As you know, drug use among 
     teenagers rose sharply throughout much of the last 
     administration. However, in the past few years, because of 
     the attention paid to the issue by Congress, drug use among 
     teens has leveled off. Still, the rate of teenage use remains 
     far too high.
       Drug abuse in not confined to American teenagers. Far too 
     many Americans still abuse illegal drugs, and the problem 
     threatens to worsen as drugs such as methamphetamine and 
     ecstasy become increasingly available throughout the country. 
     We know that an effective drug control strategy can 
     dramatically reduce drug use in this country. Such a strategy 
     must embody a balanced approach and must contain both demand 
     and supply reduction elements. This approach, which has the 
     virtue of being nonpartisan, enjoys wide support. It has been 
     endorsed by the law enforcement community, prevention and 
     treatment experts, state and local government organizations, 
     community-based organizations, and prominent political 
     figures from across the ideological spectrum.
       As for the supply reduction component of this strategy, the 
     budget should contain sufficient resources to fund vigorous 
     domestic law enforcement activities, including defending our 
     borders, and international interdiction efforts. Such funding 
     includes supply reduction efforts by the Department of 
     Defense, the Coast Guard, and domestic law enforcement 
     agencies, such as the Drug Enforcement Administration, the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Customs Service.
       While we know that vigorous law enforcement measures are 
     necessary, we must also provide resources for drug prevention 
     and treatment programs. Such community-based programs, as we 
     learned in the 1980's, can significantly reduce drug use in 
     our communities. I recently introduced S. 304, the ``Drug 
     Education, Prevention, and Treatment Act of 2001,'' which 
     sets forth a comprehensive package of prevention and 
     treatment proposals. I am confident that these programs, if 
     adequately funded, will add the necessary demand reduction 
     component to our national drug control strategy. I believe 
     that if we are to win the war on drugs in America, we need a 
     stronger national commitment to demand reduction as a 
     complement to vigorous law enforcement efforts. Only with 
     such a balanced approach can we remove the scourge of drugs 
     from our society. Therefore, I recommend funding for the Drug 
     Education, Prevention, and Treatment Act of 2001 at a level 
     consistent with its authorization.


                  Violence Against Women Act Programs

       Congress has consistently supported funding for the 
     majority of initiatives contained in the 1994 Violence 
     Against Women Act. Last Fall, Congress re-authorized most of 
     the programs contained in the original act for a five-year 
     period with adjusted funding levels. I believe that this 
     legislation will continue programs with a track record of 
     effectiveness. Therefore, I recommend funding for this 
     important Act at a level consistent with the new 
     authorization.


                       Antitrust Division Funding

       Recognizing the increasingly numerous and complex merger 
     proposals confronting the Department of Justice, as well as 
     the explosive growth of high technology industries, both in 
     the United States and abroad, a reasonable expansion of the 
     Department's Antitrust Division may be appropriate if a 
     sufficient justification could be made. However, given last 
     fiscal year's increase in the Antitrust Division (and the 
     Federal Trade Commission), it appears that both the Division 
     and the Commission are adequately funded absent a 
     justification for a funding increase.


              radiation exposure compensation act funding

       The Department of Justice informed the Judiciary Committee 
     last year that there is a severe shortfall in the funding for 
     the Radiation Compensation and Exposure Act

[[Page 5558]]

     (RECA) Trust Fund. As you know, Congress passed the original 
     Act in 1990 as well as subsequent legislation, S. 1515, last 
     year to update the list of compensable illnesses. The 
     Department is currently unable to meet any of the financial 
     obligations for those individuals whose claims have been 
     approved. As a result, hundreds of individuals are receiving 
     ``IOUs'' from the federal government in lieu of their 
     payment. Accordingly, in order to meet the government's 
     obligation to provide financial assistance to these 
     beneficiaries, I am requesting $84 million to pay those 
     claims which have already been approved as well as the 
     projected number of approved claims for fiscal year 2001.


               intellectual property rights (ipr) center

       Last year, the President's budget requested $612,000 and 
     eight positions for a joint Intellectual Property Rights 
     (IPR) Center to be co-led by the FBI and the U.S. Customs 
     Service. I supported the creation of this multi-agency 
     enforcement center in last year's budget, which took a very 
     important first step in creating a mechanism for coordinated 
     enforcement of intellectual property rights in the United 
     States. I supported President Clinton's budget request to 
     fund this center this year as a down-payment, and I will 
     continue to be vigilant in seeking to ensure that adequate 
     funding is continued in the years to come. I hope that we 
     will continue to move forward to ensure effective and 
     efficient IPR enforcement and protection against the theft of 
     American technology and intellectual property.


               united states patent and trademark office

       Technology and innovation are the driving forces behind our 
     economy. Last year, the budget request acknowledged that 
     ``[i]n the last 50 years, developments in science and 
     technology have generated at least half of the nation's 
     productivity growth, creating millions of high-skill, high-
     wage jobs and leading to advances in the economy, national 
     security, the environment, transportation, and medical 
     care.'' Yet while President Clinton's budget purported to 
     promote science and technology through increased taxpayer 
     funding, it penalized private sector investment in innovation 
     by siphoning off roughly one-third of the total inventor-
     derived user-fees paid to the United States Patent and 
     Trademark Office (USPTO) for technology-related services.
       The USPTO is 100 percent supported by user fees paid by 
     patent and trademark applicants and owners. Since 1992, 
     Congress has been withholding a gradually increasing portion 
     of the USPTO's user fees each year. Examples of recent 
     withholdings include $108 million in Fiscal Year 1999 and 
     $116 million in Fiscal Year 2000. Last December, consistent 
     with the President's budget request, legislation was passed 
     that provides the USPTO with a budget of $1,039 million. Of 
     the $1,039 million, $784 million will be derived from Fiscal 
     Year 2001 and $255 million from a carryover from past years 
     and any fees received in excess of $784 million will not be 
     available to the USPTO in Fiscal Year 2001. With a projected 
     revenue of $1,152 million for Fiscal Year 2001, this means an 
     overall USPTO withholding of approximately $368 million for 
     Fiscal Year 2001.
       As you know, I have long opposed the diversion of patent 
     fees as a debilitative tax on innovation. In my view, such a 
     tax flies in the face of the Constitution's patent clause and 
     its vision of government as a promoter, rather than an 
     inhibitor, of innovation. I was pleased to work closely with 
     you to sunset the patent surcharge fee in FY 1998, which for 
     several years had been the source of the patent fee revenue 
     subject to diversion and rescission. Last year, I was 
     encouraged that the President's budget for the first time did 
     not include fee diversion or recission as a means of funding 
     unrelated spending.
       Statutory withholding of fees paid for services undermines 
     the integrity of the USPTO's fee-funded agency model and 
     restricts the USPTO's ability to provide service to its 
     customers and to promote American innovation and 
     competitiveness. Withholdings are being made at a time when 
     the USPTO is experiencing unprecedented growth in its 
     workload. In the last five years, patent and trademark 
     filings have been on the rise. Last year, patent filings were 
     up twelve percent and trademark filings were up a staggering 
     forty percent. Reduced availability of fee revenue will 
     prevent the USPTO from replacing and hiring examiners to 
     handle the increased workload. As a result, waiting times for 
     patents and trademarks could drastically increase in 2001 and 
     years to follow and there could be significant delays in 
     bringing important new technologies and products to the 
     marketplace. Companies in high-technology, biotechnology, and 
     many other vital industries depend on prompt and high quality 
     patents and trademarks to protect business investments in R&D 
     and new product promotion. Moreover, fee diversion will force 
     the USPTO to defer certain imperatives in automation, 
     electronic filing, and other implementation of technology to 
     improve the current ability and efficiency of the USPTO to 
     handle increased workload and increasingly complex 
     technologies.
       As I understand it, what makes this practice possible is 
     the fact that, in past years, the Budget Committee has 
     delineated a portion of the USPTO's fee revenue as income 
     subject to the discretionary authority of the Committees on 
     Appropriations--an artifact of the patent fee surcharge 
     created by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 
     (OBRA '90), which expired on September 30, 1998. OBRA '90 
     segregated a portion of fees that were subject to the 
     appropriation discretion, and the remainder of the USPTO fee 
     income was appropriated to the agency on a dollar-for-dollar 
     basis.
       With the lapse of the patent fee surcharge, the Judiciary 
     Committee fashioned a modified fee system in which there was 
     no longer a ``surcharge'' component to patent fees. We set 
     the level of the fees to recover the cost of processing 
     applications and intended that all of the fee revenue would 
     be appropriated to the USPTO on a dollar-for-dollar basis, as 
     was done for the majority of fee income under OBRA '90. We 
     did not intend that there should be any discretion to 
     withhold any portion of the fee revenues.
       Accordingly, I recommend that in the upcoming budget all 
     fee revenue of the USPTO be classified in a manner that 
     requires that it be appropriated to the USPTO on a dollar-
     for-dollar basis. Thus, none of the fee revenues should be 
     considered as discretionary expenditures for the purposes of 
     the appropriations process. I have appreciated working with 
     you on this particular issue in the past. If legislation is 
     necessary to ensure this result, I am pleased to work with 
     you in that regard.
       Thank you again for contacting me on this matter and for 
     your consideration of these views. I look forward to working 
     closely with you on this matter and other issues.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Orrin G. Hatch,
                                                         Chairman.


                      Federal Employee Pay Parity

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I would like to commend the chairman of 
the Budget Committee for addressing the issue of Federal employee pay 
with the senior Senator from Virginia and me today.
  The House-passed fiscal year 2002 budget resolution contains 
important provisions to ensure parity between the pay raises granted to 
civilian Federal employees and those provided to members of the armed 
services. Disparate treatment of civilian and military pay goes against 
longstanding policy of parity for all those who have chosen to serve 
our Nation--whether that service is with the civilian workforce or in 
the armed services. In fact, a comparison of military and civilian pay 
increases by the Congressional Research Service finds that in 17 of 
these last 20 years military and civilian pay increases have been 
identical.
  Mr. WARNER. In the 106th Congress, an overwhelming majority of the 
United States Senate agreed, and approved a bipartisan pay parity 
amendment by a vote of 94 to 6 during consideration of legislation I 
introduced providing important pay increases for the military--S. 4, 
the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines Bill of Rights. I know 
that Chairman Domenici supported that Federal employee pay parity 
amendment, and has been an advocate for pay parity through his position 
on the Budget Committee.
  Mr. DOMENICI. As the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the 
Senator from Maryland know, the Budget Committee has included language 
assuming parity between the raises granted to Federal employees and 
members of the armed services in the Committee Report on the Budget 
Resolution for the past 2 years.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for his 
strong past support. Would the Chairman explain what provisions 
regarding Federal employee pay have been included in this budget 
resolution?
  Mr. DOMENICI. In drafting the budget resolution for fiscal year 2002, 
we have assumed that the historic pay parity between civilian and 
military employees will be maintained, and that the President's 
proposed 4.6 percent raise for military personnel will be similarly 
provided to all Federal workers next year.
  Mr. SARBANES. I thank the chairman, and the distinguished Senator 
from Virginia for their interest and support. I am sure we all agree 
that a talented Federal and military workforce is crucial to getting 
the work of the American people done skillfully and efficiently. In 
many instances, Federal civilian and military employees work side-by-
side doing the important work of the Nation, and Congress has 
recognized that we should not undermine the morale of these dedicated

[[Page 5559]]

public servants by failing to bring them in line with military 
personnel. Continuing pay parity is one way to ensure the Federal 
Government is able to attract and retain qualified public servants.

                          ____________________