E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 106th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

Vol. 146 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 7, 2000 No. 69 Senate (Legislative day of Tuesday, June 6, 2000)

The Senate met at 9:31 a.m., on the SCHEDULE Pending: expiration of the recess, and was called Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today Warner modified amendment No. 3173, to to order by the President pro tempore the Senate will resume consideration extend eligibility for medical care under [Mr. THURMOND]. of the Department of Defense author- CHAMPUS and TRICARE to persons over age 64. ization bill. Under the order, there will PRAYER Kerrey amendment No. 3183, to repeal a be a total of 90 minutes on the Kerrey limitation on retirement or dismantlement The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd John amendment regarding strategic forces, of strategic nuclear delivery systems in ex- Ogilvie, offered the following prayer: and the Warner second-degree amend- cess of military requirements. Gracious God, You are never reluc- ment. Following that debate, there will Warner amendment No. 3184 (to amend- tant to bless us with exactly what we be up to 2 hours of debate on the John- ment No. 3183), to provide for correction of need for each day’s challenges and op- son and Warner amendments regarding scope of waiver authority for limitation on portunities. Sometimes we are stingy retirement or dismantlement of strategic CHAMPUS and TRICARE. After the nuclear delivery systems, and authority to receivers who find it difficult to open use or yielding back of that time, there waive limitation. our tight-fisted grip on circumstances will be up to four votes on the pending and receive the blessings that You have Mr. WARNER. Yesterday, Mr. Presi- amendments. Therefore, Senators can dent, we made progress on this bill— prepared. You know our needs before expect votes to begin not later than 1 we ask You but wait to bless us until not quite as much as I had hoped, but p.m. nevertheless progress was made. I wish we ask for Your help. We come to You Those Senators who intend to offer to draw to the attention of my col- now honestly to confess our needs. amendments are encouraged to work leagues that late last night the rank- Lord, we need Your inspiration for our with the bill managers in an effort to ing member and I put forth an amend- thinking, Your love for our emotions, complete this important legislation ment to this bill regarding the D-Day Your guidance for our wills, and Your prior to the end of this week. Further memorial. As the last act, it seemed to strength for our bodies. We have votes can be anticipated during today’s the distinguished Senator from Michi- learned that true peace and lasting se- session of the Senate. gan and myself that it was most appro- renity result from knowing that You I thank my colleagues for their at- priate that the 56th anniversary of D- have an abundant supply of resources tention. Day be concluded with an amendment to help us meet any situation, difficult f person, or disturbing complexity. And which provides the opportunity for, RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME so we may say with the psalmist, first, the Senate, and hopefully the en- ‘‘Blessed be the Lord, who daily loads The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under tire Congress, to participate in the us with benefits.—Psalm 68:19. Amen. the previous order, leadership time is raising of the needed dollars for the reserved. World War II memorial. Over 1,000 f f World War II veterans are dying each day. Organizers are within $6 million of PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZA- reaching that sum of money needed to TION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 The Honorable WAYNE ALLARD, a complete the construction and design Senator from the State of Colorado, led The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under phases of this memorial. the Pledge of Allegiance, as follows: the previous order, the Senate will now I am pleased to say this amendment passed last night. I thank my distin- I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the resume consideration of S. 2549, which United States of America, and to the Repub- the clerk will report. guished colleague, Mr. LEVIN, for join- lic for which it stands, one nation under God, The assistant legislative clerk read ing me. All the World War II veterans indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. as follows: currently serving in the Senate were A bill (S. 2549) to authorize appropriations added as cosponsors. I served very f for fiscal year 2001 for military activities of briefly at the end of World War II. And the Department of Defense and for other pur- the others, seven in number, were RECOGNITION OF THE ACTING poses. added as cosponsors together with our MAJORITY LEADER The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under distinguished colleague, Senator The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. AL- the previous order, there will now be 90 KERREY—although not a World War II LARD). The Senator from Virginia is minutes of debate equally divided on veteran, a veteran of Vietnam with recognized. the Kerrey and Warner amendments. greatest distinction. So I am pleased to

∑ This ‘‘bullet’’ symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the Senate on the floor.

S4607

. S4608 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 7, 2000 make that announcement. Some Sen- relevance, in fact, to the debate on this People say: Do we need it? Who is the ators may have missed it last night. bill because when George Marshall ac- enemy? We are spending more than 20 I note Senator KERREY’s presence in cepted Roosevelt’s appointment to be leading nations, et cetera, et cetera. the Chamber. We thank the Senator for Chief of Staff of the Army on Sep- People say: Why do we need to con- cosponsoring the amendment last night tember 1, 1939, the Armed Forces of the tinue to do this? The cold war is over, by which the Senate goes on record en- United States of America were approxi- and so forth. dorsing a contribution of $6 million, I mately 137,000 people. Marshall had to might add, out of nonappropriated build the Army to 8 million people in The best answer lies in that 20-year funds. We were able to get the funding order for it to be an effective fighting period between 1919 and 1939 during from that account. force, and it wasn’t just the military which the United States of America Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I join my people who responded. There was a tried, in the face of all evidence to the good friend from Virginia in com- huge civilian effort that supported that contrary, to stack arms and withdraw menting on that action last night, how buildup. It is a story of how dangerous and become isolationist. appropriate it is for the heroes and her- it is, even though you may not see an We have talked long enough on that oines who served us so well in World enemy on the horizon at the moment, subject. I appreciate very much the War II, both in war and on the home how dangerous it is to stack arms for Senator responding to former Senator front. As my dear friend from Virginia the United States of America. Dole’s request. This is the minimum mentioned last night, there were an We had a resolution a couple of years that the people of the United States of awful lot of heroes and heroines—obvi- ago, I think, on this bill to try to allo- America ought to do to participate in ously, veterans first and foremost, but cate the resources and do the study to constructing this important memorial. a lot of folks here at home. And this build. There were a number of terrific places in the Senator’s State right Mr. WARNER. One footnote to this memorial is to them. We have now nine colloquy. Yesterday Senator Dole, who World War II veterans remaining, I be- across the river that were cited. I be- lieve this will be a wonderful memo- is chairman of the National World War lieve, in the Senate; is that correct? II Memorial Campaign, received a Mr. WARNER. We have the number rial, but the missing piece is to tell the check for $14.5 million from Wal-Mart here. I will get it. full story of what happened from stores. The contribution was presented Mr. LEVIN. Every one of those were Versailles all the way through the Sec- by a group of World War II veterans cosponsors, each one with extraor- ond World War. There was basically an and Wal-Mart associates during a spe- dinary stories to tell. I was just de- interruption for 20 years while America cial ceremony yesterday. That, to- lighted to be a small part of that, even tried to withdraw one more time from gether with the action by this Chamber though I am not a vet, just in some the world. We paid a terrible price for which I hope will become law, are the way to speak for the nonvets in this it. I appreciate very much the Sen- final building blocks needed in that body about the contributions which ator’s willingness to allocate the fundraising campaign. have been made by those who served money for this. us. Mr. WARNER. If I can advise my dis- Mr. KERREY. The junior Senator Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want tinguished colleague, the subject of a from Virginia and I actually sponsored to make it very clear that this Sen- military museum embracing the chron- legislation earlier. We have been trying ological history of the participation of ator, the Senator from Virginia, al- to support what it is you are trying to men and women of our Nation in though his service at the end of World do with this Armed Forces memorial causes of freedom beyond our shores is War II was brief, a little less than 2 that will tell the story of the Armed very much in the minds of the mem- years, does not put himself in the hero Forces of the United States of Amer- bers of the Armed Services Committee. class with those in this body who, in- ica. At the moment, I and other Senators deed, very humbly and rightfully are promoting a museum colocated Mr. WARNER. Senator ROBB is very earned that hero distinction. I may with Arlington Cemetery on the ridge active in that. have served in Korea in the second en- that overlooks where the current head- I yield the floor. gagement of our country in war but not quarters of the Marine Corps is located. at this particular time. Basically, the That is due for demolition. That site AMENDMENT NO. 3183 Navy educated me, for which I am seems to me and others to lend itself to Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, the grateful. The GI bill helped me, as it the convenience of tourists visiting amendment before the Senate now pre- did all of those us who served at the this Nation’s Capital. It would embrace sents to Members of the Senate a series time. That was probably the greatest the military history of all branches of of questions that we have to answer. investment the United States ever our services. We are a modest size in The first is, Should the Congress, made in a bill. comparison to others, but the Senator under any circumstances, impose a Mr. LEVIN. The Senator from Vir- is right. ginia and I properly tipped our hats to I noticed with interest yesterday in limitation on the Commander in Chief? Bob Dole last night. Great Britain the Queen opened an ex- As it says, the Commander in Chief Mr. WARNER. We did. I talked to traordinary exposition and permanent can’t go below a certain level of stra- him last night after we departed the museum devoted to the Holocaust, tegic nuclear weapons. We imposed this Chamber. Guess what. He sat and again, a reminder of chapters of the for the first time in 1998. One of the watched us and critiqued us very care- tragedy that unfolded on the European strongest arguments made in 1998 and fully. We are proud of Bob Dole. Continent as a consequence of Hitler 1999 was that we needed that in order Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, if I and the Axis powers. to put pressure on the Duma to ratify could make a comment on that subject, Mr. KERREY. I know that site fairly START II. They have now ratified very much a part of this effort to try well. I think it would be a terrific site START II. I think it is unwise to im- to find a compromise on this memorial, for history of the Armed Forces, but I pose a limitation. Whether the Presi- in the beginning I opposed the design also believe oftentimes the most im- dent is a Democrat, whether the Presi- and they redesigned it. I am very portant decisions aren’t the decisions dent is a Republican, I think it limits pleased now to be able to support both the military is making but that the ci- that President’s ability to be able to the design and construction. vilians made prior to the military hav- negotiate. As a consequence, it puts One of the things, I say to my friend ing to act, at least as I see the history. the President in a weaker position from Virginia, that happened during In the Second World War, there were when he is talking, whether to Russia this process was that there was a dele- an awful lot of mistakes made in the or other nations—it puts that Presi- tion made from this design that I think 1920s and the 1930s that created the ne- dent in a weaker position and gives at some point needs to be corrected cessity for that terrible war. It is a him less maneuverability to be able to —not on this site because its too small very important reminder, especially protect the people of the United States. a site to accommodate it—and that is today. It is something I am asked all If we don’t like the action a President the construction of a museum that the time when debating authorization takes, the Congress can intervene to tells the full story. And I think it has for the military. act. That is question No. 1. June 7, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S4609 Do you think, under any cir- you must take prudent actions. My have to do this because the President cumstances that you can describe, we amendment sets out what those pru- signed five previous bills that had this ought to pass a law that says a Presi- dent actions are. Then my amendment provision in them. dent cannot go below a certain level? gives the President the right, after Mr. WARNER. I simply say to my In this case, the START I level is not taking those actions of the QDR and good friend, I strongly disagree. This only 6,000 warheads, but as the Senator the posture review of the nuclear President signed this five times. We from Arizona indicated earlier, we de- forces, to waive the statute that has saw an example where the distin- scribe in the law the precise platform been signed five times by the President guished Senator from West Virginia delivery systems for the warheads. of the United States. and I had the Byrd-Warner amendment Mr. WARNER. The Senator posed a Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, first, regarding the deployment of our troops question. I will take responsibility to Congress should be making a decision and taking certain steps by the Con- answer the question as we go along, based upon what we think is right. We gress. What happened? Not only this and we can frame for colleagues where oftentimes pass defense authorization President but the candidates for Presi- the differences are between yourself bills that have things the President dent, both Vice President GORE and and my amendment, and then the dis- doesn’t like. My guess is that the Sen- George W. Bush, communicated in var- tinguished Presiding Officer will take ator from Virginia has urged the Presi- ious ways they believed that amend- the second question. dent on many occasions: I understand, Mr. KERREY. I am pleased to do Mr. President, you don’t like this par- ment was an encroachment on Presi- that. ticular provision, but I urge you to dential power, and we missed that by a The first question is, Did the Con- sign it anyway. There are many other mere three votes, is my recollection, gress do the right thing in 1998 and good things in the bill. Mr. President, because of that very issue. It was an 1999, and would we be doing the right we hope you will sign it because we abridgement of Presidential power. thing today or in the future to have a can’t get it any better. Nothing is fought on this Chamber statute that imposes upon a President That happens all the time here. floor with greater vigor than pro- a floor, a limitation, under which that So the fact that the President signed tecting the powers of the President of President cannot go as a consequence it does not mean the President con- the United States. of our deciding that should only occur curs. Nor should it cause a Senator to Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, first of as we described in this law? say, just because the President signed all, is our time being charged to the We did it in 1998 and again in 1999 and it, that doesn’t mean it is a good act. two of us? Is that how this is being we are proposing to do it again this We disagree with the President all the worked? time around here. We will get behind year. Mr. WARNER. It seems to me that is him when we like what he is doing, and Mr. WARNER. The answer to that a fair allocation in the course of a col- we will get out in front of him when we question is very simple. It was first loquy. done in 1996. We repeated it in 1997, do not like what he is doing. That is 1998, and 1999. In 2000, we made it per- the appropriate way, I suspect, it ought The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. AL- manent. That is the provision which to be done. Members of the Senate LARD). When the Senator from Ne- the Senator from Nebraska is trying to should be deciding: Do we think it is a braska speaks, that is charged against strike. wise thing? Do we want to restrict fu- his time. When the Senator from Vir- In response to that, Congress took ture President Bush or future Presi- ginia speaks, it is allocated against his action and the President of the United dent GORE? It is not accidental that time. States signed it into law one time, two was imposed in 1996. It has not been Mr. KERREY. I do not think it is times, three times, four times, five imposed on previous Presidents. It has going to be persuasive to the Senator times. That should answer the question been imposed only on this particular from Virginia, but this is the state- posed by the Senator from Nebraska. President. So whether the President ment of policy on the Senate defense The President concurred in the judg- signs the bill or not, in my view, is sec- authorization bill: ment of the Congress which said that ondary to the question: Do you think it you should not drop below those levels. is a sound policy? The administration appreciates the bill’s What the amendment from the Senator In a post-cold-war era where we have endorsement of our plan to reduce the Tri- dent submarine force from 18 to 14 boats, from Virginia says is it doesn’t, in my had three Presidential elections in while maintaining a survivable, effective judgment, restrict the President’s con- Russia—and understand, the bulk of START I-capable force. However, we prefer stitutional right to negotiate, but it our strategic weapons system is for repealing the general provision that main- says, Mr. President, you should not Russia. That is the bulk of our system. tains the prohibition, first enacted in the FY unilaterally, as Commander in Chief, What would the Senator say, 75 percent 1998 Defense Authorization Act, against obli- reduce our Armed Forces in terms of or 80 percent of the SIOP is dealing gating funds to retire or dismantle any other those strategic levels until you do two with the democratic nation of Russia strategic nuclear delivery systems below things which have been followed by with whom we have relations, with specified levels.... previous Presidents, and, indeed, this whom we are trying to work to help to And on and on and on. President when he first came to office. be successful in their democratic ex- So the President has signed it, but You make a QDR study. periment and their experiment with the President does not support this pol- For those that do not understand it, free markets? The question is, Does it icy. Again, I do not suppose that is it is an entire study of the world threat restrict the President and make it less going to be persuasive to my colleague, situation, our force levels, force levels likely he can begin to think in a new but he used an argument against re- which are conventional, force levels way—which, in my judgment, needs to pealing this provision that said the which are strategic, and you do a com- occur? President supports it, or he signed the prehensive review of the nuclear pos- So, regardless, whether the President bill which implies that he supports the ture. signs it or not, my guess is the Presi- Those two things having been done, dent does not support this provision. provision. then you can proceed to exercise your But even if he said, ‘‘I support it,’’ I I personally believe the Congress judgment as Commander in Chief to re- would still oppose it. I still think it is should be making the decision. The duce certain force levels. unreasonable for Congress to do. So Senator’s argument, with great pas- There it is. The President signed it that is question No. 1 that you have to sion, that he does not like infringing five times, clearly. He could have ve- decide. Whether the President signs it upon the prerogatives of the Presi- toed it. He did not. He signed it into or not is secondary. My guess is a lot of dent—I have heard him many times law five times. It remains the law of folks on that side of the aisle think the down here arguing, oftentimes against the land today. I will vigorously oppose President signs a lot of things they Members of his own party, against ef- the efforts of my colleague and good wish he would not sign, things they forts to do that. So I am surprised, in friend from Nebraska to repeal that voted against. So it is not, to me, a fact, especially now that the Russian law because that law very clearly says very compelling argument to say we Duma has ratified START II, that we S4610 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 7, 2000 want to continue this policy. I think it they work on that problem all the agreement to do a joint warning center is not good. So that is question No. 1. time. in Moscow because the analysis says You have heard very eloquent argu- This is why I think the review is not their capacity to do accurate warning ment on the other side. Question No. 1 a good idea. It pushes away from us one is declining. What does that mean? It is: Does Congress want to do that under more time the problem of just consid- means if they get a false alarm, they any circumstances with or without a ering what these nuclear weapons can are going to launch because their in- review? do instead of asking ourselves, with a structions are to launch on warning. The second question we are now commonsense analysis—because, again, going to be asked, as a consequence of the targeting begins with civilian in- So what we are doing is, as a con- the second-degree amendment, is: Do structions. It is the Presidential direc- sequence of maintaining higher levels we want to delay action? Do we want tive that determines what the tar- pending more reviews, et cetera, et to restrict the action in accordance geting is. We have modified the tar- cetera, we are forcing the Russians to with the second-degree amendment geting, certainly, to accommodate maintain a level higher than they are which basically says we have to have a some of the changes that have occurred able to maintain, putting us at risk. It nuclear force structure review and that as a result of the end of the cold war. increases the risk today. That is how review is submitted concurrently with But I believe if you look at these the end of the cold war has changed the quadrennial review which is ex- things and say, oh, my gosh, what will things. Russia cannot maintain 6,000 pected December of 2001? those do, you will reach a common- strategic weapons. They have been beg- I believe it is time for the people’s sense conclusion that we have more ging us for years. Indeed, one of the representatives, elected by the people, than is necessary in order to keep the things I said yesterday, one of the to be having a debate about what kind people of the United States of America paradoxes of this whole debate, is I am of force structure we want to maintain. safe. not sure this administration would And it is counterproductive, it is dif- That is the mission of this defense take action. ficult for us to reach the right decision, authorization bill, whether we are de- (Mr. WARNER assumed the chair.) if we once again farm it off and say we bating the pay for our military, wheth- want somebody else to figure it out. It er we are debating our force structure, Mr. ALLARD. Will the Senator from is the civilians who send instructions or readiness, whatever it is. We ought Nebraska yield for just a moment? I to the CINC at STRATCOM. It is PDD– to authorize and we ought to appro- would like to be able to answer his 60 that determines what the Single In- priate such funds as necessary to keep question. tegrated Operating Plan, the SIOP, is. the people of the United States of Mr. KERREY. I am pleased to. The targets are selected as a con- America and our interests and our al- Mr. ALLARD. The Chairman made a sequence of civilian instructions, not lies safe. That is what our mission is. good point. We need to run a compari- the other way around. It is we who But, again, on the question of the son. The question the Senator asked is, have to decide, Do we have enough? Do need for review, what is needed is for Do we need to delay actions? The an- we have too much? Or is it right? It is Congress to review it, for Congress to swer is, No, we don’t want to unneces- we who have to bring commonsense answer the question. We have, under analysis to the debate and answer the what is called the minimal deterrent sarily delay action. But I think we question: Given the current status, level, the 2,500 warheads: We have 500 need to have a responsible decision- given what we expect out in the future, 100- to 300-kiloton weapons that will making process set up. These are very do we have enough? land on war-supporting installations in complex issues. We have the statements of General Russia, 160 on leadership, 500 on con- There are a lot of issues involved. Shalikashvili in 1995, as he evaluated ventional forces, 1,100 on nuclear tar- Hearing the Senator’s comments this, that seem to indicate that lower gets. sounds to me as if he would agree with levels are safe. But even there, General I urge, rather than doing a review, what the committee has tried to do. Shalikashvili is following civilian in- what we need to do is bring out a map They said: Look, these are complicated structions. of Russia and take a look and answer issues. We need to have a careful re- I understand this amendment pro- the question, What do 2,260 nuclear det- view. In fact, the Strategic Sub- vides people an opportunity to sort of onations of a minimum of 100 kilotons committee, which I chair, has set up a vote for this thing and we are going to do to Russia? Remember, the war in process where we have two studies to have a normal review. It may in fact the Pacific ended in 1945 as a con- review our nuclear posture of where we carry the day. It is a very complicated sequence of two 15-kiloton detonations. are and move into negotiations. argument, and it may in fact be that I stipulated earlier my uncle died in the second-degree amendment passes. I the Philippines and my father was a For the committee to be informed hope not, because it is time for this part of the occupation force rather means we have to hear from the profes- Congress to take back the responsi- than invasion. I have a vested interest sionals who deal with these issues. bility for targeting and answer the in declaring that I think Truman did They need to bring the information to question: Do we have enough, do we the right thing. But those were two 15- the committee. have too little, or do we have the num- kiloton detonations. We are talking We represent the people of the United bers quite right? about 2,260 detonations in excess of 100 States in the Congress and the Armed I urge Members to look at what we kilotons. We do not need a review by Services Committee tries to represent now have in the public realm, data that professionals. The people’s representa- those interests. We have to set up a indicates what that targeting is. We tives need to do an analysis of this, and process to do exactly what the Senator have an analysis, public analysis now, I urge my colleagues to do that kind of from Nebraska is talking about. of what happens when we have 2,500 analysis. Imagine those kinds of deto- strategic warheads after we subtract nations and ask yourself, Do we have A lot has changed since the last pos- that fraction that may not be available enough? ture review in 1994, and what was rel- to us for a variety of reasons. Under- Connected with that, do an analysis evant in 1994 is not necessarily rel- standing we are not shooting bullets yourself, both of the command and con- evant today. We have new leadership, here, these are very complicated sys- trol capability of Russia and of their by the way, since that review. In Rus- tems, and you cannot, with 100-percent ability to do warnings, because if they sia, we have new leadership. We have reliability, predict that they are going have mistakes made at either com- new leadership around the world. We to arrive on target in the manner that mand and control or warning—and have leadership that has changed even has been described. So they are very their capacity to do early warning not in this country. We need to reevaluate complicated systems. It requires mod- only is declining but it is declining in the context of this new political en- ernization; it requires constant anal- enough so the President, in one of the vironment. We need to reevaluate in ysis. The men and women at few successes he had, in addition to the context of new technology, new po- STRATCOM and others who have that getting an agreement to eliminate sitions as far as the nuclear posture is responsibility are highly skilled, and weapons-grade plutonium, got an concerned. June 7, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S4611 This amendment is critical to pro- it becomes policy for Congress to do it, Nebraska wants to see happen in public tecting our country and stabilizing the I believe it is going to be very difficult policy where we would carefully evalu- world. We need to get the current crop for us to take advantage of this new ate where we are in comparison with of experts, military and civilian—it is post-cold-war opportunity, as the other the rest of the world is not going to proper to bring in the civilian role—to side has done repeatedly. There are happen in 3 or 4 months. It is going to formulate recommendations given to- times when the President submits a take time. We have to have input from day’s dynamic changes. budget for defense and they say it is civilian experts. We have to have input It seems to me the Senator from Ne- not enough. They do not say we need a from military experts. From a prac- braska would agree with what the com- review of this for another 3 or 4 months tical standpoint, it is probably not mittee is trying to do. We agree per- or a long period of time. They say we going to be an opportunity on which haps times have changed. As the chair- have done a review; we are not ready so this President can act. Whether it is a man pointed out earlier, the law ex- we have to put more money in the Democrat or Republican President, pressly prohibited the President. Now budget, we have to put more weapons whoever is in office next, I think the we are saying, with a careful Nuclear systems in the budget that were not in same policy is going to have to apply Posture Review, maybe we can move the President’s request. because the ultimate goal is to have a ahead and review some of these issues. We do not have any difficulty con- careful posture review and make sure (Mr. L. CHAFEE assumed the chair.) fronting the President. We do not ask we do not unilaterally disarm this Mr. KERREY. I appreciate that re- for reviews when the President is not country, that we do not make it more sponse. I made it clear in questions asking us to do something we want. vulnerable than it is today. yesterday posed to the Senator from This is, in my judgment, a provision I yield my time to the chairman of Virginia and the Senator from Colo- that was put in here as a consequence the committee. rado having to do with the issue of of not trusting a particular President, Mr. WARNER. I will be happy to lis- whether or not this action could be and it is a mistake. It is going to ham- ten. taken prior to December of 1991, wheth- string the next President, whoever that Mr. KERREY. Go ahead. er or not an accelerated comprehensive President is. This amendment attempts Mr. WARNER. I simply reiterate review could occur if it was a President to soften it a bit, but it still leaves it what my colleague, who is the chair- Bush or a President GORE. The answer in place. Senator KYL, I understand, man of the subcommittee, has said. was yes, leading me to say in that situ- was speaking for how they now inter- This amendment, which I drew up care- ation maybe I would support the pret the amendment, saying, no, the fully, is drawn in such a way that it amendment because if they can do an review has to be submitted concur- does not preclude President Clinton accelerated review, so can President rently with a quadrennial review when- from negotiating and, indeed, preclude Clinton. ever that occurs. Maybe it is not in De- him from exercising his authority as The answer then came back: No, we cember 2001. Maybe it is done in Janu- Commander in Chief to direct the do not want President Clinton to do an ary 2002. What if you have a President Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and oth- accelerated view. We are willing to let Bush coming online with Secretary of ers in the Pentagon: This is a level to President GORE or President Bush do it Defense Colin Powell and George which you will drive nuclear weapons. but not President Clinton. That is pre- Shultz and Brent Scowcroft and Henry He can do it. cisely why it is a bad provision because Kissinger as part of that administra- We are saying it should only be done I believe it is there because of distrust tion, and they do a review in November after a quadrennial review, after a nu- of a single President. It is not wise, in and December and come to you and clear posture study has been com- my judgment, for the Congress to im- say: We decided we want to go to 5,000 pleted. From a practical standpoint, it pose that kind of restriction because it in exchange for an agreement; is that simply, in my judgment, cannot be does send a signal to our allies not to sufficient? achieved. If it were forced to be done, it negotiate. Mr. ALLARD. Let me tell you what would be viewed not only by us but the It makes it much more difficult for the committee was thinking, as chair- Russians and all others who follow this the President to negotiate not only man of the Strategic Subcommittee, as an imprudent, an unwise step by our arms control agreements but to take when we looked at this and said we President. That is it. action as President Bush did in 1991 need to have a careful Nuclear Posture Mr. KERREY. May I ask the Senator facing a problem of how do we leapfrog Review. The Senator is trying to imply a question? the arms control process. there was a political motive with that. I heard my colleagues on the other This committee, made up of Democrats Do you think that Congress made a side say the old arms control process and Republicans, said we need to have mistake not having a similar provision needs to be torn up. That is not incon- a careful Nuclear Posture Review and in place so we could have prevented sistent with this kind of thinking. we need to look at the facts. We recog- President Bush from taking his action That is exactly what Governor Bush nized that in 1994 we had a review. We in 1991? said in his press club speech sur- need to go back. Mr. WARNER. No. Fine. Let’s review rounded by Henry Kissinger, George Mr. KERREY. I am not implying a what President Bush did. In the final Shultz, Brent Scowcroft, and Colin political motivation. I am rereading hours of the days of his Presidency, he Powell. If those four men were part of your answers to my questions yester- did the START II. I understand that. that new administration and they day. I saw reason I would support this But the point is, that was a process came out and said we need a review in amendment, and the reason I could that evolved over many years. The November, December, and January and have supported the amendment is, if work had been done. The studies had we think we can go to lower levels and you had said to me, yes, a thoughtful been done. All of it was in place ready we want to go immediately, we can get and thorough review can be done by ci- for his signature. Russia to agree to a robust missile de- vilians in less time than done by a I say to the Senator, that is not the fense, my guess is every single Member quadrennial review that would allow case in this instance. The last posture of the other side would go along with it President Bush or President GORE, and review of importance was 1994. Why immediately, understanding these men the answer was that would be accept- this administration sought not to bring are qualified and they understand what able. I then said: What if Clinton did those up to date, to bring up a current is necessary to protect the United the same thing? The answer was no. I one—— States of America. am reading back and remembering Mr. KERREY. But I say to the Sen- They do not need another review, and what the exchange was yesterday. ator, the question directly is, Do you they certainly do not need Congress Mr. ALLARD. In considering this think Congress should have passed a imposing a limitation on where they issue, we need to have a careful Nu- similar restriction on President Bush can go. This is a limitation that has clear Posture Review. It is not going to so he could not have done what he did been imposed on a single President. If happen quickly. What the Senator from in 1991? S4612 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 7, 2000 Mr. WARNER. I would say, if this sit- previous careful, thoughtful Nuclear The Senate has to ratify under the uation today were of a parallel situa- Posture Reviews. I do not have any Constitution. But the President is tion at the time of President Bush, I problem with another one, by the way. nonetheless able to negotiate reduc- would have been the first to pass this I do not have any problem with the bill tions below the START II level, as the same law. It was an entirely different the way it now reads. Joint Chiefs have said he safely can. factual situation, I say to the Senator. The problem I have is with the War- I hope those listening understand that. ner amendment, which says that we In 1997, the Joint Chiefs said we can But you posed the question. If Presi- can’t do what we negotiated in START safely go down to 2,000, 2,500, which is dent Bush at that time was faced with II, even though it has been confirmed about 1,000 below the START II level. the decision such as this to lower the by two thoughtful posture statements, They have already said that after a numbers drastically, I would say it unless the President—the next Presi- careful posture review. I hope the should not be done until the staff work dent, not this one—first has another President succeeds in coming up with a and the careful work had been done by Nuclear Posture Review. That is the treaty which allows us to deploy a lim- those entrusted, namely, the Chairman problem. ited national missile defense at a lower of the Joint Chiefs and the Joint Chiefs I think the amendment that has been level of nuclear weapons. I hope he suc- of Staff, to make the analysis before a offered by the Senator from Virginia is ceeds. aimed very clearly at this President. I President acts. But I must say this amendment is Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield think it is a mistake in terms of its ap- not constructive. It is not something just for—— proach. It is being limited to hobble Mr. KERREY. I yield the floor to this President, to force him to main- which I believe would be offered were a you. tain a force structure which was nego- President of a different party in office. Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator. tiated to a lower level by a previous I do not believe that it would be of- I must say, I am utterly amazed by President. I think that is a mistake in fered. I think the answers last night the last answer of my good friend from terms of precedent and in terms of give support to that conclusion. Virginia. What the Senator from Vir- what we should be doing in terms of a It is a very sad conclusion on my ginia said is that President Bush care- body. It should not be aimed at one part to reach that because I know my fully, after thorough deliberation and President. friend from Virginia is not ordinarily consideration, negotiated a START II But in addition to that, I must say of that bent. We have worked together treaty. That was done, to use my good that we are maintaining a force struc- long enough so I know what his in- friend’s words: After the studies were ture which the Joint Chiefs say we do stincts usually are. But in this case, I done, after the work was done. not need, a force structure which am afraid it falls short of where we I am wondering if my friend from Ne- START II—which was negotiated by should be as a body, which should be braska would agree with what I am President Bush—says we do not need. now going to say. The law that is on So we are wasting a lot of money as supporting our right to ratify, sup- the books will not let us go down to the well as engaging, I believe, in a par- porting a force structure we need, but Bush START II level, which was so tisan effort to hobble the President. not maintaining a force structure we carefully negotiated. That is the sad news. That is one of no longer need according to two careful Think about what our law is. We just the problems with the Warner amend- posture reviews, for purposes which I heard—and I agree with the good Sen- ment. But there is some good news— believe are intended to restrict this ator from Virginia—that President not in this amendment, but there is President. Bush carefully, thoughtfully, in the some good news that should give us a Before I yield the floor, I ask the words of the Senator from Virginia, little bit of comfort. Senator from Nebraska, is it not accu- after the studies were done and the It will not work. We can waste rate that the START II level which was work was done, negotiated a START II money. We are. We can maintain a dan- negotiated by President Bush was sup- treaty. I agree with that. The law on gerous level of force structure, for the ported by a Nuclear Posture Review the books will not let us go to the level reasons which the Senator from Ne- that President Bush negotiated. We braska gave, making us less secure, not made by the Joint Chiefs of Staff? have to stay at START I levels. more. We can do all that. But we can- Mr. KERREY. The Senator is correct. Mr. KERREY. I quite agree with not hobble the President, although I It is one reason additional review is that. believe the intent of this amendment is not necessary. It is offered in good Mr. LEVIN. You cannot have it both to hobble this President. I believe that faith, but it is certainly not necessary ways. If President Bush thoughtfully— is the intent because it is only aimed to make this determination. and he did—carefully—and he did— at this President. after work was done—and it was—nego- The next President—whether it is a Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I tiated a START II level—we have rati- Democratic or Republican President— might summarize, again, on five occa- fied START II—the Joint Chiefs want we have been told last night, can go sions President Clinton has signed into us to go to that level and have testified through this review in a matter of law actions by the Congress of the to that, that we are wasting money months, if they want to, and then United States which state very clearly staying at the START I level—we have waive this statute, but not this Presi- we should not go to these levels. There peacekeepers that we can’t afford to dent. So I think it is aimed at this it is. maintain; it is wasteful—they say, President. But this President has the It is interesting, one of the reasons please don’t force us to keep to that constitutional right to negotiate a Congress took that action is we were level, but we have a law on the books treaty, should he see fit. Thank God, not sure what the Duma would do on which says we have to stay at the the Constitution is there again to save START II. We were right. They accept- START I level of 6,000 warheads. We us. ed START II, but with the following cannot go down to the START II level Because although this language will conditions on it: ABM treaty demarca- of 3,000 to 3,500 warheads because of the not allow a waiver by this President to law on the books. You can’t have this get down to the level which President tion protocol, ABM treaty succession both ways. Bush negotiated, and which the Joint multilateralization protocol, START II To add insult to injury, now we are Chiefs of Staff say is all we need to extension protocol. Those protocols saying that the only way that can be keep us secure—half of the level which have not been sent to the Senate by waived, that limit, that START I re- the current law forces us to maintain— the President. No one can refute that; quirement that we have on the books, even though that is what this language they have not been sent here. They do is if there is another Nuclear Posture will force us to do, it cannot stop the not have his endorsement. That is why Review. We have had two very thought- President from carrying out his con- we should not undo hastily with this ful, Nuclear Posture Reviews, one in stitutional duty to his last day in of- amendment this fabric of legislation 1994, one in 1997. fice. which for 5 consecutive years has been You will not let us implement it. He can negotiate a treaty at a lower passed by the Congress and signed by This law will not let us implement the level. If he does so, we can reject it. the President of the United States. June 7, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S4613 The Warner amendment does not pre- tions on, it was a clear signal to all of Secretary COHEN. I think it is unnecessary clude President Clinton from negoti- us, we had better go back and reexam- at this point. ating. It does not preclude our Presi- ine what in effect is the desire of Rus- * * * * * dent from creating a QDR in the next sia on arms control. These are condi- FISCAL YEAR 2000 DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT few months, creating an updated nu- tions which they know this Chamber, Senator LEVIN. Would you oppose inclusion clear posture. He could do it. But it as presently constituted, would never of a provision in the Fiscal Year 2000 Defense would be imprudent and unwise to do it accept. Authorization Act mandating strategic force because it would run against the guid- I yield the floor. structure levels—specific numbers of Trident ance provided by the Congress. No one Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask Submarines, Peacekeeper missiles and B–52 should say this Congress, particularly unanimous consent that a statement of bombers? the Senate, is not an equal partner on General Shelton be printed in the General SHELTON. Yes, I would definitely oppose inclusion of any language that man- matters of seriousness of this nature, RECORD at this time, indicating that dates specific force levels. It is important for particularly as it relates to treaties. It major costs would be incurred if we re- is in the Constitution just as clearly as us to retain the ability to deploy the max- main at START I levels, stating his op- imum number of warheads allowed by is the President’s Commander in Chief position to the language which the START I but the Services should also have role. Senator from Virginia would maintain the flexibility to do so with a militarily suf- Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if I may in our law without the possibility of a ficient, yet cost effective, force structure. have 1 additional minute, I will then waiver until next year. * * * * * yield the floor. There being no objection, the mate- Mr. KERREY. I yield 1 minute to the Senator LEVIN. Are there any military re- rial was ordered to be printed in the quirements for the 50 Peacekeeper ballistic Senator from Michigan. RECORD, as follows: missiles? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- General SHELTON. The Commander in Chief ator from Michigan. TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, JANUARY 5, 1999 United States Strategic Command conducted Mr. LEVIN. On the point of the an extensive analysis of maintaining 14 Tri- President signing five bills, when the RATIONALE FOR STAYING AT START I FORCE dents, 500 Minutemen IIIs, and 0 Peace- President signs bills—these bills are 600 LEVELS keepers uploaded to the approximate war- pages long—he makes it very clear he Senator LEVIN. General Shelton, in your head limits of START I in our inventory and doesn’t agree with every single provi- view, is there any military reason why we he concluded this force was militarily suffi- sion in every bill he signs. As a matter should freeze our strategic forces at the cient and I concurred with this assessment. START I level until Russia ratifies START of fact, if that were the test, I am sure II? * * * * * we could get a statement right now Senator LEVIN. I would hope they take What is the cost (a) in fiscal year 2000; and that into account and also the fact that they from the President indicating his oppo- (b) through the FYDP; to maintain our are doing that because that is what we want- sition to this provision. I would think forces at the START I level instead of a ed them to do under the START agreements, the Senator from Virginia would still lower level that is required for military rea- is to move to the new kind of weapons sys- not drop this provision, even though sons? tem. But whatever you want to take into ac- the President of the United States General SHELTON. As a result, the force count, please respond to that for the record. structure could undergo change. The Joint would indicate opposition to it. [The information referred to follows:] The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Chiefs and I are working with the Com- mander in Chief of our Strategic Command The Service Chiefs and I agree it is time to speaking for the administration, I am reduce the number of our nuclear platforms sure, in 1995, said: on a recommendation for the Secretary of Defense. There are a number of alternative to a level that is militarily sufficient to Our analysis shows that, even under the force structures with fewer platforms that meet our national security needs. Specifi- worst conditions, the START II force levels meet our national security needs and still cally, we should move to the force structure provide enough survivable forces and surviv- provide 6,000 strategic warheads to maintain levels recommended by the Nuclear Posture able, sustained command and control to ac- leverage on the Russians to ratify START II. Review. For fiscal year 2000, this means pro- complish our targeting objectives. The Service Chiefs and I feel it is time to gramming for the reduction of our nuclear- That is the Joint Chiefs speaking for consider options that will reduce our stra- powered fleet ballistic missile submarine the administration in 1995. The current tegic forces to the levels recommended by (SSBN) force structure from 18 to 14 TRI- the Nuclear Posture Review. The START I DENTs while maintaining 50 PEACE- law will not allow this administration KEEPERs. We strongly believe it is mili- to go down to the levels which General legislative restraint will need to be removed before we can pursue these options. tarily prudent to review PEACEKEEPER an- Shalikashvili and the current Joint nually. The four SSBNs will continue to op- Major costs will be incurred if we remain Chiefs say are adequate. It is wasteful erate until they reach the end of their reac- at START I levels. Since our START II base- as well as attempting to hobble the tor core life when they will be retired. With line calls for Peacekeeper to be retired by 31 a strategic force of 14 TRIDENT SSBNs, 50 President. But if the test is whether December 2003, costs in fiscal year 2000 in- PEACEKEEPER and 500 MINUTEMAN III the President supports the language or clude an additional $51 million to maintain intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), not, I am sure we can get a quick letter all Peacekeeper missiles for 1 year. Overall and our nuclear capable bombers, we will from the President indicating his oppo- Peacekeeper costs are approximately $150 still be capable of deploying approximately million per year and maintaining them over sition to the Senator’s amendment. I 6,000 strategic warheads as allowed by the FYDP will cost $560 million. Keeping our wonder whether the Senator would START I. The statutory provision that keeps SSBN force structure at START I levels (18 drop his amendment if the President us at the START I level for both TRIDENT SSBNs) until fiscal year 2006 will costs an indicated opposition in a letter? SSBNs and PEACEKEEPER ICBMs will need additional $5.3 billion, which includes refuel- to be removed before we can pursue these op- Mr. WARNER. Unequivocally, no, I ing, overhaul, and backfitting four Trident tions. say to my good friend. SSBNs with D–5 missiles. Mr. LEVIN. I thank my good friend. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I Mr. WARNER. In quick summary, he * * * * * may make one observation in reply, cites what the Chairman of the Joint Secretary COHEN. . . . So the answer is, I the President’s budget for 2001 includes Chiefs said in 1995. Fine. But General do not think we need to have the legislation, funds to sustain our strategic forces at Shelton and others were acting on the which expires, and we can maintain the same current levels. Why then did he send up level until such time as—level of warheads predicate, on the assumption, which that we have under START I, until such time a budget request to maintain those was a fair assumption, that the Rus- as the Russians ratify START II, so we can strategic levels, the levels you are now sian Duma would adopt START II as it achieve that particular goal. asking him not to knock down? was written and not put these condi- Senator LEVIN. So, the way the legislation Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, the an- tions on it. Once they put these condi- is framed is not helpful or necessary? swer to that is a question back to the S4614 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 7, 2000 Senator from Virginia. If the President Senator LEVIN: ‘‘Major costs will be in- ment? What is the real reason? I am is asking for these levels, why would he curred if we remain at START I lev- not suggesting duplicity. I am not sug- insist on a prohibition of his going els.’’ gesting any kind of treachery, but lower? Why is he so concerned he is The Warner second-degree amend- why? Why would you have an amend- going to go lower, if the President is ment would retain this ban for another ment that says a President cannot do asking for these levels? Why does he year-and-a-half, for no good reason. what a previous President said was need this provision? It would prevent the President of the proper to do and all the military people Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, ulti- United States from implementing stra- then and since then have said we mately we will go lower. But we should tegic force reductions that are sup- should do? Why would you do this? take into consideration the actions of ported by our military leaders. It It has dawned on me that we are fi- the Duma and the fact that we should would also prevent his successor from nally getting to the place—I suggest study very carefully this nuclear pos- implementing such reductions for near- humbly—that I predicted we would get ture in view of the actions taken by ly a year, and from deactivating any of to 18 months ago. We are finally com- the Duma. those forces for another 30 days beyond ing out of the closet in the real debate. Mr. KERREY. The question the Sen- that. The real debate is whether there should ator from Virginia asked me was, Why This is not just a slap in the face of be arms control any longer or not. I did the President send up an authoriza- our President—although it is surely ask unanimous consent to print in the tion request for current levels if he was that. It is also a slap in the face of the RECORD at the conclusion of my re- thinking about going lower? That is a likely Republican nominee for Presi- marks a piece by Charles good question. I am not certain the dent, Governor Bush of Texas. Krauthammer on this very point. President would use his authority. The Two weeks ago, Governor Bush pro- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without question that provokes is, Why, if the posed cuts in U.S. forces below the objection, it is so ordered. START II level—not just below START (See Exhibit 1.) President is asking for existing levels, Mr. BIDEN. It is in the latest Time I, but below START II. Governor Bush are this Senator from Virginia and oth- magazine. Mr. Krauthammer is a very said: ‘‘The premises of Cold War nu- ers so concerned that he might go bright fellow. The thesis of his piece is clear targeting should no longer dic- lower? Why do we have this prohibition that no one really listened to what on any President? It is an unnecessary tate the size of our arsenal.’’ George W. had to say. Everybody mis- He may think that the White House and unwarranted interference, and it understood what he meant when he makes the people of the United States is the home of cold war thinking. If the stood up, with Henry Kissinger and of America an awful lot less safe, given American people should ever elect Gov- Colin Powell and George Shultz stand- what is going on in Russia today. ernor Bush to be our President, how- ing behind him, and laid out his posi- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who ever, he’ll find that the cold war is tion, at least his position on nuclear yields time? alive and well a couple of miles east of weapons and on national missile de- Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I yield the White House—in his own party. fense. 10 minutes to the Senator from Dela- Governor Bush added, 2 weeks ago: He said that what Governor Bush ware. . . . the United States should be prepared really means is that this is a new era. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the to lead by example, because it is in our best No more arms control, period. START Chair state the allocation of the time interest and the best interest of the world. I, START II, START III, START any- This would be an act of principled leader- remaining between the distinguished thing, START V—no more. He ends his Senator from Nebraska and myself. ship—a chance to seize the moment and begin a new era of nuclear security. article by saying we should make our The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- judgments about whether to reduce our Would the Warner amendment allow ator from Nebraska has 14 minutes re- weapons or to increase our weapons, or him to seize the moment? Not for maining, and the Senator from Vir- whether to build a national missile de- many months. ginia has 25 minutes remaining. fense, irrespective of anything other Imagine our new President negoti- The Senator from Delaware. than what we believe should be done at ating with President Putin of Russia in Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the that moment. And that dictates, he 2001. Putin says: ‘‘Let’s do START III.’’ Kerrey amendment is a sensible pro- says, the end of arms control. posal that merits bipartisan support. President Bush (or President GORE) re- That is what this debate is about. The Joint Chiefs of Staff decided plies: ‘‘Heck, my Senate won’t even let Cut through all the haze here. The many years ago under the Bush admin- me go under START I. Come back next problem with the Senator from Dela- istration that we could safely go below year!’’ ware, the Senator from Michigan, the START I force levels. President Bush Hamstringing the President in this Senator from Nebraska, and my two signed START II, and the Senate ap- way is silly, and we all know that. The colleagues on the floor now, is that we proved it in 1996. Joint Chiefs opposed it; the future Re- know too much about this. We are like Now the Russian parliament has ap- publican nominee for President wants nuclear theologians. I have been doing proved START II. That treaty cannot to go far beyond it; and the Congres- this for 28 years. I used to know what enter into force yet, due to differences sional Medal of Honor winner from Ne- the PSI of the Soviet SS–18 missile silo over the ABM Treaty, but both the braska, whom the Senator from Vir- was. That is very valuable information United States and Russia could use- ginia praised just last night, would for someone to have to walk around fully go below START I levels. never undermine our national security. with. The old joke is that we have for- The Joint Chiefs have consistently Let’s stop playing games. Let’s de- gotten more about these details than opposed the statutory ban on going feat the Warner amendment and sup- most people ever learned. In the proc- below START I levels. As General port the Kerrey amendment. ess, we also forgot what this is really Shelton said to Senator LEVIN in an an- Mr. President, I will respond to some about. swer for the record. of what I have heard in today’s debate. What is the logic of the Warner My dad has an expression: Sometimes The cold war is over.... The Service amendment? The logic is that this Chiefs and I feel it is time to consider op- what people say is not what they mean, President cannot enter into any more tions that will reduce our strategic forces to even though when they say it, they agreements. Really he doesn’t need an the levels recommended by the Nuclear Pos- think they may mean it. That sounds agreement to go down, but what they ture Review. The START I legislative re- confusing. I always used to wonder are worried about is that he could de- straints will need to be removed before we what he meant by that. I think I under- cide, either with Russian President can pursue these options. stand it better now. Putin or without Putin, to take num- The ban that the Kerry amendment The Senator from Virginia has an bers down to the START II levels, and would repeal is a hindrance to rational amendment that, with all due respect that that will be offered as a sign of planning and resource allocation. It to him, is bad logic, bad law, and bad good faith to Putin that the President, makes us maintain forces that are not politics. I know him to be a much more in fact, is ready to go lower, which is needed, at the expense of more pressing informed fellow. I have asked myself what the Russians want in a START III needs. As General Shelton replied to why, why does he have this amend- agreement. June 7, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S4615 This is about arms control. Let’s cut Let me return to the Krauthammer the year. We needed arms control to ensure through all the malarkey. Before this piece, entitled ‘‘The End of Arms Con- that there would be enough American nu- next 12 months are over, in the next trol; George W. Bush Proposed a Rad- clear firepower (relative to Moscow’s) to administration—Democrat or Repub- make our security guarantee to Europe at ical New Nuclear Doctrine. No One No- least plausible. lican—it will finally be out in the open. ticed.’’ As I said, arcane. But then again, the This place will be divided between Byline: Charles Krauthammer. Con- whole arms race with the Soviets had a dis- those who say that arms control has a cluding paragraph: tinctly academic, almost unworldly quality. place in our strategic doctrine and We don’t need new agreements; we only It was really a form of bean counting. Like those who say it has no place. We are need new thinking. If we want to cut our nu- money to billionaires, it had little intrinsic meaning: it was just a way of keeping score. getting there. We are getting there, clear arsenal, why wait on the Russians? If Perhaps most important, arms control inching to it. They are feeling their we want to build a defensive shield, why ask gave the Soviets and us something to talk way, I say to my friend from Nebraska, the Russians? The new idea—extraordinarily about at a time when there was very little feeling their way around this because, simple and extraordinarily obvious—is that else to talk about. We were fighting over up until now, arms control has been we build to order. Our order. every inch of the globe, from Berlin to Sai- the Holy Grail of both Republicans who Read my lips. No new treaties. gon. So, every few years, we would trade are informed and Democrats who are That is what this is about. Whether beans in Geneva, shake hands for the cam- informed. Nobody except the wackos old ‘‘W’’ knows it or not—and I don’t eras and thus reassure the world that we know that he does; I mean that sin- were not going to blow it up. has been flat opposed to any arms con- But now? That late-20th century world of trol. But there is a feeling emerging in cerely; he may know more than all of superpowers and bipolarity and arms control the intellectual community on the us on the floor combined; he may know is dead. There is no Warsaw Pact. There is no right, as well, that what we should be as little as it appears that he knows; I Soviet Union. What is the logic of tailoring doing as the United States of America, don’t know—this approach says ‘‘no our weapons development against various because of our overwhelming military new treaties.’’ That is what this is threats around the world to suit the wishes political and economic superiority rel- about. of a country—Russia—that is not longer ei- ative to the rest of the world, not just ther an enemy or a superpower? So I would like us to have national Yet that is exactly what President Clinton the Russians—is taking advantage of elections. There should be a national has been intent on doing in Moscow this the luxury of dictating outcomes with- referendum as well. We should have a week. He is deeply enmeshed in arms-control out consultation. national debate on that. I urge my negotiations (1) to revise the treaty that My friend from Virginia knows that a friends to come out of the closet com- radically restricts America’s ability to de- lot of his friends and my acquaintances pletely. Let’s have an up-or-down de- fend itself from missile attack (the ABM in think tanks on the right believe bate. It is a little embarrassing to treaty) and (2) to set new numbers for Amer- what I just said. I am not saying the ican and Russian offensive missiles (a make the case for the Warner amend- START III treaty). Senator does. But that is the genesis, ment on either logical grounds or con- The parts of this prospective deal that are the root, the cause of this debate—a le- stitutional grounds or political not anachronistic are, in fact, detrimental to gitimate debate to have. But they are grounds, based on the way it is now. It American security. One of the reasons the just a little afraid, in this election doesn’t add up. development of an effective missile defense year, to say they don’t like arms con- has been so slow and costly is that the ABM I thank the Chair. I see my time is treaty prevents us from testing the most trol: If we are elected, no more arms up. I thank my colleagues, and I have control. We will adjust, or not adjust, promising technologies, such as sea-based a feeling this is only the beginning of to the levels that we choose independ- and space-based weapons. Even today, we what is going to be a big, big, long de- cannot test a high-speed interceptor against ently, not in the context of a negotia- bate—not on this particular amend- any incoming missile traveling faster than 5 tion with anyone else. That is what ment, but for this Nation. km per SEC, because the Russians are afraid this is about, with all due respect to it might be effective against their ICBMs. my friends who support the amend- EXHIBIT 1 This is quite crazy. It means that because of ment; even if they don’t think that is JUNE 12, 2000. a cold war relic, the U.S. has to forgo build- what it is about, that it is just logical, There have been two revolutions in nuclear ing the most effective defense it can against rational, political purpose. theology since the doctrine of Mutual As- nuclear attack by a rogue state such as Think what you are saying. You are sured Destruction became dominant four North Korea. But Bush’s idea is significant because it telling the President of the United decades ago. The first came in 1983. Presi- dent Reagan proposed that defensive weap- goes beyond questioning why we should be States of America: you can’t go down— ons take precedence over offensive weapons. tailoring our defensive weapons to Russian although, by the way, constitutionally The second happened last week. It came from wishes. He asks, Why should we be tailoring we probably can’t do this. He is Com- George W. Bush and was almost universally offensive weapons—indeed, any American mander in Chief. Nobody has been more misunderstood. Bush was said to have pro- military needs—to Russian wishes? aware than I of the prerogative of the posed the primacy of defensive weapons over He proposes to reduce the American nu- Senate as it relates to the war clause offensive weapons. That is old news. In fact, clear arsenal unilaterally. The Clinton idea—the idea that has dominated American and the Constitutional relationship of he did something far more important: he pro- posed the end of arms control. thinking for a generation—is to hang on to the authority between the executive superfluous nukes as bargaining chips to get and legislative branches relative to the This seems strange to us. For more than a generation we have been living in a world in the Russians to reduce theirs. Why? Let the Soviets keep, indeed build ability to use force and/or control the which arms control is the norm. But for all what they want. If they want to bankrupt forces we have. of history before that, it was not: if you themselves building an arsenal they will The reason that there was a provi- needed a weapon to defend yourself and had sion on the Commander in Chief was never use—and that lacks even the psycho- the technology to build it, you did not go to logically intimidating effects it had during not to allow Presidents to go to war your enemy to get his agreement to let you the cold war—let them. unilaterally. It was rather to make do so. We don’t need new agreements; we only sure Congresses didn’t tell George When the world was dominated by two bit- need new thinking. If we want to cut our nu- Washington he could or could not move terly antagonistic superpowers, arms control clear arsenal, why wait on the Russians? If troops out of Valley Forge. They had a made sense. Barely. The world was made we want to build a defensive shield, why ask marginally safer by the U.S. and the Soviet bad experience during the Articles of the Russians? The new idea—extraordinarily Union having a fairly good idea of, and a simple and extraordinarily obvious—is that Confederation. So they wrote it in say- fairly good lid on, the nuclear weapons in we build to order. Our order. ing, hey, don’t tell the Commander in each other’s hands. Read my lips. No new treaties. Chief he can’t steam here with the fleet For the U.S. it was important because of a Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would or he can’t move the flanks there, or he rather arcane doctrine called extended deter- like to pose a question or two to my can’t move troops from one place to rence: we pledged to defend Western Europe very dear friend and good colleague not by matching the huge Warsaw Pact tank another. That is what somebody should from Delaware. do day to day. We are telling him in forces (which would have been outrageously costly) but by threatening nuclear retalia- Mr. BIDEN. I will answer on the Sen- the law and in the Warner amendment tion against any conventional invasion. ator’s time. that he cannot reduce force numbers to Not a very credible threat to begin with. Mr. WARNER. Fine. We will do that. something that has been negotiated And as the Soviets overcame the American I ask my friend to not overextend his and that everybody says makes sense. nuclear monopoly, it became less credible by responses. S4616 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 7, 2000 Mr. BIDEN. I won’t. tocols that the Russians initiated. we are not going to do that unless you Mr. WARNER. I think the Senator They did not sit down and say: By the give us more parking spaces—unless has raised a legitimate question. Are way, let’s accommodate your ability to you allow us to do something the ABM we as a body in the Senate to look in have theater missile defenses. We said: does not allow us to do right now. You a bipartisan way to future arms con- We want to be able to do that. And we give us the ability to test these mis- trol or are we not? It is a fair question went to them. They said: We don’t siles at a faster speed to be able to given the action by this Chamber, want to do anything on the protocol. intercept your missiles that are called which is a proper action, on the test We said: You have to. So there were ne- theater nuclear missiles. You allow us ban treaty. I fought hard against that. gotiations for several years. And they to do that. If you do not, we are not The Senator was on the other side. We said OK. Finally, they signed it. going to renegotiate a deal on the rocked the Halls of this Chamber with That is what I think. I don’t know. I whole building. Do the parking, or we that debate. But that is history. have enough trouble figuring out this will not even talk about the building. I want the Senator to know that this place, let alone the Duma. That is what we said. We said allow Senator from Virginia firmly believes Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in us to amend ABM, or we are not going in an ongoing arms control process, quick reply to my good colleague, he to go down to these levels. firmly believes that this country knows full well that those protocols That is what happened. should continue its leadership with put on by the Duma relate to the ABM Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I don’t this very important endeavor to try to Treaty. That is a subject of great con- know. make this a more safe world. But every troversy. I must regain the floor and control arms control agreement that comes Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will yield it. along is not the one we should buy for just a second, those demarcation I thank my colleague. into. I say to my good friend, if he says protocols to the ABM Treaty were pro- Mr. BIDEN. The Senator is welcome. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I this Chamber is divided, I commit this tocols that we—not the Duma—asked strongly disagree. I don’t believe that Senator to work, so long as I am privi- for. We asked for them. We said we will linkage existed in these negotiations. leged to be a Senator, for arms control. not ratify the extension of START II What is clear is that our President, in But for some reason, the Russian deadlines unless you, the Russians, good faith—I commend our President— Duma, although it is in comparison a allow us to test these theater missile at the summit did the best he could. I very new legislative body, had the op- defenses, which you claim are in viola- am concerned about some of the lan- portunity to take START II and accept tion of the ABM Treaty. Unless you guage he used in regard to the future it, just as President Bush had signed it, amend the ABM Treaty to allow us to do this and also ratify START II, we discussions on the ABM Treaty. put it into force and effect—but how I ask unanimous consent to have well you understand, they put condi- will not ratify START II extension or printed in the RECORD an article writ- go to START III. Right? tions on and those conditions they ten by William Safire, which I think in Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, our knew would not be acceptable in this a very clear and careful way points out President doesn’t take the exact turn Chamber. So they intentionally the language about which I have a con- in the way these things are written. blocked going into force and effect the cern. The Duma knew full well that in this START II treaty. I say to my friend, There being no objection, the mate- Chamber—and, indeed, in the Congress why did they do that? rial was ordered to be printed in the and, indeed, in the whole of the United Mr. BIDEN. I am sorry? RECORD, as follows: Mr. WARNER. Why did the Russian States—there is a very serious and im- [From the New York Times, June 5, 2000.] Duma deliberately put conditions on portant debate going on; I hope it is MISTAKE IN MOSCOW START II, knowing that those condi- part of the Presidential election de- (By William Safire) tions would never survive a vote in this bates, as to whether or not this Nation should allow itself to be held hostage WASHINGTON.—‘‘We have agreed to a state- Chamber? ment of principles,’’ President Clinton told a Mr. BIDEN. Well, I would respond by Russia in terms of a critical need to joint news conference in Moscow, ‘‘which I rapidly by saying that we have enough defend our Nation against the growing urge you to read carefully.’’ trouble figuring what happened in this threat of strategic intercontinental Noting that the Russian and American Chamber, let alone a new parliamen- missiles. You know that, and I know sides disagreed on whether a limited missile tary body in a place called Russia. I that. That is what these protocols go— defense against rogue states posed a threat think what they did was to put those the ability of this Nation to defend to the mutual deterrence of the ABM treaty, conditions on because we had said we itself. They were very clever in the Clinton added: ‘‘The statement of principles that we have agreed to I thought reflected an wanted these protocols. Duma because they knew that was put- attempt to bring our positions closer to- We negotiated with them. They can- ting out, as we say in the military, a gether . . . let me say I urge you all to read not anticipate that we in the Senate do ‘‘tank trap.’’ We were stopped cold that.’’ not want to do what our Presidents once those protocols were put on. O.K., let’s read it. The central issue is have negotiated with them to get done. Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, will the whether the U.S. will allow Russia to hold us But there is a little concern by them chairman yield for another response? I to the ABM treaty negotiated 30 years ago about this Senate like we are con- will be very brief. Let me make an with the Soviet Union. We want to build de- cerned about them. analogy for the chairman. fenses against the few missiles from terrorist nations, not the thousands held by Russia. They are saying: Look, you nego- Say we have a contract with someone President Vladimir Putin of Russia wants to tiated a START II treaty with us, and on the rental of an apartment building. make us pay for his permission by slashing you also negotiated demarcation proto- We say we want to renegotiate that our offensive missile forces in Start III down cols with us that you asked for. We contract to be able to rent to build 12 to levels our military leaders consider im- didn’t say we want new protocols to more units on that apartment building. prudent. allow certain missiles to fly at certain We say: By the way, although parking Clinton went along with the sweeping as- speeds, et cetera. We didn’t ask for is no part of this lease, we want to re- sertion that the two nations ‘‘reaffirm their negotiate our parking lot agreement commitment to that [ABM] treaty as a cor- that. You came to us and you said that. nerstone of strategic stability.’’ We agree. If you are going with the with you as well. Before we agree to go Putin then gave Clinton a little wiggle whole package you negotiated with us into a new deal with you on the build- room by agreeing that the missile threat over the years, we are in on the deal. If ing, we want to get 10 more parking from other nations ‘‘represents a potentially you are not going with the whole pack- spaces. The guy who owns the building significant change in the strategic situation age you negotiated with us, we are not says: Wait a minute. I don’t want to. I . . .’’ and to ‘‘consider possible proposals for in on the deal, because we don’t know will only negotiate with you on the further increasing the viability of the Trea- what you are about. building. We say: We are not going to ty.’’ That means allowing the U.S. to defend I think that is what they are think- its cities against rogue nations, terrorists do it unless you give us more parking and accidental launches only in ways that ing. That is what I think. Keep in mind spaces. Moscow approves. that the demarcation protocols the That is what we did here. They said Thrice did Clinton embrace the word via- Senators are talking about are not pro- they want to go to START III. We said bility, which means ‘‘capable of living.’’ He June 7, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S4617 committed the U.S. ‘‘to strengthen the ABM requirement to get some reasonable Navy to retire 34 Trident strategic sub- treaty and to enhance its viability’’ and modification to the ABM Treaty that marines. Moreover, the law has been agreed that we ‘‘attach great importance to enables this country, as George W. and continues to be consistent with the enhancing the viability of the Treaty. . . .’’ Bush said in his statement, to right- So here we have Clinton breathing new life administration’s own policy. into the cold-war treaty provided Putin will fully defend itself? That is what this is We have heard quite a bit about the allow some minor amendments that may not all about. Don’t take away a possible statement made by Gov. George W. meet future U.S. defense needs. negotiating bit of leverage he has with Bush relating to U.S. strategic forces. And then the outgoing American president regard to the levels of these weapons. What has been overlooked in his focus stepped into the incoming Russian presi- Will the Chair advise us with regard on the need to have a comprehensive dent’s trap. He paid for Putin’s permission to to the time remaining. review of our strategic guided forces is tinker with the ABM treaty with an enor- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- the statement that originally was mous concession: ator from Nebraska has 4 minutes, and made by Governor Bush. He said, ‘‘As ‘‘They agree that issues of strategic offen- the Senator from Virginia has 15 min- sive arms cannot be considered in isolation President, I will ask the Secretary of from issues of strategic defensive arms and utes. Defense to conduct an assessment of vice versa. . . .’’ Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I see our nuclear force posture.’’ Then he Read that again to savor its import: that is my distinguished colleague, the chair- goes on to say, ‘‘the exact number of the principle of linkage. It’s what Putin’s man of the subcommittee, rising. I see weapons can only come’’ after this military wanted and what Clinton never other distinguished colleagues. careful assessment. should have given. I yield the floor. I think we are very much in step ‘‘Issues of strategic offensive arms’’ means Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would with what the committee has been say- Start III: the reduction of the massive U.S. like to take a moment to point out ing, what George W. Bush would like to and Russian arsenals. The issue there is how that the START II agreement is not a see happen, and what I hear the chair- far to cut: our military says our strength unilateral agreement, it is a bilateral would be sapped at fewer than 2,000 missiles, man of the Armed Services Committee while the Russians—who can’t afford to keep agreement. It takes the approval of both the Duma and the Russian leader- saying he would like to see happen. that many nukes—want us to weaken our I would like to again review where we ship, as well as the United States. worldwide missile forces by 25 percent more. are with the Warner amendment. ‘‘Issues of strategic defensive arms’’ means Also, to clarify the record, in 1997 the The Warner amendment substitute ABM and our national missile defense Quadrennial Defense Review didn’t in- against dictators who could threaten us with clude a Nuclear Posture Review. I would include additional items to be nuclear blackmail and against a possible think it is entirely appropriate that we considered in the review required by Chinese threat. By mistakenly linking re- have a Nuclear Posture Review. Since section 1015, including whether reduc- ductions in Start III (our missile offense) to 1994, a lot of leadership has changed. A tions can be conducted in a balanced the minor modification of ABM (our missile and reciprocal manner, whether defense), Clinton played into Russian hands, lot of technology has changed. Cer- tainly I would like to see us move for- changes in our alert posture would en- making future arms negotiation more dif- hance our security and strategic sta- ficult for his American successor. ward with disarmament. But it needs Now here comes the strange part. Putin to be verifiable. It shouldn’t be unilat- bility, and whether U.S. strategic re- must know the substantial difference in ap- eral. I think those are two very impor- ductions could adversely impact our proach between candidates Al Gore and tant conditions as we move forward on conventional delivery systems, such as George W. Bush, Gore goes along with Clin- the disarmament discussion. the B–52 bomber. ton and presumably will embrace his ABM- I congratulate the chairman because The Warner substitute amendment Start III linkage. Bush wants a free hand I think he is moving forward with this provides authority for the President to with a limited anti-missile system and would amendment pretty much with the stra- waive the limitations in current law set our offensive missiles at a level to suit regarding the retirement of the stra- our deterrent needs, inviting the Russians to tegic committee; that is, we need a reciprocate. Huge policy difference. very careful Nuclear Posture Review. tegic nuclear delivery systems once the And yet Putin said, ‘‘We’re familiar with It should involve civilians as well as Secretary of Defense has completed the the programs of the two candidates . . . the military. Nuclear Posture Review required by we’re willing to go forward on either one of This is not going to happen quickly. section 1015. these approaches.’’ It is going to take time. This should The amendment by the Senator from Did he mean to ad-lib that? Was he mis- happen no matter who the President of Nebraska, on the other hand, would not interpreted? Having won his linkage with the United States is. We shouldn’t rush be consistent with a policy enunciated Clinton-Gore, is the inexperienced Putin by Governor Bush, nor would it satisfy willing to toss that advantage aside with into these agreements until we fully Bush? Is a puzzlement. understand where we stand and where the concerns Congress has raised for Despite Clinton’s policy error, he neither our posture is. the last 5 years. It could lead to mis- embraced the K.G.B.’s man nor called him I know we have some Members on the guided and uninformed reductions ‘‘Volodya.’’ Our president’s demeanor re- floor who may want to speak. But I say rather than a forced posture review mained coolly correct, and we can at least be to the chairman that I think perhaps based on careful review of all of our thankful for that. at this time we ought to have a little strategic requirements and how they Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is bit of review as to what has been hap- relate to overall national military very clear that the next President of pening here in the debate. I would like strategy. the United States must be given every to take the time to do that and to clar- I thank the chairman for his leader- possible bit of leverage he can have as ify some statements that have been ship. I pledge that I will continue to he readdresses in good faith, as did made in this debate. work with the Senator for disar- President Clinton, this issue of the Since fiscal year 1996, Congress has mament, move towards disarmament, ABM Treaty. It could well be that the passed, and the President has signed, but it has to be bilateral and verifiable. levels we are debating right here in legislation prohibiting the retirement Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague. this amendment are the levels of those of strategic nuclear delivery systems— He has served this committee very well arms reductions which we all know as bombers, intercontinental ballistic in his chairmanship. I think he has a certainty will be done at some point missiles, and strategic submarines— stated very clearly the issues in this in time. until the START II agreement enters amendment. We believe, of course, in accordance into force. This provision was designed The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- with the Warner amendment, that it to put pressure on Russia to actually ator from Nebraska. should be done after careful analyses ratify the START II agreement. Mr. KERREY. I have enjoyed the de- and steps have been taken. In any The idea was not that they were bate very much. I wish there was more event, we will come down to those lev- going to send back a counterproposal opportunity to examine the subject. I els. We know that. to the United States. Again, it would ask unanimous consent to have two But should not that next President have to be considered by this Congress. documents printed in the RECORD. have in his negotiating strategy the This was not an inflexible position. There being no objection, the mate- ability to do those negotiations of I point out that, for example, last rial was ordered to be printed in the lower levels as a part of the essential year the law was modified to allow the RECORD, as follows: S4618 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 7, 2000 U.S. NUCLEAR FORCES (APPROXIMATE)

Launchers/ Year Warheads x yield (kil- Total Type Name SSBNs deployed oton) warheads

ICBMs LGM–30G ...... Minuteman III: Mk–12 ...... 200 1970 3 W62 x 170(MRV) 600 Mk–12A ...... 300 1979 3 W78 x 335(MRV) 900 LGM–118A ...... MX/Peacekeeper ...... 50 1986 10 W87 x 300(MRV) 500 Total ...... 550 ...... 2,000 SLBMs UGM–96A ...... Trident I C–4 ...... 192/8 1979 8 W76 x 100(MRV) 1,538 UGM–133A ...... Trident II D–5 ...... 216/10 Mk–4 ...... 1992 8 W76 x 100(MRV) 1,536 Mk–5 ...... 1990 8 W88 x 475(MRV) 384 Total ...... 408/18 ...... 3,456 Bombers* B–2 ...... Spirit ...... 21/16 1994 ALCM/W80–1 x 5–150 400 B61–7/–11, B83 bombs 950 B–52H ...... Stratofortress ...... 76/56 1961 ACM/W80–1 x 5–150 400 Total ...... 97/72 ...... 1,750 Non-strategic forces Tomahawk SLCM ...... 325 1984 1 W80–0 x 5–150 320 B61–3, –4, –10 bombs ...... n/a 1979 0.3–170 1,350 1 First bomber number reflects total inventory. Second bomber number is ‘‘primary mission’’ number which excludes trainers and spares. Bombers are loaded in a variety of ways depending on mission. B–2s do not carry ALCMS or ACMS. The first 16 B–2s initially carried only the B83. Eventually, all 21 bombers will be able to carry both B61 and B83 bombs. B53 bombs have been retired and were replaced with B61–11s. ACM—advanced cruise missile; ALCM—air-launched cruise missile; ICBM—intercontinental ballistic missile (range greater than 5,500 kilometers); MIRV—multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles; SLCM—sea-launched cruise missile; SLBM—submarine-launched ballistic missile; SSBN—nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine.

Why does the Pentagon Say We Need 2,500 with Putin on all sorts of things at the which my good friend desires to have Warheads? same time that we have 160 nuclear repealed. Do not repeal this statute. Do Vital Russian Nuclear Targets weapons aimed at Russian leadership, not, I say to my colleagues, in good Amount but in addition, the Russian economy faith, repeal a statute which was Nuclear ...... 1,110 simply doesn’t generate enough income signed into law five times by the Presi- Conventional ...... 500 to enable them to be able to sustain dent. I ask my friend, what has Leadership ...... 160 War-Supporting Industry ...... 500 the investments necessary to control changed to justify repealing it? He says their community system and most im- the ratification of START II by the Total ...... 2,260 portantly, their warning system. Duma. Had that ratification been in ac- Damage Expectancy Levels = 80% So what happens? We are pushing the cordance with the way this Chamber 80% of 2,260 targets = 1,800 warheads nec- President to go slow, we are asking for ratified it, I would say it is time to let essary to achieve damage expectancy in an more studies. attack against Russia. the statute go. But they did not do it. Additional targets in China, Iran Iraq, and Mr. President, we don’t need more They put protocols on that treaty North Korea have been assigned to U.S. stra- studies. We can make this debate about which pose a great problem to the next tegic nuclear forces. more and more studies, but for gosh President—indeed, to this President— In total, a minimum of 2,500 U.S. warheads sakes, this is one subject on which we as he saw when he went to the summit. are needed to fulfill the SIOP. don’t need more studies. This has been And nyet, nyet, nyet, nyet, time and Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, in 1968 I examined up one side and down the time again when our President tried in had the good fortune, or misfortune, to other. We have studies coming out the a very rational way to determine the be given the chance to go down to Fort wazoo. We need decisions. Looking at flexibility that Russia might have on Benning and go through Army Ranger the current situation, one can reach no the ABM Treaty, which flexibility is School. We had a little joke that was other conclusion than that we are re- essential for this Nation to provide for keying in on a line from a John Wayne quiring the Russians, as a consequence its own defense. Nyet, nyet, nyet. movie. We looked out in the darkness of current law, to maintain a level be- Those are the only changes since five and said: It sure is quiet out there. yond what they can safely control, in- times this Chamber has adopted that Somebody else would come back with a creasing the risk far beyond the risk of law; five times the President has punchline: Too quiet. rogue nations such as Iraq or Iran or signed it. The only change is a ratifica- That is precisely my instinct when it North Korea, far beyond that. If there tion of START II by the Duma, with comes to strategic nuclear weapons. is an accidental or unauthorized launch impossible conditions put on it, which There is a real danger. For some rea- that occurs as a consequence of a mis- not only the Senate would not accept son, we understand the danger if it is take made because of a warning fail- but nor would this Nation accept. North Korea maybe getting nuclear ure, they are not going to send a cou- Mr. LEVIN. Any time remaining? weapons or Iraq maybe getting nuclear ple. It will be a couple hundred or a The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- weapons or Iran maybe getting nuclear couple thousand. ator has 30 seconds. weapons. I smell danger. I am glad we have had Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent Russia has 7,000 strategic nuclear this debate, but we are pushing the the portion of the 1997 QDR saying that weapons and 12,000 tactical. These are President in the wrong direction both the 1994 posture review still applied not inaccurate, unreliable systems. with the amendment of the Senator and was adequate be printed in the These are very accurate, reliable, and from Virginia and the existing law. I RECORD. deadly systems. They have more than hope that enough colleagues on the There being no objection, the mate- they need, and we have more than we other side of the aisle have listened to rial was ordered to be printed in the need. Instead of pressing the President this debate and will vote against the RECORD, as follows: to go to lower levels, the current lan- Warner amendment. I believe quite se- NUCLEAR FORCES guage of law and this amendment says riously that it increases the risk to the Our nuclear forces and posture were care- we want further delay; we want to push people of the United States of America. fully examined during the review. We are the President in the opposite direction. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this committed to reducing our nuclear forces to We are pushing this President in the has been a good debate. It is on a very START II levels once the treaty is ratified important issue. I express my gratitude by the Russian Duma and then immediately wrong way. We should be pushing the negotiating further reductions consistent President to go to lower levels because to so many colleagues who have par- with the START III framework. Until that it keeps America safe if we do. ticipated. time, we will maintain the START I force as Why does it keep America safe? Not In summary, I simply say this body, mandated by Congress, which includes 18 only is it sort of odd to be negotiating five times, has passed the statute Trident SSBNS, 50 Peacekeeper missiles, 500 June 7, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S4619 Minuteman III missiles, 71 B–52H bombers, levels (3000–3500 warheads) provide the Department of Defense from reduc- and 21 B–2 bombers. Protecting the option to enough survivable forces, and surviv- ing U.S. strategic nuclear delivery ve- maintain this force through FY 1999 will re- able, sustained command and control hicles—warheads—below START I lev- quire adding $64 million in FY 1999 beyond to accomplish our targeting objec- els until START II enters into force, is the spending on these forces contained in the FY 1998–2003 President’s budget now before tives.’’ necessary or, given the current inter- Congress. It is ironic that Governor Bush criti- national security environment, needed. Mr. LEVIN. That posture review sup- cizes the Clinton administration for Striking this provision does not man- ported the START II levels. Our Joint ‘‘remain(ing) in a Cold War mentality’’ date any cuts in U.S. nuclear forces: It Chiefs of Staff support the START I and for failing ‘‘to bring the U.S. force merely makes it possible, now that the levels. They want to be able to go to structure into the post-Cold War Russian Duma has ratified the START the START II levels. It has nothing to world’’ when it is this law, put in place II treaty, for the U.S. to make further do with the ratification by the Duma. by Congress, that requires staying in cuts below START I levels. In fact, I believe that it is important It has to do with what we no longer the Cold War mentality. If this law is not repealed now, it will that the President, the Joint Chiefs, need in our force structure, which the tie the hands of the next President, the and the Secretary of Defense have the law requires them to maintain, and next Secretary of Defense, as well as flexibility to determine the appro- costs dollars that could be better used the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. priate force level and alert status for elsewhere, including for perhaps health The Warner second degree amend- U.S. nuclear forces based on military care. ment would require the U.S. to stay at Mr. WARNER. I regain 30 seconds of and security need. the START I 6000 warhead level for at In fact, the original reason for in- my time. I simply say at the time that least another 18 months. Even though cluding this provision in the Defense was done, they did not foresee the there is general agreement that we Authorization bill in 1998 was not based Duma would put these conditions on need to go below the START I level of on military or security need per se, but the START II treaty. That is the es- 6000 warheads, the Warner amendment rather to encourage the Russian Duma sence of this debate. Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am a co- would keep the U.S. at this high war- to ratify START II. Well, now they sponsor of the Kerrey amendment and head level, even though the 3000–3500 have, and the U.S. should be prepared urge the Senate to adopt this impor- START II level has been reviewed and to reduce our nuclear forces below validated repeatedly and continually tant amendment. START I levels, consistent with our Current law prohibits the U.S. from since 1992 when the START II Treaty national security needs, if and when reducing its strategic nuclear delivery was signed. Russia moves to reduce its forces below In 1994 the DOD conducted a com- systems below START I levels. This START I levels in a verifiable manner. prehensive Nuclear Posture Review law requires the U.S. to stay at START That is what the Kerrey Amendment that validated the START II force I levels—to maintain 6000 nuclear war- will allow. structure levels—3000–3500 warheads. Before I conclude, I would also like heads, until START II enters into The 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review to take a few minutes today to speak force. This law was enacted, in 1996, carefully reviewed and affirmed that to some of the larger issues raised by just 16 months after the START II the START II nuclear force structure this debate. treaty was signed. The amendment of- was appropriate to protect U.S. na- We no longer live in the world of the fered by Senator KERREY will repeal tional security requirements. In 1997, superpower nuclear arms race of the this law which is neither needed or in preparation for discussions in Hel- 1950s, 1960s, 1970s or 1980s. helpful. sinki between the United States and During the Cold War the threat of The START II treaty allows the U.S. Russia, the DOD and the Joint Chiefs nuclear war was omnipotent, and the to reduce the number of nuclear war- again reviewed nuclear force structure size and configuration of the U.S. nu- heads to 3000–3500, but the law requires levels and determined that an even clear arsenal was very much a function that we maintain 6000 warheads. We do lower force structure level at the pro- of the Cold War international security not need 6000 thousand warheads and posed START III level of 2000–2500 war- environment and the needs of nuclear we do not need this law. heads was adequate. deterrence with the Soviet Union. The Department of Defense has con- Just last month, in extensive testi- But the Soviet Union is gone. The sistently argued that the law is not mony before the Armed Services Com- Berlin Wall came down over ten years necessary. When asked his view about mittee, the Chairman of the Joint ago. Poland, Hungary, and the Czech this provision, the Chairman of the Chiefs and the Commander of the Stra- Republic are now members of NATO. Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shelton, tegic Command testified that the 2000– The world in the year 2000 is not the was clear: ‘‘I would definitely oppose 2500 warhead level proposed for START same as the world of twenty, thirty, or inclusion of any language that man- III level was adequate to meet U.S. forty years ago. And I believe that our dates specific force structure levels.’’ military requirements. Only Congress nuclear weapons policy should reflect General Shelton made it clear that the is still stuck at a START I force struc- these new realities. Chiefs also oppose this provision: ‘‘The ture levels. We live in a transformative moment Service Chiefs and I feel it is time to In light of the nuclear force structure for international politics: The security consider options that will reduce the reviews that have been conducted since structures and imperatives that guided strategic forces to the levels rec- START II was signed, it is clear that our thinking during the Cold War have ommended by the Nuclear Posture Re- force structure levels will be at or either melted away or are malleable to view. The START I legislative re- below START II levels of 3000–3500 war- change. Both AL GORE and George W. straint will need to be removed before heads. Why do we have to wait another Bush recognize that. Why should the we can pursue these options. Major 18 months to go below the START I U.S. Senate remain captive to the costs will be incurred if we remain at force structure level—a level that no thinking of the Cold War, or to the nu- START I levels.’’ We have already one seriously argues should be main- clear weapons counting arithmetic of spent millions staying at the START I, tained? the Cold War? 6000 warhead level. For instance, we Mr. President, the Kerrey amend- The world has changed, yet as Dr. are unnecessarily spending to maintain ment is a simple amendment to repeal Bruce Blair, President of the Center for the 50 Peacekeeper ICBMs. a law whose time and usefulness has Defense Information, has pointed out, The Nuclear Posture Review, con- past. I urge its adoption. the Single Integrated Operating Plan ducted in 1994, reaffirmed that the U.S. Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I (SIOP) which guides our nuclear weap- did not need 6000 warheads and that the rise today in strong support of the ons targeting, has been growing stead- START I level of 3000–3500 warheads Kerrey motion to strike the Section ily since 1993, and grew over 20 percent was adequate. General Shalikashvili 1017 of the Defense Authorization Act in the last five years alone. It includes stated, in 1995, in testimony before the regarding U.S. strategic nuclear force over 500 weapons aimed at Russian fac- Armed Services Committee that ‘‘Our levels. tories in a country whose economy is analysis shows that even under the I do not believe that the restrictions all but defunct and which produced al- worst conditions the START II force that this bill contains, which prevents most no armaments last year, and over S4620 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 7, 2000 500 Russian conventional military tar- needed or desired for national security SEC. 703. HEALTH CARE FOR MILITARY RETIR- gets for an army of a country that can needs, we actually run the risk of un- EES. (a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the fol- not even successfully invade itself. dermining our security interests. If we lowing findings: Something is amiss. Clearly we need force the Russians to maintain at hair- (1) No statutory health care program ex- to retain a force capable of robust de- trigger status more nuclear weapons isted for members of the uniformed services terrence. But we can not allow our- than they can safely control we run the who entered service prior to June 7, 1956, and selves to pursue an outdated policy risk of an accidental or unauthorized retired after serving a minimum of 20 years that dictates an arsenal far larger than launch. If we maintain our own nuclear or by reason of a service-connected dis- new, current-day reality suggests we arsenal at high levels when it is unnec- ability. need or is advisable. essary to do so, we encourage rouge na- (2) Recruiters for the uniformed services I strongly believe that deterrence can are agents of the United States government tions to pursue their own nuclear and employed recruiting tactics that allowed remain robust with a smaller nuclear weapons programs. members who entered the uniformed services arsenal. Analysis by Dr. Blair and oth- A decade after the end of the Cold prior to June 7, 1956, to believe they would be ers suggests that with a force of 10 Tri- War, and on the cusp of the twenty- entitled to fully-paid lifetime health care dents, each with 24 missiles, 300 Min- first century, I believe that it is crit- upon retirement. uteman III land-based missiles, 20 B–2 ical that the United States Senate (3) Statutes enacted in 1956 entitled those bombers and 50 B–52 bombers we can show a willingness to engage in the se- who entered service on or after June 7, 1956, assure the destruction of between 250 rious business of forging a new stra- and retired after serving a minimum of 20 and 1,000 targets worldwide in retalia- years or by reason of a service-connected dis- tegic vision. We must do so with no ability, to medical and dental care in any fa- tion for any strike against the United preconditions or preconceived notions cility of the uniformed services, subject to States. If this sort of retaliatory capac- about how many, or how few, nuclear the availability of space and facilities and ity does not deter any adversary, than weapons are necessary. If an objective the capabilities of the medical and dental it is hard to imagine what would. review of our national security needs staff. I also believe that it is critical, as we dictate that we should maintain an ar- (4) After 4 rounds of base closures between move into this new world, for the senal at START I levels, then I will be 1988 and 1995 and further drawdowns of re- United States to review our own nu- maining military medical treatment facili- second to none in this body in insisting ties, access to ‘‘space available’’ health care clear alert status and those of other that our arsenal remain at that size. nuclear capable-states. Right now the in a military medical treatment facility is But if, as Governor Bush has suggested, virtually nonexistent for many military re- U.S. maintains 2,300 warheads on deeper cuts are advisable, then I do not tirees. launch-ready alert: 98 percent of the believe that artificial barriers to (5) The military health care benefit of Minuteman III and Peacekeeper land- achieving this goal should be put in ‘‘space available’’ services and Medicare is based force on 2-minute launch readi- place by this legislation. no longer a fair and equitable benefit as ness and 4 Trident submarines, two in I urge my colleagues to support the compared to benefits for other retired Fed- each ocean, on 15 minute launch readi- eral employees. Kerrey Amendment and strike Section (6) The failure to provide adequate health ness. The Russians, likewise, maintain 1017 of this bill. their forces on hair-trigger alert. Keep- care upon retirement is preventing the re- The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time tired members of the uniformed services ing these forces on hair-trigger alert is is yielded back on both sides. from recommending, without reservation, a potential accident waiting to happen, Under the previous order, amend- that young men and women make a career of with devastating consequences if it ments numbered 3183 and 3184 shall be any military service. does. laid aside, and the Senate will resume (7) The United States should establish In January 1995 a commercial space- consideration of the Warner amend- health care that is fully paid by the spon- launch off the coast of Norway in the ment, No. 3173. Under the previous soring agency under the Federal Employees Health Benefits program for members who middle of the night was almost mis- order, amendment 3173 shall be laid interpreted by Russia as a U.S. Trident entered active duty on or prior to June 7, aside, and the Senator from South Da- 1956, and who subsequently earned retire- missile launch, despite the fact that we kota is recognized to offer a similar ment. had pre-notified them about the amendment. (8) The United States should reestablish launch. As I understand it, Russia pre- Mr. LEVIN. What is the time agree- adequate health care for all retired members pared for a nuclear retaliatory strike. ment on the upcoming two amend- of the uniformed services that is at least It was only at the last minute that the ments? equivalent to that provided to other retired Russians realized that this was a com- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under Federal employees by extending to such re- mercial launch headed for space, not a the previous order, there are 2 hours tired members of the uniformed services the nuclear weapon headed for Moscow and option of coverage under the Federal Em- equally divided for the two amend- ployees Health Benefits program, the Civil- stood-down their forces. ments. ian Health and Medical Program of the uni- These risks—these needless risks The Senator from South Dakota is formed services, or the TRICARE Program. which do nothing to add to our security recognized. (b) COVERAGE OF MILITARY RETIREES UNDER but, just the opposite, make the world AMENDMENT NO. 3191 FEHBP.— a less safe, stable, and secure place— (Purpose: To restore health care coverage to (1) EARNED COVERAGE FOR CERTAIN RETIREES need to be addressed. retired members of the uniformed services) AND DEPENDENTS.—Chapter 89 of title 5, And they need to be addressed in a United States Code, is amended— Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I send way that will allow us to embrace the (A) in section 8905, by adding at the end the an amendment to the desk and ask for following new subsection: challenge of the new century, not be its immediate consideration. ‘‘(h) For purposes of this section, the term held captive to the grim math of the The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. ‘employee’ includes a retired member of the old. As Governor Bush pointed out on uniformed services (as defined in section BURNS). The clerk will report. May 23, ‘‘These unneeded weapons are The assistant legislative clerk read 101(a)(5) of title 10) who began service before June 7, 1956. A surviving widow or widower of relics of dead conflicts and they do as follows: nothing to make us more secure.’’ such a retired member may also enroll in an Mr. President, I think that it is im- The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. approved health benefits plan described by JOHNSON], for himself, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. portant to point out that the Kerrey section 8903 or 8903a of this title as an indi- BINGAMAN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. REID, and Mr. vidual.’’; and Amendment does not mandate that we JEFFORDS, proposes an amendment numbered (B) in section 8906(b)— cut U.S. nuclear force levels. It merely 3191. (i) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘para- gives the President, the Secretary of Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask graphs (2) and (3)’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraphs Defense, and the Joint Chief the flexi- unanimous consent that reading of the (2) through (5)’’; and bility to determine whether, if and how amendment be dispensed with. (ii) by adding at the end the following new lowering U.S. force levels below the The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without paragraph: START I limits would be a net-plus for ‘‘(5) In the case of an employee described in objection, it is so ordered. section 8905(h) or the surviving widow or U.S. national security and, if it is, to The amendment is as follows: widower of such an employee, the Govern- do it. On page 241, strike line 17 and all that fol- ment contribution for health benefits shall As Senator KERREY has argued, by lows through page 243, line 19, and insert the be 100 percent, payable by the department mandating force levels higher than are following: from which the employee retired.’’. June 7, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S4621 (2) COVERAGE FOR OTHER RETIREES AND DE- an eligible beneficiary who enrolls in a 2003. This legislation honors our na- PENDENTS.—(A) Section 1108 of title 10, health benefits plan under chapter 89 of title tion’s commitment to the men and United States Code, is amended to read as 5 in accordance with this section may not ex- women who served in the military by follows: ceed the amount of the Government con- tribution which would be payable if the keeping our Nation’s promise of health ‘‘§ 1108. Health care coverage through Fed- care coverage in return for their serv- eral Employees Health Benefits program electing beneficiary were an employee (as de- fined for purposes of such chapter) enrolled ice and selfless dedication. ‘‘(a) FEHBP OPTION.—The Secretary of De- fense, after consulting with the other admin- in the same health benefits plan and level of In doing so, it also illustrates to ac- istering Secretaries, shall enter into an benefits. tive duty men and women that our ‘‘(e) SEPARATE RISK POOLS.—The Director agreement with the Office of Personnel Man- country will not abandon them when of the Office of Personnel Management shall agement to provide coverage to eligible their military career ends. require health benefits plans under chapter beneficiaries described in subsection (b) 89 of title 5 to maintain a separate risk pool Our country must honor its commit- under the health benefits plans offered for purposes of establishing premium rates ments to military retirees and vet- through the Federal Employees Health Bene- for eligible beneficiaries who enroll in such a erans, not only because it’s the right fits program under chapter 89 of title 5. plan in accordance with this section.’’. ‘‘(b) ELIGIBLE BENEFICIARIES; COVERAGE.— thing to do, but also because it’s the (1) An eligible beneficiary under this sub- (B) The item relating to section 1108 at the smart thing to do. section is— beginning of such chapter is amended to read We all know the history: For decades, ‘‘(A) a member or former member of the as follows: men and women who joined the mili- uniformed services described in section ‘‘1108. Health care coverage through Federal tary were promised lifetime health 1074(b) of this title; Employees Health Benefits pro- care coverage for themselves and their ‘‘(B) an individual who is an unremarried gram.’’. (C) The amendments made by this para- families. They were told, in effect, if former spouse of a member or former mem- you disrupt your family, if you work ber described in section 1072(2)(F) or graph shall take effect on January 1, 2001. 1072(2)(G); (c) EXTENSION OF COVERAGE OF for low pay, if you endanger your life ‘‘(C) an individual who is— CHAMPUS.—Section 1086 of title 10, United and limb, we will in turn guarantee ‘‘(i) a dependent of a deceased member or States Code, is amended— lifetime health benefits. former member described in section 1076(b) (1) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘Except as Testimony from military recruiters or 1076(a)(2)(B) of this title or of a member provided in subsection (d), the’’, and insert- themselves, along with copies of re- ing ‘‘The’’; who died while on active duty for a period of cruitment literature dating back to more than 30 days; and (2) by striking subsection (d); and (3) by redesignating subsections (e) World War II, show that health care ‘‘(ii) a member of family as defined in sec- was promised to active duty personnel tion 8901(5) of title 5; or through (h) as subsections (d) through (g), ‘‘(D) an individual who is— respectively. and their families upon the personnel’s ‘‘(i) a dependent of a living member or Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am retirement. former member described in section 1076(b)(1) pleased to be joined by Senators In fact, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of this title; and MCCAIN, BINGAMAN, MURRAY, REID, and of Staff, General Henry Shelton, testi- ‘‘(ii) a member of family as defined in sec- JEFFORDS in offering an amendment fied before the Senate Armed Services tion 8901(5) of title 5. dealing with military retiree health Committee and said: ‘‘(2) Eligible beneficiaries may enroll in a Federal Employees Health Benefit plan care. I first want to thank Senators Sir, I think the first thing we need to do is under chapter 89 of title 5 under this section WARNER and LEVIN for their continued make sure that we acknowledge our commit- for self-only coverage or for self and family hard work in the Armed Services Com- ment to the retirees for their years of service coverage which includes any dependent of mittee in attempting to address this and for what we basically committed to at the member or former member who is a fam- critical and urgent issue. the time that they were recruited into the ily member for purposes of such chapter. Last year, the Senate began to ad- armed forces. ‘‘(3) A person eligible for coverage under dress critical recruitment and reten- Defense Secretary William Cohen this subsection shall not be required to sat- tion problems currently facing our na- also testified before the Senate Armed isfy any eligibility criteria specified in chap- Services Committee and said: ter 89 of title 5 (except as provided in para- tion’s armed services. The pay table graph (1)(C) or (1)(D)) as a condition for en- adjustments and retirement reform en- We have made a pledge, whether it’s legal rollment in health benefits plans offered acted with my support in the fiscal or not, it’s a moral obligation that we will through the Federal Employees Health Bene- year 2000 Department of Defense au- take care of all of those who served, retired fits program under this section. thorization bill were, frankly, long veterans and their families, and we have not done so. ‘‘(4) For purposes of determining whether overdue improvements for our active an individual is a member of family under duty military personnel. Prior to June 7, 1956, no statutory paragraph (5) of section 8901 of title 5 for pur- However, these improvements did not health care plan existed for military poses of paragraph (1)(C) or (1)(D), a member solve our country’s difficulty in re- personnel, and the coverage which or former member described in section eventually followed was dependent 1076(b) or 1076(a)(2)(B) of this title shall be cruiting and keeping the best and the deemed to be an employee under such sec- brightest in the military. In order to upon the space available at military tion. maintain a strong military for now and treatment facilities. ‘‘(5) An eligible beneficiary who is eligible in the future, our country must show Post-cold war downsizing, base clo- to enroll in the Federal Employees Health that it will honor its commitment to sures, and the reduction of health care Benefits program as an employee under military retirees and veterans as well. services at military bases have limited chapter 89 of title 5 is not eligible to enroll Too often, military health care is the health care options available to in a Federal Employees Health Benefits plan military retirees. under this section. treated as an afterthought rather than ‘‘(6) An eligible beneficiary who enrolls in a priority. That’s why on the first day That’s right: Many of the people who the Federal Employees Health Benefits pro- of this legislative year, I introduced helped us win the cold war have lost gram under this section shall not be eligible the Keep our Promise to America’s their health care because the cold war to receive health care under section 1086 or Military Retirees Act, S. 2003. This leg- ended. section 1097. Such a beneficiary may con- islation currently has 32 bipartisan co- Some military retirees in South Da- tinue to receive health care in a military sponsors including 18 Republicans and kota and other rural states are forced medical treatment facility, in which case the to drive hundreds of miles to receive treatment facility shall be reimbursed by 14 Democrats. the Federal Employees Health Benefits pro- Companion legislation in the House care. Furthermore, military retirees gram for health care services or drugs re- has over 300 bipartisan cosponsors. The are currently kicked off the military’s ceived by the beneficiary. bill also has the strong support of mili- TRICARE health care system when ‘‘(c) CHANGE OF HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN.— tary retirees across the country and or- they turn 65. An eligible beneficiary enrolled in a Federal ganizations including the Retired En- This is a slap in the face to those Employees Health Benefits plan under this listed Association, the Retired Officers men and women who have sacrificed section may change health benefits plans Association, the National Association their livelihood to keep our country and coverage in the same manner as any safe from threats at home and abroad. other Federal Employees Health Benefits of Uniformed Services, and the Dis- program beneficiary may change such plans. abled American Veterans. My amendment honors the promise ‘‘(d) GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTIONS.—The The amendment I offer today is the of lifetime health care coverage. It amount of the Government contribution for same language as that contained in S. does so in two ways: S4622 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 7, 2000 First, it allows military retirees who for years and years we have been told: and women to encourage the younger entered the armed services before June Yes, we know we have a commitment generation to make a career of the 7, 1956 (the date military health care to you for health care but we can’t af- military. In fact, in Rapid City, SD, for retirees was enacted into law) to ford it. The Nation’s budget is in the which is outside of Ellsworth Air Force enroll in the Federal Employees Health red. We are running deficits. We simply Base, a very significant B–1 military Benefits Program (FEHBP), with the cannot afford to live up to those prom- base in my State, I was talking to mili- United States paying 100 percent of the ises. tary personnel and talking to retirees costs. That was never entirely true. In fact, who are as loyal and as patriotic, who Second, military retirees who joined in the context of a $1.5 trillion budget, have paid a price second to none for the armed services after space-avail- we could have reoriented priorities, I our Nation’s liberty, and they told me: able care was enacted into law on June believe, in such a way that we could Senator, I can’t in good faith tell my 7, 1956 would be allowed to enroll in have kept our promises to military per- nephews, my children, young people FEHBP or continue to participate in sonnel and retirees. But there was an whom I encounter, that they ought to TRICARE—even after they turn 65. element of truth to the fact that we serve in the U.S. military, that they Military retirees who choose to enroll were running red ink and we were run- ought to make a career of that service in FEHBP will pay the same premiums ning massive deficits. because I see what the Congress has and fees—and receive access to the Those days are gone for a lot of dif- done to its commitment to me, to my same health care coverage—as other ferent reasons. We have had much de- family, to my neighbors. The health Federal employees. bate on this floor as to why we now care promises were never lived up to, In my own family, my oldest son is in find ourselves running significant and we don’t think you ever will live the Army and currently serves as a ser- budget surpluses over and above that up to them. You have no credibility geant in Kosovo. I fully appreciate attributable to Social Security and with us. It has gone decades, it has what inadequate health care and bro- why those surpluses, projected out 10 gone generations, and you have not ken promises can do to the morale of years from now, will run in the $3 tril- lived up to the health care obligations military families. lion range, some $700 billion to $1 tril- and responsibilities that you said, if we This stress on morale not only effects lion over and above what is required put our lives in danger, we would have. the preparedness of our military units, for Social Security because we are cer- How can I in good faith tell these but also discourages some of our most tainly in agreement we are not going young people they ought to make a ca- able personnel from reenlisting, mak- to dip into anything that is attrib- reer of the military, that it is a distin- ing recruitment efforts more difficult. utable to Social Security. That is off guished professional option they ought I have long contended that all the the table, and rightfully so. There is to consider, when you treat us shab- weapons and training upgrades in the the question about what will we do bily? world will be rendered ineffective if with the $700 billion to $1 trillion budg- That is the message I hear from ac- military personnel and their families et surplus that is being projected by tive duty as well as retired military are not afforded a good ‘‘quality of both the White House and by the con- personnel in my State. It is the same life’’ in our nation’s armed forces. I gressional budget experts. in the mail and e-mail I get from all have been a strong advocate of better The amendment pending is an expen- across the country saying: 2003 is the funding for veterans health care, mili- sive amendment. I understand that. It only legislative option we see that tary pay, active duty health care, edu- could run around $3 billion next year truly lives up to Congress’ obligations. cation and housing. and $9 billion a year after that, accord- No more excuses. The money is there. The Johnson amendment continues ing to our friends at the Congressional The only question is, Is the political will there? Is this a priority or is it these efforts led by Senator WARNER, Budget Office. That is a significant ex- not? I am pleased we are having this Senator LEVIN, and others to address pense. What I am asking is if this is these important quality of life issues. not a time when we can afford to live debate. Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator from Senator WARNER’s modified amend- up to our promises to our military re- South Dakota yield? ment incorporates an important part of tirees and our military personnel, then Mr. JOHNSON. I yield to my col- S. 2003—the extension of TRICARE to when will that time ever occur? league. Medicare-eligible retirees and depend- There are those who see other uses Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, Senator for that $700 billion to $1 trillion sur- ents. I applaud the Senator for his JOHNSON has been working on this issue work. plus over and above Social Security. I for a long while. I ask unanimous con- However, only my amendment fulfills have other things I would like to do as sent to be added as a cosponsor. the promise of health care for military well, including some tax relief. There The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without retirees while illustrating to current are those who want tax relief in the objection, it is so ordered. active duty personnel that our country range of essentially the entire surplus. Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this supports its commitments to men and I am suggesting there is room for tax amendment addresses a critical need. I women in the military. relief, there is room for paying down ask him if he sees in South Dakota I am also concerned that Senator the debt, there is room for education, what we know and see in North Dakota WARNER’s modified amendment termi- and a number of other things. If we do with respect to the veterans’ health nates in 2004. This could leave military this right, this is a once-in-a-lifetime care system. The system is not work- retirees once again wondering where opportunity to utilize some of that pro- ing. We have a fellow in north central their health care will come from. The jected surplus to, in fact, finally—fi- North Dakota who went to Vietnam Johnson amendment does not termi- nally—live up to our commitment to and took a bullet in the brain and is se- nate. our military personnel and retirees, verely disabled for life. Because of I understand the rationale for Sen- many of whom, frankly, have gone to that, he has muscle atrophy and a ator WARNER’s amendment. I am going their graves without the benefits they range of other health problems and had to support the amendment of Senator were promised. We do have that once- to have a toe removed. WARNER. It is a good-faith effort to do in-a-lifetime, unique opportunity this The VA system said to his father: the best that can be done on the health year to do something constructive, to Haul him over to Fargo, ND, and we care issues, within the context of the make a commitment that we will fund will do that in the VA system. budgetary marching orders that have this, not out of military readiness, not In other words, take this severely been imposed on Senator WARNER’s out of active duty budgets, but, in fact, disabled person, put him in a car, drive committee. I understand that. I under- out of this projected surplus that the him nearly 200 miles to the east and stand he is doing the best he can with- CBO and OMB people tell us is headed have this procedure done—not a major in the fiscal envolope that he has been our way. procedure—and then drive him 200 afforded. Military retirees and veterans are miles back, and that is the only way But it frustrates me, as I know it our Nation’s most effective recruiters. we will cover that expense. frustrates tens of thousands of military Unfortunately, poor health care op- The father said: Is this the way to retiree and active duty personnel, that tions make it difficult for these men treat a son who served his country in June 7, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S4623 Vietnam and was shot in the head and I assume he agrees with me we are Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator is now consigned to a very difficult not in any way attempting to deni- yield? life? Is this a way to treat him? It is grate the wonderful men and women Mr. JOHNSON. I certainly yield to not. The health care system is not who work at the VA health care cen- the Senator from Virginia. working. The VA system is not able to ters around the country. Many of them Mr. WARNER. I want very much for meet the needs. do an extraordinary job. But they are the Senator to have a full opportunity I ask the Senator from South Da- not funded well enough. We do not have to present his viewpoints, of course, in kota, is it not the case, in his opinion, the resources to do the job we should. the time remaining. But at some point that the cost of veterans’ health care is I just want to mention, on a Sunday I think it would be very helpful to the part and parcel of the cost of defending morning some while ago, I was at a VA other Senators following this debate to this country? It ought to be part of the hospital presenting medals that had frame exactly what the differences are cost of defense because it is a promise been earned, but never received by an between the Senator’s approach and we made and have not kept to veterans American Indian. His family came, but the approach I have in my amendment. in this country when we said: Serve also at this VA hospital, the doctors If he could indicate in the course of his your country, and we will provide you and the nurses came into his room. I presentation when we can bring that a health care system that works for pinned those medals on the pajama into sharp focus for the benefit of our your needs. tops of this man named Edmund Young colleagues, I would like then to get Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, the Eagle. He died 7 days later. He was into a colloquy, on my time for such Senator is exactly right. We have a very ill with cancer. But it was an portion of the colloquy as I expend in problem both on the VA health care enormously proud day for him because my statements. side and on the military retiree side; he served his country in Africa and Eu- Mr. JOHNSON. The chairman, the that is, those who have served their 20 rope in World War II. The fact is, this Senator from Virginia, has a very con- years in the military and rely on man served this country around the structive suggestion. I certainly will TRICARE currently, previously world. He never complained about it. not put words in his mouth relative to CHAMPUS, for their health care needs The day I pinned the medals on his the interpretation of his legislation. I in both instances. pajama tops, you could see the pride in applaud him for his legislative efforts. These people who have served this his eyes. I appreciated the fact that at But I will draw some distinctions as to Nation in such an extraordinary fash- this VA hospital the doctors and nurses his pending amendment and my amend- ion have, in all too many instances, came around and were part of that ment. not received the quality, the accessi- small ceremony. I intend to vote for both amend- bility, or the affordability of health But there are so many people such as ments. My amendment is farther care they deserve. It is doubly difficult Edmund Young Eagle and others who reaching and, as I am sure the distin- in rural States, such as our own, but it served their country, have never asked guished Senator from Virginia would is a problem everywhere. for much, but then need health care, note, is more costly. Because of that, it It is suggested as a compromise that only to discover that the system for de- runs into additional parliamentary we simply extend TRICARE to those livering that health care is not nearly issues perhaps. But I will attempt, in who are age 65 and older. That is an ad- funded well enough, while in the Con- closing, to draw some distinctions be- ditional option which I applaud, but gress, somehow we are more eager to tween what it is we are trying to do. that does not extend the Federal Em- say that defense relates to the things Mr. WARNER. If the Senator would ployees Health Benefits System to ei- in the Defense Department and that indicate such time it would be conven- ther people prior to 65 or older and, the VA health care system is somehow ient for him to proceed to questions, frankly, up until now, TRICARE is not not part of that obligation. It is part of then I would seek recognition. viewed in my State with great enthu- that obligation. That is why I am Mr. JOHNSON. Very good. siasm by many of our military retirees. pleased to support this amendment. The opponents of S. 2003, in my I understand it is a new program, and As I mentioned, I say to Senator amendment, again would claim that it it may improve as time goes on. Sim- JOHNSON, he has been working on these simply costs too much; roughly $3 bil- ply doing that alone falls far short of issues for a long while. I hope the Con- lion in fiscal year 2001, and, over 10 living up to the obligations Congress gress will embrace this approach now years, CBO estimates an average cost made during times of war when we so that we can be as proud of what we of $9 billion a year to fulfill our prom- were not sure if our Republic was going are doing for veterans and for their ise of health care for military retirees. to survive World War II, when we did health care needs as Edmund Young This does not come cheaply. I am very not know what would happen and we Eagle was proud that day of serving his up front on that fact. However, we are called these people into service, fol- country. talking about a $200 billion budget sur- lowed with Korea, Vietnam, and other Isn’t it the case that we have dra- plus—$9 billion here; $200 billion sur- conflicts, with people dying for our lib- matic needs—underfunding in these fa- plus—$800 billion to $1 trillion over 10 erty. We were quick to make promises cilities—and that the Senator’s ap- years. That is a conservative estimate. at that time: If you help us out, if you proach to dealing with this would say So if we look at the larger scheme of work for almost nothing, disrupt your it is a priority in this Congress to ad- things, in terms of where this ought to families and serve this Nation, we will dress the health care needs of veterans be within our budget, and also with the provide you with quality health care. and we believe the health care needs of possibility of some reprioritization of They did their share. They came veterans are part and parcel of this the existing budget, I believe the argu- home and we said: Wait a minute, this country’s defense requirements? ment that we simply can no longer af- is a little more costly than we thought, Mr. JOHNSON. I think the Senator ford to live up to our promises to mili- and we have decided to forget about it. from North Dakota raises an excellent tary personnel who sacrificed so much, We are not going to live up to those point. He himself has been a champion including families of those who have obligations. That is what this Congress for veterans and military retirees. died defending our right to be here de- has said through administrations of Obviously, when we come to the bating this issue today, simply no both political parties over the years. point of the VA-HUD appropriations longer holds. We have an opportunity now to bring issues, we will do the very best we can We invest billions of dollars each that, at last, to a halt and to deal with within the VA context, while at the year to build new weaponry, and right- our military retirees with a spark of same time trying to address the mili- fully so. But all the weapons in the integrity, at last. That is what this tary retiree issues. They go hand in world will be rendered useless or less amendment is about. hand. They are both very much part useful without the men and women in Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield and parcel of our overall effort towards uniform and without the high-quality, for a last question? military recruitment, retention, and qualified personnel we need to operate Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. readiness. They are part of that same them. Mr. DORGAN. I appreciate the indul- package. I certainly commend the Sen- I believe a promise made should be a gence of the Senator from South Da- ator from North Dakota for his leader- promise kept. We owe it to our coun- kota. ship in that regard. try’s military retirees to provide them S4624 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 7, 2000 with the health care they were prom- an experiment. We will not take this are not inconsistent necessarily, but I ised. The effort behind this amendment away from you 2 years down the road do believe that 2003 is a far, far more has been 100-percent driven by military because we ran out of money. This is a expansive and permanent approach to retirees taking action on the benefits commitment. You have to decide what the urgent crisis we have for military to which they are entitled. It is the your retirement plans are. You have to retiree health care. right thing to do. No more tests; no plan for that. We don’t want to be jerk- The distinguished Senator from Vir- more demonstration projects; no more ing the rug out from under you. We ginia has suggested that he may want experiments. have a plan. It is there. You choose it, to comment at this stage on his I think we need to act now on a pro- if you choose it. No more demonstra- amendment. I think it is appropriate gram that works, building on the Fed- tion projects that apply to some parts that we discuss both of them in this eral Employees Health Benefits Plan of the country and not other parts or it context. system. On average, 3,784 military re- is in for a couple years and then we Mr. President, I renew my request for tirees are dying each month. The time will assess it and decide whether to the yeas and nays. to act is now. These retirees have mo- continue it or not. We are not inter- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a bilized in a grassroots lobbying cam- ested in that. sufficient second? paign throughout the country to fight The Warner amendment, which I There appears to be a sufficient sec- for lifetime health care. think is certainly a step ahead of ond. I hope we do not leave this floor where we are now, does move the The yeas and nays were ordered. today without giving true access to health care benefits down the road in a Mr. WARNER. I advise my colleagues health care to these soldiers, sailors, constructive way. I applaud the Sen- that at an appropriate time someone and airmen who have patriotically ator for that. But as I understand the from the Budget Committee on this served our country. We have a long Senator’s amendment, it essentially al- side of the aisle will make a point of way to go. I will continue to work with lows those who are 65 and older, rather order. Senators WARNER and LEVIN, and my than to be pushed out of TRICARE on Mr. President, we are almost parallel colleagues, to be sure that our coun- to Medicare, to continue their partici- in thought here, certainly parallel in try’s active-duty personnel, military pation in TRICARE health care serv- thought for the need to help the retir- retirees, and veterans receive the bene- ices post 65. That is an additional op- ees. I have been privileged to be in this fits they deserve. tion. I am all for options. I think that institution 22 years. This is the first Senator WARNER has suggested we is a good thing. time, I say to my colleague, we have draw some clear distinctions between It does cost some money. Senator ever taken a step to provide for retir- the amendments. I think that is a very WARNER’s amendment does fit within ees. No one can refute that. If I may constructive suggestion. I am sure he the current budget resolution, but in say, to push aside a little humility, it will elaborate on the differences. order to get it within the budget reso- came from this side of the aisle. It was A difference, as I understand it, is lution, it would terminate in 2004. It not in President Clinton’s budget. It that my amendment would allow those may be, if this is successful, there will hasn’t been in any of his budgets. We who retired before June 7, 1956, to have be additional revenue, and maybe we took the initiative. We have done it fully paid participation in the Federal will continue it post-2004. But there is carefully step by step. I commend my Employees Health Benefits Plan. That no certainty to that within the legisla- colleague for his leadership on this is the plan in which all Federal em- tion. It fits within the current budget issue. Indeed, it is the interest in his ployees, including Members of this resolution because it has been chopped bill which has been garnered across our body, participate. Frankly, it is a very short in fiscal year 2004. So while land that has helped our committee to, successful and very popular health sys- TRICARE works better for some people step by step, begin to increase these tem. Ask any Federal employee. They than for others, it has not worked ter- provisions. will tell you the Federal Employees ribly well in my home State. My State I see my colleague wishes to make a Health Benefits Plan is an excellent is a rural State, which may be a bit dif- point. one. It provides every citizen with an ferent. Trying to make managed care Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator option, a menu, from a ‘‘Cadillac’’ to work in my State is a little more dif- will yield for one quick comment? lower-priced option, depending on how ficult than it might be in other areas. Mr. WARNER. I will. extravagant they feel in relation to I certainly concede that. But in my Mr. LEVIN. The provision in the bill their share of premiums in the health area, even if we gave people a contin- that provides the prescription drug care plan. ued TRICARE option, I am not sure benefit for retirees was a bipartisan ef- For those who retired before 1956, we they would beat a path to it particu- fort in our committee. will say, if you want to continue to larly. Some may. Again, I certainly ap- Mr. WARNER. Absolutely, Mr. Presi- participate in TRICARE, you certainly plaud the option. dent. can, but your other option is to move That is the basic difference between Mr. LEVIN. I think the Senator said over to the Federal Employees Health Senator WARNER’s amendment, which it came from a certain side of the aisle. Benefits Plan, like other Federal em- is constructive and does give an addi- It was not in the President’s budget, ployees and like your Senator. What is tional option to those who are post 65, but it was a bipartisan effort in com- good for your Senator is good for you. and my plan, which builds on the Fed- mittee which I now believe the Presi- For those who retired after the magic eral Employees Health Benefits Plan, dent supports. date of June 7, 1956, we say, you, too, applies both to pre-56 and post-56—pre- Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, once have the option of participating in the 56 with premiums paid—and on into re- we took the initiative on our side of Federal Employees Health Benefits tirement, and gives people those op- the aisle in the committee, we had bi- Plan, or you can continue to use tions. partisan support across the board. The TRICARE. You will, however, pay pre- Frankly, most people I talked to, if Senator is absolutely right. The point miums similar to what Federal em- they had a choice between TRICARE is where we are. We are faced with con- ployees pay. and the Federal Employees Health Ben- straints in military spending, as we are It is not entirely free, but you will efits Plan, they would run as fast as in all other avenues. Let’s make it have this additional option, and you they can go to the Federal Employees clear—let’s see if the Senator and I can may continue to stay there post age 65 Health Benefits Plan, the plan their agree—the CBO, in costing out my bill, in retirement. Senators and Congressman have, and, said it would be about $40 billion over Our plan builds on utilization of the for that matter, all Federal employees 10 years. Will the Senator agree with Federal Employees Health Benefits in their hometown have. that? Plan, fully premium paid for those As I see it, put very shortly and per- Mr. JOHNSON. That is as I under- older military personnel with pre- haps not with as much detail towards stand it. miums for the somewhat younger per- the plan of the senior Senator from Mr. WARNER. The CBO, looking at sonnel, optional. And it is perpetual. Virginia, that is the basic difference the Senator’s bill, said it would cost This is not a pilot project. This is not from which we have to choose. They about $90 billion over 10 years. June 7, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S4625 Mr. JOHNSON. Nine billion per year. the law of the land, and given that it tirees who are given only Medicare, Mr. WARNER. Correct. So the dif- has to stop in 2004, the first question I and the Warner bill now restores them ference between the two approaches is would ask the candidates is, Are you to the full rights they had when they very significant in terms of dollars. In going to support rewriting the Warner were on active duty in terms of health fact, the distinguished Senator’s bill amendment such that it goes out in care. My good friend, Senator JOHNSON, would cost along the following lines: perpetuity? I forewarn the candidates wants to offer them also the chance to He said $3 billion in fiscal year 2001; to be prepared to answer that question. go into the Federal program, and the $5.7 billion in 2002; up to $8.3 billion in I support, of course, that action by cost of that is largely borne by the 2003; $9.4 billion in 2004; and going out the Congress, with the support of the Federal Government. That raises his to 2010, $12 billion. So those are the fig- next President, to make it in per- amendment up to twice the cost of ures. I think we are in agreement as to petuity. But going back to the Sen- mine, using the 10-year average. But the dollar consequences of the two ator’s point, coverage under the Fed- we are giving them both. bills. eral Employees Health Benefits Pro- At the same time, I project that the Yesterday, my distinguished col- gram is what takes my bill from $40 Congress is going to be called upon, league, the ranking member of this billion to yours to at $90 billion; are we should the Warner amendment or the committee, when I raised the amend- correct on that? Let’s address the situ- Senator’s amendment become law, to ment, said that a point of order would ation. begin to add funds for the existing rest. The inference was clearly that it We passed—I believe it was 2 years military health care program so that it would be brought against my amend- ago—a program to allow the retirees to can absorb back this community. That ment. Whereupon, I thought it impera- decide whether or not they wanted to is not an insignificant expenditure. tive that I take my amendment and go into this Federal health program. Now, having done that, which we have amend it, which I did, to just go out to Interestingly, we allowed up to 66,000 to do under either amendment, then to to enter under that experimental test the year 2004. By so doing, the expendi- offer them the chance to go into the program. Mr. President, astonishingly, tures under my bill, as they flow out Federal program, you put the infra- only 2,500 of those eligible opted to do through these years, bring it within structure in place, they don’t avail it, indicating to our committee that the Senate budget resolution and, themselves of it, they go into the Fed- they felt if they could get the full bene- therefore, does not make it subject to a eral employees program, and you have fits offered to them when they were on point of order. built a big medical program that will active duty in their retired status, I think we can agree on that point. not be fully utilized. they preferred to have that rather than Mr. JOHNSON. I am in agreement Mr. JOHNSON. If the Senator will to go into the Federal health program. with the Senator on that issue. yield for a moment, one of the benefits What clearer evidence could there be? Mr. WARNER. But my distinguished of the Federal Employees Health Bene- We offered 66,000 a chance to do it and colleague proposing this amendment fits Plan is it doesn’t require a large, only 2,500 accepted. has decided not to try to take a similar Mr. JOHNSON. If the Senator will new infrastructure to be set up. People action with regard to his amendment. yield on that point, apart from the fact simply choose the insurance policy of Am I correct in that? that the military retiree organizations their wish and they go to whomever Mr. JOHNSON. The Senator is cor- themselves are telling us in no uncer- they wish, whether managed care or fee rect. tain terms that they prefer the Federal for service, and you are not left with Mr. WARNER. The retiree commu- Employees Health Benefits Plan cov- trying to create a new Federal bu- nity, in particular, following this, will erage, I think the following points need reaucracy or structure. say to the Senator from Virginia: Why to be made. First, relative to this 66,000 Mr. WARNER. The Senator is cor- did you cut short to 2004? I simply say: test program, there was, in fact, I am rect. But am I not also correct that if Because the likelihood of getting 60 told, a lack of timely delivery of accu- we mandate by law that the existing votes was in doubt, and I didn’t want to rate, comprehensive information about military health program has to absorb have that doubt. I wanted to make sure the Federal Employees Health Benefits back into it this class of retirees, they we got started on some major incre- Test Program. Some of those surveyed will have to augment doctors, nurses, mental series of benefits for retirees. claimed that townhall meetings spon- perhaps modest increase in facilities, That is why I did it. I made that cal- sored by the Department of Defense to and all of the other infrastructure that culation. I take full responsibility for promote the test were poorly planned is necessary to give these people fair, having done it. and publicized. Many retirees noted the good quality health care; am I not cor- Now, let’s see if we can narrow the inability to get accurate information rect? differences between the approach of my and forms from the Department of De- Mr. JOHNSON. I am not sure I under- colleague and the one I take. I summa- fense call center. stand the Senator’s point on this. In rize it as follows: I have provided in my Frankly, there has been a fear of the fact, it would seem to me that more bill, albeit only through 2004, every unknown with the test program. Retir- military retirees will have their own provision the Senator has. Particu- ees are being asked to change health personal health care services taken larly, I commend him for waiving the programs for a test program that ends care of, and there would be less reli- 1964 law—not waiving it, but taking it in 2002. Many retirees are worried they ance on the existing military health off—which was essential. We did that would have to simply change back at care structure. together. the end of the test period. One retiree Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the The main difference is the coverage responded to the military coalition number of retirees over 65 is roughly that is given to these retirees under survey by saying, ‘‘I just could not risk 1.4 million persons. Under the Warner the Federal Employees Health Benefits having to try to get insurance at age 73 amendment, as well as the Johnson Program; would I be correct in that? should the demonstration fail to be re- amendment, they are now taken back Mr. JOHNSON. I believe that is a key newed.’’ That may have been a into the existing infrastructure that difference. Also is the fact that this misperception, but it was one that cares for active duty and under-65 per- legislation of mine does address the skewed the results of the 66,000-mem- sons. Anyone would know that with 1.4 issue of free medical care. ber test. There is no doubt about that. million now given the opportunity to Mr. WARNER. But my point is, had Mr. WARNER. I say to my good come back in, you would have to aug- it been able to go out 10 years, we con- friend, clearly some of that may have ment and refurbish that system. This tinue to use that baseline. I am abso- taken place. It is better that retiree or- will be a justifiable issue before the lutely confident that this issue of re- ganizations should certainly have tried Congress very quickly. I am certain the tiree health care will be injected into to give them the information and ex- Secretary of Defense—the next Sec- the Presidential campaign. Each can- plain it. They have done a magnificent retary—in the posture statement of the didate will be asked what position he job in explaining what my colleague is next President will say: All right, Con- wants to take on that. I am certain offering in his amendment. gress; you said we are to take them they will. And should my amendment I wish to return to the following. back. We are happy to take them back, be adopted by the Senate and become Here we go. We are now taking the re- but give us the funds to refurbish and S4626 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 7, 2000 augment that system. That will be The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- spending their time petitioning Mem- done. ator from Arkansas is recognized. bers of the Senate. They are mature, That system will be prepared to take Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I humble, and they are patriotic by na- back these people, and at the same join Chairman WARNER in expressing ture. But in this situation, they simply time, you are saying to these people my gratitude to Senator JOHNSON for must speak out. These fine Americans while we put the infrastructure in his leadership on this issue. He made have been slighted as the years have place, you may decide not to use it and some very salient points on which I passed. They have seen benefits erode. go off here and avail yourself of other hope to reflect in my comments in sup- They have seen promises broken or the taxpayer dollars—namely, paying a port of the Warner-Hutchinson amend- fulfillment of promises delayed. premium of 70-plus percent, in most ment. No issue causes more distress than cases, to go into the private sector. Of The question here is not one of senti- the lack of comprehensive medical care course, there is no augmentation to the ment. It is not one of seeing the prob- as part of their retirement benefits. private sector. The private sector could lem. It is not one of wanting to act and Military retirees are annoyed. They are probably absorb this class. There could to act now. The question is, What is more than annoyed. They are dis- be a competition between the private the realistic way? tressed. They feel betrayed. They have sector and the military infrastructure. The fact that the Johnson amend- witnessed bureaucratic stalling But the military infrastructure has to ment will cost over $90 billion and will through trial programs and tests that be put into place. As you say, very lit- be subject to a budget point of order, serve no purpose and simply nibble tle would have to be done in the pri- which Senator LEVIN saw fit to raise in around the edges of the problem. They vate sector to absorb them. regard to the underlying Warner- do not provide the kind of permanent So that is the reason, I say to my col- Hutchinson amendment which would and tangible fixes to the inadequacies leagues, no matter how laudatory the have made this permanent but has not and shortfalls of the medical care sys- amendment would be. I suggest we go a seen fit to raise against Senator JOHN- tem. step at a time in treating these people SON, but undoubtedly that is going to I want to share a couple of quotes fairly. And we have taken the initia- happen, that is a huge barrier, as we from several of the thousands of heart- tive to do it. Let’s do it a step at a know, and a big problem. felt letters I have received on the sub- time and first refurbish the existing I think we have to do something this ject of military retirees in my home military system to accept them back year. That is why I am glad to rise and State of Arkansas. These letters from and give it a period of several years join Senator Warner in introducing the Arkansans who have served faithfully under my amendment to see how it Warner-Hutchinson amendment for the in our Nation’s Armed Forces are a works before we take the next leap and national defense authorization bill for mere representation of the sentiments put on the American taxpayers double fiscal year 2001. expressed by military retirees all the amount of money that my amend- I want to comment also on Senator across the Nation. ment would cost. DORGAN’s points concerning the VA Col. Bob Jolly, of Hot Springs, AR, Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield echoes the feelings of many others for a question? health care system; that it was this Mr. WARNER. Yes. Congress last year that increased VA when he writes: Mr. LEVIN. This is to clarify the dif- medical care spending by over 10 per- Thousands of military retirees are dying ferences between the approaches. I un- cent, the largest single increase in VA each month while denied the health coverage derstand there is another difference be- health care spending in over a decade; our government willingly gives all other fed- eral retirees. We older retirees, now in our tween the two, which is that TRICARE that, indeed, with our veterans, as well as with our military retirees, our credi- sixties and seventies, cannot wait for your would be available to all over 65 under Senate colleagues to prescribe years of tests both proposals, but under the proposal bility is in tatters when it has been to receive the care we were promised and of the Senator from Virginia, this Congress that has been determined have earned through decades of fighting our TRICARE would only be available for to take the steps necessary to restore nation’s wars. those who pay Part B. that credibility and to restore that Then, in a letter Mr. Stewart Freigy, Mr. WARNER. He is accurate in his confidence—with the pay raise last a retired Air Force pilot from Hardy, statement. year, with the 10-percent increase in AR, writes: Mr. LEVIN. Whereas, under the VA medical spending, far above the My decision to make a career of the Air Johnson proposal, Part B would not President’s budget request, and now Force was based on two things. First a sense have to be paid for by retirees in order with this enormous step. Let us not, in of patriotism instilled in me as a child. The to have TRICARE provided to them. comparing it with Senator JOHNSON’s second factor was a promise by my govern- Mr. JOHNSON. The Senator is cor- broad amendment, try to minimize the ment that if I served twenty years, I would rect. significance of the step that will be receive half of my base pay plus free medical Mr. LEVIN. I believe the Senator in- taken under the Warner-Hutchinson and dental care for myself and my depend- ents for the rest of my life. By the time I re- dicated before that TRICARE was amendment. I am glad to be a sponsor available to all retirees under both pro- tired, the dental benefits were already gone. of this amendment in introducing it. Since then I have watched the erosion of my posals, that this would be one dif- In my experience as the Armed Serv- ference in that regard, and that under benefits through Champus and then through ices Committee Personnel Sub- Tri-Care. In short, like many other military your proposal, Part B would not have committee chairman, and in my expe- retirees, I feel I have been deceived by a gov- to be paid for by the retiree; whereas, rience as a member of the Veterans’ Af- ernment that I served faithfully. under the proposal of the Senator from fairs Committee—I have served on the Mr. President, it is time we let re- Virginia, it would have to be. I am not Veterans’ Affairs Committee in the tired military personnel know that the arguing the merits or demerits, but House and in the Senate since I came Senate hears their plea for justice and factually that is a difference; is that to Congress—I visit regularly with re- equity. How we handle this issue will correct? not only send a message to these Amer- Mr. JOHNSON. The Senator is cor- tired military personnel on a broad rect. range of topics. icans that correction is on the way, but Mr. President, how much time do I Time and time again when speaking it will also send the proper message to have remaining? with military retirees, or responding to those on active duty and to those The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- letters of concern, the subject of ade- young people who are considering ator has 23 minutes. quate health care coverage comes up. whether or not they want to enter the Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, would Senator JOHNSON is absolutely right Armed Forces or whether they want to you give both times? about the feelings expressed by our make a career of the military. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- military retirees and their concerns I have heard from recruiters time and ator from Virginia has 46 minutes re- since we have broken our commitment time again since I assumed the position maining. and our promise to them. as chairman of the Personnel Sub- Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield The citizens of our country who have committee that the most important such time as the distinguished Senator served proudly in the armed services pool from which to attract military re- from Arkansas may require. prefer to be doing other things than cruits is the children of those who had June 7, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S4627 careers in the military. When their and continues the efforts of the com- Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, reserving parents feel betrayed, it becomes in- mittee to provide a comprehensive so- the right to object, and I will not, so creasingly less likely that they are lution to the issue of health care for we are all very clear, because there has going to make the choice to go into the America’s deserving military retirees. been some discussion as to the dif- military themselves. It is important By adopting this amendment the De- ferences between the two amendments, that Congress and the American people fense authorization bill will provide a if this modification is made, the length demonstrate that we are going to comprehensive health care benefit for of time that the Warner provision honor our promises to our military per- all of our country’s military retirees. would be in effect, then, would be the sonnel. As chairman of the Personnel Sub- years 2002 and 2003 instead of 2002, 2003, The Warner-Hutchinson amendment committee, I am well aware of the and 2004. Is that correct? will permit military retirees to be other legislative alternatives that have The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is served by the military health care sys- been proposed. There has been a very correct. tem throughout their lives regardless positive, productive colloquy and de- Mr. LEVIN. I have no objection. I of age and active duty or retirement bate on the floor on these alternatives. think it is important everyone under- status. That is an incredibly huge and However, I believe strongly that the stand. important step for this Congress to Warner-Hutchinson amendment pro- Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague take. Under our proposal, the current vides the most effective and realistic from Michigan. We all have to rely on age discrimination will be eliminated. remedy in a fiscally responsible man- these estimates. No one will be kicked out of the mili- ner. America’s military retirees were The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without tary health care system just because promised a health care benefit. They objection, the amendment is so modi- they turn 65. served our country and we, as a nation, fied. Let us not minimize and let us not need to fulfill our duty by honoring the The amendment (No. 3173), as further underestimate the dramatic step of the commitments made to them. This modified, is as follows: Warner-Hutchinson proposal: No more amendment does that. Strike sections 701 through 704 and insert age discrimination, no more kicking I applaud Senator WARNER and his the following: military retirees out of the health care leadership on this issue, his willingness SEC. 701. CONDITIONS FOR ELIGIBILITY FOR system and forcing them to leave the to take this bold step. I believe this CHAMPUS UPON THE ATTAINMENT doctors and the system with which amendment will pass with over- OF 65 YEARS OF AGE. they have been served for many years whelming support. I appreciate Senator (a) ELIGIBILITY OF MEDICARE ELIGIBLE PER- and with which they are familiar. SONS.—Section 1086(d) of title 10, United JOHNSON’s continued leadership. I know Beneficiaries will continue their health States Code, is amended— this will be a debate that continues in (1) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting care coverage in a system with which the years to come. It should not pre- they are comfortable and will not be the following: clude first taking this step. I urge my ‘‘(2) The prohibition contained in para- forced to pay the high cost of supple- colleagues to support this amendment. graph (1) shall not apply to a person referred mental insurance premiums to ensure I yield the floor. to in subsection (c) who— their health care needs are adequately Mr. JOHNSON. I applaud the work ‘‘(A) is enrolled in the supplementary med- provided. Medicare will pick up what the Senator from Arkansas and the ical insurance program under part B of such Medicare pays for, and TRICARE will Senator from Virginia have done. title (42 U.S.C. 1395j et seq.); and ‘‘(B) in the case of a person under 65 years be the supplemental plan to pick up Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield. the remainder. of age, is entitled to hospital insurance bene- Mr. JOHNSON. I certainly yield to fits under part A of title XVIII of the Social It is a dramatic, important, and posi- the ranking member. tive step and commitment we are mak- Security Act pursuant to subparagraph (A) Mr. LEVIN. I assure my friend from or (C) of section 226(b)(2) of such Act (42 ing. This initiative will act as a state- Arkansas, when I inquired yesterday U.S.C. 426(b)(2)) or section 226A(a) of such ment of our absolute commitment to about whether or not the amendment Act (42 U.S.C. 426–1(a)).’’; and the promises made to those who have of the Senator from Virginia was sub- (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘paragraph faithfully served the United States of ject to a point of order, that was the (1) who satisfy only the criteria specified in America in our Armed Forces. only amendment that was at the desk subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (2), As Senator WARNER stated, improv- but not subparagraph (C) of such paragraph,’’ to which I could make such an inquiry ing the military health care system and inserting ‘‘subparagraph (B) of para- to which the Parliamentarian could re- has been the top priority of the Senate graph (2) who do not satisfy the condition spond. Armed Services Committee this year. specified in subparagraph (A) of such para- Last year, we did the pay raise. Per- Now that the Johnson amendment is graph’’. (b) EXTENSION OF TRICARE SENIOR PRIME sonnel chiefs tell me that has made an there, I ask the same question: Is the Johnson amendment subject to a point DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.—Paragraph (4) of enormous difference in their ability to section 1896(b) of the Social Security Act (42 go out and recruit. It has improved mo- of order? The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. U.S.C. 1395ggg(b)) is amended by striking ‘‘3- rale in the Armed Forces. This is the year period beginning on January 1, 1998’’ HUTCHINSON). In the opinion of the Par- next big step: Improving the health and inserting ‘‘period beginning on January care system both with the prescription liamentarian, it is. 1, 1998, and ending on December 31, 2001’’. drug component as well as this very Mr. LEVIN. While we are on the sub- (c) EFFECTIVE DATES.—(1) The amendments major step we are taking for our re- ject, there is now apparently some in- made by subsection (a) shall take effect on tired military. Hearings have been held dication that there may still be a point October 1, 2001. (2) The amendment made by subsection (b) on this issue, and input from retirees of order problem with the Warner amendment which we are trying to as- shall take effect on the date of the enact- has been received and has been heard ment of this Act. loud and clear. sert. Mr. WARNER. At this time, I will ad- (d) ADJUSTMENT FOR BUDGET-RELATED RE- Time and again, our extensive review STRICTIONS.—Effective on October 1, 2003, of the situation has highlighted the im- dress that issue. In the course of our section 1086(d)(2) of title 10, United States portance of retiree access to the health floor consideration, we frequently ask Code, as amended by subsection (a), is fur- care system and to pharmaceuticals, the CBO for their estimates. They gave ther amended by striking ‘‘in the case of a with pharmaceuticals and prescription me estimates yesterday which they person under 65 years of age,’’ and inserting drugs being the No. 1 concern for retir- have now revised this morning. ‘‘is under 65 years of age and’’. ees. This already addresses the issue of AMENDMENT NO. 3173, AS FURTHER MODIFIED Mr. WARNER. My amendment is now pharmaceutical actions by providing a Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous con- modified so it is not subject to a point pharmacy benefit with no enrollment sent that the Senator from Virginia of order. fee for both the retail and mail order may modify his amendment. I have Our distinguished colleague is sub- programs. On a bipartisan basis, that sent to the desk such an amendment, ject to a point of order, and at an ap- has been included. It is an important which reduces the year of my amend- propriate time he will raise that point provision with overwhelming support. ment from 2004 to 2003. of order. The Warner-Hutchinson amendment The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- complements that pharmacy benefit objection? ator from South Dakota. S4628 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 7, 2000 AMENDMENT NO. 3191 one that we are going to cut short after The PRESIDING OFFICER. The first Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I make only 2 years, and then provide less than vote will be on the Warner amendment a clarification relative to my amend- the full level of commitment to the No. 3173, followed by a vote on the ment. There may have been some con- promises made to our veterans or is waiver of the budget point of order. If fusion earlier. I wish to make it very this, in fact, a first priority and we are the waiver vote is successful, that is to clear that under my amendment those complying with our promises, albeit be followed by a vote on the Johnson who entered the armed services prior belatedly, but a full commitment per- amendment. If it is not successful, the to June 7, 1956, would be eligible for manently, and in order to do that in- vote will be on the Warner amendment, Federal employee health benefit plan vade into surpluses dollars that no No. 3184, followed by a vote on the coverage with the Government paying doubt other people on both sides of the Kerrey amendment. 100 percent of the premiums. Those aisle have other purposes for which Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair. who entered the armed services after they can use the dollars? That is the Does the Senator have anything fur- June 7 of 1956 can choose Federal em- question with which ultimately we ther? Otherwise, I will just say two ployee health benefit plans with pre- have to contend. words. miums or TRICARE. I want to make My colleague from New York has Mr. JOHNSON. It is my under- sure that point is very clear. come to the floor and has a 1 minute standing, then, the Johnson amend- There has been reference to points of request on an unrelated issue. I ask ment, the waiver vote on the Johnson order, and the Senator from Virginia is unanimous consent the Senator from amendment, will be the first vote? If very correct that a point of order will New York be permitted 1 minute. that is successful—— be raised on my amendment. My The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without The PRESIDING OFFICER. That will amendment does cost more. It does objection, it is so ordered. be the second vote, following the vote more and it costs more. It is perpet- Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, let’s on the Warner amendment. uating. It is not a 2-year commitment. have clarified the amount of time re- Mr. JOHNSON. The Warner vote then A point of order, while not taken up maining under the control of the Sen- is the first vote? lightly, is simply an opportunity to de- ator from South Dakota and the The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- termine whether 60 votes in this body amount of time under my control. ator is correct. believe the issue at hand is of sufficient The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- Mr. JOHNSON. Followed by the point importance that it ought to have that ator from Virginia has 33 minutes. The of order on the Johnson amendment? first level of concern, that priority. Senator from South Dakota has 17 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The The question is, Are we going to pass minutes. waiver. or waive a point of order with 60 votes Mr. WARNER. That is 17 and 33. I say Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. And we would and invade surplus dollars that other- to my friend, I am prepared to yield each be permitted 2 minutes apiece at wise are available for tax cuts or are back a considerable amount of my time that time, at the time of that vote— we going to put our money where our because I think our caucuses are about that is my understanding—if that is ac- mouth is? Do we have the 60 votes to to meet. It is very important. If he ceptable? say we will use those dollars, at least would give me some estimate of what Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will that part of it that is required, that $90 he desires, and I will just do basically follow my colleague with maybe 2 min- billion out of the $800 billion or so that half that time remaining and do a utes of remarks if he has any con- is available, for this purpose? quick wrapup? cluding remarks before we proceed to One of the things that makes this de- Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I say the sequence of votes. bate interesting, and the parliamen- to the distinguished Senator from Vir- Mr. JOHNSON. That is satisfactory. tary process interesting, I don’t know ginia, we have no additional speakers Mr. WARNER. At this time, you if we have the 60 votes to waive the on my side. I agree we ought to expe- yield such time under your control? order or not. After all these years of dite this debate at this point, unless I am prepared to yield my time, re- Veterans Day and Memorial Day rhet- the Senator has other speakers to serving a minute and a half. oric about how important our veterans whom I would choose to respond. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time is are, this at last will be an opportunity Mr. WARNER. No, I am ready. yielded back. for every Member of this body to stand Mr. JOHNSON. I will be open to con- Mr. WARNER. I simply say once up and be counted. Is that rhetorical veying back my time. again I thank the Senator from South support or are you willing to put these Mr. WARNER. At this point? Dakota. He has been a leader on this priorities ahead of other budget prior- Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. issue. Indeed, his amendment has been ities, including tax relief? Are you will- Mr. WARNER. Fine. Let’s clarify one widely supported throughout the re- ing to waive the Budget Act and make other thing. Senator LEVIN brought up tirement community. this happen or not? If you are not, I re- the points of order. I have come in with the second-de- spect your views. Members can go Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- gree simply to say we should take home and explain that. That is cer- sent at this time that it be in order for these steps incrementally, one after tainly your prerogative. the Senator from Virginia to raise a another. Let us bring the retirees back It is long overdue. We have an oppor- point of order that the Johnson amend- into the fold of the military health tunity for some accountability for the ment, No. 3191, violates section 302(F) care system. Let us build the infra- American public to understand who is of the Budget Act, and that would take structures necessary to take care of willing to truly make this a budget pri- effect after my vote. Then there would them and try that out in the light that ority and who is not. If you are not, be a point of order, and the Senator only 2,500 ever opted for the Federal then you have those justifications that could, at this time, ask for the waiver. program out of 66,000 eligible. Let us you can make. That is what the nature Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I move try that out for the 2 or 3 years my of this is. This is not because it is more to waive the point of order. Mr. Presi- program would be in effect. costly, that this is an impossible pro- dent, I ask for the yeas and nays. The next President will have to ad- gram. It will require 60 votes, assuming The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a dress this situation. The next Congress that the point of order is raised, rather sufficient second? will address this situation. But we will than the 50 votes of the Senator from There is a sufficient second. have made enormous progress if the Virginia. The yeas and nays were ordered. Senate will adopt the Warner amend- It will allow the Senate to make a Mr. WARNER. So at the conclusion ment. Indeed, it represents well over determination in this body whether of the brief remarks from my col- two-thirds of the amendment by our these priorities are ahead of other pri- league, say not more than 2 minutes on distinguished colleague from South Da- orities that people have, a thousand my behalf, we then proceed to the kota. other things for which they want to use votes as they have been ordered pre- The only thing remaining is whether the budget surpluses. No doubt almost viously? That order, of course, is we or not we should give both at this point all of them are worthy causes. But is will vote—I think the Presiding Officer in time, which would double the cost this only one of many, many causes, should state the order of votes. over a 10-year period. It would double June 7, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S4629 the cost if we gave them the option of reservations about each, I supported lowed to remain in TRICARE. In other the Federal program in addition to both. words, TRICARE would be a second- what we are giving them under the I would like to briefly discuss my payer to Medicare, covering certain Warner amendment; namely, now back reasons for doing so. However, before costs above and beyond those covered into the system which has taken care getting into the specifics of these very by Medicare. This change would great- of them for the period of their active different amendments, I would like to ly improve the quality of health care duty and that period between the ter- commend the efforts of Senators JOHN- provided to our Nation’s veterans. Un- mination of their active duty and re- SON and WARNER. As a result of their fortunately, in order to comply with a tirement up to age 65. hard work, we are much closer than flawed Republican budget resolution, Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate ever before to keeping our health care Senator WARNER was forced to sunset is making important strides in working commitment to this Nation’s veterans. this new benefit in 2003. In other words, to improve health care benefits for our They are both to be commended for the Warner amendment provides vet- military retirees. A case in point is the keeping this issue alive and forcing the erans a new health benefit with one Defense Authorization measure before Senate to deal with it on the bill cur- hand and, two years later, takes it the Senate today, which includes sig- rently before us. away with the other. nificant improvements in pharmacy Under current law, military retirees As I said at the outset, I supported benefits for military beneficiaries as under the age of 65 are eligible to en- both of these amendments despite the well as several demonstration projects roll in TRICARE Prime or to use flaws I have just discussed. I did so be- intended to evaluate long range health TRICARE’s insurance programs. Those cause I believe it is important we focus care solutions for military retirees. who use TRICARE’s insurance may on the forest and not the trees and be- But more needs to be done. We recog- also seek care at a military treatment cause both of these amendments would nize that, and we are working to rem- facility, MTF, on a space-available bring us closer to keeping this Nation’s edy the current situation. Senator basis. Once retirees turn 65, they are no commitment to its military retirees. WARNER’s proposal to permit military longer eligible to use TRICARE, And I did so because I believed it was retirees aged 64 or older to remain though they may continue to seek care the right thing to do. I commend Sen- under CHAMPUS and TRICARE by re- at an MTF when space is available. The ators WARNER and JOHNSON for their quiring these plans to be secondary same eligibility rules apply to sur- work on behalf of our veterans and payers to Medicare is a good step in the vivors of veterans. Unfortunately, the look forward to working with them to right direction, a responsible step, and shortcomings of the current system are fulfill the promise we made to those I strongly support it. well known to thousands of America’s who sacrificed so much to serve this I also commend Senator JOHNSON for veterans. I receive letters virtually Nation. the laudatory goal of his amendment, every week describing the failures of Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I sup- but absent a plan to pay for such a TRICARE. port the amendment by the distin- sweeping reform, I fear that we are get- Senator JOHNSON’s amendment would guished Chairman of the Armed Serv- ting ahead of ourselves. The Senate has address some of these failures and in- ices Committee, Senator WARNER. It not set aside any money to pay for this crease health insurance benefits for re- takes the next step toward honoring proposal, and without a sure source of tirees. Specifically, retirees who en- the promise of lifetime health care for funding, we are offering our military tered military service before June 7, our military retirees. It removes the retirees little more than an empty 1956 and their spouses would be able to Title 10 provision that limits eligi- promise. For this reason, I am opposed use military health insurance and en- bility for military health care benefits to waiving the budget point of order roll in the Federal Employees Health to retirees under the age of 65. against the Johnson amendment. Benefits Program, FEHBP. Those en- The amendment expands health care The Senate has been moving toward rolling in FEHBP would pay no out-of- benefits for Medicare-eligible military improved medical benefits for all mem- pocket premiums. Military retirees retirees by removing the age limita- bers of the military, active and retired, who entered the service after June 7, tion on who qualifies for military over the past several years. Health care 1956 and their survivors would be eligi- health care programs. It gives all mili- benefits remain a top priority. Senator ble for increase coverage regardless of tary retirees one consistent health care WARNER’s proposal to provide specific their age. They could either enroll in benefit, with TRICARE supplementing enhanced health benefits for older re- FEHBP or use TRICARE’s insurance Medicare after the retiree reaches the tirees for a three-year period while program. age of 65. This is the right thing to do continuing to explore, test, and evalu- Senator JOHNSON’s amendment clear- for our retirees. ate a long term solution is a prudent ly would provide better health care I also support the amendment offered course of action. It gives us the oppor- coverage for millions of veterans. My by Senator JOHNSON. It corrects an in- tunity to address the immediate health concerns with it are twofold and both consistency in access to the Federal care needs of military retirees, while are cost-related. First, I am somewhat Employees Health Benefits Program. also giving Congress needed time to as- troubled by the overall cost of this pro- Currently, our retired service members sess the best long-term solution, and to posal. Although I believe no price is do not have the opportunity to partici- provide the necessary funding for what- too high to keep our commitment to pate in this program. While the out-of- ever solution we reach. America’s veterans—and Senator JOHN- pocket costs for some health plans of- Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the SON’s amendment certainly represents fered under FEHBP may make this ap- Senate has just spoken on one of the a giant step in that direction—I wonder proach less attractive to senior mili- most important national security whether there may be a more cost ef- tary retirees, they should be given the issues facing this Nation today—the fective means of doing so. Second, I am option to join. Again, this is only fair. quality of health care services we pro- concerned that for those retirees who One, consistent health care program vide for those who have so selflessly entered service after 1956 and who for all beneficiaries makes sense and is served this Nation. As pointed out dur- choose FEHBP, the Government would the right thing to do. ing this debate, we promised millions only pick up about 70 percent of the I commend Senator WARNER and Sen- of Americans lifetime, quality premium. Retirees and their families ator JOHNSON for their leadership in healthcare as partial compensation for would be expected to pick up the re- this important area. I support their their service to this country. Sadly, for maining 30 percent. Depending on the amendments, and I urge my colleagues far too many of America’s veterans, plan chosen, this could represent an to approve them. this promise remains unfulfilled. annual out-of-pocket expense of $2,000 This year is, indeed, the Defense De- The amendments just voted on by the or more—not an insignificant expendi- partment’s ‘‘Year of Health Care!’’ In Senate represent efforts by their sup- ture for many. the Armed Services Committee, we porters to keep that commitment. Senator WARNER’s amendment also began the year considering how to im- These measures adopted a fundamen- has merit as well as one fundamental prove health care for active duty serv- tally different approach toward solving flaw. Under the Warner amendment, all ice members and their families, and to this problem. And although I had some Medicare-eligible retirees would be al- address the well-documented health S4630 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 7, 2000 care needs of military retirees, espe- erage. Today, ninety-nine percent of care. Any senior citizen will tell you cially those over the age of 65. employment-based health insurance that—and so will their children and The Administration’s budget request policies provide prescription drug cov- grandchildren. It is time to make this was a major positive step for active erage—but Medicare is caught in a 35- need a priority as well. duty service members and their fami- year-old time warp. Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, I rise lies. It proposed to expand TRICARE Fourteen million elderly and disabled today to voice my support for the need Prime to the families of service mem- Medicare beneficiaries—one-third of for responsible military health care re- bers who live far from military hos- the total have no prescription drug form. pitals. It also proposed to eliminate the coverage today. The most recent data There is a critical need for real mili- co-payments by active duty service indicate that only half of all senior tary health care reform. I am con- members’ families for medical care by citizens have drug coverage throughout cerned that if this amendment passes civilian health care providers in the entire year. today, that this body, as well as the TRICARE Prime. The only senior citizens who have lower chamber, will wipe their hands of We heard testimony from Secretary stable, secure, affordable drug coverage this problem and move on to other Cohen, General Shelton, the Service today are the very poor, who are on issues. Our servicemembers past, Secretaries, and each of the Service Medicaid. The idea that only the im- present, and future deserve a world Chiefs, that the availability of health poverished elderly should qualify for class military health care delivery sys- care for senior military retirees is a se- needed hospital and doctor care was re- tem, and the Congress should accept no rious problem. They are conducting a jected when Medicare was enacted. Re- less. variety of TRICARE demonstration publicans say they want to give pre- When the defense bill before us today programs to find the best way to ad- scription drugs only to the poor. But came out of committee, I voted against dress it. We also heard from retirees senior citizens want Medicare, not wel- it for several reasons. One of the most and the organizations that represent fare. pressing reasons was that the health them that the problem is urgent, and Too many seniors today must choose care legislation included in the defense that Congress needs to act now. between food on the table and the med- authorization bill did not address the A promise of lifetime health care was icine they need to stay healthy or to broken ‘‘promise’’ of lifetime medical made to our service members at the treat their illnesses. care, especially for those over age 65. Too many seniors take half the pills time of their enlistment. We have an Voting for its passage would have been their doctor prescribes, or don’t even obligation to meet that commitment. an abrogation of my responsibility as a fill needed prescriptions—because they It is wrong that service men and Senator to let our declining military cannot afford the high cost of prescrip- women who have dedicated their lives health care system continue without a tion drugs. responsible legislative remedy. serving and defending our country Too many seniors are paying twice as One of the areas of greatest concern should lose their military health care much as they should for the drugs they among military retirees and their fam- benefits when they reach the age of 65. need, because they are forced to pay ilies is the ‘‘broken promise’’ of life- We must fix this injustice, and we must full price, while almost everyone with time medical care, especially for those do it now. a private insurance policy benefits over age 65. While the Committee in- The pending DOD Authorization Bill from negotiated discounts. cluded some key health care provi- takes a first step towards honoring this Too many seniors are ending up hos- sions, they failed to meet what I think promise by giving military retirees a pitalized—at immense cost to Medi- is the most important requirement, the retail and mail-order pharmacy ben- care—because they aren’t receiving the restoration of this broken promise. efit. Almost a third of them already drugs they need at all, or cannot afford This week, we recognize the anniver- have this benefit. 450,000 military retir- to take them correctly. sary of the invasion of the European ees over the age of 65 have a pharmacy Pharmaceutical products are increas- continent to free hundreds of millions benefit under the base closing agree- ingly the source of miracle cures for a of people from the grasp of a tyrannical ment. It provides a 90-day supply of host of dread diseases. But millions of dictator. Our servicemembers have prescription drugs by mail for an $8 co- Medicare beneficiaries will be left out served courageously in Korea, Viet- payment, or a 30 day supply of pre- and left behind if Congress fails to act. nam, the Persian Gulf, and other loca- scription drugs from a retail pharmacy In 1998 alone, private industry spent tions throughout the world. We owe network for a 20 percent co-payment. more than $21 billion in conducting re- our servicemembers, past, present, and The pending Defense Authorization Bill search on new medicines and bringing future a health care delivery system expands this benefit to all 1.4 million them to the public. These miracle that adequately supports those who Medicare-eligible retirees. It makes drugs save lives—and they save dollars have served with honor and courage sense, and it is fair that all military re- too, by preventing unnecessary hos- throughout the years. tirees over 65 have the pharmacy ben- pitalization and expensive surgery. Today, our military health care de- efit, not just those affected by the base All patients deserve affordable access livery system is facing some very dif- closing process. to these medications. Yet, Medicare, ficult and costly challenges. One of This pharmacy benefit addresses one which is the nation’s largest insurer, these is how best to reconfigure the of the most important concerns of the does not cover outpatient prescription military health care delivery system so military retiree community—the high drugs, and senior citizens and persons that it might continue to meet its cost of prescription drugs. with disabilities pay a heavy price for military readiness and peace-time obli- All of us are pleased that the Senate this glaring omission. gations at a time of continuous change is taking this step to make good on our The ongoing revolution in health for the armed forces. In the process of promise of health care to military re- care makes prescription drug coverage deciding how to proceed, I have met tirees. But we should not forget the more essential now than ever. Coverage with and heard from many military millions of other senior citizens who of prescription drugs under Medicare is family members, veterans and military need help with prescription drugs too. as essential today as was coverage of retirees from around the country. I It’s long past time for Congress to hospital and doctor care in 1965, when have been inundated with suggestions mend another broken promise the bro- Medicare was enacted. Senior citizens for reform. ken promise of Medicare. Medicare is a need that help—and they need it now. In every meeting and in every letter, guarantee of affordable health care for So I say to my colleagues—while we I encountered retired service men and America’s senior and disabled citizens. are making good on broken promises, women who have problems with every But that promise is being broken every it’s long past time to cover prescrip- aspect of the military medical care day because Medicare does not cover tion drugs under Medicare for all elder- system—with long waiting periods, prescription drugs. It is time to keep ly Americans. If we can cover military with access to the right kind of care, that promise. retirees, we can cover other senior citi- with access to needed pharmaceutical When Medicare was enacted in 1965, zens too. drugs, and with the broken promise of only three percent of private insurance Elderly Americans need and deserve lifetime health care for military retir- policies offered prescription drug cov- prescription drug coverage under Medi- ees and their spouses. I heard these June 7, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S4631 concerns expressed as I have traveled costs under control, but that steps be Lugar Robb Snowe Mack Roberts Specter across the United States over the past taken to retain the health care cov- McCain Rockefeller Stevens year. I was proud to introduce S. 2013, erage so critical to our nation’s active McConnell Roth Thomas the Honoring Health Care Commit- duty personnel, their families, retirees, Mikulski Santorum Thompson ments to Service Members Past and and survivors. Moynihan Sarbanes Thurmond Murkowski Schumer Torricelli Present Act of 2000. Make no mistake, retiree health care Murray Sessions Voinovich S. 2013 was drafted with the help of is a readiness issue as well. Today’s Nickles Shelby Warner the Military Coalition and the Na- servicemembers are acutely aware of Reed Smith (NH) Wellstone tional Military and Veterans Alliance. retirees’ disenfranchisement from mili- Reid Smith (OR) Wyden The Military Coalition has strongly en- tary health coverage, and exit surveys NAYS—1 dorsed S. 2013, stating, ‘‘We applaud cite this issue with increasing fre- Kerrey your leadership in introducing com- quency as one of the factors in mem- NOT VOTING—3 prehensive legislation aimed at cor- bers’ decisions to leave service. In fact, recting serious inequities in the mili- a recent GAO study found that ‘‘access Crapo Domenici Harkin tary health care benefit.’’ I am proud to medical and dental care in retire- The amendment (No. 3173), as further of the work on S. 2013, and I was pre- ment’’ was a significant source of dis- modified, was agreed to. pared to re-introduce key provisions of satisfaction among active duty officers Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, the this bill as an amendment to the de- in retention-critical specialties. Senate just conducted two very signifi- fense authorization bill. Mr. President, this year will be, in cant and unprecedented votes—unprec- However, the Warner amendment, the words of the Joint Chiefs, the year edented in the respect that, as the good and the more comprehensive Johnson, of health care reform. Whether we are chairman of the Senate Armed Serv- Coverdell, and McCain amendment, are successful or not will depend on several ices committee has pointed out, this is coming up for a vote today, and I factors: Congress’ ability to realize real the first time that the Congress has would like to comment on their at- health care reform and provide the nec- taken steps to provide health care eq- tributes and my concerns. essary resources, the Pentagon’s abil- uity for our Nation’s military retirees. I would like to commend my col- ity to work with private industry to This effort was not led by the White leagues, Senators JOHNSON and COVER- control costs on pharmaceuticals and House. It was led by Congress and by DELL, whose amendment fully restores health insurance plans, and the mili- military retirees across the country. the ‘‘broken promise’’ to our military tary retirees who utilize the system I have been deeply involved in this retirees and their families. I am proud coming together and galvanizing sup- to be an original cosponsor of this issue for many years now. As my col- port for the future of military health leagues know, I am the lead cosponsor amendment, as well as their companion care. bill, S. 2003. of S. 2003, Senator JOHNSON’s bill to re- This amendment fully restores the VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 3173, AS FURTHER store the broken promise of lifetime MODIFIED ‘‘broken promise’’ by providing free health care made to military retirees. military medical health care to mili- Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask The mere presence of this bill, as tary retirees and their spouses. I am a for the yeas and nays on the Warner Chairman WARNER noted, drove the de- strong proponent of this amendment, amendment. bate on military retiree health care because it gives the retirees what they The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a this year and moved us to the point were promised, military medical health sufficient second? where we are today—on the verge of care for life. This health care would be There is a sufficient second. enacting the first comprehensive solu- provided through the Federal Employ- The question is on agreeing to tion to the military retiree health care ees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). amendment No. 3173, as further modi- issue. This is a matter of fairness for I urge my colleagues to vote for this fied. military retirees, but our goal must be amendment. Our service members de- The clerk will call the roll. accomplished without destroying the serve our support, and we have an obli- The assistant legislative clerk called fiscal discipline that has made this day gation not to renege on a promise made the roll. possible. to them many years ago. Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the As a result, even though I am the As I have mentioned, I was prepared Senator from New Mexico (Mr. DOMEN- lead cosponsor of S. 2003 and fully sup- to offer an amendment today—a ICI) and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. port its objectives, I could not vote to version of S. 2013—that builds on the CRAPO) are necessarily absent. waive the budget point of order raised limited health care improvements pro- Mr. REID. I announce that the Sen- against the amendment today. The vided in the defense authorization bill. ator from Iowa (Mr. HARKIN) is nec- Senate has budget rules that must be However, I have decided to withhold essarily absent. protected if we want to ensure, year-in my amendment at this time to fully The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. and year-out, that all of the Nation’s support the Johnson amendment, as ENZI). Are there any other Senators in priorities are fairly and appropriately well as vote for the Warner amend- the Chamber who desire to vote?–– funded. These are the fiscal rules of the ment. The Warner amendment provides The result was announced—yeas 96, road that have enabled us to balance a substantial increase in the health nays 1, as follows: the budget, to create unprecedented care benefit provided to over-65 mili- [Rollcall Vote No. 117 Leg.] surpluses for the first time in decades, and to contemplate any funding for a tary retirees and their families that YEAS—96 current law and the Armed Services military health care proposal such as Abraham Collins Hagel Committee-reported bill, S. 2549, have Akaka Conrad Hatch this. Once the rules are broken, fiscal failed to address. The Warner amend- Allard Coverdell Helms discipline will evaporate. Deserving ment is not a perfect solution, but it is Ashcroft Craig Hollings long-term priorities would be pitted Baucus Daschle Hutchinson against the politically popular causes a step in the right direction. Bayh DeWine Hutchison Mr. President, I commend my col- Bennett Dodd Inhofe of the moment in a rush to tap the sur- leagues for their efforts to address Biden Dorgan Inouye plus dollars first. many of these important military Bingaman Durbin Jeffords We must also remember that we are Bond Edwards Johnson health care challenges. Not lost on any Boxer Enzi Kennedy working with the fourth consecutive of us is the urgent need to address the Breaux Feingold Kerry balanced budget that protects Social over-age-65 issue, since there are re- Brownback Feinstein Kohl Security—a tremendous exercise in fis- Bryan Fitzgerald Kyl portedly 4,000 World War II, Korean and Bunning Frist Landrieu cal restraint that the Senate must not Vietnam War-era military retirees Burns Gorton Lautenberg abandon. Preserving Social Security dying every month. It is imperative Byrd Graham Leahy has been a priority for the American that as changes are made to our na- Campbell Gramm Levin people for a long time and it took the Chafee, L. Grams Lieberman tion’s armed forces, Congress not only Cleland Grassley Lincoln Congress many years to make it a re- stay focused on bringing health care Cochran Gregg Lott ality. If we begin our fiscal work by S4632 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 7, 2000 eviscerating the budget rules, we will When Medicare came in and the federal the military program. I have to correct put the Social Security surplus and the government started making the mili- the Senator. There are two systems if retirement benefits for millions of sen- tary pay Medicare payroll taxes, it you vote for that. That is why his is $90 ators at great risk. stopped allowing retirees over 64 to use billion over 10 years versus the Warner I could have taken the politically ex- military medicine. That was a breach amendment, which is $40 billion. pedient route, the easy route by cast- of faith. Then we started an experi- Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, given ing my vote to waive the budget rules. ment 4 years ago to allow them to use Senator WARNER’s observation, I ask But that vote would not have changed their Medicare coverage to obtain unanimous consent for 10 seconds. the outcome or brought us closer to treatment at base hospitals again. The The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without passage of S. 2003. Had the motion to Warner amendment we just adopted objection, it is so ordered. waive the budget rules prevailed, it will allow people who served a career in Mr. JOHNSON. Saying our military would have set a dangerous precedent the military to get treatment at base retirees would beat a path to the Fed- and ultimately would make it more hospitals from military doctors, and eral system offering TRICARE as an al- difficult to protect the funding needed have Medicare pay the cost. It is a good ternative—frankly, that is an unpopu- to restore the broken promise. My vote idea and I strongly support it. lar option. This Johnson amendment is today to preserve the budget rules, not- Now, Senator JOHNSON has offered an what the military retirees want and de- withstanding my strong support for amendment that on its face has merit, serve. Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, the issue military retirees, represents my view and that is to put military retirees before us is whether we are going to that the work of the Nation must move into FEHBP. Maybe in the long run waive the budget point of order. I insist forward and that it will not unless the that is the answer to the problem. But on the point of order and ask for the Senate works responsibly within the the problem with Senator JOHNSON’s yeas and nays. budget process in order to balance com- amendment today is that it busts the The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a peting demands for funding. budget by $92 billion. So I urge my col- sufficient second? There is no doubt in my mind that leagues, whether they support the There is a sufficient second. the gains on this issue today would not FEHBP solution or not, to not bust the The question is on agreeing to the have been achieved without the intro- budget today. Let’s stand with the tax- motion to waive the Buget Act. The duction of S. 2003. At the beginning of payers today, and let’s also complete clerk will call the roll. this Congress, we were at ground-zero the Medicare subvention experiment, The legislative clerk called the roll. on this issue—the same place as in and let’s take up Senator JOHNSON’s Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the every previous Congress. We made proposal when we know how to pay for Senator from New Mexico (Mr. DOMEN- headway this year in the Armed Serv- it. I thank the chair. ICI) and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. ices Committee and with our col- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- CRAPO) are necessarily absent. leagues on the Budget Committee. ator from South Dakota. The yeas and nays resulted—yeas 52, Today, Senator WARNER’s amendment, Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I join nays 46, as follows: while not everything we wanted, did Senator MCCAIN and the other cospon- [Rollcall Vote No. 118 Leg.] take an important step forward by giv- sors in support of this legislation. We YEAS—52 ing military retirees one part of what have a fundamental question before us, Abraham Edwards Moynihan they deserve—the ability to keep their and that is whether the military retir- Akaka Feinstein Murray military health benefits when they ees of this Nation deserve to have the Ashcroft Gorton Reid Bayh Grams Robb reach Medicare eligible age. I believe same kind of health care system that Bennett Harkin Rockefeller the Senate has demonstrated a new Members of this body have, or other Biden Hatch Roth found commitment to our Nation’s Federal employees, through the Fed- Bingaman Hollings Santorum eral Employees Health Benefits Plan. Boxer Jeffords Sarbanes military retirees and I look forward to Breaux Johnson Schumer continuing our work to restore the bro- That is the amendment that the mili- Bryan Kennedy Shelby ken promise in full. tary retiree organizations are asking Burns Kerry Smith (NH) Cleland Kohl Snowe AMENDMENT NO. 3191 to have and we can, once and for all, be Collins Landrieu Thomas Mr. WARNER. We are ready for the done with the question about whether Conrad Leahy Torricelli vote on a point of order. we are going to live up to our commit- Daschle Lieberman Wellstone I ask unanimous consent, on behalf ment to our military personnel in DeWine Lincoln Wyden terms of the medical care that they Dorgan McCain of the two leaders, that the next two Durbin Mikulski votes be limited to 10 minutes. were promised and which they deserve. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without I think there is an across-the-board NAYS—46 objection, it is so ordered. agreement in this body that if we are Allard Graham Mack truly going to live up to this obliga- Baucus Gramm McConnell There will be 2 minutes of debate Bond Grassley Murkowski equally divided. tion, this legislation is what we have Brownback Gregg Nickles Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, a point to pass. It would involve a waiver, and Bunning Hagel Reed of order has been raised on the amend- the fundamental question we have, Byrd Helms Roberts Campbell Hutchinson Sessions ment of the Senator from South Da- then, is whether we have 60 votes in Chafee, L. Hutchison Smith (OR) kota. I would like to have Senator this body to get into the surplus dol- Cochran Inhofe Specter GRAMM of Texas recognized to argue lars, or whether those surplus dollars Coverdell Inouye Stevens that point of order and that his name will remain available for tax cuts and Craig Kerrey Thompson Dodd Kyl Thurmond replace my name on having made it. He other purposes. Enzi Lautenberg Voinovich is on the Budget Committee. I simply If you believe that military health Feingold Levin Warner made it on behalf of the Budget Com- care is a first priority, ought to come Fitzgerald Lott mittee. He makes it in his own right, first, rather than the crumbs that Frist Lugar my name to be deleted. come after we have made other budget NOT VOTING—2 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- decisions, you will support the John- Crapo Domenici ator from Texas. son-McCain amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we had question, the yeas are 52 and the nays remind everyone that 4 years ago we a very good debate on this. I see it are 46. Three-fifths of the Senators moved to begin to correct an injustice slightly different. What we are doing in duly chosen and sworn not having in military medicine, and the injustice the Johnson amendment is giving two voted in the affirmative, the motion is was that if you served in the military health care programs to military retir- rejected. The point of order is sus- for 20 or more years, you received a ees. We are giving them the military tained. commitment, at least in your mind and health care program and then asking Mr. GRAMM. I move to reconsider I believe in reality, that you and your the taxpayers to add on the tax bur- the vote. dependents would have access to mili- dens of the Federal program. So it is Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that mo- tary medicine for the rest of your life. not the same as we get; we do not get tion on the table. June 7, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S4633 The motion to lay on the table was clear weapons in excess of what they The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without agreed to. can control. As a consequence, we are objection, it is so ordered. Mr. WARNER. It is my under- increasing the risk, threat, and danger The PRESIDING OFFICER. The standing we are now to turn to the to the people of the United States of question is on agreeing to the amend- amendment by the distinguished Sen- America. ment. ator from Nevada, Mr. REID, after the I urge my colleagues, in as strong a The amendment (No. 3183) was agreed next two votes. language as possible, to vote against to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. There the Warner amendment. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move are 2 minutes equally divided on the The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time to reconsider the vote. amendment of the Senator from Vir- has expired. The yeas and nays have Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that mo- ginia. not been ordered on the amendment. tion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was Mr. WARNER. Following that, after Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask the two votes, if two votes are nec- agreed to. for the yeas and nays. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we essary, the Senator from Nevada is rec- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a have worked out, hopefully, a mutually ognized. sufficient second? agreed upon unanimous consent re- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- There is a sufficient second. ator is correct. quest. I will slowly propound it. The question is on agreeing to I ask unanimous consent that the Mr. WARNER. After the amendments amendment No. 3184. previous order for Senator WARNER to of the Senator from Nevada are dis- The clerk will call the roll. be recognized to offer an amendment posed of, I ask unanimous consent to The assistant legislative clerk called on working capital be laid aside to be recognized as the manager of the the roll. recur following the disposition of the bill. Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the BRAC amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without Senator from New Mexico (Mr. DOMEN- I further ask that on the Reid amend- objection, it is so ordered. ICI and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. ment, it be limited to 1 hour, with 45 AMENDMENT NO. 3184 CRAPO) are necessarily absent. minutes under the control of Senator Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for 5 The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. REID and 15 minutes under the control consecutive years, the Senate has put GREGG). Are there any other Senators of Senator WARNER, and no second-de- language into law with the President’s in the Chamber who desire to vote? gree amendment in order prior to the signature reserving these numbers, The result was announced, yeas 51, vote in relation to the amendment. which the distinguished Senator from nays 47, as follows: I further ask consent that following Nebraska now wishes to strike from 5 [Rollcall Vote No. 119 Leg.] the disposition of the Reid issue, Sen- years of consecutive law signed by the YEAS—51 ator KENNEDY be recognized to offer his President. Abraham Frist McConnell HMO amendment, and that there be 2 The Warner amendment simply says Allard Gorton Murkowski hours equally divided prior to a vote in that the President, whether it be Presi- Ashcroft Gramm Nickles relation to the amendment, with no dent Clinton or the next President, Bennett Grams Roberts Bond Grassley Roth second-degree amendments in order should follow a very careful procedure Brownback Gregg Santorum prior to the vote. before changing the numbers, of stra- Bunning Hagel Sessions I further ask that following the dis- tegic systems; namely, to do a QDR Burns Hatch Shelby position of the Kennedy issue, Senators process which takes into consideration Campbell Helms Smith (NH) Cochran Hutchinson Snowe MCCAIN/LEVIN be recognized to offer not only the strategic weapons but the Collins Hutchison Specter their amendment, re: BRAC, on which conventional weapons and then do an Conrad Inhofe Stevens there will be 2 hours equally divided, updated posture statement regarding Coverdell Kyl Thomas under the same terms as outlined Craig Lott Thompson exclusively the strategic. DeWine Lugar Thurmond above; namely, an hour under the con- Those are prudent steps that should Enzi Mack Voinovich trol of Senators MCCAIN and LEVIN, and be taken. In essence, this Chamber rec- Fitzgerald McCain Warner 1 hour under the control of Senator ognized that in the 5 consecutive years NAYS—47 WARNER. we have kept this language in. Akaka Feingold Lieberman I further ask that following the dis- Given the nyet—no, no, no—that our Baucus Feinstein Lincoln position of the Warner amendment, President received in Moscow on the Bayh Graham Mikulski Senator WELLSTONE be recognized to ABM issue, he may well need the lever- Biden Harkin Moynihan offer his amendment, re: Child soldiers, Bingaman Hollings Murray age given by the 5 consecutive years of Boxer Inouye Reed on which there will be 30 minutes law. My amendment gives the Presi- Breaux Jeffords Reid equally divided in the usual form and dent the right of waiver, but it imposes Bryan Johnson Robb under the same terms as outlined on him the need to take a prudent Byrd Kennedy Rockefeller Chafee, L. Kerrey Sarbanes above. managerial course of action before any Cleland Kerry Schumer I further ask consent that during the decision is made. Daschle Kohl Smith (OR) debate today or tomorrow, the fol- I yield the floor. Dodd Landrieu Torricelli lowing Members be recognized for de- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- Dorgan Lautenberg Wellstone Durbin Leahy Wyden bate only: JOHN KERRY for up to 60 ator from Nebraska. Edwards Levin minutes and Senator FEINGOLD for up Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, with NOT VOTING—2 to 12 minutes. great respect to the Senator from Vir- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there ginia, both the underlying law and his Crapo Domenici objection? amendment push the President in the The amendment (No. 3184) was agreed Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserv- wrong direction. Both Russia and the to. ing the right to object, I appreciate the United States have more nuclear weap- Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move distinguished chairman and his inter- ons than we need. This has been stud- to reconsider the vote. est in accommodating the many col- ied to death. There are plenty of stud- Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that mo- leagues who want to offer amendments. ies, plenty of reviews, plenty of evalua- tion on the table. I think we are almost there. I don’t tion. Gov. George W. Bush, with Henry The motion to lay on the table was think we are quite able to reach agree- Kissinger, with George Shultz, with agreed to. ment yet on this side. I wonder if it Brent Scowcroft, and with Colin Pow- The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. L. would be appropriate, given the fact ell, has it right. It requires new think- CHAFEE). The question is on the under- that we could not yet agree to that se- ing. We will not only be pushing Presi- lying amendment, as amended. The quencing, if we might proceed with the dent Clinton in the wrong direction, yeas and nays have been ordered. amendment to be offered by the Sen- but if Governor Bush wins, we push Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask ator from Nevada, and while that him in the wrong direction. We are unanimous consent to vitiate the yeas amendment was being considered, ad- forcing the Russians to maintain nu- and nays. dress the other parts of the unanimous S4634 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE June 7, 2000 consent request just propounded by the SEC. ll. CONCURRENT PAYMENT OF RETIRED we eliminate this unfair law that has Senator from Virginia. If he would be PAY AND COMPENSATION FOR RE- been an injustice for 109 years. This TIRED MEMBERS WITH SERVICE- interested in pursuing that approach, CONNECTED DISABILITIES. law discriminates against military we might be able to find some final res- (a) CONCURRENT PAYMENT.—Section 5304(a) men and women who decide to serve olution to the other elements of the of title 38, United States Code, is amended by their country as a career, whereas a proposal he suggested. adding at the end the following new para- civil service retiree’s pension may be Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I cer- graph: received in its total in addition to the ‘‘(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of tainly respect the contribution by our paragraph (1) and section 5305 of this title, disability from the U.S. military. distinguished minority leader. I don’t compensation under chapter 11 of this title Totally unfair. have any other recourse. may be paid to a person entitled to receive This discriminates unfairly against Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest retired or retirement pay described in such disabled career soldiers. In effect, they the absence of a quorum. section 5305 concurrently with such person’s must pay their own disability as a re- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The receipt of such retired or retirement pay.’’. sult of this quirk in the law. Military clerk will call the roll. (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment retirement pay and disability com- The assistant legislative clerk pro- made by subsection (a) shall take effect on pensation are earned and awarded for the date of the enactment of this Act, and ceeded to call the roll. apply with respect to payments of compensa- entirely different purposes: One is for Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask tion for months beginning on or after that having served your country for a spe- unanimous consent that the order for date. cific period of time; the other is for the quorum call be rescinded. (c) PROHIBITION ON RETROACTIVE BENE- having been injured while you were a The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without FITS.—No benefits shall be paid to any person member of the U.S. military. objection, it is so ordered. by virtue of the amendment made by sub- Retirement with service disability Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the section (a) for any period before the effective compensation for injury incurred in date of this Act as specified in subsection (b). other side has advised Senator WARNER the line of duty certainly is deserved. that the unanimous consent can be ac- Mr. REID. Mr. President, 109 years This amendment represents an honest cepted provided that paragraph 3 relat- ago, for reasons no one can quite un- attempt to correct an injustice that ex- ing to Senator KENNEDY be taken out. derstand, a law was passed that pre- isted for far too long. It affects ap- vented someone who had a service-con- I agree to that. proximately 437,000 disabled military nected disability from drawing dis- Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, reserving men and women. Each day, this great ability at the time they were drawing the right to object—I will not—we country of ours loses 1,000 patriots who retirement pay from the U.S. military. agreed that Senator KENNEDY would served as military combatants in World have an amendment or amendments If someone is injured, for example, in combat, they are eligible for a dis- War II. Every day, there are 1,000 sequenced at a later time. deaths of World War II veterans. Each Mr. WARNER. That is correct. ability pension. If they have military service for 20 or 30 years, they are eligi- day we delay the passage of this legis- Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, reserving lation, thousands of men and women the right to object—I am not sure I ble for retirement. But under a quirk in the law that has been around for 109 are denied their benefits. will—I ask for a continuation of the Some say this is too expensive. I say quorum call for another 3 minutes, if I years—let’s assume the disability is $200 a month, and the retirement is $500 no amount of money can equal the sac- may. I suggest the absence of a rifices these military men and women quorum. a month—the person who has been in- jured in combat must either waive his have made. Yesterday, in this Senate, The PRESIDING OFFICER. The STROM THURMOND, who is approaching clerk will call the roll. entire disability or take $200 from re- tirement to receive the $200 of dis- 100 years of age, spoke eloquently of The assistant legislative clerk pro- his feelings about World War II. Fol- ceeded to call the roll. ability. To say the least, this is certainly not lowing his statement, Senator DURBIN Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask of Illinois gave a very compelling unanimous consent that the order for an incentive for someone to stay in the statement regarding STROM THURMOND. the quorum call be rescinded. military, in addition to its basic un- STROM THURMOND is an example of the The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without fairness. For example, someone can re- sacrifices people made in World War II. objection, it is so ordered. tire from the Forest Service or the De- Even though he was over the age where Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I again partment of Energy or the Department people would normally go into the propound the amended unanimous con- of Treasury —any executive office—and armed services, he went into the armed sent request. have a disability from the military. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there They could draw both retirements. But services as a combat military man and, objection? if you retire from the military, you in a glider, went into Europe where he Without objection, it is so ordered. can’t. Certainly this is a nonincentive was injured and still suffers some dis- ability from his injuries. AMENDMENT NO. 3198 to stay in the military. If an individual leaves the military In this Chamber there are many oth- (Purpose: To permit retired members of the ers who sacrificed significantly as a re- Armed Forces who have a service-con- and begins a career in the executive nected disability to receive military re- branch, that person may receive both sult of World War II: Senator DAN tired pay concurrently with veterans’ dis- entitlements, but not if they choose to INOUYE, who I am happy to say is going ability compensation) serve our country in the U.S. military. to receive a Congressional Medal of Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an It seems unusual to me at a time Honor for his valiant service in Italy; amendment to the desk. when the military is having difficulty Senator FRITZ HOLLINGS served val- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The retaining personnel. This is, to say the iantly in World War II; Senator WAR- clerk will report. least, ridiculous. This amendment will NER served toward the end of World The assistant legislative clerk read encourage improvement and retention War II, as he stated on the floor today. as follows: for armed services. This amendment recognizes the people The Senator from Nevada (Mr. REID), for This bill has been introduced in its who served in World War II, the Korean himself and Mr. INOUYE, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. substantive form in this body. There is conflict, Vietnam, and the other skir- JOHNSON, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. a similar measure in the House of Rep- mishes we have had since then. People DORGAN, and Mr. BRYAN, proposes an amend- resentatives that has approximately who have been injured and have serv- ment numbered 3198. 250 sponsors. ice-connected disability who have been Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unan- In effect, this amendment will permit able to finish their full term in the imous consent that reading of the retired members of the armed services U.S. military deserve both benefits. amendment be dispensed with. who have a service-connected dis- That is what this amendment is all The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without ability to receive military retired pay about. objection, it is so ordered. concurrently with veterans’ disability Recently, the Congressional Budget The amendment is as follows: compensation. Office reported a budget surplus of At the appropriate place in title VI, insert The original law was passed in 1891 to about $160 billion. A few of those dol- the following: prohibit concurrent receipt. It is time lars should be used to take care of this June 7, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S4635 anomaly in the law. The best use of the Mr. WARNER. It is 12 minutes and 10 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without budget surplus is to support this con- minutes. That falls within the period objection, it is so ordered. current receipt legislation. Our vet- the Senator has reserved. We will put Mr. REID. Has my amendment been erans earned this. Now is our chance to that in the form of a unanimous con- accepted then? honor their service to our Nation. It sent request. Mr. WARNER. I urge adoption of the comes a little late for many of these I thank the Senator for reference to amendment. service-connected veterans. those who served in World War II. I THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there This amendment is supported by vet- don’t want to put myself in any cat- be no further debate, the question is on eran service organizations: the Dis- egory of the heroism displayed by Sen- agreeing to the amendment. abled Veterans, the American Legion, ator INOUYE. I was a simple sailor serv- The amendment (No. 3198) was agreed and the Paralyzed Veterans of Amer- ing in training command, waiting for to. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move ica. the invasion of Japan. I always want to The interesting thing about this law to reconsider the vote. be careful. Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion that prevents this concurrent receipt Mr. REID. I only say to my friend, we on the table. now is that nobody knows why it origi- are all aware of the work the Senator The motion to lay on the table was nally was passed. There is a lot of con- has done and the love the Senator has agreed to. jecture. Maybe it was to relate to the for the military, having been one of our f fact that we didn’t have large standing Secretaries. armies in 1891; maybe it was that only Yesterday was a very moving day, to THE ZIMBABWE DEMOCRACY ACT a small portion of what we did have in see our President pro tempore step OF 2000 the military consisted of career sol- down here and speak with the strong Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise diers. We don’t know. What we know voice that he has, recognizing the sac- today to speak in favor of the now, 109 years later, is it is unfair. It is rifices made by others. He didn’t, of Zimbabwe Democracy Act of 2000. I am unfair that a person who served this course, mention his own name, but he very pleased to join my colleague, Sen- country, was discharged honorably, is an example of what has made our ator FRIST, in cosponsoring this legis- and has a service-connected disability, country great. lation and sending an unambiguous sig- can’t draw both benefits. That is what Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator nal to the current government of this amendment does. for that reference to Senator THUR- Zimbabwe that the international com- The present law discriminates MOND. Indeed, he crossed the beaches in munity will not passively stand aside against career military men and a glider and crashed and was wounded. while that country’s great promise is women, when you consider when they He got out and took right on his duties. squandered; the United States will not retire from some other branch of our Also, late last night, Senator CARL remain silent while the rule of law is Government they can draw both bene- LEVIN and I put in an amendment undermined by the very government fits. which was accepted, was cosponsored charged with protecting a legal order; I respectfully request of the man- by all the veterans of World War II who this Congress will not accept the delib- agers of this legislation that this are now in the Senate, some eight or erate dismantling of justice and secu- amendment be accepted. I am happy to nine, and it provided $6 million toward rity and stability in Zimbabwe. have a vote, if that is what is required. the memorial that is being constructed Since the ruling party lost the out- I think if there were ever an example of on The Mall. come of a February referendum, in where we should send this to the House Earlier that day, our former distin- which voters rejected a new constitu- by unanimous vote, this is it. This is guished majority leader and colleague, tion which would have granted Presi- fair. This amendment is supported by Robert Dole, accepted a $14.5 million dent Robert Mugabe sweeping powers, many veterans organizations; to name contribution. Together with the $6 mil- a terrible campaign of violence has only a few, the Disabled American Vet- lion of the Senate, and my under- gripped the country. Veterans of erans, American Legion, and Paralyzed standing from Senator Dole, with Zimbabwe’s independence struggle and Veterans of America. They and the whom I spoke late last night, that supporters of the ruling party have in- American public deserve to have this brings within completion the budget vaded a number of farms owned by injustice corrected. they had for design, construction, and white Zimbabweans. When the courts I yield the floor. otherwise for that memorial. ordered the police to evict the invad- How much of the 45 minutes have I It was a historic day. ers, President Mugabe explicitly con- used? Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent, tinued to support the invasions, and The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- following the acceptance of my amend- called on the police force to ignore the ator from Nevada used 9 minutes and 20 ment, the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. court. Predictably, confusion and vio- seconds of the 45 minutes. FEINGOLD, be recognized for 12 minutes lence have ensued, and the rule of law, Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the on general discussion, not to offer an the basic protections upon which peo- amendment by the distinguished mi- amendment; following that statement, ple around the world stake their safety nority whip, the Senator from Nevada, the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. and the safety of their families, has is one I intend, as manager of the bill, TORRICELLI, be recognized for 10 min- been seriously eroded. to accept because it has in it some pro- utes to speak on an unrelated subject This is not a race war. Let me repeat visions we have studied for many and not to offer an amendment. that—this is not a race war. Race is years. I think it is important we study Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to not the critical issue in Zimbabwe it in the context of the conference. I object, and I will not object, I want to today. And no one need take my word am strongly in favor of a number of the advise Senators that was in the time- for that. One need only look at the concepts the Senator has raised. frame allocated to the distinguished facts on the ground. One need only ob- At the appropriate time I will indi- Senator from Nevada for the purpose of serve the disturbing frequency with cate the acceptance of the measure. his amendment. That is how this time which members of the opposition have Mr. REID. If I could ask the Senator, was freed up. Otherwise, Senator LEVIN been the targets of violence. It is the would it be appropriate, then, if the and I are anxious to keep this bill mov- Movement for Democratic Change, an Senator accepts my amendment, that ing. opposition party that has been rapidly following accepting this amendment, Following presentations by two dis- gaining the support of the disillusioned the Senator from Wisconsin have 12 tinguished colleagues, we should pro- electorate, that is the real target of minutes and the Senator from New Jer- ceed, then, to the McCain-Levin President Mugabe’s campaign. It is the sey have 10 minutes? amendment on base closure. electorate that rejected the ruling par- Mr. WARNER. Fine. If I might in- Mr. REID. I say to my friend, he is ty’s proposed constitution that is suf- quire, for the purpose of addressing the absolutely right. The only reason we fering, and this is not unprecedented. Senate—not for putting in an amend- are doing it this way is just to make In the early 1980s, supporters of a rival ment? the process a little more orderly. political faction were brutally slaugh- Mr. REID. For debate. Mr. WARNER. I understand that. tered in Matabeleland—a dark period