J. Cleland

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I commend the committee's work to support very necessary research in the area of chemical and biological detection, response and defense. I also applaud the committee's recognition that there are many existing good ideas as well as on-going initiatives worthy of consideration by the Department as it develops effective technologies for our Nation's chem.-bio defense. As you may know, one of these excellent efforts is a program that was initiated by the U.S. Marine Corps' Chemical Biological Incident Response Force, CBIRF, and authorized by the Senate in S. 2514. This program focuses on the development of emergency response technologies by first responders, the demonstration of a chemical agent warning network and the coordination of response among military and civilian assets. Will the Committee work to include in the list of programs to be considered under the Chem-bio Defense Initiatives Fund, this initiative to demonstrate a chemical agent warning network and other emergency response technologies for use by first response units?

Mr. CLELAND. I thank the chairman for his hard work and consideration of this initiative.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I am very pleased to submit a resolution recognizing the value of nurses and the importance of the nursing profession to the Nation's health care system. My legislation expresses the Sense of the Senate that a Nurses Care for America postage stamp should be issued in appreciation of nurses and everything that they do on behalf of their patients. Registered nurses, specifically, comprise the largest health care work force in the United States, numbering more than 2,700,000. These registered nurses provide direct patient care and manage teams of medical professionals in hospitals, clinics, community health centers, offices, nursing homes, and the homes of patients. Registered nurses did not hesitate to respond to the extraordinarily dangerous situations resulting from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, putting their own lives at risk and acting heroically to help save as many lives as possible in the impact zones. In all the years that we have acknowledged how much nurses mean to the delivery of health care and our quality of life, we have not done enough to ensure the viability of nursing as a profession. The 2001 American Nurses Association, ANA, National Survey revealed that 715 hospitals had 126,000 openings for nursing positions and an 11 percent vacancy rate. Nursing schools across the country report that enrollment has significantly decreased and the ANA also projects that 65 percent of present nurses will retire within this decade. These statistics signal a nursing crisis and that, in turn, means a health care crisis for this country. I am very proud of my Senate colleagues for passing crucial legislation, like the Nurse Reinvestment Act and the Veterans Affairs Nurse Recruitment and Retention Act, to help remedy this situation. We must continue to support measures which will promote nursing and enable nurses to provide needed care, which is why my legislation that encourages the creation of a postage stamp honoring this worthwhile and important profession is so important. Please join with me and the American Nurses Association to support this measure and recognize the vast contributions made by nurses who care for America. Thank you.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 7\1/2\ minutes and then my colleague from Missouri, Senator Carnahan, be allowed to speak for 7\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning to share the story of Betty Almeida, a gentle southern lady of 75 years and a life-long resident of Atlanta, who just last week came face to face with the hard reality that she can no longer afford the medications she needs. Betty called my office shortly after visiting her local pharmacy, where she had discovered that the cost of the two medications her doctor prescribed for her was simply too much for her to afford. She had been following the prescription-drug debate in Congress for some time, but last week, with a new sense of urgency, she called me to plead for swift action. Betty had been retired for a year when she learned she had a heart condition. Unable to afford the medications she needed to keep her condition under control, she came out of retirement and went back to work just to earn money to pay for her prescription drugs. For a while, that arrangement, though a hardship, enabled Betty to earn just enough to pay for her medicine. But recently, after Betty underwent a surgical procedure to remove a blockage from her heart, her doctor prescribed two new medications: one to treat an irregular heartbeat and one to lower her cholesterol to a safe level. Thank God these wonderful, life- saving drugs exist. But when Betty approached the pharmacy counter last week hoping to buy them, she was asked for $197 for the cholesterol- lowering drug and almost $150 for the other. Fortunately, it was Senior Citizens Day, so Betty was able to make use of a $5 discount. Still, the combined cost of the two medications--nearly $350--was far beyond what Betty could afford. And so, as she stood at the counter, Betty faced a choice: which condition would she treat? Her doctor told her she needed to treat both, but Betty couldn't afford to do that, so she had to choose. Which did she need more: a regular heartbeat, or safe cholesterol levels that would prevent future blockages? The time to pass a prescription drug benefit for seniors like Betty is now. Actually, the time was yesterday, but it would be an act of gross negligence on the part of the Congress--and a violation of a promise--if we fail this year to bring Betty and so many others the help they desperately need. The Graham-Miller-Cleland bill has received high marks from the AARP and will, if passed, bring meaningful relief to Betty. Forced to choose, Betty elected to forego the cholesterol-lowering medication because of its $200 cost. Under the prescription drug program established by the Graham-Miller-Cleland bill, Betty would pay just $40 for the $200 drug--one-fifth the cost. There would be no deductible to meet first, and there would be no gap in coverage. Over the course of a year, Betty would pay $4,200 just for the two heart drugs I mentioned without coverage. Under the Graham-Miller-Cleland bill, her annual out-pocket- expenses on medications, even after factoring in the $25 monthly premium, would be just $1,260--a 70 percent reduction in yearly costs. Under the House bill, however, Betty's annual out-of-pocket expenses for just those two drugs would be $3,500--her savings, just 17 percent. For Betty, and for the millions like her, I urge my colleagues in this body and in the House to pass the Graham-Miller-Cleland Medicare prescription drug benefit without delay. Anything less is unacceptable. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, in this time of seemingly endless stories of corporate fraud and mismanagement, I would like to take the opportunity to salute a bold step recently taken by one of the world's most respected corporations. As you know, the Coca-Cola Company's world headquarters is located in Atlanta, GA. The Coca-Cola Company announced on Sunday that it would expense the cost of all stock options the company grants, beginning with options to be granted in the fourth quarter of 2002. I commend CEO Douglas Daft and the leadership of the Coca-Cola Company on their decision. Stock options are indeed a form of employee compensation and their characterization as a balance sheet expense will provide investors with a clearer picture of Coca-Cola's fiscal health. Sunday's announcement is indicative of Coca-Cola's ongoing commitment to economic integrity and fairness. With this new policy, the company will be able to design whatever kind of options it believes will both best motivate employees and more align their interests with those of share owners, without regard for the options' accounting effects. While Coca-Cola is the first company of its size to take this important step, I predict it will not be the last. As other corporations follow Coke's lead, investor confidence in our markets will grow once again.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. I am happy to yield.

Mr. CLELAND. Madam President, I ask recognition to discuss my amendment No. 4236. This amendment addresses the accountability of corporate officers and directors. I strongly support the legislation before us which addresses the critical need to create an environment of accountability within corporate America. We need to send a strong message to corporate executives that the days of living large while lying, cheating, and stealing from the American people are over. Control of a company certainly has its advantages, but it also carries important obligations and duties. My amendment would address a situation like Enron where officers cashed in on bonuses, severance packages and millions of dollars in stock sales as they saw the light of the train coming through the tunnel. Unfortunately for thousands of Enron employees and investors, they had no similar warning and were not able to bail themselves out before many lost not just their jobs, but their life savings as well. My amendment would make sure that officers and directors who know what is happening, who know that financial reports are being manipulated, can't cash in on this knowledge while leaving employees and investors holding the bag. It is the duty of officers and directors to know what is happening in the corporation and to blow the whistle when they know there is wrongdoing. In the case of Enron, 10 executives or directors joined CEO Ken Lay and Chief Financial Officer Andrew Fastow in siphoning off company proceeds and reaping millions of dollars when they sold their Enron shares high. Together these 12 individuals made stock profits totaling more than $30 million before the company took a public nose dive at the end of last year. These corporate high rollers were reaping huge profits at the same time thousands of hard working Americans were losing more than a billion dollars in retirement savings, including $127 million in lost retirement savings in my home State alone by teachers and State employees. Corporate greed, should not be rewarded. The underlying bill requires that when a corporation has to file a restated financial report because of misconduct in the original report, the CEO and CFO have to give back any profits they have made from bonuses and stock sales for a year after the original report. My amendment would expand on the bill by calling into account all officers and directors who know about the misconduct in filing the financial report and through that knowledge abuse the company's trust and the trust of their employees. It would also mandate that officers and directors who have knowledge of wrongdoing in their financial reports would not only have to give up bonuses and profits but also their severance packages. Why should someone like Jeff Skilling get a parachute as he bails out of a disaster he helped to create? This amendment, my amendment, deserves support. It is endorsed by Arthur Levitt, one of this nation's most distinguished financial authorities. It is high time we call corporate executives on the carpet and hold them accountable. It is time we create an atmosphere that encourages responsible behavior and restores the confidence of the American people in the economy of this country.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I echo the eloquent words of the distinguished Senator from Michigan, who has done yeoman service for this body, for seniors and the disabled of America in helping put together and advocate for a meaningful drug benefit under Medicare. And special kudos go to my colleague from Georgia, Senator Miller, and to my distinguished friend from Florida, Senator Graham, for really taking the lead in articulating a Medicare supplement that we can embrace in this body and that the American people can embrace. When I talk to my fellow Georgians about the issues that are most on their minds, that most affect their lives, the one that I hear about more often than any other is the high cost of prescription drugs. Everywhere I go, people ask me, ``When are Congress and the President going to make good on their promise to help us with prescription drugs?'' And all I can tell them is, That's a fair question; I'd like to know, too. Over the past couple of years, their comments have become increasingly urgent. The cost of prescription medications rose a staggering 19 percent in 2000, and another 17 percent in 2001. I can assure you most people's incomes didn't rise by 17 percent in 2001. It is an iron-clad law of economics that if you live on a fixed income, and one portion of your monthly expenses rises dramatically, other portions must be reduced. For many of those seniors whose budgets are already stretched as thin as they can go, an increase in prescription drug costs means that expenditures on the other necessities of life-- basics like groceries or rent--must be cut. The choice between medically necessary, life-sustaining prescription drugs and the other basics of life is an impossible one--and one that no American should be forced to make. The Medicare program has provided for many critical aspects of health care for seniors over the course of its 36-year history, and by and large it has been a great success. But it has been said that while Medicare is a Cadillac program, its model year is 1965. Indeed, if we are to claim that Medicare provides health care security for seniors, we must update it to cover the component of health care that for many has become more burdensome than any other--prescription medications. People are desperate for any help they can get. Congress and the President promised to deliver that help. If we can't, or won't, the people ought to send this Congress home and elect one that will. There are a number of options on the table right now. Some are serious efforts to provide meaningful relief to seniors. Some are not. No one in Congress wants to admit that they are against providing a prescription drug benefit for seniors. And I don't blame them. That's an indefensible position. So some, especially in the House, write weak legislation that they call a Medicare prescription drug benefit but which allows drug companies to charge whatever premiums they want, leaves huge gaps in coverage, charges a high deductible, relies on private insurers who have already told us they will not participate, and will cover just 19 percent of seniors drug costs over the next decade, according to the CBO. Such a proposal amounts to little more than a ``legislative placebo,'' which its authors know has no chance of really helping seniors, and no chance of passing this Senate. But they draft such legislation not because they think it will help seniors but so they can go back home and say that they supported a prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries. They cynically believe that people won't pay enough attention to the substantive differences between a real proposal and theirs, enabling them to shirk the responsibility that they rightly must bear if this Congress once again fails to pass a Medicare prescription drug benefit. Where I come from, when you promise people one thing and then try to give them another, that's called a ``bait-and-switch'' scheme. And where I come from, we have a saying: ``That dog won't hunt.'' President Bush has made it clear that, in the war against terror, there are no shades of gray. Either you are for us, or you are for the terrorists. The same clarity that exists in the Bush doctrine ought to apply to the present debate on prescription drugs. Either you are for a real prescription drug benefit for seniors, or you aren't. If you are for a weak measure that purports to be a prescription drug benefit but has no chance of ever benefitting anyone, you are not for a real prescription drug benefit for seniors, and it is time to come clean and say it. It is long past time to dispense with artful dodging and equivocation. Just as no country that deals only halfway with terrorists can be considered on our side in the war against terror, so no one who proposes a halfway approach to prescription drugs under Medicare can be considered to be for real help for seniors. If you don't know whether or not the legislation you are for will provide a real benefit for seniors, let me make it real clear for you: if it was written by the insurance lobby and endorsed by the drug companies, you can bet it is not a real benefit for seniors. People are hurting. If you need proof, go back to your state or your district and spend a day talking with seniors about their daily struggles. You will find genuine hardships, and you will see that it is the most vulnerable among us who are struggling the most. This is a serious problem, and we need serious people who will work in good faith toward a solution. In the Senate, I am pleased to have teamed up with Senators Zell Miller and Bob Graham as an original cosponsor of the Medicare Outpatient Prescription Drug Act of 2002, which will provide a voluntary Medicare prescription drug benefit that will deliver real, meaningful help to seniors. Under this proposal, which has received high marks from the AARP, any Medicare beneficiary who chooses to participate would, for a monthly premium of $25, receive drug coverage from the very first prescription filled of the year. There is no deductible, and there are no gaps in coverage. The lowest-income seniors would receive full subsidies for premiums and co-payments, and those who earn a little more would receive partial assistance. Our proposal, if adopted, will dramatically reduce seniors' out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs, allowing them to use their food money for food and their rent money for rent. It is with full confidence that I say that this measure is the best proposal on prescription drugs I have seen to date, and I commend Senators Graham and Miller in particular for their leadership on it. I urge my colleagues in this body and in the House to act favorably on it without delay. I yield the floor.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. I say to my distinguished friend from Virginia, as far as I know, it is discretionary upon the conference committee because it is based on a discretionary item, independent of the budget. It is not an obligation, to my understanding, of the conference committee to come up with the money.

Mr. CLELAND. The Senator from Virginia is correct.

Mr. CLELAND. The Senator is correct.

Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Chair. I call up amendment No. 4033.

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

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and friend, my Vietnam brother, Senator McCain, for joining me in offering an amendment that I think is critical to the future of our military forces and particularly critical to the future outcome of the war against catastrophic terrorism. That phrase ``catastrophic terrorism,'' I borrow from Senator Sam Nunn, who once occupied this seat in this august body and whose opinion in terms of military and defense matters I respect tremendously. Today I introduce, along with Senator McCain, an amendment to the Defense authorization bill that begins to address the concerns expressed by the uniformed leadership of the Armed forces and reinforced by visits to our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and their families around the world. President Franklin Roosevelt once said to the members of his generation--which includes my mother and father. My father served at Pearl Harbor after the attack, so I grew up with the notion that this Nation should respond wholeheartedly to an attack on itself--``To some generations, much is given. From some generations much is required. This generation has a rendezvous with destiny.'' I think this generation has our own rendezvous with destiny and that destiny is to win the war against catastrophic terrorism, to defend our homeland and to hang together as Americans while we are doing it. Regarding our efforts militarily, I support the President and our military commanders 100 percent. However, I also firmly believe we must increase the numbers of our active duty military personnel if we are to be able to fight the war on catastrophic terrorism successfully. Our military is currently winning the battle. But we will lose the war if we continue to ignore the fact that our forces are critically over- deployed and being asked to do too much with too little. There is a Latin phrase which tells us, ``If you wish for peace, prepare for war.'' The United States is increasing its resources to prepare to fight this war. This Defense authorization bill represents the largest defense authorization bill in American history--$394 billion. Additionally, we are dramatically increasing our intelligence capabilities, especially human intelligence. We are boosting the CIA with more money and people, while the FBI is creating a super squad aimed at fighting terrorism around the globe. In the past 2 weeks, the President requested Congress create a Cabinet office of Homeland Security. We are very fortunate to have a superb military force that is highly- skilled, highly-trained and highly-motivated. The problem is that they are also over-committed. Our forces are over-deployed and they won't be able to do it much longer. We are out of balance, with our commitments far outpacing our troop levels, and the situation is only getting worse. As can be seen on this chart, as the size of our force structure has continually declined since Vietnam, the number of contingency deployments has continued to grow with no end in sight. As a matter of fact, we all read in the papers almost daily where our military forces have been expanded in terms of commitments-- to Yemen, Pakistan, the Philippines, the Republic of Georgia, and so on. Since the end of Operation Desert Storm in 1991, the armed forces have downsized by more than half a million personnel. I do not think the American people really understand we won Desert Storm in 1991 with half a million more people on active duty, trained and ready to fight, than we have now. We do not have those half a million people, and our commitments have continued to increase. Today, a Desert-Storm size deployment to Iraq would require 86 percent of the Army's deployable end strength around the world, including all stateside deployable personnel, all overseas-deployed personnel, and most forward-stationed personnel. Contrast that drop in personnel with the dramatic rise in the number of deployments for the same time frame. The Army alone is deployed in over 100 countries, with over 10,000 troops in Bosnia, Croatia and Hungary. Even more dramatic is the fact that deployments have increased 300 percent since 1989, and the fall of the Soviet Union. The tempo of those deployments has increased from one every four years to one every 14 weeks. That was prior to September 11. In the war on terrorism, we now face a far broader challenge and for a longer, unspecified duration. The Department of Defense has ordered new deployments in the last several months to Afghanistan, Yemen, the Philippines, Georgia, and Pakistan. To make this possible, we have activated more than 80,000 guard and reserve troops and instituted stop-loss for certain active and reserve component specialties. ``Stop-loss'' means you are not getting out of the military; we have a war on. That is what ``stop-loss'' means. This is not a way to fight a war when our strategic national interests are at stake. The President has rightly told the country to be prepared for a long war. That is highly appropriate. However, the Department of Defense requested only a modest increase, a little over 2,000 personnel, in Marine Corps personnel this year. In the face of mounting evidence that our people and their families are hurting from the strain of this new war, there are no current plans by Department of Defense to increase end-strength for American soldiers, sailors or airmen. The Department of Defense may not have plans to increase our end-strength authorization, but I do, along with Senator McCain and others. As the chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I propose to authorize an increase of 5,000 personnel for the Army, 3,500 for the Navy, 3,500 for the Air Force and 2,400 additional Marines as part of the fiscal year 2003 budget. This represents an increased authorization of 12,000 personnel beyond the administration's request. This initial increase begins to address the needs of the armed forces, the needs they themselves feel are crucial. During the past year, most of the senior uniformed leadership in Washington and around the globe have related manpower concerns and the strain it has created on their service either in testimony or in the media. It is time to respond to their concerns. Recently, two-regional combatant commanders testified that their forces were stretched thin and inadequate to carry out their assigned missions if operations in the war on catastrophic terror continued at their current pace. I see no sign the war is abating. I see every sign it is escalating. In addition, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have apparently cited manpower needs as one criteria leading to a recommended delay in any possible military action against Iraq; a conclusion also reached during a Pentagon computer-simulated exercise this past Spring. This authorization process is inevitably about setting priorities, and this amendment addresses the crucial need of our most important resource and highest priority, the men and women who serve in our armed forces. In addition to this needed increase in authorized end-strength for the next fiscal year, I had hoped to offer a sense of the Senate resolution that would demonstrate the commitment of this body to the continuing need to address authorized end-strength levels as we fight this war on terror and simultaneously meet this Nation's military commitments around the globe. However, this resolution was ruled non- germaine and cloture prevents its offering. This does not negate the fact that there is a need for almost 26,000 additional personnel over a 5-year period to meet the shortages expressed by our senior uniformed leadership, soldiers, and families. My plan would bring our current commitments and authorized troop levels into greater balance. If fully implemented, over the course of a 5-year period, the Army would grow by over 1 percent annually resulting in an army end-strength of an additional 25,000 extra soldiers. The Air Force would require an increase of 2,500 airmen in fiscal year 2004 and 2,000 in fiscal year 2005. The Navy would have a requirement for 1,000 additional sailors in fiscal year 2004. This responsible and incremental increase in authorization acknowledges that the activation of the reserve components and stop- loss are only temporary fixes to a larger problem. In addition, this plan begins the dialogue on the long term personnel needs that this new war on terror requires. Though this multi-year plan will not be included in this bill, I will continue to pursue this issue within this body. It is imperative that we continue to recognize that this is a long term problem that must be addressed with long term plans in order to meet the commitment our young service men and women deserve. Just a personal note: I have been on the short end of a no-cost, guns and butter policy before. It was called Vietnam. I don't want to hide the costs of the war on catastrophic terrorism. I don't want to see this happen again. In Vietnam, we had the men but not the mission. The draft easily provided us with the personnel we needed but never answered the question of how to properly use the troops we were putting in harm's way. American soldiers paid the price. In the war on terrorism, we have the mission, but we do not have the people. American servicemen and women will pay the price again if we do not act. Right now, our military is on a collision course with the reality of families they do not see, training they are not receiving and divisions borrowing from each other to meet requirements and survive. We can prevent tomorrow's losses, but we have to act today. We must be on the strategic offensive against catastrophic terrorism with enough people and resources to make the terrorist lose. I support the Defense Department's internal look at reallocating spaces to the warfighting units. This however, should be complimentary to a plan to provide the most critical weapon in our arsenal--American service men and women. I respectfully request that my distinguished colleagues join me in supporting our men and women in uniform by providing them what they need to fight and win this war on terrorism and meet our commitments abroad at the same time. I yield the floor.

Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Senator from Virginia for his support. This amendment is discretionary. There is no money to pay for it, so it is therefore discretionary on the services. If they meet this increased end strength, they have to take it out of their own hides. So it is discretionary upon the services.

Mr. CLELAND. The distinguished Senator is correct. This does not revise title X.

Mr. CLELAND. That is correct.

Mr. CLELAND. I say to my distinguished colleague from Virginia, my understanding from staff is that the House has raised the floor--the floor, not the ceiling. It has raised the floor. And we do not. We just establish a new ceiling that is discretionary.

Mr. CLELAND. The Senator is correct.

Mr. CLELAND. That is correct.

Mr. CLELAND. No, that is not my understanding. I say to my distinguished colleague from Virginia, my understanding is that this addresses the floor, not the ceiling. It has not been the intent and is not the intent of this amendment to take away from any other part of the Defense authorization bill. It is the intent of this amendment to authorize the services, if they so desire, to go to a new level of troop authorization if they can find the money. It is discretionary upon them and discretionary to the conference committee.

Mr. CLELAND. As the Senator pointed out, it was in the President's budget request--that the only increase in personnel asked for was about 2,300 personnel in the Marine Corps. That is in the President's budget. That is a request of us which we accede to in this Defense authorization bill. My amendment says, in effect, that basically this is inadequate. Other services need additional strength, and this authorizes the services to go to a higher end strength if they can find the money.

Mr. CLELAND. It seems to me the President of the United States, in his budget, authorized 2,300 additional personnel and gave the money for that, and we have included that in the Defense authorization bill. What this amendment says is that in the collective judgment of those of us who are involved in this personnel debate, that is not adequate enough to meet the needs of our commitments, especially in this new war we are fighting. You can see here the tremendous imbalance we have presently. These lines shown on the chart have to begin coming together. We have to begin matching our personnel with our commitments or else we will continue to strain our personnel to the limit. That is why we have the authorization for the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, as well as the Marine Corps, to go to a higher level.

Mr. CLELAND. The Senator is correct.