Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. In which event we ask 10 minutes be added to our side.

Mr. DOMENICI. Sixty minutes divided equally. That is what it says. We will work on rotation.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand this consent agreement has been cleared on both sides. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Collins now be recognized to offer her amendment and, following the reporting by the clerk, the amendment be laid aside and Senator Conrad or his designee be recognized to offer an amendment relative to home health care. I further ask consent that the debate run concurrently on both first- degree amendments and be limited to 60 minutes equally divided, and following that time the amendments be laid aside. I further ask consent that no amendments be in order prior to the votes just described, and the votes occur in a stacked sequence, first in relation to the Conrad amendment, and then in relation to the Collins amendment, beginning at 9:30, with 10 minutes for closing remarks equally divided prior to the 9:30 stacked votes. I also ask consent that following those votes, Senator Conrad be recognized to offer an amendment relative to deficit reduction, as under the previous order.

Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending amendment.

Mr. DOMENICI. Are you asking the question?

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes. I think to allocate it would be splendid. I may not use it all. I may give some of it back.

Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, thank you. Mr. President, how much time do we have now from the amendment and the 10 minutes added?

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair. Now, Mr. President, I am sure the distinguished Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, would desire to speak with some additional time, and I am sure I will not use all of it.

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back any time I have.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOMENICI. Having said that, I want to tell everybody there is a big difference between these two amendments, beyond the fact that this distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee is saying fund at 2002 and let's wait for the President's request. The opposition amendment of the junior Senator from Louisiana is an interesting amendment as it deals with defense because it actually cuts the taxes--the taxes the people thought they were going to get back. It reduces that by $100 billion. At first, it was $200 billion. So it reduces that by $100 billion out of the tax cut in order to pay for this amendment. It seems to me the distinguished Senator who chairs Armed Services has a good point, and I hope everybody who wants to follow his lead will, indeed, understand that the second vote tonight will be on his amendment. He very much desires that this position be made. As chairman, he wants it to be taken by the Senate. We will be here for the next 15, 20 minutes if anybody has any questions. But I send out a little signal that we have a unanimous consent, which means we are going to vote pretty soon. I might speculate with Senator Reid that we are going to vote within 30 or 40 minutes. So everybody should know that. All time will be used up. Senator Conrad has indicated he may give me an additional 10 minutes if I need it because there was an additional 10 minutes used on that side. You can add that to the mix and figure out the time.

Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOMENICI. This is coming out of the 60 minutes, and then I will, obviously, yield to the other side. What Senator Warner is saying to the Senate is, under our unanimous consent request, the Senate will get to vote on the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana, to be followed by a vote on the Senator's amendment, which he has described, an $8.5 billion increase for 2002.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. How much time did Senator Warner use?

Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, I thought you just prevailed. She will get the 10 minutes she had. And then the 1 hour will become operative, at which time we agree we each get half of that; but we will accommodate back and forth so no side gets unfair treatment.

Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was rejected.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I apologize for the time that we didn't get into a quorum and were not doing any business. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator is going to use up some of his time. I would like to make a few remarks at the end.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg) The Senator from Arkansas is recognized for 3 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 4, 2001 at 9:30 a.m. in open session to receive testimony regarding shipbuilding industrial base issues and initiatives. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.