Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the two Senators for their assistance in this matter and for their work on housing issues.

Mr. HARKIN. The microgravity kind of research that has been talked about can be done on the shuttle. We don't need a space station to do that. Or it can be done other ways. In 1994, Mr. President, I read an article that was in Discover magazine and became entranced with it. Just today, I had a long talk on the phone with Ed Belbruno, a former NASA mathematician. He has devised a new way of space exploration. I won't go into it. I don't have the time. I think it is fascinating, however. Because of his theories, we could use 40 percent less energy to go to the Moon and beyond--40 percent less--and it has already been proven. He did it once already in the early nineties. The Japanese space agency is looking at it more, and so are the Europeans. I am sure my friend from Ohio will recognize it by using what we call the ``weak stability boundary theory.'' I won't go into all the theories of it, but physically it is fascinating about how we can use the gravity of the Sun, the Moon, and the Earth to launch vehicles from here to the Moon or to Mars or beyond and use 40 percent less energy. What that means is today we have the ability to return to the Moon and beyond using a lot less than we did before. Think of the excitement in that. Think of what we can do with exploration if we actually build a Moon base. Think of what that will mean in terms of scientific research and technological advancements. Think of what that will mean to us if we want to explore the universe, not from the space station, that is not going to help it one single bit, but now we have the theory and it has been proven; it has already been done once. Mr. President, this weekend I was in Iceland. It occurred to me that in about the year 900, around the year 1000, Leif Ericson sailed to the New World, from Norway to Iceland to Greenland to Newfoundland, almost all the way down to what we now consider to be New York City. And they did it for years. Almost 500 years later, Christopher Columbus decided to go a different route, and it took him forever. But you see, the Vikings had it right. They could sail the North Sea on the new great circle route, come to the New World, turn around, and catch the Gulf Stream and zip back. They had it figured out. You can't hardly blame Columbus. They didn't have it figured out. They didn't know. They sailed the southern ocean, down through the doldrums, and it took them a long time. They never quite figured it out. The Vikings did. You can't really blame Christopher Columbus. They didn't have that knowledge. You can't blame us. We now know that there are cheaper and better routes for space exploration than building a space station. We know that there are better and cheaper ways of doing microgravity research than on a space station. We know there are better and cheaper ways of doing medical research than spending $155,000 per man-hour on the space station. If we rush ahead with this space station, we have no one to blame but ourselves. I ask my colleagues to think back to the promises of the fifties when we were going to meet our energy needs so cheaply with nuclear power. Think about the Clinch River breeder reactor and how many votes were cast for that and all the promises it was going to give us. Think about the Superconducting Super Collider and what that was going to do for us. And then think about the scientists who opposed the Clinch River breeder reactor. Think about the scientists who opposed the Superconducting Super Collider. And now think about the scientists who oppose this space station. Senator Bumpers had it right. I saw a quote that he sent around in a ``Dear Colleague'' letter where the scientists were saying, basically, why would you want to spend so much money on something--here it is, Discover magazine. Here we are back to my favorite magazine: Is it possible to imagine a technological undertaking so enormous that could garner less respect from the scientific community? Discover magazine, May 1997. They know why. If we build this space station, it is going to suck so much money out of here, there won't be anything left. Oh, I suppose, as Senator Bumpers said, it will lose. I hope not. I hope it wins. I hope we come to our senses. I do believe this: The space station is not going to be built. It will never be completed. We may put up a module. We will do some shuttle flights. The Russians will never come through with their, what, 50 flights or 60 flights? Forget about it, the Russians are not going to do it. They don't have the money. So who is going to pick up that slack? Our taxpayers? We can take that $98 billion and start multiplying it out. That is why I say today, this will be like Clinch River; it will be like the Superconducting Super Collider. We built some trenches down there. We spent a couple billion dollars on it. We spent a couple billion on the Clinch River breeder reactor also, and we finally came to our senses and said it was a boondoggle. That is what will happen with the space station. It is not going to be built, but what we can do is take this money and do something a lot cheaper and a lot better than building the space station.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding me this time. More than that, I thank Senator Bumpers for his relentless pursuit, over the years, of shedding more and more light on this issue of the space station. I say at the outset that a vote for the Bumpers amendment is a vote for space exploration. A vote against Bumpers is a vote for the status quo. It is a vote for the myopic approach to space exploration and it is a vote for wasteful spending for science that can be done better and cheaper. I am foursquare with Senator Bumpers on his approach on the space station. It is a boondoggle and a waste of money. Maybe Senator Bumpers and I are not foursquare on the issue of space exploration itself. That may be for another time and another debate. But on this issue, Senator Bumpers is absolutely right. I have been a longtime supporter of aviation, aviation research, aviation technology, pushing the boundaries of aviation technology through science and technology and also for space. For 10 years, I served in the House on the House Science and Technology Committee. I was proud to chair the Aviation and Materials Subcommittee of that committee. I was proud to work to try to get more and more funds for space exploration. But I watched, during those 10 years in the House on the Science and Technology Committee, I watched in dismay as NASA shifted, gradually but determinatively, shifted from a civilian space agency to an arm of the military. That can be seen through the way that the space agency shifted in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It became more and more an arm of the Air Force. It became more and more an arm of our military establishment. I can remember the debates we had on that in the Science and Technology Committee back in the mid-1970s. I kind of understood that. We were in a cold war with the Soviet Union. Space was being used more and more for military purposes--spy satellites, that kind of thing. But another interesting thing happened. We began to develop a thing called the space shuttle, which I believe was driven more by the desire of Air Force pilots to fly than anything else. I think it was driven more by the desire to be more than just a monkey sitting on a seat. I remember when the first shuttle took off. I was there for the launch, and I remember we had the first shuttle astronauts back in the committee room for a hearing. I remember Neil Armstrong was there. One Congressmen stated how proud he was to see them land with dignity as they came back, rather than plopping in the ocean as they used to in the space capsules. I thought at the time, what a tremendous expenditure of money just so that we could land that thing on a runway rather than plopping it in the ocean. Let's remember, the first man to set foot on the Moon was not a military person, it was a civilian, a civilian test pilot by the name of Neil Armstrong, and that was not happenstance. It was not an accident that happened that way, because we believed and our Government believed at that time that space should be a civilian exploration enterprise. Then we watched as two things happened; as NASA became more and more militarized and as we retreated from Moon exploration to near- Earth orbits. Then we were sold the space shuttle. Oh, it was going to be a great flying machine. It was going to reduce the cost of launching material into near-Earth orbit by a factor of 10. I remember being told that. I was on the Science and Technology Committee. It was going to reduce launch cost by a factor of 10. We were going to have these reusable rockets and all that kind of stuff. We are still waiting. We are still waiting for that factor of 10 reduction. It has never happened. I am convinced today, perhaps more than I was at that time, that the shuttle should never have been built. I am convinced that, had we not gone ahead with the space shuttle but had commenced and continued our space exploration with the Saturn, that we could have had a fully operational Moon base at this time with all that would mean for the world and for our country and, yes, for science and technology. Now, that brings me to the present time. If we build this space station for $98 billion and counting, it will effectively suck all of the dollars out of space exploration. That is why I said, in an oddly curious way, a vote for the Bumpers amendment is a vote for space exploration. A vote against him--forget about it. You are not going to do anything in space, because this is going to suck all the money out of it. Suck money out for what, scientific experiments? I listened to the speech given on the floor by my good friend, Senator Glenn from Ohio, on all of the wonderful science that is going to be done and the experimentation. We estimate the cost per man-hour for those scientific experiments to be about $155,000 per man-hour. NIH can do it for less than $300 an hour. The Senator from Ohio says, ``Just think how much this is going to energize young people to go into science and into medical research.'' If you want to encourage young people to go into medical research in this country, take that kind of money and put it into NIH. You will hire thousands of times more researchers doing that than you will spending $155,000 per man-hour for scientific research on this space station. Put the money into NIH. I think it is time to cut our losses. Do you know what this reminds me of, I say to Senator Bumpers, this debate we are having on the space station and listening to Senator Gramm from Texas? It reminds me of the debates we had on something called the Clinch River breeder reactor. How many years we debated that; how much good it was going to do for our country and the science and the research. Billions of dollars we poured down the rat hole on that one. We finally terminated it. We came to our senses and terminated it. How many billions of dollars, though, did we waste? And then, most recently, something called the Superconducting Super Collider that was going to be built in Texas. Oh, my gosh, to listen to the debates that went on around this floor about that--why, if we ended that one, all science was going to come to a halt. Why, building the Superconducting Super Collider was going to unlock and unravel the mysteries of the universe for us. Nonsense. Stuff and nonsense, that is what it was. We came to our senses and we killed it--rightfully so, because the Superconducting Super Collider would have had the same effect on physical sciences as the space station is going to have on medical science. It is going to suck all the money right out of it, because once you build the space station, then you have to justify it. How do you justify it? Through medical research at $155,000 per man-hour. Where is the money going to come from for NIH? Where is the money going to come from for the research that has to be done here? It will not be left around. This will do to medical research just what the Superconducting Super Collider would have done to physical science research. And that is why so many physicists and scientists were opposed to the Superconducting Super Collider. They were right. That is why so many scientists are opposed to the space station. They are right. It is time to cut our losses. I remember--I was not here then, but I know my history--back in the 1950s, the Atomic Energy Commission, the head of it, Lewis Strauss, testified before a Senate committee and said that atomic energy would be so cheap in making electricity we wouldn't even have to meter it. We are still waiting. But look at the billions of dollars that we have spent on nuclear power. I am not saying it hasn't done some good, that we don't get power from it. My gosh, we are still fighting the battles of what we are going to do with the waste. Of course, we know now it is more expensive than anything else. If we build this space station, forget about it, there will be no money left.

Mr. HARKIN. If I can have an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, under last year's VA/HUD appropriations act, the Congress created a program called ``mark-to-market'' to reduce overmarket section 8 contract rents on FHA-insured multifamily properties. Section 514(g)(2)(A) of the mark-to-market program would authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to allow for exception rents over the 120 percent of fair market rent (FMR) limit for up to five percent of the restructured units in a year. There is some confusion, however, if this five percent waiver is a national limit or a geographical limit. I am concerned that certain areas, such as the upper Midwest, the need for waivers may exceed five percent because of the proportion of elderly facilities and the way FMRs compare to the relative costs of operating those facilities in certain areas as well as the random circumstances that may occur in certain geographical areas in a given year. I would like to ask the Chairmen of the HUD authorizing and appropriations subcommittees for their clarification on the congressional intent of this issue.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. How much time do I have left?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary procedure?

Mr. HARKIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this amendment is supported by veterans' groups, including the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Blind Veterans Association, and the Vietnam Veterans of America. The veterans have fulfilled the duty they had to serve our country. Now it is up to us to fulfill our duties, our obligation, and our solemn promise: Provide for our veterans. Regardless of how you cut this issue, the health care of our veterans is a matter of our national security. What does it say to young people today entering the service who may serve in the Persian Gulf, or who knows where, to defend our national interest if they see how we treat the veterans of our past wars? This amendment will simply keep the current level of services in the medical account section of our veterans budget. We should do no less than that.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the President for getting order in the Chamber. This amendment I offered basically transfers $329 million from the Department of Defense to the Veterans Affairs' medical account. The veterans' needs are very clear. We have a declining population, they say, of veterans, so why do they need that much money? That may be true for World War II vets. But now we have the Vietnam vets coming on board. Plus, our vets are living longer and are sicker than the general population. Plus, we have the problems with medical inflation. Yesterday, during the debate, mention was made that the veterans account got more than a 12-percent increase from last year. I checked that out. That was based on a Washington Post article regarding the VA- HUD appropriations. But when I looked at the total budget account for Veterans Affairs, from 1997 to 1998, there was less than a 1-percent increase in Veterans Affairs. That is for the total veterans budget. There was even less than that in the medical account budget for our veterans. What my amendment seeks to do is to put some money into the veterans' benefits in the medical account. This chart shows that out of our discretionary dollar, we spend about 50\1/2\ cents of each dollar for military, but for veterans' benefits, about 3\1/2\ cents. My amendment will take the alarmingly large amount of one-eighth of 1 penny--one-eighth of 1 penny--of the entire Defense Department budget to put where it is needed to help care for our sick and elderly veterans. That $329 million will simply keep the current level of services. It will not expand it. Lastly, this amendment will authorize the Secretary to transfer the money. It doesn't mandate. Two years ago, the comptroller general of the Department of Defense said they could not account for over $13 billion in DOD spending. They couldn't even find it. Then we had recent testimony this year from the IG's office regarding accounting principles. This will authorize the Secretary to transfer the money. Where will the Secretary get the money? You never know. Maybe they will get better accounting principles, maybe they will find some of these billions of dollars for which they haven't been able to account. Right now the Secretary cannot take that money and put it into veterans. This amendment will allow him to do so. It doesn't mandate it, but it allows it. Lastly, I note with some interest an article that appeared in this morning's Washington Post. It points out that the House yesterday voted to buy $431 million worth of airplanes that the Pentagon didn't even request. They didn't even request the C-130s. What the Pentagon did want is a squadron of F-18s, our carrier-based aircraft, because the F- 14s are getting old. Over 32 have crashed since 1991. Yet, we are going to buy $431 million worth of C-130s. If anyone is saying that DOD doesn't have the $329 million to take care of our veterans, I say nonsense. Of course, we do. I will make the point once again that taking care of veterans' medical needs is part and parcel of our ongoing military budget, and it ought to be viewed in that manner. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the amendment I offered last night--Mr. President, there still is not order in the Senate.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I rise to offer an amendment important to Persian Gulf War veterans. My amendment increases Department of Defense spending on research to determine the causes and possible treatments of those suffering from Gulf War illnesses by $10 million. It is my understanding that the amendment has been accepted by the bill managers on both sides. While the Persian Gulf War ended in 1991, the physical and psychological ordeal for many of the nearly 700,000 troops who served our country in Operation Desert Storm and Desert Shield has not ended. It's been seven years since our troops were winning the war in the Gulf. Unfortunately, they continue to suffer due to their deployment. Many of our troops returned from the Persian Gulf suffering from a variety of symptoms that have been difficult to trace to a single source or substance. Our veterans have experienced a combination of symptoms in varying degrees of seriousness, including: fatigue, skin rash, muscle and joint pain, headache, loss of memory, shortness of breath, and gastrointestinal and respiratory problems. Unfortunately, the initial response from the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs was to express skepticism about veterans' and their loved ones who dealt with the very real affects of their service in the Gulf. I vividly remember a series of roundtable discussions I held with veterans across Iowa after being contacted by several families of Gulf War veterans stricken with undiagnosed illnesses. And these folks weren't just sick. They were tired. They were tired of getting the runaround from the government they defended. There were tired of people who refused to listen. . . or told them it was in their head . . . or that it had nothing to do with their service in the Gulf. Their stories put a human face on the results of a study I requested through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The results add to the increasing volume of evidence that what these veterans were experiencing was indeed very real. More than one in three Gulf War veterans reported one or more significant medical problems. Fifteen percent reported two or more significant medical conditions. These Iowa veterans also reported significantly greater problems with quality of life issues than others on active duty at the time but not deployed in the Gulf. For example, Persian Gulf veterans had lower scores on measures of vitality, physical and mental health, ability to work, and increased levels of emotional problems and bodily pain. In addition, over 80 percent of the Gulf War veterans in the CDC study reported having been exposed to at least one potentially hazardous material during their Persian Gulf Deployment. A recent General Accounting Office report provided an alarming laundry list of such hazards including: ``compounds used to decontaminate equipment and protect it against chemical agents, fuel used as a sand suppressant in and around encampments, fuel used to burn human waste, fuel in shower water, leaded vehicle exhaust used to dry sleeping bags, depleted uranium, parasites, pesticides, multiple vaccines used to protect against chemical warfare agents, and smoke from oil-well fires.'' To this rather exhaustive list, we can also add exposure to nerve gas. The DOD and CIA have admitted that as many as 100,000 or more . . . that's 1 in 7 troops deployed in the Gulf . . . may have been exposed to chemical agents released into the atmosphere when U.S. troops destroyed an Iraqi weapons bunker. A Presidential Advisory Committee also found credible evidence of exposure to chemical agents in a second incident when troops crossed Iraqi front lines on the first day of the ground war. Chemical weapons specialists in these units said they detected poison gas. Unfortunately, these detections were initially neither acknowledged nor pursued by the Pentagon. That being said, the Pentagon and others have been more forthcoming recently with relevant information, documents, and research. But more needs to be done. I am pleased that the President, acting based on legislation, I cosponsored, extended the time veterans will have to file claims with the government for illnesses related to their service in the Gulf. Previously, they had to show their illness surfaced within two years of their service. Now, they have until the end of 2001. This is a great victory for our veterans. Gulf War illnesses do not surface on a time line convenient to the rules of bureaucrats. This extension will help us meet our responsibility to take care of these soldiers. But, more still needs to be done. There is still substantial mystery and confusion surrounding the symptoms and health problems experienced by Gulf War veterans. While many veterans have been diagnosed with a recognizable disease, I am concerned about those who have no explanation, no label, no treatment for their suffering. More needs to be done to help these Americans. For example, the Presidential Advisory Committee has suggested research in three new areas to help close the gaps in what we know about Gulf War illnesses. They suggest research on the long-term health effects of low-level exposures to chemical warfare agents, the combined effects of medical injections meant to combat chemical warfare with other Gulf War risk factors, and on the body's physical response to stress. It is also imperative to ensure that longitudinal studies and mortality studies are funded since some health effects, such as cancer, may not appear for several years after the end of the Gulf War. Although there may be no single Gulf-War related disease so to speak, it is widely acknowledged that the multiple illnesses and symptoms experienced by Gulf War veterans are connected to their service during the war. Therefore, we must not forget on our solemn obligation to those who willingly served their country and put their lives in harm's away. To that end, I offer this amendment to increase research into the illnesses experienced by Persian Gulf veterans by $10 million. In the committee version of the bill, $19 million is included. Therefore, my amendment would increase that amount to $29 million, providing many more opportunities for the Pentagon to study that many more possible causes and cures. The funds would support much more research, including the evaluation and treatment of a host of nuero-immunological disorders, as well as possible connections to Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyaglia. Our veterans are not asking for much. They want answers. They wan the truth. Our veterans answered our nations's call in war, and now we must answer theirs. My amendment to increase funding for research into Gulf War illnesses is one step in helping find these answers. Should our priorities include our Gulf War veterans? I believe the choice is self evident and absolutely clear. amendment no. 3019 (Purpose: To reauthorize a land conveyance of the Army Reserve Center, Youngstown, Ohio) On page 342, below line 22, add the following:

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. There are priorities to be met and, quite frankly, in this $271 billion defense budget, it is my feeling--and I looked at it, I am on Defense Appropriations, I have looked at it and I, quite frankly, believe that the Secretary could find $329 million out of that. I don't think it would do any damage to our readiness, our capabilities overseas or anything else. Quite frankly, I have some comments I was going to talk about--but I decided not to because the hour is late--in terms of what some of the IG offices found in terms of waste and inefficiencies in procurement, in warehousing and things within the Department of Defense. With a little bit more oversight and control on those, I think they can yield great dividends and can be used on this.

Mr. HARKIN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, I didn't quite hear all that, but there has always been sort of a comity in the Senate where we alternate from side to side on amendments. It seems to me the last couple of amendments have been on the other side. It would seem to be only logical that the next amendment be on this side. I ask the Senator if we couldn't do that. I only need about 15 minutes.

Mr. HARKIN. We usually go back and forth on these things.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment I send to the desk. I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, for the benefit of colleagues, I do not intend to take anywhere near a half hour on this on my side, and hopefully will yield back a lot of time so we can get out of here at an early hour. This amendment, pure and simple, is to take some money from the Department of Defense and put it into the medical account of the Department of Veterans Affairs. This amendment would transfer $329 million specifically from the Department of Defense budget to the medical accounts of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Let me be clear that what this amendment will do will not increase the amount of money, really, going to veterans' medical accounts. It will just keep it level in accordance with medical inflation. Budgets are about priorities. Tight restrictions on discretionary spending over the past several years, and spending caps created last year to balance the budget, have forced some tough choices to be made. But I ask my colleagues, what greater priority can there be than to take care of those who have defended the very right of our country to exist? Our veterans have fulfilled the duty they had to serve their country. Now it is up to this Congress to fulfill our duty, our obligation, our solemn promise to provide for our veterans. The needs of our veterans are clear. The aging veteran population, rising personnel costs and medical inflation, means that each dollar provided for veterans' health care benefits cannot be stretched as far as it used to be. The 5-year budget plan assumed no increases for the discretionary spending of Veterans Affairs. Let me say that again. The 5-year budget plan assumed no increases for VA discretionary spending; in other words, no taking into account the cost of inflation, and especially medical inflation. The well-being of our veterans must not be subject to second-class status. Veterans' funding deserves to be considered as more than just an afterthought. My amendment is supported by many veterans and veterans groups. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters of support for my amendment from the Vietnam Veterans of America, Incorporated; the Blinded Veterans Association and the Paralyzed Veterans of America. Vietnam Veterans of America, Inc., Washington, DC, May 15, 1998. Hon. Tom Harkin, U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Harkin: On behalf of Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) I want to convey our appreciation and support for your proposed amendment to S. 1812, the FY 1999 National Defense Authorization Act, aiming to transfer resources from the Department of Defense (DOD) to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to supplement the medical care budget. VVA has long held the principle belief that the health care and benefits needs of veterans are an ongoing cost of our nation's defense. Your amendment will carry forward with assurance of the Nation's commitment to veterans military service related health care needs. VA medical care, as you know, has been plagued by resource limitations for many years and is currently facing flatline budgets for the next several years. The financial wringer has already squeezed out any opportunities to achieve greater efficiencies. Despite promises from Congress and the Administration to the contrary, the ultimate effect is more restrictive access to medical care because of fewer appropriated dollars. Fewer dollars means fewer veterans will be served, pure and simple. The amendment you are offering would help to counter the effects of increasing medical inflation and personnel costs. Without these additional funds, the only possible effect is denial of services to veterans, many of whom are disabled due to their military service. Some of your colleagues have argued that attrition of the veterans population through deaths of World War II veterans is an indication that VA needs less money to operate. However, this narrow perspective fails to take into account the rising costs of medical care and more importantly the current demographics of the veteran populations; VA health care users are older and sicker than the overall American public. Vietnam veterans now represent the largest group within the veterans population. Many of the Vietnam veterans and a growing population of Persian Gulf War veterans have complex problems relating to herbicide, chemical and other environmental exposures. VVA strongly believes that Congress must commit an adequate annual appropriations to VA medical care programs. Your amendment is a very positive recognition of the current circumstances and needs of America's veterans. Thank you for your initiative to attempt redistributing some DOD funds toward VA medical care. Sincerely, Kelli Willard West, Director of Government Relations.

Mr. HARKIN. I understand the responsibility that the Senator has. I understand that responsibility. And I appreciate that. But, again, as the Senator knows, others of us feel that we also have other obligations to try to change some things here and to change some of these budget priorities. In my opening comments, I said that our budget priorities are not allowing for this. I am trying to correct it. So I agree with the Senator. I do not like the way the budget priorities shortchange our veterans' medical benefits. But, again, I also say to my friend, I really believe in what the Vietnam Veterans of America said in their letter, that veterans' medical benefits ought to be considered an ongoing cost of military spending. They are not today. I have always thought that was odd. I have always thought that was an odd approach we had on that. And they ought to be considered as part and parcel of our military budget. That is why I have offered this amendment, to transfer a small amount of money out of the total--small compared to the total--at least to keep up with medical inflation.

Mr. HARKIN. Well, I feel for the position of my friend. And, you know, a lot of us, when we establish friendships, we do not like to put people in difficult positions. I do not like to do that.

Mr. HARKIN. It is my understanding, I say to my very good friend--I want to make this clear at the outset that I have the highest regard and respect for the Senator from Virginia and his devotion to this country and his devotion to the readiness of our military and also his devotion to our veterans. I would not want anyone to misconstrue that I am saying the Senator from Michigan or the Senator from Virginia have shortchanged it. I understand the obligations that you are under in terms of meeting our military commitments. I understand that. This amendment is meant only in good faith to try to meet, I think, another commitment that we have. And in some ways I hope to shed some light, hopefully, on one aspect of military spending that could be used for our veterans' affairs. I say to the Senator that 2 years ago the comptroller general of the Pentagon concluded that the DOD could not account for over $13 billion in spending--just disappeared--$13 billion. Nobody knows where it went. Well, I have more examples of that. But if it is just $1 billion, only one-thirteenth of that, then $329 million is not that much, when you take into account that kind of waste. Quite frankly, I must tell you that I think Secretary Cohen is doing a great job over there. And they are getting a better handle on this all the time. But there is still a long way to go. I think within the next year they could find some of that money and put that in veterans' benefits. Now, lastly, I say to the Senator, I would say that the question had to do with, are we not meeting the obligations? And I am saying, when you take into account medical inflation, which is higher than CPI, no, we are not meeting them.

Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield, you were my boss at one time.

Mr. HARKIN. By using that former language, a point of order would have laid against the amendment. To avoid the point of order and, quite frankly, in all legitimacy, since this is an authorizing bill, it really ought to be authorizing language, too.

Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield.