Tim Hutchinson

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I will respond to a number of things my colleague from Washington said. While I do not know the specifics or the circumstances of the situation to which she made reference, I know it is a bad practice when we try to legislate by anecdote. I do know this as well, that much of the debate is centered around whether or not a woman's rights can be protected under current DOD policy. The insinuation has been that servicewomen experience a lack of support from their chain of command when requesting leave in order to obtain an abortion. That was the circumstance in the situation to which Senator Murray just made reference. Such an argument impugns the professionalism of the officer corps. There are procedures in place and there are rights by which men and women in uniform can be protected. If, in fact, their rights are being disregarded by a commanding officer, there are means under current law by which those rights can be vindicated and the wrong righted. I have great confidence in the professionalism of our officer corps. I fully expect any commanding officer to approve a service member's leave when properly requested, whatever the motivation for that request. If that is not done, then there should be a grievance filed, and I would stand in support of such an individual's right to make that request on a space-available basis. I believe the professional officer corps that we have is going to respond and treat that servicewoman properly and give her the rights she has under the law. The other point I would make to those who would impugn the professionalism of our officer corps is that the commanding officer today may just likely be a woman. That woman seeking permission to receive approved leave for an abortion under current policy may just as well find they are dealing with a commanding officer who is in fact female. At this time, I would like to yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague from the State of Kansas, Senator Brownback.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, may I inquire as to how much remains on each side?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield any remaining time on our side. Amendment No. 3474

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I take it that the answer is, yes, that the Senator envisions contracting doctors to perform.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, the statement was made that the military supports the Murray amendment. Thus far during our debate, twice, a Dr. Sue Bailey, who is a former Under Secretary of Defense for Health, has been quoted. Notwithstanding whatever the Department of Defense might say today, I suspect were there to be a survey of U.S. men and women in uniform across the world, the vast majority would not favor turning U.S. military installations overseas into abortion providers. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Nickles, such time as he may consume.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, a constitutional right has not been abridged. They in fact can seek an abortion, but it simply cannot be on military grounds, in military hospitals, or subsidized by the American taxpayer. At this time, I yield such time as he might consume to my distinguished colleague on the Armed Services Committee, the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. After 1993, when the President, by Executive memorandum, ordered that military hospitals provide abortions overseas, there was, as the Senator from Washington knows, no physician who volunteered to do that. Where there would be no current doctors volunteering to perform abortions, does it envision the possibility of contracting civilian doctors to perform abortions in military facilities?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I yield myself all but the remaining 2 minutes of the time allotted to my side. Let me clarify a couple of things from my perspective. It has been alleged that if you have a servicewoman who is seeking an abortion under current policy, you put her on an aircraft, fly her back to the U.S. at taxpayers' expense, and therefore what is the difference? And the only reason we want to maintain the current policy is we want to put an impediment up to a woman having an abortion. The current DOD policy for servicewomen seeking to obtain abortions is that they may fly on a space-available basis, if the aircraft are already making the trip for operational reasons--not for the purpose of facilitating abortions. Space-available transportation is available for any service member on leave regardless of what their motivation is. These aircraft have been referred to repeatedly during the debate as ``cargo aircraft.'' In fact, these aircraft have passenger seats just as on civilian airlines. I wish to propound a series of questions to the distinguished Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, on my time. I ask the Senator exactly how she would calculate the cost of reimbursing DOD for the expense of an abortion procedure. Does she count only things consumed such as blood, bandages, and surgical tools, or would she compute the cost of using the facility, the salaries of the support staff, and the other medical equipment used to perform such a procedure?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask Senator Murray, if her proposal allows, as she argues, for a true calculation of the expenses, how much does she calculate the Government would be reimbursed for performing an abortion?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I hope everybody will read the Murray amendment. In fact, there is nowhere in this amendment that it says a woman who is seeking an abortion overseas has to pay for it. There is nowhere that it says that. But the current policy in fact is that servicewomen serving overseas do not forfeit their right to obtain an abortion. They may request leave. They fly to the United States, or another country, on a military aircraft, on a space-available basis. The flights are for $10. This amendment should be tabled for a number of reasons. It violates the Hyde amendment. The Department of Defense has said you cannot calculate reimbursement on a case-by-case basis, even if it did say a woman was going to pay. As Senator Murray said, you would have to contract with physicians. That puts us in the position of violating the Hyde amendment by paying these physicians to come into military hospitals to perform abortions. It is going to create untold diplomatic dilemmas because, as Senator Murray said, her amendment will require abortions to be performed in countries that prohibit abortions, such as Saudi Arabia and South Korea. It is going to be a thumb in the eye of our allies. It is going to create untold diplomatic problems. Finally, it turns military hospitals into abortion providers. That is not what we want. That is not what the American people want. It is going to make millions and millions of Americans, pro-life Americans, who have deeply held beliefs about this issue, subsidizers of a practice they find offensive and morally wrong. I ask my colleagues to join me in tabling the Murray amendment. I move to table the amendment, Mr. President, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Senator. I appreciate very much her candor in answering the questions. I think it has been illuminating. I would like to go back on some of these questions. Frankly, it has been made very clear by the Department of Defense, as I stated earlier, that they do not currently have the ability to make these calculations on a case-by-case basis. I quote once again that ``procedures performed in military hospitals are assigned a diagnostic-related group code, but these are assigned or allocated costs that do not necessarily reflect resources devoted to a specific case.'' That is very plain. They further go on and say that military infrastructure and overhead costs cannot at the present time be allocated on a case-by-case basis. As much as we would like to say and as much as I believe the proponents of this amendment are sincere, it is not currently possible for the Department of Defense to calculate what portion of the infrastructure, the equipment and facilities, should be allocated to an individual servicewoman seeking an abortion. That simply means we will, in fact, be subsidizing abortion procedures, and in doing so violate existing law. I raise another issue as we think about Senator Murray's response to my questions. She said: Yes, in the case that you contract for a physician, it would be assumed that the proper defense would indemnify the contract physician. That means that the U.S. Department of Defense becomes the malpractice insurer for that abortion provider, that contract physician. It means that should there be a botched abortion, that doctor doesn't have to worry about malpractice because it is the U.S. Government that will, in fact, indemnify those costs. The Senator is correct; it is a terrible liability we would be assuming. Senator Murray, in her response to my questions, also said it was her understanding that her amendment would allow elective abortion procedures to be performed in countries where abortion is prohibited by law. That is a very candid confession because that would dramatically change current DOD policy. This amendment would, in fact, allow abortions to be performed in countries where it is against the law. That includes South Korea, where we have 5,958 women serving. It includes Germany, where there are 3,013 women serving. Over 9,000 women serve overseas. We are not just changing one Department of Defense policy. We are changing current policy that honors the laws of the countries in which these men and women are serving, a dramatic change from current policy and one of which my colleagues certainly need to be aware. Much of this debate has been about providing abortions to military personnel overseas. The amendment would remove the restrictions on performing abortions at all military hospitals, even in the United States. I urge my colleagues to look closely at the Murray amendment and exactly what it seeks to amend. I want my colleagues to be aware this amendment permits abortions at any military facility overseas or in the United States. This is not a simple refinement of current policy. This is not something dealing with the quality and fairness. It can be argued that if it does not overturn current DOD policy regarding countries where abortion is illegal, you are only going to exacerbate any disparity that exists by saying some women overseas would be able to go to an American military facility and receive an abortion and others in countries where it was illegal would not. This is a dramatic change that would not only permit abortions in military facilities overseas but would also make a dramatic change in military facilities in the United States. The arguments are clear and the arguments are persuasive. It is a mistake for this Congress to intervene and change current DOD policy, a policy that has worked well, a policy that accommodates women in uniform who desire to have an abortion, but without turning the American taxpayer into subsidizers of a practice that they find deeply, deeply offensive. In Senator Murray's response to my question regarding what this amendment would do to our current policy regarding abortions in countries where it is illegal, we could have a dramatic and detrimental effect on our diplomatic relationships with our allies. Would Saudi Arabia continue to permit U.S. forces to remain if we permitted abortions at our facilities? How would the South Korean Government react to having abortions, which are illegal in South Korea, performed at the U.S. military facilities? These are serious issues. This is not something to be trifled about in a 2-hour debate on the floor of the Senate, as if we are trying to provide equity and to be fair to our women and military overseas. The evidence is clear. The Murray amendment violates the Hyde provision in current law. The Hyde provision says we are not going to subsidize abortions; we are not going to spend public funds for abortions. It is a provision that has wide, broad, bipartisan support across this country. In fact, it is supported by both those who are pro-choice and those who are pro-life, who believe, even if a woman has this constitutional right, those who are offended by that, those who believe it is wrong, should not be required to subsidize it. The Murray amendment chips away at that basic provision supported by the American people. It says she may have to pay something, but we are going to use taxpayer-funded facilities, taxpayer supported and paid for salaries, support staff, and equipment. If that is not subsidizing it, I am not sure what is. The Department of Defense has made it clear that trying to calculate the infrastructure, support staff, salaries, and everything else that goes into a military health care facility simply cannot currently, understandably, be computed on a case-by-case basis. The issue about indemnification of contracted doctors is a serious issue that bears very serious consideration by this Senate. It is an issue that has not been previously raised. Senator Murray said, yes, if, as in 1993 when not one physician in the military volunteered to perform abortions when the President said we were going to offer these services in military facilities around the world, not one volunteered to do that, Senator Murray says in that circumstance, should that recur, under her amendment we will go out and contract. If we go out and contract physicians, it is a very clear and explicit violation of the Hyde amendment and, in addition, subjects the U.S. Government to untold liability. I believe men and women of good will differ and do sincerely differ on the abortion issue. I do believe that men and women of good will, respecting the sincere convictions of others, do not believe those who are offended by the practice of abortion should be required to subsidize it. That is what is at issue. There can be no serious question. There can be no real debate that, in fact, by taking the step the Murray amendment suggests, we are going to put the U.S. military in the business of performing abortions. I don't believe that is supported by the American people. I don't believe that is in the spirit of the Hyde law. I don't believe that meets the criteria of the letter of that law. It would be a terrible mistake down the slippery slope of providing abortion in this country to pass the Murray amendment and, in so doing, make millions and millions and millions of Americans who feel very deeply about this issue involuntary contributors to the practice of abortion by having this procedure done in military facilities not only overseas but here in the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when all debate time on the Murray amendment expires, there be an additional 20 minutes of debate relating to the hate crimes amendment, equally divided between Senators Hatch and Kennedy. I further ask unanimous consent that following that debate, there be 4 minutes equally divided for closing remarks relative to the Murray amendment prior to the scheduled series of rollcall votes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Is the Senator proposing that the Department of Defense perform elective abortion procedures in countries where abortions are prohibited by law?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. In such an instance, would DOD then identify the contract physician?

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes to my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Smith.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, as chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee on Armed Services, I rise in strong opposition to the Murray amendment which allows abortion on demand in military facilities overseas. I oppose the pending amendment because, No. 1, it is unnecessary. It is a solution in search of a problem. No. 2, it violates the letter and spirit of existing Federal law; that is, the Hyde amendment which prohibits Federal funding of abortion. In fact, that is the issue involved in this amendment. It is a subsidizing of the abortion procedure. Third, if it were adopted, it would likely accomplish very little while providing a Federal endorsement of the practice that is opposed by tens of millions of Americans. My colleagues contend that the Murray amendment is a banner of constitutional rights. I think that argument is disingenuous. The current statute does not preclude servicewomen, serving overseas, from obtaining abortions. Women serving overseas already have the opportunity to terminate their pregnancy because the Department of Defense will provide them transportation either to the United States or to another country where abortion is legal for only $10. That is the cost of the food on the flight. To say there is a constitutional right that is abrogated is incorrect. In 1979, the Congress adopted what has come to be known as the Hyde amendment. The Hyde amendment has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court as constitutional. It prohibits the use of Federal funds for performing abortions. The Hyde amendment has broad support in the Congress, and in fact it has broad support by Americans in general. I know my colleagues claim that Federal funds would not be used in these abortions, that women would pay for their own abortions, ostensibly by reimbursing the hospital, although that raises a host of questions that I hope we have time to pose for Senator Murray. But they can't possibly reimburse the hospital for the total cost of the abortion because the military hospital is 100-percent taxpayer funded. The building itself is built with taxpayer funds. Do we intend, under the Murray amendment, to allocate a portion of the cost of the building of that hospital's facilities to the servicewoman seeking an abortion? The beds, the utilities, the salaries of those performing the procedure, these costs come out of the pockets of taxpayers, millions of whom believe abortion is a reprehensible practice. Abortion should not be a fringe benefit to military service. We can't avoid the fact that adoption of the Murray amendment would be clearly inconsistent with the current U.S. statute prohibiting the current funding of abortion. It not only departs from the letter of the Hyde amendment; it departs from the spirit of the Hyde amendment intended to protect the American taxpayer who has a conviction against the practice of abortion from being forced to subsidize and pay for the abortion procedure. My colleagues contend that this is simply a matter of choice. Let's talk about choice for a moment. What about the choice of people who believe that abortion is inimical to their dearest values? What about the choice of taxpayers who don't want to subsidize the termination of life? I find it significant that during 1993, when President Clinton liberalized the practice of abortion in military hospitals, killing of the unborn in military hospitals, every single military physician and nearly every military nurse refused to volunteer to perform such procedures. The President issued his executive memorandum permitting abortion on demand at military hospitals on January 22, 1993-- ironically, the 20th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. The fact that no doctors and almost no nurses volunteered to perform this procedure I think indicates that such a scenario would likely repeat itself if the Murray amendment were adopted. Since military health care professionals cannot be forced to perform such a procedure against their conscience, as Senator Murray has said, the military will then be forced into a position of having to contract out the performance of such procedures to a civilian physician, which would in itself violate the Hyde amendment by requiring the expenditure of taxpayers' funds to pay for that contracted physician. Having to hire abortionists at U.S. military hospitals puts the U.S. military in the abortion business. I find that appalling, something that is not supported by the American people. It is not supported by people on either side of the choice issue, whether pro-choice or pro- life. They do not believe we ought to be expending American taxpayers' dollars in subsidizing abortion. This amendment, whether it is intended or not, would have that result--from the fact that we cannot totally allocate those costs, we are using a military hospital building built by taxpayers' dollars, using doctors whose salaries are paid by taxpayers, using equipment, using support staff--of all being paid for by the taxpayer. There is no conceivable way to calculate what that person should pay to reimburse the Government. The result is that the taxpayers are going to be subsidizing the practice. If in fact doctors in the military react the way they did in 1993, when the President, by executive memorandum, issued the order that we were going to provide abortion on demand in military hospitals, if they react the same way, we would then be in the position of having to go into the civilian sector, contract with doctors who are willing to perform abortions, and pay them with American taxpayers' dollars--clearly, and explicitly, in violation of the Hyde amendment. I find this whole debate to be an exercise in irony. The purpose of our Armed Forces is to defend and protect American lives. We should not then subvert this noble goal by using the military to terminate the lives of the innocent among us. What the Murray amendment would do, in the opinion of this Senator, is to create a kind of legal myth: We are not subsidizing abortions, but we really are. We are saying we are not but in fact we know we are. Let's pretend we are not subsidizing abortions. We know they are in military hospitals performed by military doctors paid by American taxpayers. We know it is supported by taxes paid by American taxpayers. We know the equipment used is bought and paid for by American taxpayers. But we are not really subsidizing it. That is a legal myth and it simply does not measure up. There is a concept called the slippery slope. I suggest allowing abortions to be performed in U.S. military hospitals overseas is just one little more slide down that slippery slope. I ask a letter from Edwin F. O'Brien, the Archbishop for the Military Services, dated June 19, 2000, in opposition to the Murray amendment, be printed in the Record, and I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am for campaign finance reform. I voted for cloture on the McCain-Feingold bill, and I would do it again. I think this has merit, but it is the wrong time, the wrong vehicle, the wrong scope. If this is the U.S.S. Warner, this is the torpedo that could sink it. That is wrong. There are too many important things in the bill to destroy it. There is health care for our military retirees forever. By a 96-1 vote yesterday, we put that in. There are retail and mail order pharmacy prescription benefits. I don't want to face those military retirees and say: We thought this was a good vehicle for campaign finance reform. There is the thrift savings plan, TRICARE remote, a 3.7-percent pay raise. It is wrong to kill this bill for a nongermane campaign finance provision. There will be an opportunity. We should do it, but we should not put a nongermane provision such as this on an important DOD bill.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I am deeply disappointed that this nongermane amendment is being offered on this very important bill. As a member of the conference committee, I am very disappointed it has been described and depicted in the way it has by the Democrats today. I have never seen a group of my colleagues work as hard as the members of this conference committee have for the last few months. Over 400 hours have been logged by staff and members in meetings trying to negotiate very tough and very difficult issues. These are tough issues, and there are big differences between the House and the Senate. There has been enormous movement, and most of the movement has been on behalf of Republican Senators who have made compromises and concessions to move this bill forward. There has been no stall. One does not stall a bill by spending the kind of time and energy we have seen expended on this bill. In reference to the Kennedy amendment that has been offered today, we spent a week debating this issue. One of the biggest problems I see with the Kennedy bill is that all of the access provisions have been removed. Even the access provisions we saw in the Dingell-Norwood bill have been removed. There are none of the means by which more people can get insurance. The only access left in this bill is access to the lawyer, and there is plenty of access to the lawyer and plenty of access to lawsuits. That is the real purpose of why we have seen this brought forward, to provide a whole new realm of litigation for trial lawyers. I want to give one particular example, a company in my State. I do not mention it particularly because it is from my State, but it happens to be the largest employer in America, and that is the Wal-Mart Corporation. It sounds good: Let's sue Wal-Mart, big, bad Wal-Mart; let's sue corporations. Let's put it in practical terms. They have 900,000 employees in the United States. Forty percent of them chose voluntarily to go under the Wal-Mart health plan. There are about 10 percent in HMOs and many are insured by their spouses who are employed in other places. Those 40 percent represent 700,000 Americans in this one company who receive their health care through Wal-Mart. The 10 percent who are in HMOs pay three to four times more in premiums. It costs three to four times more than those who are under the Wal-Mart plan. Recently, they surveyed all the employees in the Wal-Mart plan. Ninety-five percent expressed satisfaction, but more significant, not one of them mentioned they wished they had a right to sue their employer. Not one of them. I want to read what they said in a letter. We met with them off the floor a few moments ago. This is what they said in a letter: Our concern is that unavoidable litigation costs will increase health care costs and in turn increase health care premiums. There is no doubt about that. Depending upon cost, we will be forced to increase health insurance premiums, reduce benefits, or shift associates in health maintenance organizations. They are going to take care of their associates. Frankly, they said most are going to be forced into HMOs that cost three to four times more than the Wal-Mart health plan. If it costs three to four times more, literally hundreds of thousands of employees in this one company alone will be faced with making the decision they cannot pay the premiums or a portion of their premiums and will be pushed into the ranks of the uninsured. That is going to be the intended or unintended consequence of the Kennedy bill if it is adopted. The plain truth is, Democrats want to get rid of employer-sponsored health insurance. Mr. President, 103 million Americans receive health care through their employers, and it will take one lawsuit with an egregious award to force employers to drop their health care and add their employees to the ranks of the unemployed. Senate Republicans are dead serious about producing a bill out of this conference and one that puts patients first, not trial lawyers first. The Kennedy amendment is in bad faith. The question is, Do you want an issue or do you want a law? We can produce a bill that can become law and protect millions of Americans, but this is too important to do it quickly instead of doing it right. We want to do it right. I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Col. Craig F. Brotchie of the United States Special Operations Command who is retiring from the United States Air Force after 26 years of active duty. Colonel Brotchie is an exceptional leader, and has served this great country with honor and dignity. He understands leadership and selfless service. He is known for his dedication and integrity. Colonel Brotchie has tackled the tough issues that our Air Force and Special Forces Units have had to face over the past three decades, and this wonderful American deserves tremendous praise and thanks from a nation he loves and for which he has given so much. Colonel Brotchie was born January 27, 1952, in San Bernardino, California. In 1974, he received a Bachelor of Arts degree in business administration from Southern Utah State College, and earned distinguished graduate honors in the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps prior to commissioning. He completed Squadron Officer School at Maxwell AFB, Alabama, in 1978; the U.S. Army Command and General Staff Officer course at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, in 1983; and the U.S. Army War College at Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania, in 1987. While at Fort Leavenworth, Colonel Brotchie earned a master's degree in human relations from Webster University. Colonel Brotchie completed various operational, staff and command assignments in his career. He served as a personnel officer for the 777th Radar Squadron, Klamath Air Force Station, California; and in various personnel offices in the 1606th Air Base Wing, Kirtland AFB, New Mexico, prior to entering the combat control career field. Since 1979, Colonel Brotchie served as officer in charge, Combat Control Team, 62nd Military Airlift Wing, McChord AFB, Washington; Special Tactics Team Leader and Operations Officer, Detachment 1, Military Airlift Command Operation Staff, Fort Bragg, North Carolina; and as the Combat Control Staff Officer, Joint Special Operations Command. In 1984, Colonel Brotchie took command of Detachment 2, 1723rd Combat Control Squadron, Clark AB, Republic of the Philippines. After Intermediate Service School, he took command of the 1723rd Combat Control Squadron, Hurlburt Field, Florida, and in 1989, became the commander of the 24th Special Tactics Squadron, Pope AFB, North Carolina. Upon completion of War College, he was assigned as the Deputy Chief, Special Operations Division, Directorate of Forces, Headquarters United States Air Force, Washington, D.C. In 1995, he returned to Hurlburt Field as Commander of the 720th Special Tactics Group. Colonel Brotchie is a master parachutist, military free fall parachutist, combat diver, and air traffic controller. His military decorations include the Defense Superior Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal with two oak leaf clusters, the Air Force Commendation Medal with one oak leaf cluster, and the Joint Service Achievement Medal. Colonel Brotchie shares his devotion to our Nation through military service with his wife, Col. Ann E. Dunwoody, who was recently selected for promotion and designated to command a major unit at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. They have two sons: Bryan and Scott. It is with great pride and honor that I wish Craig and his family the best as he retires from the United States Air Force. He has set an inspiring example of dedication to the defense of freedom and to the protection of the basic liberties that the citizens of our country enjoy.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I join Chairman Warner in expressing my gratitude to Senator Johnson for his leadership on this issue. He made some very salient points on which I hope to reflect in my comments in support of the Warner-Hutchinson amendment. The question here is not one of sentiment. It is not one of seeing the problem. It is not one of wanting to act and to act now. The question is, What is the realistic way? The fact that the Johnson amendment will cost over $90 billion and will be subject to a budget point of order, which Senator Levin saw fit to raise in regard to the underlying Warner-Hutchinson amendment which would have made this permanent but has not seen fit to raise against Senator Johnson, but undoubtedly that is going to happen, that is a huge barrier, as we know, and a big problem. I think we have to do something this year. That is why I am glad to rise and join Senator Warner in introducing the Warner-Hutchinson amendment for the national defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2001. I want to comment also on Senator Dorgan's points concerning the VA health care system; that it was this Congress last year that increased VA medical care spending by over 10 percent, the largest single increase in VA health care spending in over a decade; that, indeed, with our veterans, as well as with our military retirees, our credibility is in tatters when it has been this Congress that has been determined to take the steps necessary to restore that credibility and to restore that confidence--with the pay raise last year, with the 10- percent increase in VA medical spending, far above the President's budget request, and now with this enormous step. Let us not, in comparing it with Senator Johnson's broad amendment, try to minimize the significance of the step that will be taken under the Warner- Hutchinson amendment. I am glad to be a sponsor of this amendment in introducing it. In my experience as the Armed Services Committee Personnel Subcommittee chairman, and in my experience as a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee--I have served on the Veterans' Affairs Committee in the House and in the Senate since I came to Congress--I visit regularly with retired military personnel on a broad range of topics. Time and time again when speaking with military retirees, or responding to letters of concern, the subject of adequate health care coverage comes up. Senator Johnson is absolutely right about the feelings expressed by our military retirees and their concerns since we have broken our commitment and our promise to them. The citizens of our country who have served proudly in the armed services prefer to be doing other things than spending their time petitioning Members of the Senate. They are mature, humble, and they are patriotic by nature. But in this situation, they simply must speak out. These fine Americans have been slighted as the years have passed. They have seen benefits erode. They have seen promises broken or the fulfillment of promises delayed. No issue causes more distress than the lack of comprehensive medical care as part of their retirement benefits. Military retirees are annoyed. They are more than annoyed. They are distressed. They feel betrayed. They have witnessed bureaucratic stalling through trial programs and tests that serve no purpose and simply nibble around the edges of the problem. They do not provide the kind of permanent and tangible fixes to the inadequacies and shortfalls of the medical care system. I want to share a couple of quotes from several of the thousands of heartfelt letters I have received on the subject of military retirees in my home State of Arkansas. These letters from Arkansans who have served faithfully in our Nation's Armed Forces are a mere representation of the sentiments expressed by military retirees all across the Nation. Col. Bob Jolly, of Hot Springs, AR, echoes the feelings of many others when he writes: Thousands of military retirees are dying each month while denied the health coverage our government willingly gives all other federal retirees. We older retirees, now in our sixties and seventies, cannot wait for your Senate colleagues to prescribe years of tests to receive the care we were promised and have earned through decades of fighting our nation's wars. Then, in a letter Mr. Stewart Freigy, a retired Air Force pilot from Hardy, AR, writes: My decision to make a career of the Air Force was based on two things. First a sense of patriotism instilled in me as a child. The second factor was a promise by my government that if I served twenty years, I would receive half of my base pay plus free medical and dental care for myself and my dependents for the rest of my life. By the time I retired, the dental benefits were already gone. Since then I have watched the erosion of my benefits through Champus and then through Tri-Care. In short, like many other military retirees, I feel I have been deceived by a government that I served faithfully. Mr. President, it is time we let retired military personnel know that the Senate hears their plea for justice and equity. How we handle this issue will not only send a message to these Americans that correction is on the way, but it will also send the proper message to those on active duty and to those young people who are considering whether or not they want to enter the Armed Forces or whether they want to make a career of the military. I have heard from recruiters time and time again since I assumed the position as chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee that the most important pool from which to attract military recruits is the children of those who had careers in the military. When their parents feel betrayed, it becomes increasingly less likely that they are going to make the choice to go into the military themselves. It is important that Congress and the American people demonstrate that we are going to honor our promises to our military personnel. The Warner-Hutchinson amendment will permit military retirees to be served by the military health care system throughout their lives regardless of age and active duty or retirement status. That is an incredibly huge and important step for this Congress to take. Under our proposal, the current age discrimination will be eliminated. No one will be kicked out of the military health care system just because they turn 65. Let us not minimize and let us not underestimate the dramatic step of the Warner-Hutchinson proposal: No more age discrimination, no more kicking military retirees out of the health care system and forcing them to leave the doctors and the system with which they have been served for many years and with which they are familiar. Beneficiaries will continue their health care coverage in a system with which they are comfortable and will not be forced to pay the high cost of supplemental insurance premiums to ensure their health care needs are adequately provided. Medicare will pick up what Medicare pays for, and TRICARE will be the supplemental plan to pick up the remainder. It is a dramatic, important, and positive step and commitment we are making. This initiative will act as a statement of our absolute commitment to the promises made to those who have faithfully served the United States of America in our Armed Forces. As Senator Warner stated, improving the military health care system has been the top priority of the Senate Armed Services Committee this year. Last year, we did the pay raise. Personnel chiefs tell me that has made an enormous difference in their ability to go out and recruit. It has improved morale in the Armed Forces. This is the next big step: Improving the health care system both with the prescription drug component as well as this very major step we are taking for our retired military. Hearings have been held on this issue, and input from retirees has been received and has been heard loud and clear. Time and again, our extensive review of the situation has highlighted the importance of retiree access to the health care system and to pharmaceuticals, with pharmaceuticals and prescription drugs being the No. 1 concern for retirees. This already addresses the issue of pharmaceutical actions by providing a pharmacy benefit with no enrollment fee for both the retail and mail order programs. On a bipartisan basis, that has been included. It is an important provision with overwhelming support. The Warner-Hutchinson amendment complements that pharmacy benefit and continues the efforts of the committee to provide a comprehensive solution to the issue of health care for America's deserving military retirees. By adopting this amendment the Defense authorization bill will provide a comprehensive health care benefit for all of our country's military retirees. As chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee, I am well aware of the other legislative alternatives that have been proposed. There has been a very positive, productive colloquy and debate on the floor on these alternatives. However, I believe strongly that the Warner-Hutchinson amendment provides the most effective and realistic remedy in a fiscally responsible manner. America's military retirees were promised a health care benefit. They served our country and we, as a nation, need to fulfill our duty by honoring the commitments made to them. This amendment does that. I applaud Senator Warner and his leadership on this issue, his willingness to take this bold step. I believe this amendment will pass with overwhelming support. I appreciate Senator Johnson's continued leadership. I know this will be a debate that continues in the years to come. It should not preclude first taking this step. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Lt. Col. Tim Wiseman, a legislative fellow on my staff, and Amanda Wiley, a staff intern, be given floor privileges for the remainder of the debate on S. 2549.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise to strongly support the speedy adoption of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001. I join my colleagues on the committee in expressing my appreciation to Chairman Warner for the outstanding job he has done in his work on this bill. I commend Senator Allard for the great work he has done as chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, for the work he did on the Personnel Subcommittee prior to my ascension to that post, and for the assistance he has given me; I express my appreciation for that. As chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee, I worked closely with Senator Max Cleland, our ranking member, to develop a package that is responsive to the manpower readiness needs of the military services, that supports the numerous quality of life improvements for our service men and women, their families, and their retirement communities, and that reflects the budget realities we have today and will face in the future. The subcommittee focused on the challenges of recruiting and retention during each of our hearings this year. Even the health care hearing really focused on that area of recruitment and retention and the impact of what we do in the area of health care on our future retention and recruiting ability. This bill will have a positive impact on both recruiting and retention as those who might serve and those who are serving see our commitment to provide the health care benefits promised to those who serve with a full military career. I am very pleased with this bill. I am proud of this bill. I believe these initiatives will result in improved recruiting and retention within the military services. The bill supports the administration's request for an active duty end strength of 1,381,600, and reserve strength of 847,436, more than this administration requested. On military personnel policy, there are a number of recommendations intended to support the recruiting and retention and personnel management of the services. Among the most noteworthy is a provision, that would be effective July 1, 2002, requiring high schools to provide military recruiters the same access to the campus, to student directors, to student lists and information as they provide the colleges, universities, and private sector employers unless its governing body, the school board, decides by a majority vote to deny military recruiters access to the high school. Currently, there are literally hundreds of high schools that have made decisions--usually on the basis of the superintendent or the principal--to deny access to military recruiters. For those school boards that do not vote to limit access to military recruiters, the proposed modification in the bill retains the original requirement that the services must send a general or flag officer to visit high schools within 120 days of the denial of access to military recruiters. If the high school continues to deny equal access to military recruiters, the Secretary of Defense will then send a letter to the Governor notifying him of the denial and requesting assistance in obtaining access for military recruiters. If, after the efforts of the Secretary of Defense and the Governor, the high school continues to deny access to military recruiters, the Secretary of Defense will notify the congressional delegation of the high school that has not complied with the statute we will enact with the passage of this bill. Of course, if the school board votes not to restrict access of military recruiters, the services and the Secretary of Defense will not be required to go through the procedures I just described. I believe requiring school boards to take that affirmative vote and to do so publicly in the light of their constituencies will really eliminate this problem that has posed such an obstacle to our military recruiters. In our hearings, we heard from frontline military recruiters that the biggest obstacle they have is actually having access to be able to make their case to young people in our schools today. Another initiative to support recruiting is a pilot program in which the Army could use motor sports to promote recruiting, implement a program of recruiting in conjunction with vocational schools and community colleges, and a pilot program using contract personnel to supplement active recruiters. Another important recommendation in this mark is the expansion of JROTC programs. We have added $12 million to expand the JROTC programs. We combine it with the funds in the budget request. This will maximize the services' ability to expand JROTC during fiscal year 2001. I am proud to be able to support these important programs that teach responsibility, leadership, and ethics and assist the military in recruiting. In fact, it has been one of the most effective tools the military has in recruiting high school students. Our major recommendations include a 3.7-percent pay raise for military personnel and a revision of the basic allowance for housing to permit the Secretary of Defense to pay 100 percent of the average local housing costs and ensure that housing allowance rates are not reduced while permitting increases that local housing costs dictate. The bill directs the Secretary of Defense to implement the Thrift Savings Plan for active and reserve forces not later than 180 days after enactment. Making mandatory the provision of the Thrift Savings Plan will be a very positive recruiting and retention tool in assisting the military services in attracting highly qualified personnel and encouraging them to remain until retirement. This year, the committee focused on improving health care for active, reserve, and retired military personnel and their families. In health care, there are a number of key recommendations. The foremost of these provisions is the pharmacy benefit for Medicare-eligible beneficiaries to which Senator Allard alluded in his remarks. This is the first time Medicare-eligible military retirees have an entitlement to military health care. In addition, prescription drugs represent the largest unmet need of Medicare-eligible beneficiaries. I will be speaking on the Warner- Hutchinson amendment, when that is offered, regarding health care and what we are doing for our men and women in uniform. I am very proud of this bill and pleased with what the committee has put together. It will provide the resources the military services need to maximize their readiness and to improve the quality of life for active and retired military personnel and their families. I express my gratitude to Charlie Abell, committee staff, for the outstanding work he has done in the past and for the service he has again performed to our country and to the committee. I appreciate his work, along with other members of the committee staff. I especially thank my personal staff, Michael Ralsky, for the work he has done not only on behalf of our country and our national security but for the State of Arkansas. This is a good bill worthy of the support of the Senate. I am pleased to be supporting it. I again thank Chairman Warner for his leadership in putting this bill together.