John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield on my time?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to express not only my appreciation but that of the whole committee, on both sides of the aisle, for the amount of travel the Senator has done. I heard the Senator talk about how he made these inspection trips. He spent a great deal of his time traveling to our military bases in the continental United States and abroad. There is no one who pulls harder on their oar than the Senator from Oklahoma. I especially credit him with trying to resolve in a very fair and balanced manner the diversity of positions regarding the Vieques issue. The President had his views, the Government of Puerto Rico had its views, colleagues in the Senate had their views, and the Senator worked his way through that problem, and I know in this bill we have a fair and good solution to that difficult problem. I thank him.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I know the answer to that question. It is the same thing with the State of Virginia. Less than 30 miles from this Chamber is a live-fire range for the U.S. Marine Corps.

Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join my colleague. The three of us signed the colloquy. I thank the Senator. He does look after his people.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, could I ask my distinguished colleague, on my time--I was momentarily off the floor due to the unfolding crisis in regard to one of our Navy's ships in the Middle East. He made reference to the hate crimes legislation.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, unless the managers, Mr. Levin or myself, for some reason need to be recognized. For the second year in a row, the conference report before the Senate authorizes a real increase in defense spending. We have built on the momentum of last year by authorizing $309.9 billion in new budget authority for Defense for the fiscal year 2001, $4.6 billion above the request of the President of the United States. That additional funding over and above the President's request was the result of the actions of many Senators, most particularly our Senate leadership, Republican and Democratic, the Budget Committee chairman, Senator Domenici, the ranking member, and others, and I certainly had a strong hand in it. We had a record to take before the Senate to justify that increase, and that record, in large measure, was put together by the Joint Chiefs of Staff; specifically, the Chiefs of the Services who have periodically come before the Congress and, in accordance with the clear understanding between the Congress and the Service Chiefs, to give us their opinions with regard to the needs for their respective military departments and, indeed, the other departments. They give us those professional opinions, even though those opinions at times are at variance with the statements of the President, the Secretary of Defense, and possibly even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Service Chiefs have come forward repeatedly and told us about the needs over and above budget requests. Therefore, at this time, I specifically thank them for their service and thank them also for standing up for those in uniform and their families in their respective military departments. When you are down there, whether it is an enlisted man or junior officer, looking up to those four-stars, it is a long way, but they are the leaders and they are the most trusted of all, the most unbiased. When it comes to politics, there is not a trace. They are there for the interest of our Nation and most specifically for those who every day follow their orders. I thank them. They confirmed what we all know: That today, the U.S. military is overdeployed and underresourced, resource in terms of people, dollars, procurement, and O&M funds. I will go into detail about them in the course of this debate. Since early 1990, the U.S. military has been sent on operations overseas at an unprecedented rate. At the same time, that force structure was reduced by a third and defense spending was declining every year up until 2 years ago. From the end of the war in Vietnam until 1989, the records of the Pentagon show there were 60 military deployments. From basically 1989 until today, there have been 343 deployments in sharp contrast to the 60 in the preceding period. This represents over a 500-percent increase in our deployments. These statistics tell the story. I am not suggesting in any way that most of these deployments were absolutely essential. Many were in the vital security interests of the United States. As I think quite properly, those contending for the Presidency today, both Republican and Democrat, have pointed out that they will watch very carefully what has been brought to the attention, largely by the Congress and the Chiefs, that they are overdeployed and underresourced. Those are the statistics of this period basically from 1989 until today. While the rate of military deployments is established by the President, the Congress, with our constitutional powers, is continuing to support the Armed Forces by improving the quality of life for the men and women in uniform and their families, and the President, in his budget submissions, has done that. But each time in the past 3 years, the Congress has gone above the President's request to add what we can, given the budget constraints, to further improve the quality of life of the men and women in the Armed Forces, to further increase procurement, to further increase O&M funds because we are highly aware of that theme--overdeployed and underresourced. The conference report takes great strides in the direction to improve, over and above that requested by the President, the quality of life of our men and women and, I may say, the retirees. I am proud of our committee. The Senate Armed Services Committee, the records show, is the first committee in the Senate to recognize the need for revising the health care program for career military retirees. Basically, that is 20 years or, in the case of those who have medical retirement, earlier than 20, but the career military have long been neglected. I want to credit the many organizations and many individuals who approached this chairman, who approached, I believe, every Member of the Senate, and brought to their attention the need for correction. That correction, I am proud to say, is incorporated in this conference report and will be given in great detail. Basically, these retirees, in my judgment, have been entitled to this for many years. In my judgment, they were promised this. At a later point in this debate, I will go into the specifics because I have researched it way back. And now, at long last, in this 2001 appropriations, we make the start for a health care program to have the care for those retirees which they deserve and to which they have been entitled for many years. One of the most important single items in this conference report is this military health care. History shows that our military retirees are the best recruiters of all. One of the direct consequences of our military being overdeployed and underresourced--I will use that refrain over and over again--has been the difficulty in recruiting the needed personnel, the difficulty in retaining the middle grade officers primarily, and the middle grade enlisted, particularly those with skills that are in direct competition with our ever-burgeoning economy in the private sector, who know full well that to get a military person--trained in computers, trained in electronics--they know they get a well-trained, well-disciplined, reliable employee. That is quite a lure to these young men and women who are overdeployed, who suffer so much family separation. There has been an over 500-percent increase in these military deployments in the past decade or so. So that is the reason we are having difficulty in meeting our recruiting goals. But we are beginning to put a fix in to take care of the retirees, so once again they can go out, as they have done in the past--I am not suggesting they withstood recruiting, but certainly some of the incentive has been lacking because they have not been treated fairly-- and, once again, they will be in the forward vanguard of recruiting. They are the best recruiters of all. I have to say on a personal note, my father served in World War I. I am very proud of his service and believe he recruited me in World War II by simply saying: It is your duty, son. Although I had very modest service at the conclusion of, the end of that war, fathers like him all throughout the country--and some mothers--were the recruiters long before we got to the recruiting station. The conference report before the Senate fulfills an important commitment of health care for life, as we have determined because in World War II, history shows, and continuing through the Korean war, and indeed through Vietnam, the goal of making that commitment was to encourage service members to remain in uniform and become careerists. Simply put, there was the commitment of health care for life in exchange for their dedicated career service. Let me describe for my colleagues and for our active and retired service members around the world the legislation in this conference report to authorize health care benefits for Medicare-eligible military retirees and their families. First, our committee, we were in the forward vanguard of this. Then we were joined by the House. But let me describe what we have done in this bill jointly--Senate and House--in this conference report. Military medical care requirements for active duty service members and their families were recognized as early as the 1700s. That is how far back in the history of our country it goes--George Washington's Continental Army. Congressional action in the late 1800s directed military medical officers to tend to military families, whenever possible, at no cost to the family. During World War II, with so many service members on active duty, the military medical system could not handle the health care requirements of many family members. The Emergency Maternal and Infant Care Program was authorized by Congress to meet that need in that wartime period. This program was administered through State health agencies. The earliest reference in statute defining the health care benefit for military retirees was in 1956, when for the first time, the Dependent's Medical Care Act specified that military retirees were eligible for health care in military facilities on a space-available basis. In 1966, a decade later, this act was amended to create the Civilian Health and Medical Care Program of the Uniformed Services, called CHAMPUS, to supplement the care provided in military facilities. This legislation, in 1966, specifically excluded from coverage military retirees who were eligible for Medicare, a program which had been enacted by the Congress 1 year earlier, in 1965. All of us have heard from military retirees who served a full career and in so doing made many sacrifices. Many times the sacrifices these heroic retirees made resulted in serious medical conditions that manifested themselves in a time in their lives when they were pushed out of the military health care program. As a nation, we promised these dedicated retirees health care for life, but at that period we were ignoring that promise of America. On February 23, 2000, I introduced a bill, S. 2087, that provided for access to mail-order pharmaceuticals for all Medicare-eligible military retirees. This was the first time that has ever been done. The legislation would also improve access to benefits under TRICARE and extend and improve certain demonstration programs under the Defense Health Program. On May 1, 2000, I introduced S. 2486, which added a retail pharmacy component to the previous legislation, providing for a full pharmacy benefit for all retirees, including those eligible for Medicare. Now, I staged this purposely because throughout this period I was in consultation with the many veterans groups who came forward in that period, experts who had studied this for a long time and brought to my attention the added requirements in the legislation. While I and other members of the Senate Armed Services Committee were working on this legislation, we were doing so in consultation regularly with those organizations representing the retired military and the Department of Defense. It is interesting, Secretary Cohen had some difficulty, understandably, because of his budget constraints. But I know in his heart of hearts he was concerned about the military retirees, as were the Chiefs. But the time came when the Chiefs had the opportunity to express their opinions, which, as I say, were at variance with those of the Secretary of Defense and, indeed, the President. They told us about the need for this legislation. So while I thank the Senate and most particularly our committee for pioneering this effort for the first time in the history of the Congress, we owe a debt of gratitude to so many others who helped us, gave us the encouragement, and, indeed, showed us the path to follow. On June 6, Senator Tim Hutchinson and I introduced S. 2669, a bill that would extend TRICARE eligibility to all military retirees and their families regardless of age. Later that same day, I amended the Defense authorization bill to add the text of S. 2669. This legislation provided uninterrupted access to the military health care system, known as TRICARE, to all retirees. While the Senate bill extended TRICARE eligibility to all military retirees and their families regardless of age, the Defense authorization bill passed by the House of Representatives took a different approach. I respect their approach, but it was different from ours. The House bill expanded and made permanent the Medicare subvention program. Medicare subvention is a program that is currently being tested in 10 sites across the country. Under Medicare subvention, the Health Care Financing Agency of the Department of Health and Human Services reimburses the Department of Defense for providing health care to Medicare-eligible military retirees in military hospitals. There were two significant problems with Medicare's subvention in the judgment of the Senate, and particularly the conferees, when we got to conference. First, the amount in the reimbursement from Medicare to DOD falls well short of the actual cost of providing that care, causing DOD to absorb a loss for each retiree covered by the program. Second, expanding Medicare subvention nationwide would provide access to health care only for those beneficiaries living in proximity to the remaining DOD medical facilities. In contrast, the Senate bill covered 100 percent of the Medicare-eligible military retirees, regardless of where they live. This is important; I emphasize that. Many of the military retirees live under very modest circumstances and have sought places in our Nation for their retirement homes which cost less and, therefore, very often are not co-located with large military facilities and military medical hospitals. They are scattered. It has been a burden on some of those people through the years to travel considerable distances to avail themselves of such medical assistance as was afforded to them prior to this bill. Since the Defense authorization conference began in late July, Senate and House conferees have been working towards the mutual goal of adopting legislation which would provide comprehensive health care to all military retirees regardless of age. I am pleased to announce that the conference report to accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001 includes a permanent health care benefit for retirees modeled on the Senate's original version to have it permanent. I am delighted that we have honored the commitment of health care for life that was made to those who proudly served the Nation on a permanent basis. I acknowledge the strong participation by the House conferees; indeed, the Speaker of the House and the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Personnel, and Chairman Spence, Chairman Stump. I could mention many who worked on this. That was a subject of some concern in the conference because Senator Levin and I, when we had our bill on the floor with provisions which would, in an orderly way, have enabled us to have permanency to this program, were going to be challenged on a point of order. That may occur again today. Frankly, I would rather have it occur today than when this bill first was on the floor 2 months or so ago for various reasons. So the conferees made the decision--a bold one--that they would make this permanent, and we now present that to the Senate. It had always been my intent to make this health care permanent. In fact, when we originally introduced the legislation in February, with the support of many in the Senate, there was no time limit on the benefits contained in the early Senate bills and amendments. I have covered the history of how we have gotten where it is now permanent. The net effect of funding this important program as an entitlement would be similar to funding it from within the discretionary accounts of the Department of Defense. There is little net cost to the Federal Government. Permanently funding the military retiree health care benefit will be seen by retirees, active duty service members, and potential recruits, both enlisted and officers, as the Nation keeping its commitment to health care for life to military retirees. Those serving today and those who are joining the military will see that the promise of a lifetime of health care in return for a career will be honored by America. Two weeks ago in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House Armed Services Committee, Gen. Hugh Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and each of the Service Chiefs strongly supported making this benefit permanent and using the accrual account methods of financing. While I respect the right of any Senator to raise a point of order, I am urging my colleagues to consider the benefits of the health care provisions of this bill which are fully justified. We would not want to leave our over-65 military retirees in doubt about our intentions with respect to their future medical care. This issue is on the 1 yard line, ready to be carried across for a touchdown by the Senate, hopefully within a matter of hours. These retirees must make critical decisions regarding their medical insurance plans and medical care. By making this health care plan a permanent entitlement, we are truly fulfilling the commitment made to all those who have completed a career in uniform and to those contemplating a career in the future. I am going to yield the floor at this time so as to move along. I will return to my remarks at a later point. I yield the floor to my distinguished colleague. Again, I thank Senator Levin for his untiring efforts on our behalf to create this historic piece of legislation.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator. While I have the floor, Mr. President, I would like to advise Senators that there is an effort being made to try and get the vote on first, presumably, a point of order that will be raised and then, following that, on final passage. We hope to begin to move to those votes possibly as early as 6 o'clock. So we are condensing down the period of time prior to the vote that Senators wish to speak. Of course, we can arrange for such time after the votes as Senators desire. This is to accommodate both sides of the aisle and many Senators. I thank my colleagues for working with me to achieve these goals. We now have in place two Senators ready to speak, then I will consult with our leadership.

Mr. WARNER. Senator Wellstone, to be correct. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent he be recognized following Senator Wellstone.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, of course, his request is in the unanimous consent agreement, and, of course, we will observe it. Today the Senate begins consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4205, the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. Before I discuss the provisions of the conference report, I want to report that my fellow Senators on the conference panel and I enthusiastically joined the House conferees in naming this bill. Representative Floyd Spence has served as the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee for the last six years. His chairmanship, however, represents only a portion of the almost 30 years Representative Spence has been a tireless and dedicated supporter of the military men and women in uniform. As chairman of the committee, in particular, he has led the committee and the House of Representatives in addressing the many challenging national security issues that have confronted our nation in the wake of the cold war. Representative Spence has accomplished this undertaking with distinction. From this former Marine captain to a retired Navy captain, I salute him for his leadership. Under the rules of the House, he will relinquish command of the committee at the end of this Congress. Representative Spence will remain a member of the committee, and I look forward to continuing to work with him in the many years to come. This legislation will have a profound, positive impact on our nation's security and on the welfare of the men and women of the Armed Forces and their families. For the second year in a row, the conference report before the Senate authorizes a real increase in defense spending. We have built on the momentum begun last year by authorizing $309.9 billion in new budget authority for defense for fiscal year 2001--$4.6 billion above the President's budget request. And how have we allocated this increase? This bill authorizes $63.2 billion in procurement, which is $2.6 billion above the President's budget request; $38.9 billion in research, development, test and evaluation, which is $1.1 billion above the President's request; and $109.7 billion in operations and maintenance funding, which exceeds the budget request by $1.0 billion. It is said that success has a thousand fathers and failure is an orphan. The majority of credit for the successes in this bill however, can be attribute to five distinguished and decorated fathers: the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the four service chiefs. General Shelton, General Shinseki, Admiral Clark, General Jones, and General Ryan came to Congress repeatedly during this session and presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee their concerns about the state of the Armed Forces today. They also shared with us their observations about the future. They have consistently shared this information with us in a reasonable, earnest, and nonpartisan manner. We greatly appreciate their candor and contributions to this process. We all recognize that our military today is over deployed and under recourced--both in terms of people and money. Since the early 1990s, the U.S. military has been sent on operations overseas at an unprecedented rate; at the same time that force structure was reduced by a third and defense spending was declining. From the end of the Viet Nam War until 1989, there were 60 military deployments. From 1990 to today, there have been 343 deployments--a 571 percent increase. These statistics accurately tell the story. This trend has increased the risk to our forces and has exacerbated the recruiting and retention problems in the military. This cannot continue. While the rate of military deployments is established by the President, the Congress, within our constitutional powers, is continuing to support the Armed Forces by improving the quality of life for the men and women in uniform and their families, by providing for funding increases to address declining readiness problems, aging equipment, and recruiting and retention difficulties. The conference report does this. For the servicemen and women deployed around the world, and the families at home that wait their return, they should know that the Congress is steadfastly behind them. I turn now to what is one of the most important single item in this conference report--military healthcare, particularly for our retired personnel and their families. History shows they are the best recruiters of all. The conference report before the Senate fulfills an important commitment of ``healthcare for life'' made by the recruiters--the U.S. Government--beginning in World War II and continuing through the Korean war and the Viet Nam war. The goal of making that commitment was to encourage service members to remain in uniform and become careerists. Simply put, a commitment of health care for life in exchange for their dedicated career service. Again, this convergence report fulfills the promise of healthcare for life. I am proud of the bipartisan unanimity with which the Senate Armed Services Committee supported this initiative--an initiative never taken before by an congressional committee. Let me describe for my colleagues and for our active and retired service members around the world the legislation in this conference report to authorize health care benefits for Medicare-eligible military retirees and their families, and how we arrived at this outcome. For as long as I can remember, military recruits and those facing re- enlistment have been told that one of the basic benefits of serving a full military career is health care for life. We all know now that this commonly offered incentive was not based in statute, but was, nonetheless, freely and frequently made; it is a commitment that we must honor. Let me briefly review the history of military health care. Military medical care requirements for activity duty service members and their families were recognized as early as the 1700's. Congressional action in the last 1800's directed military medical officers to attend to military families whenever possible, at no cost to the family. During World War II, with so many service members on activity duty, the military medical system could not handle the health care requirements of family members. The Emergency Maternal and Infant Care Program was authorized by Congress to meet this road. This program was administered through state health agencies. The earliest reference in statute defining the health care benefit for military retirees was in 1956 when, for the first time, the Dependent's Medical Care Act specified that military retirees were eligible for health care in military facilities on a space-available basis. In 1966, this Act was amended to create the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services, CHAMPUS, to supplement the care provided in military facilities. This legislation, in 1966, specifically excluded from coverage military retirees who were eligible for Medicare--a program which had been enacted by the Congress one year earlier, in 1965. The exclusion of over age 65, Medicare-eligible military retirees from guaranteed care from the military health care system was masked for many years because the capacity of military hospitals an the military medical system exceeded that required to care for active duty service members; therefore, many Medicare-eligible retirees were able to receive treatment, on a space-available basis, at military facilities. In the 1990s, we began to reduce the size of our military services and the base realignment and closure, BRAC, rounds began to close bases--and military hospitals--all across the Nation. The combined effect of fewer military medical personnel to provide care and the closure of over 30 percent of the military hospitals eliminated the excess capacity that had been so beneficial to military retirees. Also during this decade the retiree population grew dramatically, adding pressure to the military health care system. The true magnitude of the problem was finally exposed. All of us have heard from military retirees who served a full career and, in so doing, made many sacrifices. Many times the sacrifices these heroic veterans made resulted in serious medical conditions that manifested themselves at the time in their lives when they were pushed out of the military health care system. As a nation, we promised these dedicated retirees health care for life, but we were ignoring that promise. On February 23, 2000, I introduced a bill, S. 2087, that provided for access to mail order pharmaceuticals for ALL Medicare-eligible military retirees, for the first time. The legislation also would improve access to benefits under TRICARE and extend and improve certain demonstration programs under the Defense Health Program. On May 1, 2000, I introduced S. 2486, which added a retail pharmacy component to the previous legislation, providing for a full pharmacy benefit for all retirees, including those eligible for Medicare. On June 6, Senator Tim Hutchinson and I introduced S. 2669, a bill that would extend TRICARE eligibility to all military retirees and their families, regardless of age. Later that same day, I amended the defense authorization bill to add the text of S. 2669. This legislation provided uninterrupted access to the Military Health Care System, known as TRICARE, to all retirees. While the Senate bill extended TRICARE eligibility to all military retirees and their families regardless of age, the defense authorization bill passed by the House of Representatives took a different approach. The House bill expanded and made permanent the Medicare subvention program. Medicare subvention is a program that is currently being tested in ten sites across the country. Under Medicare subvention, the Health Care Financing Agency of the Department of Health and Human Services reimburses the Department of Defense for providing health care to Medicare-eligible military retirees in military hospitals. There are several problems with Medicare subvention. First, the amount of the reimbursement from Medicare to DOD falls well short of the actual cost of providing that care, causing DOD to absorb a loss for each retiree covered by the program. Second, expanding Medicare subvention nationwide would provide access to health care only for those beneficiaries living in proximity to the remaining DOD medical facilities. In contrast, the Senate bill covered 100 percent of the Medicare-eligible military retirees, regardless of where they live. As many of you know, since the defense authorization conference began in late July, Senate and House conferees have been working toward the mutual goal of adopting legislation which would provide comprehensive health care to all military retirees, regardless of age. I am pleased to announce that the conference report to accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 includes a permanent health care benefit for retirees--modeled on the Senate bill. I am delighted that we have honored the commitment of health care for life that was made to those who proudly served this nation. This is long overdue. It had always been my intent to make this health care benefit permanent. In fact, when I originally introduced my legislation in February, with the support of many in the Senate, there was no time limit on the benefits contained in my amendment. During Senate floor consideration, a discussion arose about whether a budget point of order could be made against the bill due to the mandatory costs of the amendment. At that point, I made the decision to limit the provision to a preliminary 2-year period to ensure that there would be no point of order against the authorization bill. We knew of Senators who had a legitimate interest in raising such a point of order, and I did not want to put the bill at risk. All through this process, I have made clear my commitment to work to make these benefits permanent at the earliest opportunity. During the defense authorization conference we had an opportunity to make my retiree health care provisions permanent by converting the benefit to an entitlement and creating an accrual account in the Treasury. This conversion to an entitlement would not occur until fiscal year 2003. Let me describe how funding the health care benefit through an accrual account would work. Accrual method of financing is more of an accounting mechanism than a change in funding. Using an accrual method of financing does not, in itself, increase the costs of a program. Accrual funding is commonly used in entitlement programs; one example of an accrual account is the military retirement account. The Department of Defense would annually deposit such funds, as determined by the actuarial board, into the accrual account in the Treasury. The Treasury, which would absorb the liability for certain costs attributed to providing health care, would also make an annual deposit to the accrual account. The costs of the health care benefit would than be paid from the accrual account. The net effect of funding this important program as an entitlement would be similar to funding it from within the discretionary accounts of the Department of Defense. While a significant portion of the burden of funding this program is moved from the Department of Defense budget, there is little net cost to the federal government. Permanently funding the military retiree health care benefit will be seen by retirees, active duty service members and potential recruits as the nation keeping it's commitment of health care for life to military retirees. Those serving today and those who are joining the military will see that the promise of a lifetime of health care, in return for serving a full career, will be honored in perpetuity. Two weeks ago, in testimony before both the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House Armed Services Committee, General Hugh Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and each of the service chiefs strongly supported making this benefit permanent and using the accrual account method of financing. The Joint Chiefs have repeatedly testified that failing to honor the commitment to our retirees has been detrimental to their recruiting and retention efforts. During our conference we made many tough decisions on issues that are very important to many Senators. I resisted every proposal that would potentially generate a point of order against the conference report. The accrual funding mechanism and the direct spending associated with the retiree health care benefit will make our conference report vulnerable to a motion to raise a point of order against our bill which would require a 60 vote majority to overcome. It is any Senator's legitimate right to take such an action. While I respect the right of any Senator to raise a point of order, I am urging my colleagues to consider the benefits of the health care provisions in this bill, which are fully justified. We would not want to leave our over-65 military retirees in doubt about our intentions with respect to their medical care. They must make critical decisions regarding their medical insurance plans and medical care. By making this health care plan a permanent entitlement, we are truly fulfilling the commitment made to all those who have completed a career in uniform. If such a point of order is sustained, then the Defense authorization conference report will have to be recommitted to a new conference. There is simply not enough time in this Congress to commence a new conference. If the Defense authorization conference report is not passed, there will be no health care benefit for Medicare-eligible military retirees. If the defense authorization conference report is not passed, this would be the first time in 38 years that the Congress has not passed a Defense authorization bill. That would be a tragedy. What a terrible signal to send to our brave men and women in uniform defending freedom around the world. In addition to restoring our commitment to our retirees, the conference report also includes a number of important initiatives for active and reserve men and women in uniform today. The conferees authorized a 3.7 percent pay raise for military personnel effective January 1, 2001 and a revision of the basic pay tables to give noncommissioned officers an additional pay increase, effective July 1, 2001. I cannot understate the importance of providing our noncommissioned officers with this support. They are our career soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines; tried and true, they are the backbone of our military and are more than deserving of this pay raise. We included a provision to reduce the number of military personnel on food stamps. The conference report would provide up to $500 per month in an additional, special pay for military personnel who are eligible for food stamps. By our estimates, this provision should reduce the 6,000 military personnel estimated by DOD to be on food stamps today by about half. To further assist our most needy service members, the conferees agreed to eliminate the requirement that service members pay 15 percent of their housing costs out of their own pocket and directed implementation of the Thrift Savings Program of active and reserve service members. The conference report extends current and authorizes additional recruiting and retention bonuses and special pays. If the bill is not enacted into law, all of these bonuses will expire on December 31, 2000. If the services are not able to offer the recruiting and reenlistment bonuses, their recruiting and retention progress of this past year will be for naught. Also important to improving the quality of life for servicemen and women and their families is our continuing support for the modernization, renovation, and improvement of aging military housing. This conference report contains $8.8 billion for military construction and family housing, an increase of $788.0 million above the administration's request. More than $443.0 million of this amount is for the construction of 2,900 family housing units--800 more homes than last year. The conference report also provides more than $585.0 million to renovate and upgrade critical barracks space for unaccompanied military personnel and more than $660.0 million for vital military construction projects for reserve components. This conference report also supports a group of dedicated men and women, who, while not in uniform, provided an equally important contribution to the defense of the Nation. The conference report establishes a new program to compensate Department of Energy, DOE, employees and DOE contractor employees who were injured due to exposure to radiation, beryllium, or silica while working at certain DOE defense-related nuclear facilities. This new program is intended to compensate those employees who, for the past 50 years, have performed duties uniquely related to nuclear weapons production and testing. Eligible employees would receive a lump sum payment of $150,000 and payment for all future medical costs related to the covered illness. At this point, I recognize the important contributions of Senators Thompson, Voinovich, McConnell, and DeWine and their staff in crafting the final conference outcome on DOE workers compensation. Although they were not conferees, they were involved every step of the way as we negotiated this important issue with the House. They are to be commended for their tireless efforts on behalf of DOE workers. I will now briefly highlight just a few of the important measures in this bill which support modernization and operations of our land, sea, and air forces, and which support our continuing efforts to identify and counter the emerging threats--information warfare or the use of weapons of mass destruction. The conference report: Increases funding by over $888.0 million for the primary military readiness accounts for ammunition, spare parts, equipment maintenance, base operations, training funds, and real property maintenance. While the additional funds that the conferees have provided will help with some of the most critical shortages in these areas, further efforts will be required over the next several years if we are to restore the Armed Forces to appropriate levels of readiness; Supports the Army's transformation efforts by: authorizing an additional $750.0 million for this initiative; directing the Army to provide a plan that charts a clear course toward the fielding of an objective force in the 2012 time frame; and requiring an evaluation of equipment alternatives for Interim Brigade Combat Teams; Adds $560.0 million to the President's budget request for ship construction; Adds $15.7 million for five additional Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams, WMD-CST, which will result in a total of 32 WMD- CSTs by the end of fiscal year 2001. WMD-CSTs, formerly known as Rapid Assessment and Initial Detection, RAID; Teams, are comprised of 22 full-time National guard personnel who are specially trained and equipped to deploy and assess suspected nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological events in support of local first responders in the United States. Includes a provision that would designate one Assistant Secretary of Defense as the principal civilian advisor to the Secretary for Department of Defense activities for combating terrorism. This provision--which is critically needed--ensures that there is a single individual within the Department responsible for providing a focused, comprehensive and well-funded DOD policy for combating terrorism. Provides additional funding to address several of the Department of Defense's most critical shortfalls in combating cyber-warfare threats. The conference report adds $15.0 million to create an information Security Scholarship Program to address shortages in skilled DOD information assurance personnel by providing essential training and education in exchange for a service commitment, and $5.0 million to establish an Institute for Defense Computer Security and Information Protection to conduct critical research and development that is currently not being done by DOD or the private sector, and to facilitate the exchange of information regarding cyberthreats and related issues; Adds $146.0 million to accelerate technologies leading to the development and fielding of unmanned air combat vehicles by 2010 and unmanned ground combat vehicles by 2015. This initiative will allow the Department to exploit the opportunities created by the rapid pace of technological development to provide our men and women in uniform with the most advanced weaponry and leverage these developments in a way that minimizes the risk to those deployed in harm's why; Authorizes a net increase of $391.8 million for ballistic missile defense programs including a $129.0 million increase for National Missile Defense risk reduction, an $85.0 million increase for the Airborne Laser program, and an $80.0 million increase for the Navy Theater Wide missile defense program; Reduces the congressional review period from 180 days to 60 days for changes proposed by the administration on the export control levels of high performance computers; Ensures service contractors receive prompt and timely payment from the Department of Defense by requiring a plan for the electronic submission of supporting documents for contracts and the payment of interest for service contracts for payments more than 30 days late; Authorizes $470.0 million in federal assistance to the Nation's firefighters over the next two years. The conference report also establishes a framework for the review and reauthorization of the program at the end of that time. I would now like to take a few moments to address a provision which is not in the final conference report--the Warner-Kasich amendment on Kosovo. As my colleagues know, I started the legislative effort to get our European allies to live up to the commitments they have made to provide assistance to the peacekeeping operation in Kosovo shortly after returning from a trip to the region in January. I was greatly troubled by what I saw in Kosovo--a U.N. peacekeeping mission that was out of money; a civil implementation effort that had barely begun, almost seven months after the war had ended; and U.S. and other NATO troops having to make up for shortfalls on the civilian side by performing a variety of non-military missions, from performing basic police functions to running towns and villages, to acting as judges and juries. I could not allow this situation to continue without reviewing the issue with our allies and bringing it to the attention of my colleagues. The United Sates bore the major share of the military burden for the air war on behalf of Kosovo--flying almost 70 percent of the strike and support sorties, at a cost of over $4.0 billion to the U.S. taxpayer and great personal risk to our aviators. In return, the Europeans promised to pay the major share of the burden to secure the peace. European nations and institutions quickly volunteered billions in assistance and thousands of personnel for the effort to rebuild Kosovo. Unfortunately, as I discovered in January, these resources and personnel were not making their way to Kosovo--commitments were simply not becoming realities. I introduced legislation that had a very clear and simple purpose: to tell our European allies that we would not allow the commitment of U.S. military personnel to Kosovo to drift on endlessly because of the failure of the Europeans to live up to their commitments. My legislation would have done no more than hold our allies accountable for the pledges and commitments they freely made. For a variety of reasons, a form of the legislation that I originally sponsored failed in the Senate on a close vote. However, Congressman Kasich, after consulting with me, pursued similar legislation as an amendment to the defense authorization bill in the House of Representatives. The Kasich amendment passed the House by an overwhelming margin--over 100 votes. It was this amendment that we addressed during our conference. I believe that the legislation Congressman Kasich and I jointly pursued this year has had a very positive effect. Money and personnel for civil implementation efforts are now flowing into Kosovo. Our allies are making credible progress in fulfilling their commitments. The civil implementation effort in Kosovo is now moving forward. While more clearly needs to be done, it was the feeling of a majority of the conferees--myself included--that the Kosovo legislation had largely achieved its purpose, and keeping this legislation in the final conference report could have a negative impact on relations with our allies and, perhaps, developments in Kosovo. In place of the Kasich language, the conferees included a provision which requires the President to submit semiannual reports to the Congress, beginning in December of this year, on the progress being made by our allies in fulfilling their commitments in Kosovo. Such reports will allow the Congress to keep track of developments in this important area. If these reports reveal that progress again lags, it is the intention of this Senator to pursue legislation in the future designed to ensure greater burden sharing by our European allies in this crucial venture. In conclusion, I want to thank all of the members and staff of the Senate and House Armed Services Committee for their hard work and cooperation. This bill sends a strong signal to our men and women in uniform and their families that Congress fully supports them as they perform their missions around the world with courage and dedication. I am confident that enactment of this conference report will enhance the quality of life for our service men and women and their families, strengthen the modernization and readiness of our Armed Forces, and begin to address newly emerging threats to our security. I strongly urge my colleagues to adopt the recommendations of the conference committee. Mr. President, I especially thank my distinguished friend and ranking member for the cooperation he has given me. This is the 22nd year we have served together in the Senate. We have been partners all these many years. We are proud to have the joint responsibility of the leadership of the committee that tries at every juncture to exert wisdom and decisions reflecting bipartisanship and, as in the famous words of another Senator, we check politics at the water's edge, particularly as it relates to the forward-deployed troops of our Armed Forces. We are proud of that record. We have worked together very well. There was unanimous signing of the conference report which is presently before the Senate. I am very proud of the participation of all members of our committee and, indeed, the superb staffs of both the majority and minority. I join my distinguished colleague, the President pro tempore and former chairman, in recognizing this bill is named for Floyd Spence, the chairman of the House committee. Chairman Spence has served many years. He was a World War II veteran in the Navy and rose to the rank of captain. He has had a distinguished public service record in the United States. It is most fitting that this bill be named in his honor. Mr. President, I see the presence of our distinguished colleague from Alabama. Perhaps he would like to follow the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I believe there is a parliamentary inquiry from our colleague. I yield for that purpose.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to join the Democratic whip in propounding the identical unanimous consent request with regard to the bringing up of the DOD conference report as stated to the Senate by the distinguished majority leader just moments ago.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, given that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER. No apology is needed. This bill has had a unique course through the Senate. I know of no one who has tried harder on a procedural basis to see that this bill has forward momentum than our distinguished colleague from Nevada. I hereby express my profound respect and thanks to him.

Mr. WARNER. That would be the DOD conference on authorization.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, before entering the closing statement, I yield to the distinguished Democratic assistant leader.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 366 and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments be agreed to, the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I understand that S. 3187 is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Energy Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 2917, and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment to the resolution be agreed to, and the resolution, as amended, be agreed to, the amendments to the preamble be agreed to, and the preamble, as amended, be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the amendment to the title be agreed to, and any statements relating to this resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 727, S. Con. Res. 131.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might say to my good friend, Herb and I played a game of golf, which he dearly loved. He had his priorities-- his family, his church, and work in Congress. He was the only man I played with, as others have, and whom I ever knew of, who could miss a 2-foot putt and still walk off the green with a smile on his face. He always said, well, tomorrow, or the next putt on the green, it will be a better day. But that was the sort of wonderful, even-tempered, absolutely beautiful man he was in terms of his character. I thank my colleague. I have enjoyed these few moments. He loved the Navy. He loved everything connected with the sea and maritime. How many times we heard him give the speech: And I'm the Congressman from the First Congressional District. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I simply want to say to my very dear friend, I ask that I be associated with his remarks. It was a privilege to be on the floor at the time the Senator from Kansas delivered his remarks. In my 22 years in this great institution, the Senate, I have never known a Member of Congress who tried harder to work on personal relationships than my good friend from Kansas. He is so respected in this institution, as he was in the House. To have him stand in tribute to one of our mutual friends of long standing for all of these years I have been in the Senate--I think maybe Herb's 20 years versus my 22 years. Whatever it is, it is inconsequential. I worked with him. I was so pleased to go down to visit his lovely wife and his children. I have seen his children grow, as the Senator from Kansas has, and I was privileged to be at the service with the Senator and some others from the Congress of the United States. What a fine, fine person he was, and most deserving of the outpouring of heartfelt expressions at that memorial service. I spoke to his widow not too long ago. She is a woman of great strength, as are the children, and it will carry on. I would like to work with my colleague and other Members of the House and the Senate at the appropriate time--which I think will have to be next year--to name something related to defense in honor of our most recently departed colleague and friend. I thank the Senator.