John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. But my point is, had it been able to go out 10 years, we continue to use that baseline. I am absolutely confident that this issue of retiree health care will be injected into the Presidential campaign. Each candidate will be asked what position he wants to take on that. I am certain they will. And should my amendment be adopted by the Senate and become the law of the land, and given that it has to stop in 2004, the first question I would ask the candidates is, Are you going to support rewriting the Warner amendment such that it goes out in perpetuity? I forewarn the candidates to be prepared to answer that question. I support, of course, that action by the Congress, with the support of the next President, to make it in perpetuity. But going back to the Senator's point, coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program is what takes my bill from $40 billion to yours to at $90 billion; are we correct on that? Let's address the situation. We passed--I believe it was 2 years ago--a program to allow the retirees to decide whether or not they wanted to go into this Federal health program. Interestingly, we allowed up to 66,000 to enter under that experimental test program. Mr. President, astonishingly, only 2,500 of those eligible opted to do it, indicating to our committee that they felt if they could get the full benefits offered to them when they were on active duty in their retired status, they preferred to have that rather than to go into the Federal health program. What clearer evidence could there be? We offered 66,000 a chance to do it and only 2,500 accepted.

Mr. WARNER. I say to my good friend, clearly some of that may have taken place. It is better that retiree organizations should certainly have tried to give them the information and explain it. They have done a magnificent job in explaining what my colleague is offering in his amendment. I wish to return to the following. Here we go. We are now taking the retirees who are given only Medicare, and the Warner bill now restores them to the full rights they had when they were on active duty in terms of health care. My good friend, Senator Johnson, wants to offer them also the chance to go into the Federal program, and the cost of that is largely borne by the Federal Government. That raises his amendment up to twice the cost of mine, using the 10-year average. But we are giving them both. At the same time, I project that the Congress is going to be called upon, should the Warner amendment or the Senator's amendment become law, to begin to add funds for the existing military health care program so that it can absorb back this community. That is not an insignificant expenditure. Now, having done that, which we have to do under either amendment, then to offer them the chance to go into the Federal program, you put the infrastructure in place, they don't avail themselves of it, they go into the Federal employees program, and you have built a big medical program that will not be fully utilized.

Mr. WARNER. The Senator is correct. But am I not also correct that if we mandate by law that the existing military health program has to absorb back into it this class of retirees, they will have to augment doctors, nurses, perhaps modest increase in facilities, and all of the other infrastructure that is necessary to give these people fair, good quality health care; am I not correct?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the number of retirees over 65 is roughly 1.4 million persons. Under the Warner amendment, as well as the Johnson amendment, they are now taken back into the existing infrastructure that cares for active duty and under-65 persons. Anyone would know that with 1.4 million now given the opportunity to come back in, you would have to augment and refurbish that system. This will be a justifiable issue before the Congress very quickly. I am certain the Secretary of Defense--the next Secretary--in the posture statement of the next President will say: All right, Congress; you said we are to take them back. We are happy to take them back, but give us the funds to refurbish and augment that system. That will be done. That system will be prepared to take back these people, and at the same time, you are saying to these people while we put the infrastructure in place, you may decide not to use it and go off here and avail yourself of other taxpayer dollars--namely, paying a premium of 70-plus percent, in most cases, to go into the private sector. Of course, there is no augmentation to the private sector. The private sector could probably absorb this class. There could be a competition between the private sector and the military infrastructure. But the military infrastructure has to be put into place. As you say, very little would have to be done in the private sector to absorb them. So that is the reason, I say to my colleagues, no matter how laudatory the amendment would be. I suggest we go a step at a time in treating these people fairly. And we have taken the initiative to do it. Let's do it a step at a time and first refurbish the existing military system to accept them back and give it a period of several years under my amendment to see how it works before we take the next leap and put on the American taxpayers double the amount of money that my amendment would cost.

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for 5 consecutive years, the Senate has put language into law with the President's signature reserving these numbers, which the distinguished Senator from Nebraska now wishes to strike from 5 years of consecutive law signed by the President. The Warner amendment simply says that the President, whether it be President Clinton or the next President, should follow a very careful procedure before changing the numbers, of strategic systems; namely, to do a QDR process which takes into consideration not only the strategic weapons but the conventional weapons and then do an updated posture statement regarding exclusively the strategic. Those are prudent steps that should be taken. In essence, this Chamber recognized that in the 5 consecutive years we have kept this language in. Given the nyet--no, no, no--that our President received in Moscow on the ABM issue, he may well need the leverage given by the 5 consecutive years of law. My amendment gives the President the right of waiver, but it imposes on him the need to take a prudent managerial course of action before any decision is made. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. My amendment is now modified so it is not subject to a point of order. Our distinguished colleague is subject to a point of order, and at an appropriate time he will raise that point of order.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, let's have clarified the amount of time remaining under the control of the Senator from South Dakota and the amount of time under my control.

Mr. WARNER. That is 17 and 33. I say to my friend, I am prepared to yield back a considerable amount of my time because I think our caucuses are about to meet. It is very important. If he would give me some estimate of what he desires, and I will just do basically half that time remaining and do a quick wrapup?

Mr. WARNER. No, I am ready.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Warner amendment.

Mr. WARNER. Yesterday, Mr. President, we made progress on this bill-- not quite as much as I had hoped, but nevertheless progress was made. I wish to draw to the attention of my colleagues that late last night the ranking member and I put forth an amendment to this bill regarding the D-Day memorial. As the last act, it seemed to the distinguished Senator from Michigan and myself that it was most appropriate that the 56th anniversary of D-Day be concluded with an amendment which provides the opportunity for, first, the Senate, and hopefully the entire Congress, to participate in the raising of the needed dollars for the World War II memorial. Over 1,000 World War II veterans are dying each day. Organizers are within $6 million of reaching that sum of money needed to complete the construction and design phases of this memorial. I am pleased to say this amendment passed last night. I thank my distinguished colleague, Mr. Levin, for joining me. All the World War II veterans currently serving in the Senate were added as cosponsors. I served very briefly at the end of World War II. And the others, seven in number, were added as cosponsors together with our distinguished colleague, Senator Kerrey--although not a World War II veteran, a veteran of Vietnam with greatest distinction. So I am pleased to make that announcement. Some Senators may have missed it last night. I note Senator Kerrey's presence in the Chamber. We thank the Senator for cosponsoring the amendment last night by which the Senate goes on record endorsing a contribution of $6 million, I might add, out of nonappropriated funds. We were able to get the funding from that account.

Mr. WARNER. We have the number here. I will get it.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to make it very clear that this Senator, the Senator from Virginia, although his service at the end of World War II was brief, a little less than 2 years, does not put himself in the hero class with those in this body who, indeed, very humbly and rightfully earned that hero distinction. I may have served in Korea in the second engagement of our country in war but not at this particular time. Basically, the Navy educated me, for which I am grateful. The GI bill helped me, as it did all of those us who served at the time. That was probably the greatest investment the United States ever made in a bill.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I certainly cannot rely on a 1997 review as being up to date. Much has occurred in those 2 years, indeed over 2 years, to where we are today. Let me give one example. The Russians are strapped financially. One of the principal motivations to go to a lower level, on behalf of the Russians, is they simply do not have the financial resources to maintain their existing arsenals--the readiness, the safety, all aspects of those existing arsenals. That is the 1997 assessment. I would not accept that. I would not think President Clinton would want to accept it. What I am telling the Senator is that I would like to reply in totality to the Senator's question by giving my statement and then we can perhaps continue this colloquy. Is that an option?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, our beloved former colleague, former majority leader, Senator Dole, and others have been very active in raising funds to build a memorial to those who served in World War II. I have been in consultation with him, as have other Members of the Senate, with regard to the success of this memorial effort. It has been successful. Today Senator Dole was proud to receive a donation from the private sector in excess of some $14 million. What a fitting day, the 56th anniversary of D-Day. I called Senator Dole, after consultation with a number of my colleagues, most specifically those colleagues in addition to myself who served in World War II, to get their concurrence in a decision that I had made sometime earlier to the effect that I thought Congress should participate in the funding of a portion of this memorial, a relatively small portion that remains to be raised to reach the goal. I asked Senator Dole to come today, which he did several hours ago. We met. We reached concurrence on the following language, which I will address to the Senate. This is becoming a campaign to build this memorial. It is all America. It is extraordinary. I was very heavily involved in the funding, the legislation and other aspects of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, spent 2 or 3 years before, in fact, or more working with the courageous group that envisioned that magnificent memorial. I can remember when it was just a glimmer in our eyes, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. I think there were 10,000 different designs that came in. I remember going out to Andrews Air Force Base where all the designs for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial were posted. We had a group of experts examine them. Finally, the experts came down on the design which is the current wall. It was designed by a young architectural student or just a graduate, 21 years old. It was as if the hand of providence reached down and touched those individuals who started that campaign, who saw it through at times when we didn't have $5 in the bank and we worked to rescue it. Then this brilliant woman, Maya Lin, created the design out of 10,000 submissions. So much for that history. I have a very modest association with Senator Dole and others who are working on this, but I am happy to present this to the Senate tonight as America's campaign. Citizens across our land, corporations, foundations, veterans groups, civic, fraternal, professional organizations and State legislatures, yes, indeed, State legislatures, have generously contributed to this important cause. Hundreds of thousands of individual Americans, young and old, are rallying behind the opportunity to say thank you to a generation of Americans from the World War II generation. It is to the military men and women who wore the uniforms, but I, as a young person who went into the service in January 1945, remember the war was raging, the Battle of the Bulge had not been completed yet. The campaign in Iwo Jima was about to start. The whole of America was involved in that war, whether you were in uniform or whether you were on the home front. This is a recognition of the contribution of millions of Americans, upwards of 16 million who wore the uniform in that period, and treble that amount at home were involved in the industrial base, all of the activities to support those who were on the battlefronts in the Pacific and in Europe. So it was America's generation of uniformed and those civilians here at home who fought courageously and sacrificed in so many ways to make victory assured against tyranny. The memorial campaign currently is progressing toward raising the $139.6 million needed to build this lasting memorial to the generation that conquered tyranny in the 20th century. While the campaign is very close to the goal, we in the Congress now have an opportunity to show our support and add our shoulder to the wheel. The site on The National Mall has been chosen, preliminary design approved, and the intent is to break ground on Veterans Day weekend, this November. Since the private sector is generously donating the funds needed to design, construct, and maintain the memorial--over $120 million as of today--I believe it is appropriate for Congress also to support the memorial campaign. The amendment I introduce tonight, together with my distinguished colleague from Michigan, Mr. Levin, will show the support of Congress for this important project. Specifically, the amendment provides for $6 million to the American Battle Monuments Commission from the revenues of sale of titanium from the national defense stockpile-- nonappropriated funds, Mr. President. The $6 million should be used to complete all necessary requirements for the design of, groundbreaking for, construction of, maintenance of, and dedication of the World War II memorial. The Commission plans to complete construction and dedicate the memorial on Veterans Day, 2002. We cannot wait a moment longer to show our support for this project. It is astonishing that over 1,000 men and women each day who proudly wore the uniform, of that 16 million total, are passing on to their great rewards--1,000 a day who die. Now it is the hour for Congress to act and put our shoulder to the wheel to give our expression, along with all other Americans, for this great project. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order. And I personally express my appreciation to the Presiding Officer and others who enabled us to go well into the night.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will convene at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow and resume debate on the Defense authorization bill. Under the order, there are 90 minutes of debate remaining on the Kerrey amendment and the Warner second-degree amendment, both regarding strategic forces. Following the use or yielding back of time, there will be up to 2 hours of debate on the Johnson and Warner amendments regarding CHAMPUS and TRICARE. If all time is used, Senators can expect to cast up to four votes at approximately 1 p.m. Further amendments are expected to be offered and debated throughout the day. Therefore, additional votes could be anticipated.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1419, and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, Senator Jeffords has an amendment at the desk for himself and others.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate passage of S. 1650 be vitiated; further, the bill be indefinitely postponed.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mike Daly, a fellow in the office of Senator Abraham, be granted floor privileges during consideration of S. 2549.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator McCain's legislative fellow, Navy Comdr. Douglas J. Denneny, be granted floor privileges during consideration of S. 2549.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill, S. 2669, to afford members the opportunity to examine the issues related to the complicated military medical program. We desire to change the existing program to encompass, in the future, retirees over age 65. Beginning in World War II promises were made to military members that they and their families would be provided health care if they served a full career. Subsequent legislation was enacted which cut off medical benefits at age 65, leaving them to depend on the Medicare system, which has provided to be inefficient. This is a breach of promise made on behalf of our country to retirees who devoted a significant portion of their lives with careers in service to their country. I recognize with profound sorrow how we broke this promise to these retirees. I have gone back and carefully examined these issues. There is no statutory foundation providing for entitlement to military health care benefits. It does not exist. It is a myth. But good faith representation was made to these members. Who made the commitment is irrelevant. I know personally that these representations were made. I served in the military and heard the same promises. My Committee has made a determination, a bipartisan decision, that we would fix the issue of health care for our older retirees, this year. We have started with a series of bills, strengthening them as we went along, listening to those beneficiaries who use the system. The legislation I bring to the floor today repeals the restriction barring 65 and older military retirees and their families from continued access to the military health care system. If enacted, this legislation will provide an equal benefit for all military health care system beneficiaries, retirees, reservists, guardsmen and families. This puts all beneficiaries in the same class. It is fairly expensive, but we need to do it. The legislation is a quantum leap over the provisions included in the Committee markup of the annual Defense bill. While the markup includes a comprehensive drug benefit regardless of age, the legislation goes further and provides uninterrupted access to complete health care services. As a result of my initiatives, all military retirees, irrespective of age, will now enjoy the same health care benefit. In Town Hall meetings, I have listened carefully to the health care concerns of military retirees--particularly those over age 65 who have lost their entitlement to health care within the current military health care system. The constant theme that runs through their requests is that, once they reach the point at which they are eligible for Medicare, they are no longer guaranteed care from the military health care system. This discriminatory characteristic of our current system-- that has been in effect since 1964--reduces retiree medical benefits and requires a significant change in the manner in which health care is obtained at a point in the lives of our older military retirees when stability and confidence are most important. This bill, in effect, repeals the 1964 law. The bill that I am proposing today would eliminate the current discrimination based on age and would permit military retirees and their dependents to be served by the military health care system throughout their lives. Under my proposal, it would not matter whether the military retiree is 47 years old or 77 years old. He or she will be covered by the military health care system while on active duty and throughout their retirement. No new systems will be required, although the existing military system may require assistance from the Congress to strengthen its ability to serve all retirees. This bill eliminates the confusing and ineffective transfer of funds from Medicare to the Department of Defense. Military retirees will not be required to pay the high cost of additional basic or supplemental insurance premiums to ensure their health care needs are met. Military readiness will not be adversely impacted and our commitment to those who served a full career will be fulfilled. In order to permit the Department of Defense to plan for restoring the health care benefit to all retirees, my bill would be effective on October 1, 2001. While some may advocate an earlier effective date, it is simply not feasible to expand the medical coverage to the 1.8 million Medicare-eligible retirees overnight. What is apparent to me is that the will of the Congress, reflecting the will of the Nation, is that now is the time to act on this issue. My bill would eliminate the discriminatory practice that caused concern among our military retirees and will restore full benefits of the military health care system to all retirees. Access to military health care has reached a crisis point. With the reduction in the number of military hospitals and with the growth in the retiree population, addressing the health care needs of our older retirees has become increasingly difficult. These beneficiaries should be assured that their health care needs will be met. They were promised a healthcare benefit, they served to earn a benefit, and our country needs to fulfill the commitments that were made to them. I am well aware of the legislative alternatives that have been proposed to address military retiree health care needs. I have struggled to examine the most acute needs of these beneficiaries and have struggled to develop a plan that equally benefits all our retirees, not just those fortunate enough to live near a military medical facility, or those fortunate enough to be selected through some sort of lottery to be allowed to participate in the various pilot programs now underway. My goal is to provide health care through a means that is available to all beneficiaries, in an equitable and complete manner. As I have made it clear throughout the year, improving the military health care system has been the Committee's top quality of life initiative this year. My Committee has held hearings and listened to a variety of beneficiary representatives. I have traveled throughout my state and listened to the concerns of retirees. I conducted an extensive town hall meeting in Norfolk in March. I have met with many retirees and their representatives at my office, during my travels, and even in social settings. I have listened. This extensive review has allowed me to examine carefully how to approach this issue. The number one priority I heard from retirees was the importance of access to pharmaceuticals. This inspired me to develop S. 2087, which provided a mail order pharmacy benefit for all military beneficiaries, including--for the first time--all Medicare eligible retirees. S. 2087 also addressed a number of other issues with the military health care system including some critical improvements to the TRICARE program for both active duty and retirees and their family members. I appreciate the bipartisan support of so many of my colleagues in crafting and introducing this critical first step. In my many meetings with retirees, and through discussions with my colleagues, I came to understand the need to further enhance S. 2087. I proposed amendments to the budget resolution to increase the funding available to address retiree health care needs. Then, again with bipartisan support, I crafted a new piece of legislation which improved and enhanced the pharmacy provisions of the original legislation. With special assistance from Senator Snowe and Senator Kennedy, the new S. 2486 included an enhanced pharmacy benefit with no enrollment fees, that included both retail and mail order programs. This improved legislation addressed the major unmet need of retirees, access to pharmaceuticals, and provides an equitable benefit, one that is not discriminatory based on age. This legislation was included during Committee consideration of the Fiscal Year 2001 National Defense Authorization Bill, with the overwhelming support of Committee members. The bill now before the Congress compliments my earlier efforts and those of the Committee. This bill, in conjunction with the provisions in the Defense Authorization Bill, would provide a complete health care benefit for all military retirees. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and my statement be printed in the Record.