John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I have no objection to that.

Mr. WARNER. Could I put in a UC request before that? Would the Senator forbear and allow me to put in a UC request? Mr. President, in consultation with the majority leader, the Democratic leader, and my colleague, Senator Levin--while I had hoped we could continue with votes tonight--we have now reached the following recommendation in the form of a UC request. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Virginia be recognized to modify his amendment, and following the modification of the amendment, the amendment be laid aside and Senator Robert Kerrey be recognized to offer an amendment relative to strategic forces, and immediately following the reporting by the clerk, the Senator from Virginia be recognized to offer a second-degree amendment. I further ask consent that following the debate tonight, there be 90 minutes additional beginning at 9:30 a.m. on the strategic forces issue, to be equally divided in the usual form, and following that debate, the amendments be laid aside. I also ask consent that following that debate, the Senate resume the amendment of the Senator from Virginia, amendment No. 3173, and it be laid aside in order for Senator Johnson to offer a similar amendment, and there be 2 hours, equally divided, total, for debate on both amendments, and following that debate, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendments. I also ask consent that there be no amendments in order to either of the four amendments described above, or the language proposed to be stricken, and there be 2 minutes for explanation prior to each vote. The voting order for tomorrow would be as follows: Warner amendment No. 3173; Johnson amendment; Warner second degree to Kerrey; Kerrey first degree, as amended, if amended.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I believe my distinguished colleague from Michigan has a request, and then I will present a UC request to the Senate.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first, I modify the pending amendment, the Warner amendment No. 3173. I send to the desk the amendment, as modified.

Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. WARNER. It is going to have my support. Mr. President, those are the questions I had in mind. I thank the Senator for the colloquy.

Mr. WARNER. It is important as part of this colloquy that we lay the foundation that the Senator was very careful in arriving at his pay levels--not to bump sergeant, or jump over it, which I think was wise. In doing so, would I not be correct in saying you will not eliminate all food stamp cases? In all probability, the efforts, if adopted and signed into law, will still leave some on food stamps. Would I be correct?

Mr. WARNER. The Senator is right, the electronic technician people, and so forth. The second question is--and it is interesting--you were quoting from the future Chief of Naval Operations--indeed, an outstanding professional. He says he would rather not have people on food stamps. Isn't that what he said?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I do. Of course, that is strictly a question of professionalism in the aviation community to which the Senator has given a lifetime of service. It is critical that they get higher pay, not only for flight but for retention purposes, than other officer segments. I have to chuckle. In what little military experience I have, I was an electrician's mate third class. I am not sure I could have qualified for a bosun's mate.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. Indeed, we will have to call upon those organizations to help explain this because it is going to pose some problems. But like others, we have to deal with it.

Mr. WARNER. This question of pay inversion, let me just sort of describe it. You have a sergeant who has served 5 or 6 years. He has a wife and two children. And then a private comes into his platoon, and he has a number of children, which enables him to qualify for food stamps. Now we add a certain sum of money, which the Senator proposes, and the salary of the private is coming right up very close to the salary of the sergeant. Now, the Senator knows from his long experience in the military--and my experience is far more modest than our distinguished colleague from Arizona, but having served in the Department of Defense, I have watched for many years this question of pay because pay has a tremendous significance not only to the military person who wears the uniform, but to the wife and family. It is a matter of pride. It is recognition for his length of service, for his professionalism, which by virtue of that length of service is greater than the younger people coming on. How do we address that? What guidance do we give, say, the officer corps and senior noncoms who have to deal with this issue, on the assumption that Congress passes it?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague. It is a great pleasure to work with him. He has one of the toughest assignments as subcommittee chairman, and he does it very ably. I thank him.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my good friend, I will try to accommodate you on that because it is a very important amendment. I would like to discuss with you just perhaps the following procedure: That we have the opportunity to have a colloquy and make some presentations about the amendment, and then at that time I will consider laying it aside. I would like to have that opportunity this afternoon. I would very much appreciate the comments of my colleague. It had been my intention to give it to you a little earlier today, but I think it began to get to your people around 11 or 12 o'clock. It had been my intention to bring it up. That is not a fact in any way I wish to conceal. But anyway, that did not come to the attention of the Senator from Michigan. So, yes, we will work on this because in fairness to our colleagues-- and I anticipate an overwhelming majority of the Senate would like to support the objectives of this amendment--we should address what could be done to the amendment. I acknowledge that a point of order does lie, and at the appropriate time I would ask for the waiver. Yes. The answer is, we will see what we can do. So I suggest as follows, that we allow other colleagues--the President pro tempore, a member of our committee, the former chairman wishes to address the bill, and the Senator from Colorado wishes to address the bill. There may be others. So let us have some brief opening statements by our two colleagues, and I will adjust the procedure at the request of the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER. The Senator is correct.

Mr. WARNER. I am not able to hear my colleague.

Mr. WARNER. This is an amendment relating to the change in the existing military medical program to, in the future, encompass retirees over age 65. I shall address this later, and I am sure the Senator from Michigan is aware I would like to have that as the first amendment up. That was my understanding.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that is correct.

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

Mr. WARNER. I am ready to proceed. I ask my distinguished friend and colleague from Michigan if he is likewise ready to go.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his thoughtful remarks, most particularly the remarks directed at the staff and other members of the committee. He is a hard-working subcommittee chairman, and he is tackling the problem of recruiting and retention. We will hear further from the Senator as we proceed with this bill. I ask unanimous consent we proceed briefly to discuss the pending amendment, and then we will proceed to an amendment to be offered by Senator McCain on food stamps, if that is agreeable as procedure. I say to my colleague, we are moving expeditiously, with Senator Robert Kerrey anxious to come to the floor. I am not suggesting we will vote on the Warner amendment. We will discuss it, and when Senator McCain comes to the floor, we will take up that amendment. My understanding is he desires less than half an hour. The Senator can indicate the time the other side desires, and then we will proceed to rollcall vote and possibly go to the Kerrey amendment.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator from Michigan. He indicated to the Senator from Virginia that the pending amendment, in our collective judgment, is subject to a budget point of order. I have shared with his senior staff that corrective measures were taken to try to bring that amendment within the strictures of the budget amendment so it would not be subject to a point of order. We will show immediately what we intend to do. In the meantime, I will discuss the amendment until Senator McCain comes to the floor. I have introduced this amendment today to change the existing military medical program to encompass in the future retirees over 65. This amendment provides uninterrupted access to both TRICARE and CHAMPUS for military retirees and their families without regard to age. Let me use the term ``retirees.'' Those following this debate might not fully understand. We are talking about men and women in the Armed Forces who put in the necessary number of years of active service or reserve service or guard service, whatever the case may be, to meet the criteria of the various frameworks of law to qualify them for a retirement for such services as they render. That is the class of individuals being referred to. It does not include persons, such as myself, who have short tours of military duties; it does not apply to me. When we use the term ``retirees,'' it is only for those who, by virtue of their services, met the statutory requirements and are eligible to receive retirement benefits. 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. Of course, we certainly included active duty and to some limited extent the reserve and guard for military health care. We are talking about that category of persons I have just described. Subsequent legislation was enacted which cut off medical benefits for those over age 65, leaving them to depend on the Medicare system, which, in their judgment and in the judgment of others, has proven insufficient, and in other ways it is a breach of promise. So there are many underlying reasons for the legislation I am proposing and the most important is equity. The reputation of those in the military who gave the promise--not knowing there wasn't any statutory foundation--made promises concerning medical care to induce individuals to provide a minimum, say, 20 years of service in most instances, to enable them to have a career in the U.S. military. Not meeting the commitment to provide medical care is a breach of promise made on behalf of our Nation. We have to correct it. These individuals devoted a significant portion of their lives, their careers, in service to our country. I recognize with profound sorrow how we broke the promise to these retirees, certainly when we passed legislation in the early 1960s. We rectify it today. I have examined these issues. There is no statutory foundation providing for entitlement to military health care benefits. It simply does not exist, in my judgment. It is mythical in terms of a foundation law. But good-faith representations were made to these members. Who made the commitment is irrelevant. I have some personal recollection. I was on active duty for a brief time toward the conclusion of World War II, and then I had a second tour of active duty during the Korean conflict-- again, less than 2 years. Nevertheless, I was surrounded by military people. I remember well the inducements given at the conclusion of World War II when so many desired to return to civilian life, requests to stay on active duty; the same thing during the Korean conflict--stay on active duty; continue; give the military the opportunity to show you a career pattern. Part of those representations included the health care package. Our committee has made a determination--and indeed it is a bipartisan decision--that we would fix the issue of health care for our retirees this year. We started with a series of bills, step by step by step. I have acknowledged my gratitude, and indeed other members of the committee acknowledge their gratitude, for what the military retirees did in bringing to our attention certain inadequacies of steps we had taken. Step by step, we have improved the benefits, in this particular phase of legislation, in this fiscal year. We are going to achieve a very significant improvement to the health care benefit, particularly if that amendment is adopted by the Senate. The amendment I bring to the floor repeals the restriction barring 65 or older military retirees and their families from continued access to the military health care system. If included, this provision will provide an equal benefit for all military health care system beneficiaries, retirees, reservists, guardsmen, and their families. This puts all beneficiaries in the same class. It is expensive, but I think it is essential we do this to keep the faith with military retirees. I have had many meetings with both active and retired military on the health care issue. I conducted town hall meetings, discussions with groups who have come to my office, and I have listened to those who have attended the Armed Services Committee hearings regarding their views. They filled the room on a number of occasions. They have come from all areas of the country to talk about this. They are not seeking it solely for themselves. They are seeking to preserve the image of the U.S. military so the young people today who are considering joining at the recruiting stations--going through our ROTC, NROTC, the AROTC, all of these programs--will consider a military career. When they go back home they hear the oldtimers say: Watch out, they broke a promise to me on health care. You are thinking about devoting 20 years of your life to this, or more--watch out. We are going to get rid of the, ``Watch out.'' That is what we are trying to do, get rid of it, because the military retirees are the most cost-effective recruiters that we have in America today. They do not cost us anything. Yet it is those ladies and gentlemen who served this Nation who go out and talk to the youngsters. The youngsters look up to them. The youngsters trust them. They look up to the veterans. They have been there. They have done it. They help tremendously helpful in recruiting. So there are many reasons for making these health care improvements. The amendment is a quantum leap ahead of the provisions already in committee markup at the desk. While the markup includes the comprehensive drug benefit regardless of age, the amendment goes further and provides uninterrupted access to complete health care services. As a result of these initiatives, all military retirees, irrespective of age, will now enjoy the same health care benefits. In town hall meetings, as I said, I listened carefully to the health care concerns of the military, particularly those over 65. We have all done that. The constant theme that runs through their requests is that once they have reached 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 health care system has been in effect since 1964. It 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 and respect and indeed the love of the community is most needed. This is an amendment which in effect repeals the 1964 law. In order to permit the Department of Defense to plan for restoring the health care benefit to all retirees, my provision 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. The amendment 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. Military readiness will not be adversely impacted, and our commitment to those who serve their full career will be fulfilled. 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. 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. 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 has been the Committee's top quality of life initiative this year. We have listened. We have, with bipartisan support, enhanced our earlier legislation to include full pharmacy benefits. The amendment now before the Congress complements those earlier efforts and provides an equitable medical benefit, one that is not based on age. It is time to act. At the suggestion of my distinguished colleague, to avoid a point of order, I am looking at not changing the fundamental provisions in the amendment but limiting it to two or possibly three fiscal years. That will bring us within the constraints of the budget resolution. That is an important step. I appreciate my colleague bringing this to our attention. It will have another effect. It will enable the Congress, and initially our committee, to go in, in depth, and study this amendment because it is going to have a very significant impact on the existing infrastructure that is caring for the existing active duty and military retirees under 65. We cannot fully calculate, no matter how hard we look into this, what that impact would be. In my own judgment, it will require the Congress to step forward and provide funds, maybe some legislation, to help the existing infrastructure absorb the over-65 retirees as they return to what was justly promised them when they signed up. So this amendment has the advantages of laying it out, giving a reasonable period of time for the Department and for the Congress to examine it and determine what we have to give by way of additional support. Also--I say this with no political motive whatsoever--it should become and will become, in my judgment, an issue in the Presidential campaign. I am quite certain the retirees will say to both candidates: Look here, the Senate of the United States included this provision. It went over to the conference with the House. It survived. It was signed into law by the President. But it ends. It ends in, say, 2003. I want to hear what the Presidential candidate has to say about this program and whether he will support it, support it in the sense of extending it beyond 2003, support it in the budget requests to provide the additional funds and whatever is necessary to make the infrastructure of our military able to support this program. That is what we are working on. Momentarily I will ask my amendment be modified. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Before the Senator proceeds, I express my gratitude to our distinguished chairman of the Emerging Threats Subcommittee for a marvelous job. I commend the Senator for giving his staff due recognition for their wonderful work. It is a vital subcommittee. It is on the absolute cutting edge of everything we have to be doing in the Senate. I thank the Senator and yield the floor.

John Warner

Speeches

Manage analytics