John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I ask my colleague if he has any comment to make.

Mr. WARNER. I am not prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator. I want to work with Senator Levin to see if we can order the sequencing of amendments this afternoon to accommodate the Senate. We will have the McCain vote. We will decide on that time in a few minutes. I have talked to our distinguished colleague from Nebraska, Mr. Kerrey. He has a very important amendment. He just indicated to this manager that he is willing to bring it up and have a vote on it tonight. Is that correct?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, momentarily I believe the Senator from Arizona will ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WARNER. Fine.

Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague. This is an initiative on which he has worked for some time. I wish to ask him a question or two. I intend to support it. I think we need a little clarification on one or two points. I commend him for bringing this up. I commend him for his determination to address this issue, and not only this year but in past years. It was passed by our committee, this basic language, in last year's bill; am I not correct?

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER. Last, we added $25 million for five additional Weapons of Mass Destruction-Civil Support teams formerly known as RAID teams. This will result in a total of 32 of these teams by the end of fiscal year 2001. It is the committee's intent to support the establishment of these teams for each State and territory. I commend this committee, particularly the subcommittee that handles this under Senator Roberts, for their relentless initiative to drive and get these teams in place. The Department of Defense has not been as aggressive as has the Senate on this issue. I would like to briefly highlight some of the other major funding initiatives and provisions of the bill. First, we strengthen the Joint Strike Fighter Program by significantly increasing funding for the demonstration and validation phase of this program while removing funding for the engineering, manufacture, and development phase in the fiscal year 2001. It increases the shipbuilding budget by $603.2 million to over $12 billion. I commend the chairman and ranking member of that committee, the Senator from Maine. This is a very essential investment, an increase in spending, if we are ever to hope to maintain just a 300- ship Navy. It authorizes $98.2 million for military space programs and technologies, $22 million for strategic nuclear delivery vehicle modernization, and $190 million for national and military intelligence programs. We support the Army transformation initiative and we add additional resources that support research and development efforts designed to lead to the future development of that force. Congress has to help the Army. They have some very bold initiatives, but the funding profile for these initiatives in the outyears has a degree of uncertainty which troubles this Senator. But we will try to do our best to work with the distinguished Chief of Staff, the Secretary, and others, in trying to move the Army along in its projected transformation program. We included provisions supporting, under certain conditions, the agreement reached between the Department of Defense and the government of Puerto Rico that is intended to restore relations between the people of Vieques and the Navy and provide for the continuation of live fire training on this island. I commend the former Presiding Officer, the Senator from Oklahoma, for his unrelenting efforts, many visits down to that region to work on this problem. We increased funding for military construction and family housing programs by $430 million to $8.46 billion. We authorized $1.27 billion for the environmental restoration accounts to enhance environmental cleanup of military facilities. We required the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, to: No. 1, develop long-range plans for the sustainment and modernization for U.S. strategic nuclear forces and; No. 2, to conduct a comprehensive review of the nuclear posture of the United States for the next 5 to 10 years. That is an essential program. We must get that evaluation. We have not done one since 1994. This was of great concern to me. While I commend the President--he did the best he could at the recent summit--it would have been advisable if this Nation had conducted one of these essential programs to make an analysis of the threat--what we have in our inventory, the inventories of the other nations of the world--and, therefore, have a better idea of exactly where this country stands today and what it faces in the future. These are but a few of the highlights of the many initiatives included in this bill. The subcommittee chairmen are truly the architects of this bill. They will discuss in greater detail the provisions in their respective subcommittees. Each should be congratulated for their study and hard work, together with their ranking members. I urge my colleagues to support rapid passage of this bill. We need to send a strong signal of support to our Armed Forces in the field, at sea, and those who have gone before them in the line of duty. We are trustees of this great Nation and we are given that trust by generation after generation after generation of Americans who have gone from the shores of our Nation to defend the cause of freedom in farflung places of the world. These are outstanding men and women now serving in uniform. We have an obligation to them as previous Congresses have had obligations to other generations, engaged in the preserving of our freedom. I, once again, thank my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Michigan, for his work on this committee--indeed, nonpartisan hard work--and the wonderful staff. We put this bill together. I thank the Senator and yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this is the amendment about which I spoke on the floor earlier this morning. I think colleagues have had an opportunity to inform themselves about it. It is my hope that a number will desire to be cosponsors. We have a number of cosponsors right now. This amendment relates to the continuing work of the Armed Services Committee with regard to the necessity to provide a health care program for retirees over 65. As the Presiding Officer well knows, the committee has addressed this in several increments, and now with another amendment by the Senator from Virginia, which I offer on behalf of many. I want to recognize that this is a subject that has quite properly gained the attention of a number of colleagues. I know Senator McCain, on our side of the aisle, and Senator Hutchison have worked on this subject of health care. In no way do I indicate that anyone-- certainly not myself--has been the principal; we have all worked together as a team. And at such appropriate time, I will return to this amendment. I want to make some opening comments now regarding this very important piece of legislation. This bill contains the much-needed increases in defense funding and critical initiatives, including in the area of recruiting and retention. Retention is one of the most serious problems we have facing us today in our current military, as well as recruiting. This bill, in the collective judgment of the committee, goes a long way toward helping to alleviate the problems we have and to improve those critical areas in our defense. It is most appropriate that we begin this discussion today, on June 6, the 56th anniversary of D-Day. Today, America recalls the heroic acts of bravery and valor demonstrated on the beaches of France and the many who paid the price in life and limb for liberty and freedom. And how proud we are, as the Senate, to have as the President pro tempore the distinguished senior Senator from South Carolina, Strom Thurmond, among us. He, of course, crossed the beaches of D-Day 56 years ago. He addressed the Senate earlier today on that subject. As we look to the future and the defense of this Nation, we must never forget what may be required, and indeed what was required, of so many--over 1,400 American servicemen, not to speak of our allies; they had casualties also. But 1,400 American servicemen died on June 6, 1944, on the beaches of France, and thousands more were wounded. They did it to restore freedom to so many nations and people all through Europe--freedom that had been taken away by Hitler and the Axis forces. I begin by expressing my thanks to the ranking member, Senator Levin. We came to the Senate together 21 years ago. We have worked as partners on this bill and have produced a bipartisan product that will strengthen the security of the United States, in the collective judgment of all members of the Armed Services Committee, and improve the quality of life of our men and women in uniform and, most especially, for their families. I also applaud our subcommittee chairmen, ranking members, and all members of the Committee for their fine work throughout this year. I will put in the Record elsewhere the volume of hearings, special meetings, the prolonged markup sessions that led to the work product for which we labored in the Senate today. A special thanks to our committee staff. What a superb professional staff--not only this year and last year, but throughout the 22 years I have been privileged to be on this committee. Under many distinguished chairmen and ranking members, we have had the most nonpartisan and the hardest-working staff in the Senate. I salute Colonel Les Brownlee, David Lyles, and the personal staff of the committee members for their invaluable work which led to the creation of this bill. I appeal to all Members to join us in our bipartisan effort to improve our security. The safety and well-being of our men and women in uniform, thousands of whom are deployed at this very moment in harm's way across this world, should not fall victim to any partisan debate and certainly no election year politics. We have done that in the past. I hope we will not do it on this bill and in the future. We should keep in mind that Members of the Senate have always recognized the importance of the annual Defense authorization bill, and in the past we have put our partisan concerns aside for the good of the Nation. I remind colleagues that the Senate has passed a Defense authorization bill every year since the authorization process began in 1961, some nearly 40 years. The House this year had a strong, resounding vote of 353 yeas to 100-some-odd nays. So that is a clear indication of the strength of the House and the Senate bills and the need for these bills to be brought into law. At this time of increased tension around the world, at this time of unprecedented deployments of U.S. military personnel around the globe, we must show our support for our troops. Accordingly, I urge all Members to abstain from offering nondefense-related amendments and to join in a bipartisan effort to pass this Defense authorization bill, to send a strong signal of support to our brave troops, wherever they are in the world, for risking their lives at the very moment we address this legislation, risking to safeguard freedom of our allies, our friends, and indeed those of us here at home. The problems and the threats facing the home front have increased to where they are greater today than I ever envisioned in my life. The national security challenges that the United States will face in the new millennium are many and diverse--new adversaries, unknown adversaries, new weapons, and unknown weapons. A very complex threat faces us at home and our forces forward deployed. It is important that we remain vigilant, forward thinking, and prepared to address these challenges. Just days ago the National Commission on Terrorism, established by Congress in 1998, issued its report, ``Countering the Changing Threat of International Terrorism''. I would like to quote from the Report's executive summary: ``Today's terrorists seek to inflict mass causalities, and they are attempting to do so both overseas and on American soil. They are less dependent on state sponsorship and are, instead, forming loose, transnational affiliations based on religious or ideological--regrettably I have to use that word, ``a common hatred''--affinity and a common hatred of the United States. This makes terrorist attacks more difficult to detect and prevent.'' We must be prepared to respond to this threat and I look forward to reviewing the numerous recommendations contained within the report which we may address in the course of the deliberations on this bill. While the Department of Defense (DOD) must plan and allocate resources to meet future threats, ongoing military operations and deployments from the Balkans to Southwest Asia to East Timor continue to demand significant resources in the short term and the foreseeable future. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 authorizes a total of $309.8 billion for defense spending--$4.5 billion above the President's request--and provides authority and guidance to the Defense Department to address the critical readiness, modernization, and recruiting and retention problems facing our military. For over a decade, our defense budgets have been based on constrained funding, not on the threats facing the nation or the military strategy necessary to meet those threats. The result of this is evident today in continuing critical problems with recruiting and retention, declining readiness ratings, and aging equipment. Last year, the Congress reversed the downward trend in defense spending by approving a defense authorization bill which, for the first time in 14 years, included a real increase in the authorized level of defense spending. This year, we continue that momentum with the bill before the Senate the second year of increased authorization levels. As I stated earlier, the authorized level of $309.8 billion in this bill is $4.5 billion above the President's request and consistent with this year's concurrent budget resolution. The fiscal year 2001 funding level also represents a real increase in defense spending of 4.4 percent from the fiscal year 2000 appropriated level. The funding we have provided is primarily going for modernization and readiness and for other benefits for the men and women of the military. The committee authorized $63.28 billion in procurement funding, a $3.0 billion increase over the President's budget. Operations and maintenance was funded at $109.2 billion, with $1.5 billion added to the primary readiness accounts. Research, development, test and evaluation was budgeted at $39.31 billion, a $1.45 billion increase over the President's budget request. The committee's support for additional funding for defense is based on an in-depth analysis of the threats facing U.S. interests, and testimony from senior military leaders on the many shortfalls in the defense budget. While the cold war has been over for nearly a decade, it is evident that the world remains a complex and violent place. The greatest threat to our national security today is instability; instability fueled by ethnic, religious, and racial animosities that have existed for centuries, but are now resulting in conflicts fought with the weapons of modern warfare. Many have turned to the United States, as the sole remaining superpower, to resolve the many conflicts around the world and to ensure stability in the future. However, this military power does not ensure our security. As Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet told the committee in January, ``The fact that we are arguably the world's most powerful nation does not bestow invulnerability; in fact, it may make us a larger target for those who don't share our interest, values, or beliefs.'' U.S. military forces are involved in overseas deployments at an unprecedented rate. Currently, our troops are involved in over 10 contingency operations around the globe. Unfortunately, there appears to be no relief in sight for most of these operations. At an October 1999 hearing of the committee, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Hugh Shelton, stated that, ``Two factors that erode military readiness are the pace of operations and funding shortfalls. There is no doubt that the force is much smaller than it was a decade ago, and also much busier.'' Over the past decade, our active duty manpower has been reduced by nearly a third, active Army divisions have been reduced by almost 50 percent, and the number of Navy ships has been reduced from 567 to 316. During this same period, our troops have been involved in 50 military operations worldwide. By comparison, from the end of the Vietnam war in 1975 until 1989, U.S. military forces were engaged in only 20 such military deployments. This unprecedented rate of overseas deployments is one of the primary factors contributing to the severe problems we are having with recruiting and retaining quality personnel, and with maintaining adequate readiness of the existing force. We have tried to address these issues in the bill before the Senate. It has also affected our readiness, as the Presiding Officer well knows as chairman of the subcommittee with the primary jurisdiction of readiness. I want to pause for a moment and acknowledge the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Service Chiefs--the Chief of Naval Operations, the Air Force Chief of Staff, the Army Chief of Staff, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps--for their role in helping to reverse the decline in defense spending. I cannot think of one single factor that added greater emphasis not only this year but last year to the increase in defense spending--not one fact greater than their honest, forthright professional and personal assessments which were given this committee time and time in formalized hearings, and indeed in private consultations. I commend them. They have ably represented their troops. There is no group of leaders more responsible for stopping this downward trend than the Chiefs. On three separate occasions, October 6, 1998, January 5, 1999, and October 26, 1999, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Service Chiefs came before the Armed Services Committee to tell us about the ever increasing challenges the armed forces were facing in carrying out their military missions. Simply put, they did not have enough money. Their individual observations were forthright and candid. Collectively, their reports to the Congress became the unimpeachable voice that made Americans sit up and take notice. The chiefs were heard across the land. Our nation echoed back: we believe you, you have the people's support. The military service chiefs have testified that they have a remaining shortfall in funding of $9.0 billion for fiscal year 2000, a requirement for an additional $15.5 billion above the budget request to meet shortfalls in readiness and modernization for fiscal year 2001, and a requirement for an additional $85.0 billion in the future years Defense Program. This bill adds $3.8 billion to the President's budget request to specifically pay for items identified by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Service chiefs as necessary requirements: necessary requirements that were not funded by the President's request. As I said earlier, the high operations tempo of our armed forces is having a negative impact on recruiting and retention. Last year, the committee took action to provide a pay raise and a package of retirement reforms and retention incentives in an effort to recruit and retain highly qualified personnel. The committee has received testimony that these changes are having a positive impact on recruiting and retention efforts. This year, the committee has focused its ``quality of life'' efforts on improving military health care for our active duty and retired personnel and their families. Earlier this year, I announced my intention to join with the majority leader and others to tackle the long-standing problems with the military health care system. I wish to acknowledge the full cooperation of my distinguished colleague, Mr. Levin, and the Members on his side of the aisle. It has truly been a bipartisan effort. We have heard increasing complaints, especially from over 56 retirement communities. While the Congress was taking some steps in the past to try to improve the health care system, it was time for a major assault on this problem. And we have done more than establish a beachhead. I used that term months ago when I laid down the first piece of legislation with our distinguished majority leader, Mr. Lott. The bill before the Senate today is but the first step, I hope, in what will be a continuing process to fulfill our commitment of quality health care for all military personnel--active duty, retired, as well as their families. The Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the service chiefs have all highlighted the many problems associated with implementing a user-friendly health care program for active duty service members, military retirees, and their families. In this bill, the committee included initiatives that ensure our active duty personnel and their families receive quality health care and initiatives that fulfill our commitment to military retirees, including extending TriCare Prime to families of service members assigned to remote locations, eliminating copayments for service received under the TriCare Prime, and authorizing a comprehensive retail and national mail order pharmacy benefit for all eligible beneficiaries, including Medicare-eligible beneficiaries with no enrollment fee or deductible. I will elaborate on the pharmacy benefit. Prescription medication is the major unmet need of the military retiree. I believe this bill meets that need. This bill for the first time provides an entitlement for a comprehensive drug benefit for all military beneficiaries, including those who are Medicare eligible. Hopefully, I will add my amendment which will further enhance this whole package of retiree benefits, particularly for those over 65. At the appropriate time, I will ask to turn to that amendment. Other quality-of-life initiatives of note in this bill are a 3.7- percent pay raise for military personnel effective January 1, 2001, and a provision that directs the Department to implement the Thrift Savings Plan for military personnel not later than 180 days after enactment of this act. We put similar provisions in last year's bill but gave the discretion to the Department. This year, we have been forthright and we direct action on that program. Last year, NATO conducted its first large-scale offensive military operation with the 78-day air war campaign--and it was associated with other military operations and was not exclusive to air--on behalf of the beleaguered and persecuted peoples of Kosovo. The lessons learned from that operation addressed during a series of committee hearings highlighted not only shortfalls in weapon systems and intelligence programs but also the complexities of engaging in coalition operations. As noted in the combined testimony of Operation Allied Force Commanders, Gen. Wesley Clark, Adm. James Ellis, and Lt. Gen. Mike Short, the Kosovo campaign: . . . required [that] we adopt military doctrine and strategy to strike a balance between maintaining allied cohesion, striking key elements of the Yugoslav Armed Forces, minimizing losses of allied aircraft and crew, and containing collateral damage. Of paramount concern to the committee this year was applying the lessons learned from the air campaign over Kosovo to our defense budget to ensure the future preparedness of the U.S. Armed Forces for future military operations. Accordingly, the committee included over $700 million for a program to include aircraft precision strike capability, aircraft survivability, and intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance assets based on lessons learned from the Kosovo conflict. Over 38,000 combat sorties were conducted during the Kosovo air campaign--and I proudly say, for all nations that participated, some seven nations flew--with no combat casualties and some heroic rescue operations. While the committee understands that no military operation is without risk, limiting the risk to military personnel is an important goal. Every day, advances in technology such as computing and telecommunications are being integrated into warfighting equipment. The committee believes the Defense Department must further pursue these technological advances in an effort to provide advanced warfighting capabilities, while at the same time limiting the risk to military personnel. To this end, this legislation directs the DOD to aggressively develop and field unmanned combat systems in the air and on the ground so that within 10 years one-third of our operation of these type aircraft would be unmanned, and within 15 years one-third of our ground combat vehicles would be unmanned. The committee also added $246.3 million to accelerate technologies leading to the development and fielding of remotely controlled air combat vehicles and remotely controlled ground combat vehicles. As demonstrated in Kosovo, our Armed Forces are the best prepared in the world. They can beat the enemy on any battlefield. I don't say that with arrogance. It is factual. Our enemies, certainly those that can be identified, know that. It is the ones that we can't identify--the growing number we cannot identify, that we cannot anticipate--that pose the greatest threat. Current and future potential adversaries must fully understand, however, our military capability. Many are now intent on carrying the battle right here at home in the continental limits of the United States of America either by ballistic missile attack or attacks with chemical or biological agents or through cyberterrorism. That is where we are soft, soft in the underbelly of this great Nation. Recently, retired Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre characterized domestic preparedness as ``the mission of the decade.'' I agree with that distinguished former public servant. The military services play a critical and important role in domestic preparedness for such attacks. Should some madman or terrorist release a chemical biological agent on the civilian population at home--or, indeed, at a military base that could be a target--the Defense Department must be prepared to assist the first responders, whether they are volunteer firemen, the police officers, or even citizens who instinctively try to come to the aid of those suffering, along with the health care professionals in our local communities. To deter and defeat the efforts of those intent on using weapons of mass destruction or mass disruption in the United States, this bill does the following: It adds $76.8 million for initiatives to address the threat of cyberattack, including establishment of an Information Security Scholarship Program to encourage recruitment and retention of Department of Defense personnel with computer network security skills. This is a program in which I have had a great deal of interest. I do hope the Members will work with me on this. We have this massive people program, maybe $20 or $30 million just to begin to give incentives for young people to go into cyberspace terrorism. What better evidence do we need than this love note that floated around, causing billions of dollars of loss to the economy in this country for the shutdown of computers. Second, there is the creation of an institute for defense computer security and information protection to conduct research and critical technology development and to facilitate the exchange of information between the government and the private sector, and sharing of information to try and meet this common threat. Further, we added $418 million for ballistic missile defense programs, including $129 million for National Missile Defense Risk Reduction, $92.4 million for the Air Forces Airborne Laser Program, $60 million for the Navy Theater-Wide Missile Defense Program, $15 million for the Atmospheric Interceptor Technology Program, $8 million for the Arrow System Improvement Program, $15 million for the Tactical High Energy Laser Program, and $30 million for the Space-Based Laser Program. This is a serious threat to our homeland, the intercontinental ballistic missiles. We are forging ahead. I wish we could be stronger in our efforts. I will, with others, try everlastingly to increase our strength to try to approach these things and solve these problems--because we are defenseless. Americans think we spent $300.9 billion this year and $300 billion previous years and that we have some defense. We do not. We are absolutely defenseless against these intercontinental ballistic missiles, particularly the ones that might be fired by a rogue state or terrorist state or, indeed, an accidental firing. It could decimate any of our great cities or, indeed, rural areas. (Mr. HAGEL assumed the chair.)

Mr. WARNER. This amendment was shared beforehand with my colleague from Michigan.

Mr. WARNER. Does the Democratic whip desire to be recognized?

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I have spoken to every one of them today. I will read their names in the order of seniority of the Senate: Senator Thurmond, who crossed the beaches on D-Day. He did it in a glider, and it crashed, he was injured, but he went on and took up his duties despite that. Senator Inouye is one of the most highly decorated Members of the Senate. The President upgraded his decoration from the Distinguished Service Cross to the Medal of Honor; is that correct?

Mr. WARNER. No. There is not a more modest Member of the Senate.

Mr. WARNER. What a great strength he has been to national defense in the 22 years we have worked on this. Fritz Hollings was in the European campaign. Senator Stevens was an Air Corps pilot, before there was an Air Force; he flew in the Pacific. Senator Bill Roth was in the Army. Senator Helms was in the Navy. Senator Moynihan was in the Navy, and he was proud to call me Secretary of the Navy. I was just a petty officer third class. Senator Lautenberg served. Senator Gorton served in the Army right at the end. Senator Akaka served. I was a young sailor, and we were trained during the invasion of Japan, and the war ended very precipitously.

Mr. WARNER. Senator Robert Kerrey is a Medal of Honor winner. We will add him as a cosponsor. I ask unanimous consent that they all be made cosponsors, along with myself and Senator Levin.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. WARNER. I thank my distinguished colleague for joining me and for his kind remarks about our colleagues. Mr. President, we have made some accomplishments today. The hour is 8 o'clock, and we started promptly at about 2:45. I thank all who participated in moving this. We have an order for tomorrow which lays out the work.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak up to 10 minutes each.

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.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to discuss the importance--the critical need--for early Senate consideration of the defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2001. This bill, which we reported out of the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 12th with bipartisan support, is a good bill which will have a positive impact on our nation's security, and on the welfare of the men and women of the Armed Forces and their families. It is a fair bill. It provides a $4.5 billion increase in defense spending--consistent with the congressional budget resolution. But, the real beneficiaries of this legislation are our servicemen and women who will not only have better tools and equipment to do their jobs, but an enhanced quality of life for themselves and their families. We must show our support for these brave men and women--many of whom are in harm's way on a daily basis-- by passing this important legislation. I am privileged to have been associated with the Senate Armed Services Committee and the development of a defense authorization bill every year of my modest career here in the Senate--a career quickly approaching 22 years. During those years, the committee has used the annual defense authorization bills to address the most fundamental national security issues facing the nation, including: the revitalization of the Armed Forces under President Reagan; the Goldwater-Nichols reorganization of the Department of Defense; the restructuring and reduction of the Armed Forces following the end of the cold war; investigating the tragedies in Beirut, Somalia, and Saudi Arabia (Khobar Towers); and the review and implementation of the lessons learned from military operations in Grenada, Panama, the Persian Gulf, and, most recently, the lessons learned from the operations in the Balkans and, in particular, Kosovo. This year's legislation follows in this fine tradition. The importance of this bill is without question. While this legislation is not the only bill on defense spending, it occupies a very unique and critical role in the congressional defense funding process. Both it's timing and function in the congressional budget process are intended to achieve important goals: fully explore public concerns and fulfill statutory requirements. The venerable soldier-statesman, General George Marshall once stated, ``In a democracy such as ours, military policy is dependent on public opinion.'' The crucial step of ensuring that public opinion on national security policy issues has a forum begins in the Armed Services Committee. Since the beginning of the 106th Congress, the Senate Committee on Armed Services has conducted almost 170 hearings, briefings, and meetings, to fully explore, examine and deliberate matters of concern to the public on national security policy and funding issues. This year, in particular, a sample of the issues addressed in our hearings include: healthcare for military personnel, their families and retirees; the future of the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal; U.S. military involvement in the Balkans; Defense Department efforts to counter the threat of a terrorist attack; security clearance procedures for defense personnel; immunizing our personnel against anthrax; and ensuring Russia safely secures and disposes of its nuclear arsenal. Mr. President, the discussion on these important issues does not end with consideration in the Armed Services Committee. In fact, in the last twenty years, our Chamber's collective interest in continuing the public debate on pressing national security matters presented in the defense authorization bill has significantly increased. In 1979, the first opportunity I had to be a part of the defense authorization bill process, there were only 11 amendments to the bill during Senate floor debate. Last year, during our debate on the national defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2000, there were over 160 amendments. But we know our responsibility to consider and pass the defense authorization bill goes beyond statutory requirements and historical precedent. We must also be aware of the importance of this measure to our men and women in uniform around the world. U.S. military forces are involved in overseas deployments at an unprecedented rate. Currently, our troops are involved in over 10 contingency operations around the globe. Over the past decade, our active duty manpower has been reduced by nearly a third, active Army divisions have been reduced by almost 50 percent, and the number of Navy ships has been reduced from 567 to 316. During this same period, our troops have been involved in 50 military operations worldwide. By comparison, from the end of the Vietnam war in 1975 until 1989, U.S. military forces were engaged in only 20 such military deployments. In an all-volunteer force, where increasing deployments and operations challenge the capabilities of our military to effectively meet those commitments, as well as challenge the efforts of our military to recruit and retain quality military personnel, we must embrace every opportunity to demonstrate our commitment to our military personnel. The National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2001 sends this important message. Mr. President, I noted previously in these remarks the important role of the defense authorization bill as a means by which the Armed Services Committee and the Senate address many of the today's important military policy matters. I would like to take a moment to highlight the impact of not passing the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2001. With respect to personnel policy, the committee included leglsiation in the defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2001 to continue to support initiatives to address critical recruiting and retention shortfalls. In this regard, the committee increased compensation benefits and focused on improving military health care for our active duty and retired personnel and their families. Without this bill, there will be: No 3.7 percent pay raise for military personnel; No pharmacy benefit for medicare eligible military retirees; No extension of TRICARE benefits to active duty family members in remote locations; No elimination of health care co-pays for active duty family members in TRICARE Prime; No Thrift Savings Plan for military personnel; No five year pilot program to permit the Army to test several innovative approaches to recruiting; and No transit pass benefit for Defense Department commuters in the Washington area. And, without this bill, the current Department of Defense Medicare subvention demonstration program will not be expanded, as we envisioned, but instead terminated. Currently, the Medicare Subvention demonstration program provides medical services to approximately 28,000 military retirees in Mississippi, Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Washington, and Delaware. Expanding the program would provide medical services to military retirees living in the District of Columbia, Virginia, Ohio, Georgia, Hawaii, and Maryland. Without this bill, almost every bonus and special pay incentive designed to recruit and retain service members will expire December 31, 2000, including: special pay for health professionals in critically short wartime specialities; special pay for nuclear-qualified officers who extend their service commitment; aviation officer retention bonus; nuclear accession bonus; nuclear career annual incentive bonus; Selected Reserve enlistment bonus; Selected Reserve re-enlistment bonus; special pay for service members assigned to high priority reserve units; Selected Reserve affiliation bonus; Ready Reserve enlistment and re-enlistment bonuses; loan repayment program for health professionals who serve in the Selected Reserve; nurse officer candidate accession program; accession bonus for registered nurses; incentive pay for nurse anesthetists; re-enlistment bonus for active duty personnel; enlistment bonus for critical active duty specialities; and Army enlistment bonuses and the extension of this bonus to the other services. The committee has carefully studied the recruiting and retention problems in our military. We have worked hard to develop this package to increase compensation and benefits. We believe it will go a long way to recruit new servicemenbers and to provide the necessary incentives to retain mid-career personnel who are critical to the force. Mr. President, on many occasions I have shared my concerns about the threats posed to our military personnel and our citizens, both at home and abroad, by weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological, radiological and cyber warfare. Whether these weapons are used on the battlefield or by a terrorist within the United States, we, as a nation, must be prepared. Without this bill, efforts by the committee to continue to ensure that the DOD is adequately funded and structured to deter and defeat the efforts of those intent on using weapons of mass destruction would not be implemented. Efforts that would not go forward without this bill include: establishing a single point of contact for overall policy and budgeting oversight of the DOD activities for combating terrorism; fully deploying 32 WMD-CST (formerly RAID) teams by the end of fiscal year 2001; the establishment of an Information Security Scholarship Program to encourage the recruitment and retention of Department of Defense personnel with computer and network security skills; and the creation of an Institute for Defense Computer Security and Information Protection to conduct research and critical technology development and to facilitate the exchange of information between the government and the private sector. Mr. President, I would like to briefly highlight some of the other major initiatives in this bill that would be at risk without Senate floor consideration of the defense authorization bill: Without this bill, multi-year, cost-saving spending authority for the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and UH-60 ``Blackhawk'' helicopter would cease. Without this bill, there would not be a block buy for Virginia Class submarines. Without the block buy, there would be fewer opportunities to save taxpayer dollars by buying components--in a cost-effective manner--for the submarines. All military construction projects require both authorizations as well as appropriations. Without this bill, over 360 military construction projects and 25 housing projects involving hundreds of critical family housing units would not be started. The Military Housing Privatization Initiative would expire in February 2001. Without this bill, the program would not be extended for an additional three years, as planned. The military services would not be able to privatize thousands of housing units and correct a serious housing shortage within the Department of Defense. Mr. President, it has been said that, ``Example is the best General Order.'' The Senate needs to take charge, move out, consider and pass the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2001. This legislation is important to the nation and to demonstrating to the men and women in uniform, their families and those who have gone before them, our current and continuing support and commitment to them on behalf of a grateful nation.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today with Senator Kennedy, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Robb to designate the Washington Opera as the National Opera. The Washington Opera has been an innovative leader in bringing to the metropolitan Washington area exceptional performances since 1956. The company has enjoyed tremendous success in the community over the years. Since 1980, the company has grown from 16 performances of four operas to 80 performances of eight operas for the 2000 season. Mr. President, the purpose of this legislation is to recognize in our nation's capital an opera of national significance. Let me be clear to my colleagues that this legislation does not extend any Federal responsibilities or obligation for funding to the Washington Opera. It would not become part of any Federal activity. Today, the Washington Opera enjoys a contractual relationship with the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts for use of its facilities. It is not affiliated with the Kennedy Center in any way other than being named as the resident opera company. This is an honorary designation, but there is no financial support for the opera from the Kennedy Center. The legislation is only intended as a means of recognition of opera in our Nation's capital and its mission to bring to the nation a forum to highlight our musical heritage. Under its new name, the National Opera will bring contained performances of American opera to the stage. The history of the Washington Opera and its commitment to bringing opera as an art form to the Washington area community is to be commended. The Washington Opera's Education and Community Programs are dedicated to educating future audiences and making the experience of opera more available to residents of the region. Since 1992, over 150,000 students have participated in these programs. Today, there are over 22 programs that provide performance experiences, curriculum activities, in-school artist visits, professional development opportunities for teachers and young artists, and other activities that bring opera into our schools and communities. Mr. President, with this national recognition comes the obligation for the Washington Opera to undertake additional programs to serve a larger national audience, expand community outreach for underprivileged youth, and other missions that embody a larger national presence. I am confident that the opera will enthusiastically accept this challenge. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my legislation appear in the Record following my statement.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on May 16, 2000, the United States Senate took a procedural vote on Senator Daschle's amendment to S. 2521, the Military Construction Appropriations Bill. Senator Daschle lost this procedural vote by a vote of 42-54. I did not support the Daschle amendment at that time because it was a procedural amendment to an unrelated bill. This unrelated Daschle amendment kept the Senate away all day from the important business of the Military Construction Appropriations Bill. In addition, it appeared that the Daschle amendment might indefinitely delay consideration of this important bill. As Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have a responsibility to secure passage of the important Military Construction Appropriations Bill. This bill provides critically needed funding for military construction projects, improves the quality of life for the men and women who are serving our country in the armed forces, and sustains the readiness of our armed forces. These areas are traditionally underfunded, and this bill provides the necessary funds to help make up for this shortfall. For these reasons, I did not support the Daschle amendment when it came before me on a procedural vote on May 16, 2000. Subsequent to the procedural vote on the Daschle amendment on May 16, 2000, Senators Lott and Daschle reached an agreement to have two up or down votes--one on the aforementioned Daschle amendment and another on an amendment to be offered by Senator Lott. Under the agreement, debate on the amendments was limited by a time agreement. Once this leadership agreement was reached, it became apparent that the Daschle amendment would no longer indefinitely delay the Military Construction Appropriations Bill. Therefore, my previous objections to this amendment were no longer relevant. The Daschle amendment is a ``Sense of the Senate'' amendment. After stating a number of findings, the amendment states, among other things, that it is the Sense of the Senate that ``Congress should immediately pass a conference report to accompany'' the Juvenile Justice Bill that includes the Senate passed gun-related provisions. During the Senate's debate of the Juvenile Justice Bill in May of 1999, I supported the Lautenberg amendment, and other amendments to close the gun show loophole in the Brady Act. I also supported an amendment to require licensed firearm dealers to provide a secure gun storage or safety device when a handgun is sold, delivered or transferred. Unfortunately, the Juvenile Justice Bill has been locked in a House and Senate Conference Committee. I remain firm in my stance on these issues. I certainly hope that House and Senate conferees can reach an agreement in conference on the Juvenile Justice Bill. And, I will continue to support the common-sense gun provisions that passed the Senate during the Juvenile Justice debate. I believe the Senate passed gun-related amendments to the Juvenile Justice Bill will help keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons and increase public safety without infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens. Therefore, when it became clear that the Daschle amendment would not indefinitely delay consideration of the Military Construction Appropriations Bill, I supported this amendment and voted for it on May 17, 2000.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the exceptionally distinguished service of Lieutenant General Ronald R. Blanck, United States Army, who has distinguished himself as the Army's 39th Surgeon General and Commander, U.S. Army Medical Command General, from 1 October 1996 to 31 August 2000. In addition to serving as the principal medical staff advisor to the Army Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Blanck also serves as Commander of the United States Army Medical Command, which administers a 6.6 billion-dollar worldwide-integrated health care system with 46,000 military personnel and 26,000 civilian employees. During his tenure, Lieutenant General Blanck concentrated on three major areas, readiness, quality of healthcare, and innovation, to ensure the provision of comprehensive, quality healthcare to soldiers, retirees, and their family members. Lieutenant General Blanck implemented a new set of combat support training standards; energized the Army's Medical Reengineering Initiative; and organized an array of Special Medical Augmentation Response Teams to provide global, rapid-deployment capabilities for local, state and federal agencies. He provided oversight for the Defense Department Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program; and established a successful, Army-wide Medical Protection System to track all immunization data. In addition, he established new partnerships with civilian trauma centers to provide appropriate hands- on training and experience for military surgical trauma teams. Lieutenant General Blanck has been a leader in the development and use of clinical practice guidelines and helped implement the Department of Defense clinical practice guidelines partnership with the Department of Veterans Affairs. As a direct result of his initiatives, Army medical treatment facilities have been accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO), with scores consistently above 90, the highest in the history of the Army Medical Department, with three prestigious Army hospitals receiving perfect scores of 100 on their JCAHO surveys during the past year. Lieutenant General Blanck has championed the use of modern technologies by the Department of Defense and the Army Medical Department. He supported an innovative Simulation Center initiative, and promoted the dissemination of information about chemical and biological terrorism. He has also enthusiastically advocated the introduction of new, advanced technologies into patient care, including: (1) the Medical Personal Information Carrier which stores soldiers' medical and personal information, (2) a dry fibrin sealant bandage, developed by Army research in cooperation with the American Red Cross, (3) multiple and extensive uses of telemedicine, (4) new initiatives to speed evacuation of wounded soldiers from the battlefield. Mr. President, Lieutenant General Blanck is a great credit to the Army and the Nation. Even with all of the extraordinary accomplishments during his thirty-two years of service, General Blanck will be remembered mostly for his great compassion for people, his loyalty to his country and his inspirational leadership.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.