[Pages S6960-S6970]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of S. 936, which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 936) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
1998 for military activities of the Department of Defense,
for military construction, and for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for
such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other
purposes.

The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:

Cochran/Durbin amendment No. 420, to require a license to
export computers with composite theoretical performance equal
to or greater than 2,000 million theoretical operations per
second.
Grams amendment No. 422 (to Amendment No. 420), to require
the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a
study on the availability and potential risks relating to the
sale of certain computers.
Coverdell (for Inhofe/Coverdell/Cleland) amendment No. 423,
to define depot-level maintenance and repair, to limit
contracting for depot-level maintenance and repair at
installations approved for closure or realignment in 1995,
and to modify authorities and requirements relating to the
performance of core logistics functions.
Lugar Modified amendment No. 658, to increase (with
offsets) the funding, and to improve the authority, for
cooperative threat reduction programs and related Department
of Energy programs.

Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Washington.

[[Page S6961]]

Amendment No. 645

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 645 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments will
be set aside.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton] proposes amendment
numbered 645.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

Page 217, after line 15, insert the following new subtitle
heading:

SUBTITLE A--HEALTH CARE SERVICES

Page 226, after line 2, insert the following new subtitle:

SUBTITLE B--UNIFORMED SERVICES TREATMENT FACILITIES

SEC. 711. IMPLEMENTATION OF DESIGNATED PROVIDER AGREEMENTS
FOR UNIFORMED SERVICES TREATMENT FACILITIES.

(a) Commencement of Health Care Services Under Agreement.--
Subsection (c) of section 722 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201,
10 U.S.C. 1073 note) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as
subparagraphs (A) and (B);
(2) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``Unless''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) The Secretary may modify the effective date
established under paragraph (1) for an agreement to permit a
transition period of not more than six months between the
date on which the agreement is executed by the parties and
the date on which the designated provider commences the
delivery of health care services under the agreement.''.
(b) Temporary Continuation of Existing Participation
Agreements.--Subsection (d) of such section is amended by
inserting before the period at the end the following: ``,
including any transitional period provided by the Secretary
under paragraph (2) of such subsection''.
(c) Arbitration.--Subsection (c) of such section is further
amended by adding at end the following new paragraph:
``(3) In the case of a designated provider whose service
area has a managed care support contract implemented under
the TRICARE program as of September 23, 1996, the Secretary
and the designated provider shall submit to binding
arbitration if the agreement has not been executed by October
1, 1997. The arbitrator, mutually agreed upon by the
Secretary and the designated provider, shall be selected from
the American Arbitration Association. The arbitrator shall
develop an agreement that shall be executed by the Secretary
and the designated provider by January 1, 1998.
Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the effective date of such
agreement shall be not more than six months after the date on
which the agreement is executed.''.
(d) Contracting Out of Primary Care Services.--Subsection
(f)(2) of such section is amended by inserting at the end the
following new sentence: ``Such limitation on contracting out
primary care services shall only apply to contracting out to
a health maintenance organization, or to a licensed insurer
that is not controlled directly or indirectly by the
designated provider, except in the case of primary care
contracts between a designated provider and a contractor in
force as of September 23, 1996. Subject to the overall
enrollment restriction under section 724 and limited to the
historical service area of the designated provider,
professional service agreements or independent contractor
agreements with primary care physicians or groups of primary
care physicians, however organized, and employment
agreements with such physicians shall not be considered to
be the type of contracts that are subject to the
limitation of this subsection, so long as the designated
provider itself remains at risk under its agreement with
the Secretary in the provision of services by any such
contracted physicians or groups of physicians.''.
(e) Uniform Benefit.--Section 723(b) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (PL 104-201,
10 USC 1073 note) is amended--
(1) in subsection (1) by inserting before the period at the
end the following: ``, subject to any modification to the
effective date the Secretary may provide pursuant to section
722(c)(2)'', and
(2) in subsection (2), by inserting before the period at
the end the following: ``, or the effective date of
agreements negotiated pursuant to section 722(c)(3)''.

SEC. 712. LIMITATION ON TOTAL PAYMENTS.

Section 726(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201, 10 U.S.C. 1073
note) is amended by adding at the end the following new
sentence: ``In establishing the ceiling rate for enrollees
with the designated providers who are also eligible for the
Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed
Services, the Secretary of Defense shall take into account
the health status of the enrollees.''.

SEC. 713. CONTINUED ACQUISITION OF REDUCED-COST DRUGS.

Section 722 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201; 10 U.S.C. 1073 note) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(g) Continued Acquisition of Reduced-Cost Drugs.--A
designated provider shall be treated as part of the
Department of Defense for purposes of section 8126 if title
38, United States Code, in connection with the provision by
the designated provider of health care services to covered
beneficiaries pursuant to the participation agreement of the
designated provider under section 718(c) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law
101-510; 42 U.S.C. 248c note) or pursuant to the agreement
entered into under subsection (b).''.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators
Hutchison of Texas, D'Amato, and Murray be added as cosponsors to the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this amendment refines legislation enacted
last year to transition the uniformed services treatment facilities
[USTF's] into the DOD's new health care program called TRICARE.
I hope that the managers of the bill, Senator Thurmond, chairman of
the committee, and Senator Kempthorne, chairman of the operative
subcommittee, will accept it.
Mr. President, I am proud to have been associated with the USTF's
since the program's inception over 15 years ago. I was an original
cosponsor of the amendment offered on this floor in 1981 by the late
Senator Henry M. ``Scoop'' Jackson that transitioned these former
public health service hospitals and clinics to facilities of the
uniformed services to provide health care to dependents of active duty
personnel as well as military retirees and their dependents. Most
recently last summer on this floor, I sponsored the amendment that
provided the future authority for the USTF's to continue providing care
to military beneficiaries through the integration of their facilities
into DOD's military health care delivery system.
The USTF's currently serve about 120,000 beneficiaries at facilities
located in seven States: Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York,
Ohio, Texas, and Washington. The facilities provide high-quality care
that has been judged by every major study done to date as cost-
effective when compared to CHAMPUS and other DOD health care
alternatives. The USTF's pioneered managed care principles such as
enrollment and capitation that have become the hallmarks of the new
TRICARE program.
The USTF's are very popular with the beneficiaries, many of whom
would never consider receiving their health care from any other
provider. Satisfaction surveys just completed by an independent firm
conclude that the USTF's as a whole have a 91 percent satisfaction
rate, 7 percentage points higher than the norm for civilian HMO's. The
USTF in my State, Pacific Medical Center, enjoys the highest overall
satisfaction rate of nearly 95 percent. I doubt that any DOD health
care provider program can match the USTF's for satisfying the medical
needs of military personnel and their families.
The introduction of TRICARE, however, has brought the USTF program to
a crossroads. TRICARE has been operating in my State of Washington for
over 2 years and started in Texas in November 1995. Its introduction
has heightened interest within DOD to integrate the USTF's into TRICARE
to ensure consistent application of the so-called uniform benefit. The
amendment I offered last year which was enacted as part of the fiscal
year 1997 National Defense Authorization Act set out the process for
this integration of the USTF's into TRICARE to protect the beneficiary
interests as well as to preserve the separate designated status of the
USTF's. My amendment, which reflected the position passed by the House,
called for an orderly process for negotiation of new agreements so
Pacific Medical Center and the other USTF's could continue offering
high-quality and cost-effective health care to military beneficiaries.
Despite my earlier amendment's good intentions, unforeseen problems
have developed, largely because of institutional delays and the Defense
Department's unconventional interpretation of some of the key
provisions. Accordingly, I feel compelled to offer an amendment today
that updates and perfects last year's language.

[[Page S6962]]

In a similar fashion to last year, my amendment today includes four
straight-forward provisions already contained in the House-passed
fiscal year 1998 Defense authorization bill. It is important to note
that these four provisions are in every way substantively identical to
subtitle C of title VII of the House-passed bill.
The first House-passed provision provides authority for a 6-month
transition period in the implementation of the new USTF program to
allow adequate time to educate the beneficiaries. The 6-month
transition is entirely reasonable given that new TRICARE contracts
provide at least 7 months for a proper transition. As we learned from
the TRICARE transition in Washington, a compressed time period for
transition will cause confusion and frustration for the beneficiaries.
The second House-passed provision provides authority to continue the
existing USTF agreements during the transition period. The Seattle and
Texas USTF's technically lose their statutory designation effective
October 1 unless they have new agreements executed. But because of
delays in commencing the negotiations with DOD, these two USTF's will
not have new agreements implemented by October. An extension of the
current agreement and all its provisions until the transition period is
complete seems fair and appropriate.
The third House provision clarifies that the ceiling for capitation
payments provided to the USTF's takes into account the health status of
the enrolled beneficiaries who are under age 65. This reflects last
year's clear intent that the actuarial benchmark for developing rates
to reimburse the USTF's should be the health status of the actual USTF
enrollees, not a national average of military health care patients.
The fourth and final House provision clarifies last year's provision
so that USTF's still qualify to purchase pharmaceuticals under the
preferred pricing levels applicable to military health care providers.
All parties agree that last year's legislation was not intended to take
away the right to continued acquisition of these reduced-cost drugs.
In addition to these four House-passed provisions, my amendment
includes three other items to ensure that DOD negotiates fairly with
the USTF's on the new agreements. These provisions would not be
necessary if the Defense Department were earnestly negotiating in good
faith with Pacific Medical Center and the Houston, TX, USTF. These two
facilities are on the firing line because TRICARE is already in their
regions and they are therefore required by law to have a new agreement
executed by October 1, 1997. DOD, however, has chosen to negotiate
first with three other USTF's that will not see TRICARE in their
regions until mid-1998 at the earliest and consequently do not face the
same immediacy faced by Seattle and Texas.
The first new provision tries to prod the negotiations with DOD with
a requirement for binding arbitration for up to 90 days if DOD and the
Washington and Texas USTF's do not reach an agreement with DOD by
October 1, 1997. This arbitration amendment encourages both sides to
work out their differences without giving extra leverage to either
side. Without arbitration, DOD has no incentive to negotiate because it
can literally run the clock out and present the Washington and Texas
USTF's with a ``take-or-leave-it'' contract in late September just
before the October 1 deadline arrives.
Binding arbitration is an eminently fair device to break an impasse
and push the negotiations to completion by a date certain. The Seattle
and Houston USTF's are fully prepared to accept the judgment of an
independent arbiter. If DOD wants to avoid arbitration, the
Department's Health Affairs Division should commence immediately good-
faith negotiations with Seattle and Houston leading toward a fair
agreement.
This was the result the last time Congress threatened to impose
arbitration to push DOD and the USTF to an agreement. The conference
report language accompanying the fiscal year 1991 National Defense
Authorization Act stressed that Congress was prepared to require
mandatory arbitration if the managed care model was not negotiated by
DOD and the USTF's by a statutory deadline. This threat of arbitration
was instrumental in pushing DOD back to the negotiating table.
The second new provision contained in my amendment clarifies how the
USTF's can contract out their physician services. The clarification
permits contracting out to primary care physicians provided the USTF's
retain all risk and don't exceed their enrollment cap and their
historical service area. The provision serves the beneficiary interest
by allowing the USTF's to place primary care physicians where they are
needed to enhance the convenience and accessibility of care. This
change will also level the playing field with the TRICARE contractors
that can contract out their primary care services.
The third and last new provision in my amendment is a conforming
change that applies to the uniform benefit, with the accompanying
higher enrollment fee and higher cost shares, when the new USTF
agreements are fully implemented. This clarification is needed to
ensure consistency with the 6-month transition of the arbitration
period.
Finally, Mr. President, I implore DOD to respond favorably to the
request of Pacific Medical Center and the other USTF's for open
enrollment season so that military retirees can sign up this summer for
the USTF program. Since DOD did not permit Pacific Medical Center to
conduct an open season last year, if there is no open enrollment this
summer the effect will be to deny military retirees a chance to enroll
in this program for 2 consecutive years. The result is substantial
pent-up demand and frustration by retirees who are simply looking for
another choice in meeting their military health care needs. I urge DOD
to adhere to the request in a recent Washington State congressional
delegation letter to permit an open season, as clearly provided for in
the USTF contracts.
Overall, Mr. President, this set of legislative refinements, as well
as providing for an open season, should enable the USTF program to
continue to serve the health care needs of its military beneficiaries.
I appreciate the committee's understanding and hope it will soon be
able to accept this amendment. Of course, I urge the full Senate to
pass it.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent we lay aside
the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 669

(Purpose: To provide $500,000 for the bioassay testing of veterans
exposed to ionizing radiation during military service)

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have two amendments I will discuss.
The first is an amendment numbered 669.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself and
Mr. Rockefeller, proposes an amendment numbered 669.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

On page 46, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:

SEC. 220. BIOASSAY TESTING OF VETERANS EXPOSED TO IONIZING
RADIATION DURING MILITARY SERVICE.

(a) Nuclear Test Personnel Program.--Of the amount provided
in section 201(4), $50,000 shall be available for testing
described in subsection (b) at the Brookhaven National
Laboratory in support of the Nuclear Test Personnel Program
conducted by the Defense Special Weapons Agency.
(b) Covered Testing.--Subsection (a) applies to the third
phase of bioassay testing of individuals who are radiation-
exposed veterans (as defined in section 1112(c)(3) of title
38, United States Code) who participated in radiation-risk
activities (as defined in such paragraph).

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be relatively brief and take
just several hours--just take a few minutes to speak about this. I
wanted to see if everyone was awake today.
This is an amendment that would assist atomic veterans. Mr.
President, I

[[Page S6963]]

actually could talk for several hours about the atomic veterans. But I
would just say that I think the most moving and most emotional times
for me as a Senator has been time spent with atomic veterans in
Minnesota. These are veterans who were asked to go to ground zero
during the atomic testing in States like Nevada and were put in harm's
way by our Government, and no one told them what they might be facing,
and no one gave them protective gear.
For many of these atomic veterans it has been a nightmare. This all
started in the 1950's, and for decades many of them have had a pattern
of illness in their families. I could go on for hours talking about
what has happened to them, including high incidences of cancer for the
atomic veterans themselves, and all sorts of problems of cancer and
deformities with children and grandchildren.
And to this day they still wait for adequate compensation. They wait
for justice. I think it is one of the most shameful things that has
happened in our country. These are veterans.
I actually want to focus on just one small piece of this amendment. I
am hoping to be able to receive good support from both Democrats and
Republicans, and I am hoping this amendment may indeed be accepted. I
know Congressman Lane Evans has worked on this in the House, and I
believe this provision has been accepted in the House of
Representatives.
This amendment would authorize $500,000 for the third and final phase
of a Defense Special Weapons Agency program at Brookhaven National
Laboratory to conduct--this will sound technical, Mr. President, but it
is actually pretty important--to conduct internal dose reconstructions
of veterans exposed to ionizing radiation while serving in the Armed
Forces. DSWA is responsible for providing dose reconstructions for most
atomic veterans filing claims with the VA. Out of the funding provided
to DSWA--this, again, is the Defense Special Weapons Agency--for R&D
under section 201(4), $500,000 would be available for bioassay testing
at Brookhaven National Laboratory for the purpose of conducting
internal dose reconstructions of atomic veterans to find out what has
happened to them.
That is what this is all about. This program is crucial to atomic
veterans because it provides the means, I say to my colleague from
South Carolina, who has been so supportive of veterans, for more
accurate reconstruction of radiation dosage. This is a vital step in
ensuring that atomic veterans receive the compensation they deserve and
in reassuring veterans who did not inhale or ingest radioactive
particles in quantities sufficient to cause cancer. In other words,
they need to know where they stand. This is a terribly important test.
We do not want to eliminate the funding for this. Many veterans who
have radiogenic diseases have been denied compensation often based on
flawed dose reconstructions.
Mr. President, out of the hundreds of thousands of atomic veterans--I
would like my colleagues to hear this, even if they are not on the
floor now as they consider how to vote on this--out of the hundreds of
thousands of atomic veterans, merely 15,000 have filed claims for
service-connected compensation with the VA based on disability stemming
from radiogenic diseases. Of these, only 1,438 have been approved, or
less than 10 percent. Just imagine this, hundreds of thousands of
atomic veterans, only 15,000 claims, and only a little over 1,000 have
been approved. Of this low percentage, an indeterminate percentage may
have had their claims granted for diseases unrelated to radiation
exposure.
Mr. President, we have to make sure that we provide funding, a small
amount of funding within the Department of Defense--that is where we
have been doing this funding--to make sure that we continue this very
critical test undertaken for atomic veterans.
The White House Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments
found ``that the Government did not create or maintain adequate records
regarding the exposure of all participants [in nuclear weapons tests
and] the identity and test locales of all participants.'' This finding
calls into question the current capability of the Government to come up
with accurate dose reconstructions on which the approval of claims for
VA compensation for many atomic veterans depend. Again, the advisory
committee has said we do not have adequate data. We have not been able
to keep the records. If we do not have this dose reconstruction done
well, then a lot of the atomic veterans who deserve compensation for
the terrible illnesses that have been inflicted upon them or their
family members are not going to have the chance to get the
compensation.

The DSWA program at Brookhaven uses a technology called fission
tracking analysis. It analyzes the results of urine samples from atomic
veterans to arrive at internal dose reconstructions. The program seeks
to improve the technique first used to establish the Marshall
Islanders' exposure to ionizing radiation from atmospheric nuclear
testing, the same tests that we have been using with Marshall
Islanders. During the third and final phase of the program, Brookhaven
plans to conduct bioassays of atomic veterans and provide technical
assistance to DSWA in internal dose reconstruction.
Here is what has happened, here is the reason for this amendment,
colleagues. Unfortunately, a conflict has now taken place between DOD
and VA, and it has developed on funding the final phase of the program.
DSWA declines to continue funding the program because it contends that
it is not in the business of medical testing, even though the agency
has performed medical testing for Marshall Islanders. The VA simply
claims it lacks the necessary funding. In the interests of the atomic
veterans who served this country bravely and unquestionably, we need to
end the bickering and ensure the program is carried out to fruition.
The VFW, the National Association of Atomic Veterans, and the Disabled
American Veterans agree and strongly back this amendment. It is a
little bit outrageous that we have this bickering going on and at the
same time you have these veterans for whom this test is the only way
that they are ever going to be able to get any compensation.
Mr. President, in closing, I note that for many years the cover of
the Atomic Veterans Newsletter, the official publication of the
National Association of Atomic Veterans, contained the simple but
eloquent statement: ``The atomic veteran seeks no special favor, simply
justice.'' Their fight for justice has been too long, it has been too
hard, and it has been too frustrating. But these patriotic and
deserving veterans have persevered and they retain their faith in
America.
I urge all of my colleagues to join me in helping atomic veterans
with their struggle for justice and supporting my amendment. It is a
matter of simple justice. Mr. President, Congressman Lane Evans, who
has been such a strong advocate for atomic veterans, has done this on
the House side. I think the Senate should join in this effort. I think
it would be absolutely unconscionable if we eliminated this funding for
this small but very, very important program where we can have adequate
data as to what kind of radiation dosage these atomic veterans were, in
fact, vulnerable to, affected by, and what this means for them now.
That, Mr. President, is the meaning of this amendment.
I ask unanimous consent this amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 668

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to transfer $400,000,000
to the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs to provide funds for veterans'
health care and other purposes)

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I call up amendment number 668.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an
amendment numbered 668.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle D of title X, add the following:

SEC. . TRANSFER FOR VETERANS' HEALTH CARE AND OTHER
PURPOSES.

(a) Transfer Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall
transfer to the Secretary of

[[Page S6964]]

Veterans' Affairs $400,000,000 of the funds appropriated for
the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1998.
(b) Use of Transferred Funds.--Funds transferred to the
Secretary of Veterans' Affairs shall be for the purpose of
providing benefits under the laws administered by the
Secretary of Veterans' Affairs, other than compensation and
pension benefits provided under Chapters 11 and 13 of title
38, United States Code.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment would not be subject to
any point of order. It authorizes the Secretary of Defense to transfer
some $400 million to the VA budget for the health care for veterans.
Mr. President, this amendment is an effort to ameliorate some damage
that was done in the budget resolution that--I say to my colleagues, I
do not think any Senator was really familiar with--made significant
cuts in VA health care.
My amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill would,
again, authorize the Secretary of Defense to transfer $400 million from
the DOD budget to restore cuts in VA discretionary health care
spending. This amendment responds to the health care needs of veterans
by restoring some badly needed funding for programs to the fiscal year
1997 level.
Mr. President, even with this restoration, chances are remote that
the VA health care funding for fiscal year 1998 will exceed fiscal year
1997. We all know--I just want to make this clear to my colleagues--
that we have an aging veteran population. We all know that as more
veterans live to be over 65 and over 85, there is more of a strain on
the health care budget. We want to be sure that the cut that took place
in the budget resolution--which I don't think hardly any Senator was
aware of, although all of the veterans organizations were aware, and
there is a fair amount of indignation around the country on this
question--we want to make sure that these cuts in veterans health care
don't end up forcing veterans who were either disabled, ill, or poor to
have to shift from VA health care to other health care. That would be a
travesty for the veterans and their families, and it would also have
negative consequences for VA health care in our country.
Mr. President, it has become clear that the cuts in the veterans'
discretionary programs that were agreed to as part of the budget
resolution are going to have some severe, if not devastating,
consequences on the quality and availability of VA health care for
disabled and needy veterans. The fiscal year 1998 cuts will limit VA's
ability to serve all patients entitled to VA health care. If veterans
health care benefits are delayed because of reduced staffing--you have
to make your cuts somewhere--or a longer waiting period, then we are
going to be shortchanging men and women who have risked their lives for
our country.
Let me give you some sense of the impact of the $400 million
reduction in VA discretionary spending in fiscal year 1998. Mr.
President, to give you some idea about it, a $400 million reduction in
VA discretionary spending in fiscal year 1998 is roughly equivalent to
the cost of operating one of the smaller of the VA's 22 integrated
service networks.
I held a forum, I say to my colleagues, in May. It was unbelievable.
We had a huge turnout of veterans representing, I think, all of the
veterans organizations that I can think of--Vietnam Veterans of
America, Disabled Americans, Paralyzed Veterans, Military for the
Purple Heart, American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, atomic
veterans, you name it.
The Minnesota veterans were unanimous in denouncing the cuts in some
really essential VA health care resources. Like my colleagues, I
supported the sense-of-the-Senate amendment that was introduced by
Senators Daschle, Domenici and Rockefeller on May 21, which called for
full funding of the VA discretionary programs, including medical care
for fiscal year 1998. I supported it for two reasons. First, I don't
think many of us were aware that in the budget resolution there were
going to be cuts in our investment in resources for VA health care.
Second, I think it is simply the wrong thing to do. I think there is a
sacred contract with our veterans, and if we are going to be making
cuts and do deficit reduction, we ought not to be doing it on their
backs.
So, Mr. President, I am convinced that this amendment is appropriate.
I am convinced that it is really quite appropriate to pass an amendment
that gives the Secretary of Defense the authorization to authorize this
transfer of funding because, after all, these veterans were fighting
for the defense of the Nation. That is what it was all about. I think
it is critically important that we live up to this commitment.
Mr. President, let me just finish up again and say to colleagues that
I am just introducing these amendments because, as I understand this
process, we are going to have a cloture vote this afternoon and we may
not have votes for about a day and there will be more time to discuss
these amendments. At least, that is my understanding. I do want
colleagues to be familiar with each of them.
I think that the atomic veterans, unfortunately, have been out of
sight and out of mind for all too many people in the country. This is a
critically important amendment to those veterans so that they can know
what happened to them. That is the very least we can do for those
veterans, their children and grandchildren.
On the second amendment, I am absolutely convinced that very few
Senators were aware of the fact that the budget resolution made these
cuts. It was all done in good conscience. Some of my closest friends
worked on the budget resolution and supported it. My amendment simply
says that we should take $400 million and heal these cuts. My amendment
authorizes the Secretary of Defense to do that. I know Dr. Ken Kaiser
came out to Minnesota and met with veterans, and he wasn't aware of
these cuts. I have not met one person in charge of delivering health
care for veterans who believes that this can be done in such a way that
it will not seriously damage the quality of health care. I am not just
giving some kind of trump speech on the floor of the Senate. This is
very important. We ought to, at the very least, be able to transfer
this small amount of money and restore this funding for our VA health
care.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. I see my colleague from
Georgia.
Mr. CLELAND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the
pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 712

(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress reaffirming the commitment
of the United States to provide quality health care for military
retirees)

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Cleland] proposes an
amendment numbered 712.

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

At the end of title VII, add the following:

SEC. 708. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING QUALITY HEALTH CARE FOR
RETIREES.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Many retired military personnel believe that they were
promised lifetime health care in exchange for 20 or more
years of service.
(2) Military retirees are the only Federal Government
personnel who have been prevented from using their employer-
provided health care at or after 65 years of age.
(3) Military health care has become increasingly difficult
to obtain for military retirees as the Department of Defense
reduces its health care infrastructure.
(4) Military retirees deserve to have a health care program
at least comparable with that of retirees from civilian
employment by the Federal Government.
(5) The availability of quality, lifetime health care is a
critical recruiting incentive for the Armed Forces.
(6) Quality health care is a critical aspect of the quality
of life of the men and women serving in the Armed Forces.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the United States has incurred a moral obligation to
provide health care to retirees from service in the Armed
Forces;
(2) it is, therefore, necessary to provide quality,
affordable health care to such retirees; and

[[Page S6965]]

(3) Congress and the President should take steps to address
the problems associated with health care for such retirees
within two years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, one of the reasons I sought membership on
the Senate Armed Services Committee is my commitment to supporting our
men and women in the Armed Forces. I am particularly pleased to be the
ranking Democratic member of the Personnel Subcommittee.
My focus on that committee has been and will be to improve the
overall quality of life of our military personnel. Where possible, the
level of the compensation they receive, improve military health care,
and expand access to educational benefits.
One of the areas that I am most concerned about is the availability
and adequacy of military health care. In particular, I believe this
Nation has incurred a fundamental responsibility to provide for the
health care of military retirees. We must adhere to this commitment.
I am especially concerned about what happens to retirees when they
reach the age of 65. They are ineligible to participate in TRICARE. In
addition, as the military begins to close and downsize its military
treatment facilities, retirees over 65 are unable to seek and obtain
treatment on a space available basis. Medicare does not currently
reimburse the Department of Defense for health care services. The
retirees over 65 are, in effect, being shut out of the medical
facilities promised to them.
I am reminded of the quote from one of Wellington's troops: ``In time
of war and not before, God and soldier men a adore. But in time of
peace with all things righted, God is forgotten and the soldier
slighted.''
I know we live in an environment in which resources are constrained.
We are going to have to make some tough choices between people,
modernization, and procurement while maintaining readiness. We are
going to have to strike a balance between these competing priorities.
But we must not allow budget constraints to force us to slight our
soldiers. This is morally wrong. We have a sacred responsibility to
take care of those who took care of us. We have incurred a moral
obligation to attempt to provide health care to military retirees who
believed they were promised lifetime health care in exchange for a
lifetime of military service.
One alternative is Medicare subvention. It would appear that
subvention would be fiscally beneficial to Medicare and would improve
the ability of the Department to provide health care to military
retirees over 65. However, I have several questions regarding possible
shortcomings of subvention:
First, does subvention meet the needs of military retirees over 65
who do not live near military treatment facilities?
Second, as the Department continues to reduce its health care
infrastructure, will maintaining access to all beneficiaries increase
in difficulty?
I understand the Department has expressed concern that, under certain
circumstances, Medicare subvention could result in diminished access to
military treatment facilities for other DOD health care beneficiaries.
That raises my third question. Will subvention increase access to some
beneficiaries at the expense of others? If so, is this what we really
want?
Another option that has been discussed is the idea of allowing
retirees over 65 the option of enrolling in the Federal Employees
Health Benefit Program [FEHBP].
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the cost of
enrolling Medicare-eligible military retirees in the FEHBP is between
$3.7 and $4.2 billion. The primary advantage to FEHBP enrollment is the
ability of beneficiaries to seek and obtain healthcare anywhere in the
Nation that insurers in the FEHBP provide service. I am concerned about
additional cost this program would incur especially if offered in
addition to the benefits currently available to retirees over 65. My
question: Is there a better way to provide similar levels of service
while not adding significantly high levels of cost to the Department of
Defense?
A third option would be to allow military retirees over 65 to enroll
in TRICARE. This would require additional resources to be made
available to military treatment facilities to ensure that all TRICARE
beneficiaries were guaranteed access. The Armed Services Committee was
presented with an estimated $274 million shortfall in the budget
request to fund the Military Health Service System. Frankly, without
corresponding changes in the TRICARE system, continued enrollment in
TRICARE will only exacerbate the current difficulties TRICARE faces in
meeting all the needs of Military Health Service System beneficiaries.
Under this option, we might also face the prospect of providing new
access to some at the expense of those presently in the system.
Mr. President, I know there are significant difficulties involved
with choosing the optimal approach to addressing military health care
concerns. We have to deal with this problem. It is one of the highest
priorities listed by the men and women in the armed forces. It is also
the highest priority of those who represent the retired military
population in this nation.
I believe that a comprehensive approach to reforming the DOD health
care system is required. In addition to ensuring access to health care
coverage, it is also necessary to ensure that health care is available
to beneficiaries wherever they serve or retire.
In 1995, the Congressional Budget Office prepared a report entitled
``Restructuring Military Medical Care.'' The report estimated that the
total cost to the Department of Defense of providing the Federal
Employees Health Benefit Program for all non-active duty beneficiaries
ranged between $5.9 billion and $10.7 billion annually depending upon
the percentage the Government pays for the average premium. The report
also estimated the total cost of maintaining a wartime combat medicine
capability for active duty personnel at $6.5 billion. Some have asked
if it would be feasible to replace the bulk of the Department of
Defense Health service system with FEHBP while maintaining a combat
medicine capability given that the Department of Defense spends
approximately $16 billion per year for health care.
I sponsored language in the Senate Armed Services Committee report
that directed the Department of Defense to conduct a study of this
issue. I believe this is an important step toward gathering the
necessary information we need to make an intelligent decision which
honors our commitment to the personnel in the military. We need to know
what impact this would have on the entire medical infrastructure in the
military. I hope we can begin to find the answers that will allow us to
resolve this matter. Our men and women in uniform and those who have
served deserve nothing less.
I look forward to working with my colleagues here in the Senate,
especially my good friend Senator Kempthorne, who is the chairman of
the Personnel Subcommittee, on this most important matter.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we are on the defense authorization bill.
I have been privileged to listen to a number of presentations. They
deal with, in many instances, very significant and very important
issues for the future of this country.
Mr. President, I rise today to talk about two issues. One is an
amendment that I intend to offer later in the consideration of this
bill. The second is to support an amendment that is to be offered by
Senator Lugar and, I believe, cosponsored by Senator Bingaman and a
group of others, dealing with the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program
and the funding for it.
Before I discuss those two, let me indicate, however, that it is
curious to see a cloture motion filed on a bill like the defense
authorization bill this early in the process. A cloture motion suggests
somehow that we should have a vote cutting off debate when debate has
hardly begun on this defense authorization bill. This is a very
significant piece of legislation. There needs

[[Page S6966]]

to be time for significant debate on issues that are very substantial.
I hope this is not going to be habit forming--filing cloture motions
virtually at the same pace when a piece of legislation like this comes
to the floor of the Senate. A desire to shut off debate ought not be
initiated before there is some demonstration that debate is going to go
on forever. If a bill is moving at a reasonable pace, there is no
reason, in my judgment, for anyone to be offering cloture motions or
shut off debate. I just say that is a curious thing to have happen on
this bill right at the start of the legislation. I hope that won't be a
habit.
Now to the issue of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, Mr.
President, folks in my hometown, in most cases, won't know much about
this program because the American people have not been given much
information about the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. It is kind
of a foreign title to a program that in most cases benefits the lives
of every American citizen.
I want to describe what it is and why it is important and why I
support the amendment that was offered, I believe, by Senator Lugar,
along with many other distinguished colleagues, and is now pending
before the Senate.
The Cooperative Threat Reduction Program is a program by which we
engage with our resources under an arms control agreement to help a
former adversary, the former Soviet Union, now Russia, and its
surrounding States to reduce the number of nuclear weapons and warheads
that were previously in place aimed at the United States of America.
Doing so reduces the threat against our country. I think it makes
eminent good sense to see a missile destroyed in its silo rather than
having a missile fired and have to deal with a missile that is flying
toward a target of the United States.
Obviously, things have changed dramatically with the Soviet Union now
being gone, and we now have Russia and other independent States. We are
dealing with a new world, and we have a cold war that is largely ended.
We have a circumstance in which we want to work with what had been a
former adversary to reduce the amount of nuclear weapons that that
adversary now possesses in concert with the arms control agreements
that we have already had with them and that we have negotiated and
signed with that former adversary.
Mr. President, let me ask unanimous consent to have an object on the
floor that I might use to demonstrate to my colleagues that this, in
fact, works.
Mr. President, I want to show my colleagues a picture. This is a
picture of some workers in Russia with power saws sawing the wings off
Russian bombers. These folks are bent over a wing of a bomber sawing
the wings off Russian bombers. Why are they sawing the wings off
Russian bombers and sending these bombers, now unable to fly, to the
boneyard? Because of arms control agreements. They are required under
arms control agreements to reduce the number of bombers they possess in
their arsenal.
A smaller picture shows former Secretary of Defense Perry inspecting
an SS-24 silo. This is a missile silo in the Ukraine. This silo had
550-kiloton warheads on top of a missile--nuclear warheads capable of
being delivered over 6,200 miles. This silo is now empty of warheads.
There are no nuclear warheads in that silo. And our former Secretary of
Defense Perry is inspecting a silo that is now cleared of its missile
and its nuclear warheads.
Finally, this picture. This is a picture of silo No. 110 near
Pervomaisk in the Ukraine which held an SS-19 missile. As you can see,
it is now only a hole. And, in fact, if you saw a later picture you
would see sunflowers planted where missiles were previously planted
poised and aimed at the United States of America. This is a hole. The
hole is now covered up. There is no missile, no warhead. And, in fact,
sunflowers are now planted there.

Mr. President, this piece of metal comes from that missile and the
missile silo. This piece of metal was removed from this missile silo in
the Ukraine. This little piece of metal is a demonstration of the
success of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. This was part of
an armament in the ground on an intercontinental ballistic missile with
nuclear warheads aimed at the United States of America. Now it is here
in this Chamber. And where this silo and missile with a warhead used to
sit there is now planted sunflowers.
Why? Why at silo 110 near Pervomaisk in the Ukraine is there now a
planting of sunflowers rather than a nuclear missile or an
intercontinental ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead aimed at the
United States? Because this program works. This program makes sense.
This program reduces the number of missiles, the number of bombers, and
the number of nuclear warheads in an arms control agreement. It reduces
the number of those weapons that previously had been poised to strike
at the United States of America.
Let me describe the facts about how this program has worked. We have
seen the elimination of 212 submarine launchers, 378 intercontinental
ballistic missile silos, 25 heavy bombers, more than 500 ICBM's.
Fiscal year 1997: 131 additional ICBM silos--70 of them in Russia, 61
of them Kazakhstan--and 43 heavy bombers gone under this program; and
80 submarine launchers, all in Russia, gone; 84 missiles--48 in
Ukraine, 36 in Russia--gone under this program. In effect, we helped a
former adversary destroy weapons that had previously been poised and
aimed at us.
I can't think of anything that makes more sense than to destroy a
missile by dismantling its silo, the missile and the warhead, and it is
gone.
That is exactly what the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program has
done. Senators Lugar and Nunn were the authors of this program. Many
others in the Chamber have worked hard on this program.
There is an amendment pending that will restore the money for this
program which is necessary to continue the progress to reduce the
number of nuclear arms in Russia and the independent states under this
program. It is a bargain by any stretch. It makes eminent good sense
for this country to do it.
I am proud to say that I support the amendment. I commend Senator
Lugar, Senator Bingaman, and so many others for offering the amendment
today.
Mr. President, let me turn then to one other item. We will in the
context of debating this piece of legislation also discuss whether we
wish to authorize two additional rounds of military base closings or
whether we want, to say it another way, create a base realignment and
closing commission that would recommend, in two rounds, closing certain
military installations in our country.
I am not here to support having more capability in military bases
than we need. That would be wasteful. I understand that. On the other
hand, we have had three full rounds of base closings and one
abbreviated round. In the three rounds of closing military
installations, we have ordered the closure of over 100 military
installations in this country. My understanding is that only 50 of them
have been finally and completely closed. We have no accounting at all--
none--of what the costs and the benefits have been from the closings
that have occurred so far.
I think it is far better for us to decide that we should finish the
job on the previous rounds of base closings before we authorize two
additional rounds.
I have another motive, obviously. I am concerned about what the
rounds of base closings that are authorized do to communities in our
country. We have had a couple of Air Force bases put on the list and
taken off the list, put on the list and taken off the list. What
happens in communities when you have a base closing round is that the
minute your community or your facility is remotely involved in that
round of base closings, economic growth is stunted and new investment
is stopped.
There isn't anyone who will come to Cheyenne, WY, or to Grand Forks,
ND, or Minot, ND, or Rapid City, SD, or you name it, where they have
military installations, and say, ``Oh, by the way, there are going to
be new rounds of base closings here.''
So what we want to do is make a new investment in the community of
apartment buildings or commercial property, or a plant here or a plant
there. That is not the way it works. What they say is, ``Gee, we do not
know what the future is going to bring.'' You

[[Page S6967]]

might have 30 percent unemployment in that region 2 years from now
because they might close that military installation, and if they do,
the last thing I want to have done is to have made an investment in
that community and find that investment going belly up. It terribly
stunts economic growth in these communities while you have these base
closing rounds.
In fact, at the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee hearing, the
subcommittee of which I am a member, General Fogleman, who indicated in
response to a question of mine that he would not likely be here when we
have additional base closing rounds and said he would not recommend
that we have two additional rounds. If we have additional rounds, and
he indicated that he felt there would be some overcapacity, we should
have only one, he said. That would be his recommendation. But I believe
very strongly that we should not authorize two additional base closing
rounds in this defense authorization bill for a number of reasons.

The Congressional Budget Office stated the following. The
Congressional Budget Office said:

The Congress could consider authorizing an additional round
of base closures if DOD believes there are surplus military
capacity after all rounds of BRAC have been carried out. That
consideration, however, should follow an interval during
which DOD and independent analysts examine the actual impact
of measures that have been taken thus far. Such a pause would
allow DOD to collect the data necessary to evaluate the
effectiveness of initiatives and to determine the actual
costs incurred and savings achieved.

The Congressional Budget Office thinks it would be unwise to initiate
additional base closing rounds without having the information available
about what have been the costs and the benefits of the previous three
rounds. I think we would be wise to heed the admonition of the
Congressional Budget Office on this issue.
A good many Senators have expressed an interest in this amendment on
both sides of the aisle--Senator Daschle, Senator Conrad, Senator Lott,
Senator Domenici, Senator Feinstein, Senator Dodd, and others. I know
we will likely have a significant and robust debate when this occurs.
I simply wanted to alert my colleagues that some of us feel very
strongly that we should not initiate additional base closing rounds in
this defense authorization bill until we receive the information that
we think we should have about costs and benefits on previous rounds.
Let me close with a word about the subject that I originally
discussed; that is, the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program.
There are those who are critical of the political process, and I
suppose in many cases justifiably, because there are a lot of things
that are done in the democratic process that are not efficient, some
not effective. It is not a very efficient form of government--the best
form of government but not the most efficient form of government. But I
say to all of those who question the effectiveness or the efficiency of
Government that the program called the Cooperative Threat Reduction
Program in which we help finance the destruction of weapons--bombers,
missiles, and nuclear warheads--that previously were aimed at the
United States of America is a program that is a bargain by any standard
of measure. That makes this world safer; it makes it a better world;
and to the extent that we can continue this program and fund it the way
it should be funded, I want to be a part of that. I hope very much we
can get a vote on the amendment that is now pending, and when we do I
hope very much the amendment will prevail.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I would ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 670

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to transfer $5,000,000 to
the Secretary of Agriculture to provide funds for outreach and startup
for the school breakfast program)

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I call up amendment 670.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an
amendment numbered 670.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle D of title X, add the following:

SEC. . TRANSFER FOR OUTREACH AND STARTUP FOR THE SCHOOL
BREAKFAST PROGRAM.

(a) Transfer Required.--In each of fiscal years 1998, 1999,
2000, 2001, and 2002, the Secretary of Defense shall transfer
to the Secretary of Agriculture--
(1) $5,000,000 of the funds appropriated for the Department
of Defense for that fiscal year; and
(2) any additional amount that the Secretary of Agriculture
determines necessary to pay any increase in the cost of the
meals provided to children under the school breakfast program
as a result of the amendment made by subsection (b).
(b) Use of Transferred Funds.--Section 4 of the Child
Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(f) Startup and Expansion Costs.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Eligible school.--The term `eligible school' means a
school--
``(i) attended by children, a significant percentage of
whom are members of low-income families;
``(ii)(I) as used with respect to a school breakfast
program, that agrees to operate the school breakfast program
established or expanded with the assistance provided under
this subsection for a period of not less than 3 years; and
``(II) as used with respect to a summer food service
program for children, that agrees to operate the summer food
service program for children established or expanded with the
assistance provided under this subsection for a period of not
less than 3 years.
``(B) Service institution.--The term `service institution'
means an institution or organization described in paragraph
(1)(B) or (7) of section 13(a) of the National School Lunch
Act (42 U.S.C. 1761(a)).
``(C) Summer food service program for children.--The term
`summer food service program for children' means a program
authorized by section 13 of the National School Lunch Act (42
U.S.C. 1761).
``(2) Use of funds.--Out of any amounts made available
under section __(a)(1) of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1998, the Secretary of Agriculture shall
make payments on a competitive basis and in the following
order of priority (subject to the other provisions of this
subsection), to--
``(A) State educational agencies in a substantial number of
States for distribution to eligible schools to assist the
schools with nonrecurring expenses incurred in--
``(i) initiating a school breakfast program under this
section; or
``(ii) expanding a school breakfast program; and
``(B) a substantial number of States for distribution to
service institutions to assist the institutions with
nonrecurring expenses incurred in--
``(i) initiating a summer food service program for
children; or
``(ii) expanding a summer food service program for
children.
``(3) Payments additional.--Payments received under this
subsection shall be in addition to payments to which State
agencies are entitled under subsection (b) of this section
and section 13 of the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C.
1761).
``(4) State plan.--To be eligible to receive a payment
under this subsection, a State educational agency shall
submit to the Secretary of Agriculture a plan to initiate or
expand school breakfast programs conducted in the State,
including a description of the manner in which the agency
will provide technical assistance and funding to schools in
the State to initiate or expand the programs.
``(5) School breakfast program preferences.--In making
payments under this subsection for any fiscal year to
initiate or expand school breakfast programs, the Secretary
shall provide a preference to State educational agencies
that--
``(A) have in effect a State law that requires the
expansion of the programs during the year;
``(B) have significant public or private resources that
have been assembled to carry out the expansion of the
programs during the year;
``(C) do not have a school breakfast program available to a
large number of low-income children in the State; or
``(D) serve an unmet need among low-income children, as
determined by the Secretary.
``(6) Summer food service program preferences.--In making
payments under this subsection for any fiscal year to
initiate or expand summer food service programs for children,
the Secretary shall provide a preference to States--
``(A)(i) in which the numbers of children participating in
the summer food service program for children represent the
lowest

[[Page S6968]]

percentages of the number of children receiving free or
reduced price meals under the school lunch program
established under the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C.
1751 et seq.); or
``(ii) that do not have a summer food service program for
children available to a large number of low-income children
in the State; and
``(B) that submit to the Secretary a plan to expand the
summer food service programs for children conducted in the
State, including a description of--
``(i) the manner in which the State will provide technical
assistance and funding to service institutions in the State
to expand the programs; and
``(ii) significant public or private resources that have
been assembled to carry out the expansion of the programs
during the year.
``(7) Recovery and reallocation.--The Secretary shall act
in a timely manner to recover and reallocate to other States
any amounts provided to a State educational agency or State
under this subsection that are not used by the agency or
State within a reasonable period (as determined by the
Secretary).
``(8) Annual application.--The Secretary shall allow States
to apply on an annual basis for assistance under this
subsection.
``(9) Greatest need.--Each State agency and State, in
allocating funds within the State, shall give preference for
assistance under this subsection to eligible schools and
service institutions that demonstrate the greatest need for a
school breakfast program or a summer food service program for
children, respectively.
``(10) Maintenance of effort.--Expenditures of funds from
State and local sources for the maintenance of the school
breakfast program and the summer food service program for
children shall not be diminished as a result of payments
received under this subsection.''.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, before I go any further, I ask
unanimous consent that Justin Page, who is an intern, be allowed to be
in the Chamber during the duration of this debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce some amendments so that my
colleagues have some knowledge of them. We will get back to them when
there is more time to debate these amendments.
The School Breakfast Program was established back in 1966 as a pilot
program. It was primarily located in rural districts. The idea was that
children who lived in rural areas with long bus rides might not be able
to have time to eat breakfast at home. Since then, the School Breakfast
Program has really become a wonderful program upon which parents and
students heavily rely. In many families, a single parent is working or
both parents are working, and school breakfasts are recognized as one
of the most beneficial nutrition programs we have.
Let me make it clear that a hungry child cannot learn and will likely
grow up to be an adult who cannot earn. We are talking about a very
wise investment. One more time. Sometimes we debate in this Chamber and
we make issues out to be so complex. This is simple. A hungry child
cannot learn and later on that child is quite likely to end up being an
adult who cannot earn.
To give some context, we still have some 27,000 schools that are not
able to make breakfast available or that do not make breakfast
available to eligible students, and 8 million low-income children who
need breakfast but do not participate. What my amendment does is
correct an action that we as Congress took which was egregious. In the
welfare bill that we passed, we eliminated a $5 million fund which was
an outreach and start-up grant for school breakfast programs. It was
created in 1990, and it was made permanent in 1994. These outreach
grants are one-time grants that help States develop school breakfast
programs.
Let me be crystal clear as to what is going on here. Every low-income
student who is eligible for a free lunch is eligible for breakfast as
well but only 40 percent of those students are able to get the
assistance they need for a healthy and nutritious breakfast. The $5
million grant program was eliminated because it was an effective
catalyst toward school districts expanding both their School Breakfast
Programs. The welfare bill eliminated it because it was a success.
Now, why in the world do we want to eliminate a small grant program
which was such an important tool in providing a nutritious breakfast
for low-income children in America? What this amendment does is to
point out that in the budget plan we have $2.6 billion for the Pentagon
above and beyond what the President requested. Can we not authorize the
Secretary of Defense to take $5 million out of $2.6 billion more than
the President even requested and put that into a grant program for
States and local school districts so they can start up school breakfast
programs?
I submit that part of our definition of national security has to be
the security of local communities--where every child is able to reach
her and his full potential--because when our children do well, we do
well. It is unconscionable that we eliminated an effective, crucial $5
million grant program when so many low-income children who need a
nutritious and healthy breakfast are not able to have it.
So this is an amendment which gives the Secretary of Defense the
authority to transfer to the Secretary of Agriculture $5 million from
the $2.6 billion above and beyond what the President requested for the
Pentagon. Is that too much to ask, $5 million to help State and local
school districts expand the School Breakfast Program so more of the
vulnerable children in this country can at least have a nutritious
breakfast? That is what this amendment speaks to. This is amendment
670.
Mr. President, I now would ask unanimous consent that this amendment
be laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 666

(Purpose: To increase funding for Federal Pell Grants)

Mr. WELLSTONE. I call up amendment 666.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an
amendment numbered 666.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle D of title X, add the following:

SEC. . TRANSFER OF FUNDS FOR FEDERAL PELL GRANTS.

(a) Transfer Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall
transfer to the Secretary of Education $2,600,000,000 of the
funds appropriated for the Department of Defense for fiscal
year 1998.
(b) Use of Transferred Funds.--Funds transferred to the
Secretary of Education pursuant to subsection (a) shall be
available to carry out subpart 1 of part A of title IV of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a) for fiscal
year 1998.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, we have a budget plan that provides an
excess $2.6 billion to the Pentagon above and beyond what the President
requested. This amendment would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
invest that $2.6 billion in Pell grants instead of $2.6 billion into
the Pentagon budget.
If this amendment passes, we would see the maximum Pell grant go up
to $3,800, and Pell grants stretch to reach 4,278,000 students.
This would make a huge difference. There was an excellent piece by
Larry Gladieux in Monday's New York Times. Gladieux made the argument
that what is now being proposed--and by the way, I am trying to provide
a rigorous, if you will, critique of both Republicans' and Democrats'
plans on this--both the President's plan and what is being done here in
the Congress through tax deductions and tax credits does not reach
those families for whom higher education really has not been
attainable. He pointed out, for example, that if a tax credit program
is not refundable, many families with incomes under $28,000 and many
community college students are not going to benefit at all.
Talk to your financial aid offices. Talk to your students. Talk to
people in your States. I know this is the case in New Mexico as well. I
know that Senator Bingaman has been a huge advocate of the Pell Grant
Program. You talk to many in these community college programs, many of
whom are older and going back to school, and they will tell you that
the Pell Grant Program is the most effective, efficient way of meeting
their needs.
Mr. President, I do not remember exactly the statistics, but there
has been something like a flat 8 percent graduation rate for women and
men coming

[[Page S6969]]

from families with incomes under $20,000 a year since the late 1970's.
That is a disgrace. We know higher education is key to economic
success. All of us wish that higher education will be there for our
children and our grandchildren, but still we have a lot of families for
whom it is not affordable. The best way to make sure they have the
assistance they need, the best way to make sure the Pell Grant Program
can help working families, moderate-income families, even reach into
the middle-income range, is to expand the Pell Grant Program. I suggest
that when we have all sorts of reports that there are tens of billions
of dollars the Pentagon cannot even account for in its expenditures--
Senator Grassley from Iowa has done an excellent job in continuing to
focus on this issue--and when you have a situation where the Pentagon
in the budget resolution receives more money than the President even
requested, it would seem to me we could take that $2.6 billion in
excess of what is needed or has been requested and instead put it into
a very successful higher education program which is all about our
national defense.
We do not do well as a nation unless we have a skilled work force. As
we look to the next millennium, when so many of the industries are
going to be womenmade and manmade--and many of them, Mr. President,
since you are a strong advocate of small business, are small
businesses--let us make sure that higher education is affordable. Let
us do something that will make a huge difference. And one of the things
we do is take a small amount of money--it is a small amount of money in
the context of the Pentagon budget--and put it into expanding the Pell
Grant Program.
There is not one of my colleagues, Democrat or Republican, who is
going to hear from the higher education community, the students or
their families that more of an investment in the Pell Grant Program is
not extremely important to them. It is very important to the families
we represent. It is very important to the future of our States. It is
very important to the future of our country. I look forward to a full
debate about our priorities as we go forward with this defense
authorization bill and get back to debate on each of these amendments.
With that, Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their
graciousness in letting me introduce these amendments today and I will
yield the floor.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the amendment
offered by Senator Wellstone to reduce defense spending. The budget
agreement represents what is available for defense spending, not what
is required. This amendment reduces defense funding below the amount
that was agreed to by both the congressional and administrative budget
negotiators.
Mr. President, we have been down this road before, but it seems that
some of my colleagues have forgotten where it leads. Those who oppose a
strong defense often attempt to justify their position by reminding us
that the cold war is over. They conclude that defense spending should
be lower because we do not face an obvious danger from a threat like
the Soviet Union. They make a simple argument. This argument is
appealing because it provides an easy solution to our funding
problems--but the argument is wrong and dangerous.
While our Nation no longer faces a cold war danger, the world is
still a dangerous place. The belief that continual reductions to
defense are in order is not only ignoring reality, it also overlooks
requirements for both present and future force readiness. We ask our
men and women in uniform to respond to crises all over the world every
day. Right now, we have United States troops on duty in Bosnia, in the
skies over Iraq, and on ships at sea near any actual or potential
trouble spot in the world.
The Chief of Staff of the Army, General Reimer, testified that,

Requirements have risen 300 percent. . . . Excessive time
away from home is often cited by quality professionals as the
reason for their decision to leave the military. It is common
to find soldiers that have been away from home . . . for 140,
160 or 190 days of this past year.

The Secretary of the Air Force, Dr. Widnall, testified that,

Since Desert Storm, we have averaged three to four times
the level of overseas deployment as we did during the Cold
War.

The problem remains that we will not require less of our servicemen
and women. At the same time, some of my colleagues seek to continue to
reduce defense spending. This is not right. Deployments to trouble
spots have not slowed down. We have not stopped sending our young
service people all over the world.
Arguments are made that the Pentagon could find all the money it
needs by eliminating wasteful spending. Mr. President, this is probably
true of many programs, not just defense. No one supports wasteful
spending. But concerning the Defense Department, Secretary Cohen is
taking action. He has just finished and delivered the Department's
report on the Quadrennial Defense Review [QDR], a review of the
national military strategy, force structure, and assets necessary to
carry out it out. He has recently established another panel to push the
Defense Department toward more business-like operations. The Armed
Services Committee has already held one hearing concerning the QDR.
More hearings will be held.
Mr. President we must remember that the QDR is an attempt to define
our military requirements for our future military security, but we must
deter wars with ships, planes, and tanks today. There is a price for
freedom. This is the price for world leadership. As Secretary Cohen
stated:

Having highly ready forces that can go anywhere at any time
really spells the difference between victory and defeat and
it also spells the difference between being a superpower and
not being one.

Mr. President, I strongly urge all of my colleagues to oppose this
amendment that would intend to cut defense spending. It is absolutely
necessary that we maintain defense for the security of this Nation. I
yield the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, just a very brief response. I
appreciate the comments of my colleague from South Carolina. I always
appreciate what he has to say.
I do want to point out that one of my amendments--and I am hoping we
can have some agreement on it--just says we should really follow the
action of the House and do not eliminate a program within DOD which is
a critical testing program for atomic veterans to find out what
happened to them.
The second amendment I have has a lot to do with defense. It has to
do with veterans who found out after the fact that in the budget
resolution we essentially put into effect cuts in veterans' health
care. I just have to say to all my colleagues, these veterans are very
much about our national defense. I don't think it is too much out of a
$2.6 billion excess of what the President and Pentagon even asked for
to say, look, let's take $400 million and put that into the VA health
care budget. These veterans are all about our national defense. I think
this is going to be a critically important vote, and I look forward to
the debate on it.
The third amendment I offered was an amendment which dealt with the
School Breakfast Program. I again have to say, it would seem to me when
we are talking about $2.6 billion more than what the President asked
for, it is not so much to take $5 million which is so critical to
enabling States to start up school breakfast programs and put it
towards making sure that children have a nutritious breakfast before
they go to school. This is all about priorities. It is not a question,
I say to other Senators, of not wanting a strong defense. This is a
small amount of money we are saying the Secretary might be authorized
to transfer, a small amount of money with a very big bang.
I just finished talking about how my Pell grant amendment, too,
impacts our national defense.
So, again, these amendments all focus on the $2.6 billion above and
beyond what the President requested for the Pentagon. These amendments
say we ought to at least give the Secretary the authority to transfer
some of the small amount of funding to make sure veterans get the
health care that they need or to make sure that we re-establish startup
grants for the School Breakfast Program, to make sure we keep the
program that we have had for the atomic veterans, and, finally, I

[[Page S6970]]

have raised questions about an investment in education, but it is all
done within the framework of an excess $2.6 billion. This is a debate
about priorities, it is not a debate about who is for a strong defense.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, since there is no other Senator wishing
to speak right now, let me say a word about the procedure that we seem
to be agreed upon of having a cloture vote this afternoon at 3 o'clock.
I know the majority leader has requested unanimous consent to do that
and has been granted unanimous consent to do that. I certainly did not
object. But I have to say, Mr. President, that the procedures in the
Senate, as is said in Alice in Wonderland, get curiouser and curiouser.
Having a cloture vote at this stage in our deliberations on this
Defense authorization bill seems to me the most curious of any
procedure I can recall.
We are, as I understand it, being advised by the leadership, the
majority leadership, Senator Lott, that we do not want any votes on
this bill until at least 6 o'clock tomorrow evening when the absent
Members who are in Madrid with the President attending the meeting on
NATO return. I understand that is a very important meeting, and I
certainly commend them for being there to attend that. I do not object
to postponing votes on this important defense authorization bill until
they return.

But for us to be, on one hand, being told that we should not vote
because Members are absent and, on the other hand, being told that we
should invoke cloture because someone is delaying the Senate in
concluding action on this bill, the only people delaying the Senate in
concluding action are the absent Senators or the leadership in trying
to protect them from votes. So I have great difficulty understanding
why we are having this cloture vote today.
Obviously, if that is the majority leader's will or desire, he has
that right under Senate rules. But for people who try to understand the
proceedings around the Senate, I think they need to understand that
invoking cloture does cut off debate. That is the purpose of it. It
limits the number of amendments each Senator can offer. It limits the
length of time each Senator can speak. It prevents us from seriously
considering legitimate proposals that may be made to improve or alter
this bill.
So I think it would be a big mistake for us to invoke cloture. As I
said in my early comment, I think it is really very confusing to this
Senator to understand why we are having the vote at all. I hope that
the majority leader will reconsider and vitiate the yeas and nays and
put off any votes on cloture until such time as there is some evidence
at least that some Senator is trying to delay action on the bill. I see
no evidence of that at the present time. I think all of the Senators
who have come to the floor this morning to offer amendments have had
those amendments set aside because of their agreement with the majority
leader's position that we should postpone votes until tomorrow evening
after our colleagues return from Madrid.
Mr. President, I wanted to make that statement because I have great
difficulty understanding myself the procedure that is being followed.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the
cloture vote scheduled for today will occur at 3 p.m. It is my hope
that cloture will be invoked so that the Senate can complete action on
this very important Department of Defense authorization bill this week.
It is my understanding that perhaps as many as 150 first-degree
amendments have been filed to the bill. Needless to say, there remains
a tremendous amount of work to be done in order to complete action this
week.

____________________