In the nature of a substitute.

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004--Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). The Democratic leader.

Amendment No. 689

Mr. DASCHLE. I have an amendment at the desk and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] proposes an
amendment numbered 689.

Mr. DASCHLE. 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:

(Purpose: To ensure that members of the Ready Reserve of the Armed
Forces are treated equitably in the provision of health care benefits
under TRICARE and otherwise under the Defense Health Program)

On page 157, strike line 8 and all that follows through
``time of war,'' on line 14, and insert the following:
``(f)(1) At any time after the Secretary concerned notifies
members of the Ready Reserve that the members are to be
called or ordered to active duty,

On page 157, line 19, strike `` `(2)'' and insert the
following:

[[Page S6588]]

``(2) The screening and care authorized under paragraph (1)
shall include screening and care under TRICARE, pursuant to
eligibility under paragraph (3), and continuation of care
benefits under paragraph (4).
``(3)(A) Members of the Selected Reserve of the Ready
Reserve and members of the Individual Ready Reserve described
in section 10144(b) of this title are eligible, subject to
subparagraph (I), to enroll in TRICARE.
``(B) A member eligible under subparagraph (A) may enroll
for either of the following types of coverage:
``(i) Self alone coverage.
``(ii) Self and family coverage.
``(C) An enrollment by a member for self and family covers
the member and the dependents of the member who are described
in subparagraph (A), (D), or (I) of section 1072(2) of this
title.
``(D) The Secretary of Defense shall provide for at least
one open enrollment period each year. During an open
enrollment period, a member eligible under subparagraph (A)
may enroll in the TRICARE program or change or terminate an
enrollment in the TRICARE program.
``(E) A member and the dependents of a member enrolled in
the TRICARE program under this paragraph shall be entitled to
the same benefits under this chapter as a member of the
uniformed services on active duty or a dependent of such a
member, respectively. Section 1074(c) of this title shall
apply with respect to a member enrolled in the TRICARE
program under this section.
``(F)(i) The Secretary of Defense shall charge premiums for
coverage pursuant to enrollments under this paragraph. The
Secretary shall prescribe for each of the TRICARE program
options a premium for self alone coverage and a premium for
self and family coverage.
``(ii) The monthly amount of the premium in effect for a
month for a type of coverage under this paragraph shall be
the amount equal to 28 percent of the total amount determined
by the Secretary on an appropriate actuarial basis as being
reasonable for the coverage.
``(iii) The premiums payable by a member under this
subparagraph may be deducted and withheld from basic pay
payable to the member under section 204 of title 37 or from
compensation payable to the member under section 206 of such
title. The Secretary shall prescribe the requirements and
procedures applicable to the payment of premiums by members
not entitled to such basic pay or compensation.
``(iv) Amounts collected as premiums under this
subparagraph shall be credited to the appropriation available
for the Defense Health Program Account under section 1100 of
this title, shall be merged with sums in such Account that
are available for the fiscal year in which collected, and
shall be available under subparagraph (B) of such section for
such fiscal year.
``(G) A person who receives health care pursuant to an
enrollment in a TRICARE program option under this paragraph,
including a member who receives such health care, shall be
subject to the same deductibles, copayments, and other
nonpremium charges for health care as apply under this
chapter for health care provided under the same TRICARE
program option to dependents described in subparagraph (A),
(D), or (I) of section 1072(2) of this title.
``(H) A member enrolled in the TRICARE program under this
paragraph may terminate the enrollment only during an open
enrollment period provided under subparagraph (D), except as
provided in subparagraph (I). An enrollment of a member for
self alone or for self and family under this paragraph shall
terminate on the first day of the first month beginning after
the date on which the member ceases to be eligible under
subparagraph (A). The enrollment of a member under this
paragraph may be terminated on the basis of failure to pay
the premium charged the member under this paragraph.
``(I) A member may not enroll in the TRICARE program under
this paragraph while entitled to transitional health care
under subsection (a) of section 1145 of this title or while
authorized to receive health care under subsection (c) of
such section. A member who enrolls in the TRICARE program
under this paragraph within 90 days after the date of the
termination of the member's entitlement or eligibility to
receive health care under subsection (a) or (c) of section
1145 of this title may terminate the enrollment at any time
within one year after the date of the enrollment.
``(J) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the
other administering Secretaries, shall prescribe regulations
for the administration of this paragraph.
``(4)(A) The Secretary concerned shall pay the applicable
premium to continue in force any qualified health benefits
plan coverage for an eligible reserve component member for
the benefits coverage continuation period if timely elected
by the member in accordance with regulations prescribed under
subparagraph (J).
``(B) A member of a reserve component is eligible for
payment of the applicable premium for continuation of
qualified health benefits plan coverage under subparagraph
(A) while serving on active duty pursuant to a call or order
issued under a provision of law referred to in section
101(a)(13)(B) of this title during a war or national
emergency declared by the President or Congress.
``(C) For the purposes of this paragraph, health benefits
plan coverage for a member called or ordered to active duty
is qualified health benefits plan coverage if--
``(i) the coverage was in force on the date on which the
Secretary notified the member that issuance of the call or
order was pending or, if no such notification was provided,
the date of the call or order;
``(ii) on such date, the coverage applied to the member and
dependents of the member described in subparagraph (A), (D),
or (I) of section 1072(2) of this title; and
``(iii) the coverage has not lapsed.
``(D) The applicable premium payable under this paragraph
for continuation of health benefits plan coverage in the case
of a member is the amount of the premium payable by the
member for the coverage of the member and dependents.
``(E) The total amount that may be paid for the applicable
premium of a health benefits plan for a member under this
paragraph in a fiscal year may not exceed the amount
determined by multiplying--
``(i) the sum of one plus the number of the member's
dependents covered by the health benefits plan, by
``(ii) the per capita cost of providing TRICARE coverage
and benefits for dependents under this chapter for such
fiscal year, as determined by the Secretary of Defense.
``(F) The benefits coverage continuation period under this
paragraph for qualified health benefits plan coverage in the
case of a member called or ordered to active duty is the
period that--
``(i) begins on the date of the call or order; and
``(ii) ends on the earlier of the date on which the
member's eligibility for transitional health care under
section 1145(a) of this title terminates under paragraph (3)
of such section, or the date on which the member elects to
terminate the continued qualified health benefits plan
coverage of the dependents of the member.
``(G) Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
``(i) any period of coverage under a COBRA continuation
provision (as defined in section 9832(d)(1) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986) for a member under this paragraph shall
be deemed to be equal to the benefits coverage continuation
period for such member under this paragraph; and
``(ii) with respect to the election of any period of
coverage under a COBRA continuation provision (as so
defined), rules similar to the rules under section
4980B(f)(5)(C) of such Code shall apply.
``(H) A dependent of a member who is eligible for benefits
under qualified health benefits plan coverage paid on behalf
of a member by the Secretary concerned under this paragraph
is not eligible for benefits under the TRICARE program during
a period of the coverage for which so paid.
``(I) A member who makes an election under subparagraph (A)
may revoke the election. Upon such a revocation, the member's
dependents shall become eligible for benefits under the
TRICARE program as provided for under this chapter.
``(J) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations
for carrying out this paragraph. The regulations shall
include such requirements for making an election of payment
of applicable premiums as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
``(5) For the purposes of this section, all members of the
Ready Reserve who are to be called or ordered to active duty
include all members of the Ready Reserve.
``(6) The Secretary concerned shall promptly notify all
members of the Ready Reserve that they are eligible for
screening and care under this section.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this amendment would strengthen our
National Guard, our Reserve force, and our Nation by offering these
troops the option to receive year-round health coverage through
TRICARE, the military health program. If approved, this would be the
first fundamental change in Guard and Reserve benefits since the end of
the Cold War.
This amendment not only honors the sacrifices that our Guard and
Reserve troops have been making on our behalf for decades, but also
recognizes that there has been a fundamental expansion in recent years
in their roles and missions.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the military has increasingly
relied on the skill and sacrifice of America's Reservists. When I go
home to South Dakota and talk to the citizens of my State, I see and
hear first-hand the impact this increasing reliance has on communities
all across my State. Nearly 2,000 South Dakotan Guard and Reservists
are currently on active duty serving their Nation. In addition to
performing their traditional combat roles, Guard and Reserve personnel
have assumed a larger share of the peacekeeping role in hot spots all
around the world.
Since September 11, Guard and Reserve members have assisted in
homeland security, including protecting our airports, and have provided
force protection at bases at home and abroad. According to a recent GAO
study, Guard and Reservist mobilizations increased by 700 percent in
the aftermath

[[Page S6589]]

of the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center.
So more frequently and for longer periods of time, Guard and Reserve
personnel from South Dakota and all over the Nation have answered their
Nation's call to duty, leaving behind their families, their jobs, and
their communities.
While the demands we place on Reservists have grown markedly, the
Federal Government's commitment to this dedicated group of men and
women has not kept pace. As a result, leaders of the National Guard and
Reserves are finding it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain
top-notch individuals. Guard leaders tell me that offering health
coverage would be the single most powerful tool we could give them to
help with recruiting and retention.
This proposal offers a moderate, targeted, affordable proposal that
deserves the bipartisan support of the Senate.
This amendment is the result of 2 years of work by myself and a
bipartisan group of my colleagues from the Senate Guard Caucus. In
2001, we introduced S. 1119, calling for research into problems
surrounding health coverage for the Guard and Reserve. For 2 years, we
have been holding regular meetings with leaders from the guard and
reserve community and soliciting grassroots input. We have made some
modifications to reflect the experiences of reservists mobilized after
September 11 and problems encountered by others mobilized for service
in Bosnia and Iraq. Last fall, we received a helpful study on the issue
from the General Accounting Office.
Incorporating the lessons from that report, last month we were able
to introduce S. 852, the National Guard and Reserve Comprehensive
Health Benefits Act of 2003, on which this amendment is based.
This amendment offers Reserve and National Guard members and their
families the opportunity to participate in the same TRICARE program
available to active duty service members and their families.
Reservists and their families will share the cost of premium payments
with the Department of Defense, with the same cost distribution as used
in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan.
The National Guard Association of the United States reports that the
average cost of a family health care plan through a civilian HMO is
$7,541 per year.
In contrast, the Guard Association estimates that the TRICARE cost
per family is only $5,173 per year, even without government sharing any
of the cost.
With government cost-sharing, this will be an attractively priced
option for securing health coverage.
Beyond recruitment and retention, this program will improve
readiness. More than 20 percent of the Ready Reserve--and as much as 40
percent of young enlisted personnel--do not currently have health
insurance.
Providing access to quality health care during all phases of service
can drastically reduce the chances that a unit is unable to deploy due
to medical reasons.
Maintaining a healthy force is absolutely essential to maintaining a
prepared force.
Our legislation will also address another problem that invariably
occurs during mobilization.
When a reservist is called to active duty, he or she must leave their
private-sector health plan and enter a wholly new plan, TRICARE. In
March, I worked with the Secretary of Defense to end a nationwide
problem among families of mobilized reservists. Simply put, they were
being forced, unfairly and improperly, to join a more expensive TRICARE
plan.
We did solve that problem, but many families spent weeks without
knowing whether they should try to extend their private coverage or
whether they could afford TRICARE. That is simply unacceptable.
At a time when a reservist is preparing for deployment to a war zone,
the last thing he or she should have to worry about is health benefits.
This amendment is an affordable way to honor the commitment of our
guard and reserve members. The bill before us provides the Defense
Department with more than $400 billion in FY2004.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, my amendment costs
about $300 million in that same period. For .7 months of a percent of
the Pentagon budget, we can guarantee that all reservists have access
to health care--either through civilian employers or TRICARE. We can
ensure that this force is ready to fight at a moment's notice.
We can improve the readiness of the current reserve force and improve
our ability to recruit and retain the best and brightest men and women
for the National Guard and Reserves.
The high rate of reservist mobilizations will most likely continue.
Indeed, with ongoing needs in Iraq and the upsurge in homeland defense
activities, reservists will probably continue to be mobilized at record
levels.
By providing access to quality, affordable health care for reservists
and their families, this legislation will ensure that when we need
them, they will be there, healthy and ready to go.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. I ask our distinguished colleague, the distinguished
leader on the other side of the aisle, the cost implications.
Mr. DASCHLE. As I noted in my opening comments, the cost implications
are very minimal given the extraordinary opportunities it presents for
all of our Guard and Reserve personnel. The estimated cost for the
first year is $300 million--.7 of a percent of the entire defense
budget.
Mr. WARNER. I say to my distinguished friend and colleague, there are
a number of provisions that will be addressed as we proceed to this
bill to try to improve the compensation benefits for the Reserve and
Guard. I generally recognize the need to do so, but I must say to my
good friend, the regulars are beginning to say, well, what is the
distinction between a Regular and a Guard and Reserves man? A Regular,
the clearest distinction is he or she is subject to 365 days of service
to country and probably moving from base to base every third year.
Also, they do not have the benefit of both Reserve and Guard pay.
As someone said, and I hope the distinguished leader will not take
this the wrong way, maybe everybody will leave the Regular Forces and
join the Guard and Reserve because there is a little more flexibility
and a little more pay and benefits.
We have to watch as we move along in this direction to not get out of
balance what has been in balance for many years. I recognize that the
Guard and Reserve are pulling heavily on the oars these days and they
have the inconvenience of being called up at times as they have
experienced in Afghanistan and the Iraqi operations and having to leave
their families rather abruptly and depart their businesses, employers
confronted with getting replacements in some instances but allowing
them to return to their positions, which I think is the proper thing to
do. We have not had any hearings. We do not know what the ramifications
are.
I say to my distinguished colleague, at the moment I will have to
indicate my intention to oppose.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if I could respond briefly, first of all,
I compliment the distinguished chair and ranking member for their work,
once again, in producing a bill that passed out of committee, as I
understand it, unanimously. That is a real tribute to their leadership
and to the willingness that they continue to demonstrate to work in
such a bipartisan and constructive manner in committee. That is
laudable. I congratulate the chair and ranking member for their ability
to do it consistently--not just on this occasion.
First, I recognize, as the distinguished chair has noted, we have to
be appreciative of our active-duty personnel. They make a commitment
second to none. We saw yet again a demonstration of that commitment in
the battle in Iraq.
I don't know that an issue has been studied as much as this issue
over the course of the last couple of years. I am happy to share the
findings of many of the studies that have been done. One study that
attracted me in particular was a study done by the General Accounting
Office.
I ask unanimous consent the summary of the study be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S6590]]

Background

Reserve components participate in military conflicts and
peacekeeping missions in areas such as Bosnia, Kosovo, and
southwest Asia, and assist in homeland security. From fiscal
year 1996 through fiscal year 2001, an average of about
11,000, or 1 percent, of the roughly 900,000 reservists were
mobilized each year. The length of mobilizations can be as
long as 2 years with the mean length of mobilizations for the
6-year period we reviewed being 117 days. As of April 2002,
about 80,000, or 8 percent, of reservists had been mobilized
for 1 year for operations related to September 11, 2001. At
the same time, additional reserve personnel continued to be
deployed throughout the world on various peacekeeping and
humanitarian missions. . . .
Overall, the percentage of reservists with health care
coverage when they are not mobilized is similar to that found
in the general population--and, like the general population,
most reservists have coverage through their employers.
According to DOD's 2000 Survey of Reserve Component
Personnel, nearly 80 percent of reservists reported having
health care coverage. In the general population, 81 percent
of 18 to 65 year olds have health care coverage. Officers and
senior enlisted personnel were more likely than junior
enlisted personnel to have coverage. Only 60 percent of
junior enlisted personnel, about 90 percent of whom are under
age 35, had coverage--lower than the similarly aged group in
the general population. Of reservists with dependents, about
86 percent reported having coverage. Of reservists without
dependents, about 63 percent reported having coverage.

Mr. DASCHLE. The GAO noted since the attack on the World Trade
Center--
Mr. WARNER. Could you give the date of the publication?
Mr. DASCHLE. The date was September of 2002, just in the last 6
months.
The GAO study noted that since the attacks on the Pentagon and the
World Trade Center, utilization, mobilization of the Guard and Reserve
has gone up 700 percent. We are not only seeing an increase in
integration with Active-Duty Forces, but we are seeing a remarkable,
continued mobilization of the Guard and Reserve for other roles having
to do with the war on terror.
As these continued mobilizations arise, the disruption, the
extraordinary pressures and demands put on the Guard and Reserve almost
require that we look upon them as active-duty personnel because they
play far more an active-duty role.
As I talk to the Guard and Reserve and the recruiters, it it has
become increasingly clear that is one reason recruitment and retention
has become much more of a challenge. We have done very well in South
Dakota. We are at 106 percent, but that is not without a great deal of
effort. We cannot say that nationally.
The fundamental question is, Do we owe them the right--not for
additional compensation, no to be treated like Regulars--the right to
buy health insurance so they have the coverage for their families and
themselves both in war and in peace.
Why is it appropriate to buy coverage for war but not appropriate to
buy coverage for peace when they are purchasing it themselves? I don't
know that it takes more study. I don't know that it takes any more
analysis. You see the mobilization. You see the need. You see what I
consider to be the disparity that exists today and what I would
consider to be a certain extent an unfairness. I don't know that one
has to go beyond that.

So I hope the distinguished chairman, the manager of the bill, might
reconsider prior to the time we vote. But I will respect his point of
view regardless of what ultimately he decides.
Mr. WARNER. If I could ask a further question?
I should examine this report. It is timely. But I am advised there is
a provision in the report indicating that 80 percent to 90 percent of
the Guard and Reserve have private sector health insurance. Are you
familiar with that?
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would say, if I recall what the report
says, it is 80 percent or 90 percent of the Guard and Reserve who have
coverage at some time during the year. We have as high as 30 percent of
our recruits in the National Guard in South Dakota who do not have
health insurance because younger people, younger personnel, oftentimes
are not in a position to buy it. It is younger personnel who are
currently the subject of recruitment and retention.
There is a great need out there. As I say, there are a large number,
there is a significant percentage who are vastly underinsured, if you
read further in the report.
I urge my colleague to take a good look at the report before he comes
to any conclusions about the need.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will do that. I value the wisdom and
initiative of our distinguished leader. So I will do that.
Mr. DASCHLE. If I could add one other--I apologize to the Senator
from Vermont--I will just read from page 8 of the report.

Officers and enlisted personnel are more likely than junior
personnel to have coverage. Only 60 percent of junior
enlisted personnel, about 90 percent of whom are under age
35, had coverage.

That means 40 percent of the junior personnel had no coverage at all.

Of reservists and dependents, about 86 percent reported
having coverage, but of reservists without dependents, only
63 percent reported having coverage. Again, about 40 percent
have no coverage whatsoever.

Again, this becomes a recruiting, a retention, and, I believe, a
fairness question that I hope this Senate will address this year with
this bill.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our colleague.
I would just ask I be able to consult with the majority leader as to
the time at which this vote should take place. He, of course, will
consult with you. I thank the Chair.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if I might interject for a moment?
The distinguished chairman knows the great respect I have for what I
many times refer to as my Senator away from home because I spend part
of the week--seems to be the longer part of the week, with the hours we
have been putting in around here lately--in Northern Virginia. Of
course my dear friend, the senior Senator from North Dakota, knows my
respect for him.
I think this is a good amendment. Senator DeWine of Ohio has taken a
very active role in this, too. I hope the distinguished chairman would
hold off making a snap judgment. I know he doesn't do that, in any
event. But think about what the distinguished Senator from South Dakota
has said.
The Senator from Ohio and I will speak on this matter at another time
rather than hold the floor to do it. But there are a number--and the
numbers are rather shocking--of those who are without health insurance,
especially in the enlisted area. You have, so many times, this hiatus.
They are leaving their job, getting called up, and being without it. It
leaves families in this limbo.
I would rather, if they were being called up, they be concentrating
on what they are going to be doing, not on whether they are covered by
health care insurance. This is a matter we have raised with the health
care committee.
I am a cochair of the National Guard caucus. We raised it within our
caucus. We heard from Guard units all over the country of their needs.
As the distinguished Democratic leader has said on the floor today,
this is a case where we are asking they have the ability to pay into
this and do this. So I hope maybe during the evening, before we come
back in tomorrow, everybody might be able to look at it.
I know the distinguished Senator from Ohio, Mr. DeWine, will also
want to be speaking on it. I will withhold my further comments. There
are Senators on the floor waiting to speak on this bill.
I totally concur with the distinguished Democratic leader on what he
has said. His experiences with the brave men and women in South Dakota
are very similar to what I hear in Vermont. I suspect most States are
hearing it also from their Guard. So maybe we will keep our powder dry
until tomorrow. We will get some of these facts and figures and see
where they go.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our colleague for his kind
remarks.
Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield for a minute?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. I point out one other fact for the consideration of my
good friend, the chairman. The chairman, of course, makes an important
point about the fact there is a distinction between Active Duty and
Reserve and there are certain benefits that people in Active Duty have
which make it a little more attractive, perhaps, than it

[[Page S6591]]

otherwise might be in comparison to being in the Reserves.
There is a distinction in this amendment, as I read it, which
requires the reservists while not on active duty to pay the premium. It
is 28 percent of the total amount determined by the Secretary. That is
a distinction between Active Duty and Reserve, where the active-duty
personnel, of course, do not have to pay their own share; whereas,
under the amendment offered by Senator Daschle, the reservists while
not on active duty would have to pay, as I understand it, the share of
about 28 percent.
That does retain that important distinction, while it does clearly
confer a benefit, which is an important benefit because of all the
reservists we have who simply do not have health insurance. We want
them to be in a healthy state if and when they are called up--and we
ought to want them in a healthy state even if they are never called
up--but surely if they are called up it is important they be in good
health.
Having access here to what is equal to what Federal employees have,
that is what the Senator from South Dakota and the cosponsors are
attempting to do, to give reservists the same kind of health care
Federal employees have. That includes paying their own part of the
premium but again having access to health insurance, which is so
important for us to have a healthy Reserve Corps.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will be in a better position tomorrow to
reply to our distinguished colleagues. We have some material coming
over from the Department of Defense. It has not been authenticated with
a signature yet. Until such time as it is authenticated as accurate, in
fact, this Senator is reluctant to draw any conclusions with respect to
points about which he would be comfortable.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a few remarks I
make be as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Hatch are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the Defense
authorization bill that we are debating today and for the remainder of
this week.
I first want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their
courtesy, for their thoughtfulness, and for their collegiality in the
conduct of the committee in the preparation of this bill. They are two
Senators I respect and admire greatly. I thank them for their help and
participation.
This is, overall, a very good bill that meets the needs of our
fighting men and women. I have some reservations which I will talk
about tonight, and during the course of the week I will suggest some
improvements in the bill. But overall, this represents a thorough and
consistent and appropriate discharge of our responsibility to ensure
that the men and women of our Armed Forces are the best prepared and
best cared for in the world.
Let me also say this year I had the privilege and the opportunity to
serve as the ranking member of the Emerging Threat and Capability
Subcommittee. I had the pleasure of working with Senator Pat Roberts of
Kansas. I also want to thank Senator Roberts for his courtesy and
thoughtfulness and for his collegiality. He created a cooperative
spirit on the committee which resulted in legislation that is both
thoughtful and which I think is a vast improvement for the men and
women of our military services.
The package supported and presented by the subcommittee dealt with a
range of subjects. The subcommittee itself was created 4 years ago to
deal with new emerging threats and our response to these threats. The
subcommittee looked at issues such as the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction, terrorism, and information warfare, and it also
focused on ways in which we can respond to these threats.
One of the areas, for example, is the Defense Science and Technology
Program--providing the research and the analysis that makes our forces
the most technologically advanced in the world.
Another area we are concerned about is the Cooperative Threat
Reduction Program. There is a rather simple and obvious point: If we
can reduce the threats, that is a better way than to respond to those
threats if they are poised against us.
We are also concerned about our special operations forces. I think we
have all seen in the past few months how effective and how important
these forces are. They really are the tip of the spear when it comes to
our efforts on the war on terrorism.
Needless to say, the Emerging Threats Subcommittee is obviously
involved in many issues that are of critical importance today.
Let me speak just briefly about some of the issues as we approach the
committee markup.
Science and technology is a critical component of our warfighting
capability. This was brought home to me graphically in August of 2001.
About 20-plus years ago, I commanded an infantry company--a parachute
company--of the 82nd Airborne Division. And in August of 2001, I went
back to Fort Bragg to watch a live fire demonstration by a division of
the 82nd Airborne Division. I was, of course, very pleased with the
toughness and skills of the paratroopers. But I was also impressed with
the technology. Each soldier had a night vision device, and each
soldier had a laser-aiming device on their weapon. Twenty-five years
ago, there was one star-light scope for the whole platoon. It was a
big, bulky device which we carried around and used sparingly. There was
no laser-aiming device on their weapons.

These are graphic examples of the impact of science and technology on
our ability to fight. They have made our soldiers, marines, and airmen
the most formidable in the world because when we couple this technology
with their skills and spirit and their courage, they are unstoppable.
I am pleased this bill includes provisions that strengthen the
coordination between the Science and Technology Program. We really want
to ensure that we get the maximum value from our technological
investment.
I am also very pleased the bill includes Senator Lieberman's
legislation which will increase research on technologies to help
improve communications and networking and to help address our bandwidth
crisis in the field.
Again, 25 years ago when I commanded troops, bandwidth was a concept
which no one talked about. Today, it is an item that is critical to the
success of any military force.
When members of the committee go out--as I know my colleagues do--and
visit troops and talk to commanding officers, one of their consistent
complaints is, We just do not have enough bandwidth. We don't have
enough space on the spectrum to push out all the digital information we
have to all of our warfighters instantaneously.
So I think Senator Lieberman's proposal will give us an added impetus
to examine these issues of bandwidth and conductivity. It is literally
the electronic backbone of our military forces. There are some issues
of concern which I have with respect to science and technology. All of
our experts looking at the appropriate level of funding for science and
technology suggest that we should be investing about 3 percent of the
defense budget in those programs. Secretary Rumsfeld has said the
Quadrennial Defense Review made that point, and the Defense Science
Board has endorsed this laudable goal of 3 percent expenditure on
science and technology. However, last year the final defense budget did
not reach 3 percent, and this year the President's request was $1
billion below last year's vital defense budget.
While I am pleased to note that this bill adds nearly $500 million to
the Defense Science and Technology Program and supports significant
investments in university research, advanced research to support
special operations, and advanced undersea warfare technologies, the
funding levels fall short of this 3 percent.
I think we have to maintain robust investment in our science and
technology. We tried to close the gap, but there is still a gap. I hope
in the next reauthorization--indeed in the conference--we can try to
close this gap.
In the area of nonproliferation programs, we all understand that
weapons

[[Page S6592]]

of mass destruction is one of the key threats, particularly if they get
into the hands of terrorists. One of the most cost-effective ways to
deal with this issue of nonproliferation is to support the Threat
Reduction Program. I am pleased to report again that this bill
authorizes full funding of these threat reduction and nonproliferation
programs, including the Nunn-Lugar program.
This full funding is critical if we are going to eliminate the
proliferation threat and if we are going to lower the danger that these
materials pose to us, particularly if they get into the hands of
terrorists.
Also, the bill includes authority to use Cooperative Threat Reduction
Program funds outside the former Soviet Union under appropriate
circumstances, as requested by the President.
Again, I think we have to recognize there are many places in the
world, regrettably, where material could fall into the wrong hands.
This gives the President authority for a much wider geographic approach
on proliferation.
One of the problems we particularly worry about is the presence of a
vast stockpile of lethal, chemical weapons--some of them small enough
to fit into a briefcase--in Russia. This is the residue of years and
years of Soviet research.

Under the Nunn-Lugar program, we have a project to destroy all those
weapons so they cannot be used and do not fall into the hands of
terrorists. There is a set of conditions that requires a Presidential
certification before the money can be spent, but this bill provides the
President a 1-year waiver of the certification so funds can be used to
destroy these chemical weapons. Again, I thank Chairman Roberts,
particularly, for his consideration of this request and for his
willingness to provide this 1-year waiver.
As I said before, our special operations community each day
demonstrates their incredible value in our war against terrorism. In
recognition of the expanded role of the special operations forces, the
Secretary of Defense has declared that rather than simply being a
supporting command, special operations would be a command in itself.
Let me try to parse that. Before special operations command supported
the CINCs, CENTCOM, SOUTHCOM. Today, they not only support these CINCs,
but they are their own command in and of themselves with new
responsibilities.
I applaud this decision, but I believe Congress should have a better
appreciation of the new role that special operations command is taking
on. Therefore, the committee included, at my suggestion, a
recommendation so the Secretary of Defense can report to us information
regarding this new role.
The information would include items such as the military strategy for
utilizing special operations troops to fight the global war on
terrorism and how the proposal contributes to the overall national
security strategy with regard to the war on terrorism; the scope of the
authorities granted to the commander of the special operations command
by the Secretary of Defense; the operational and legal parameters
within which special operations forces will exercise these authorities;
the impact on existing special operations missions; the decisionmaking
mechanisms, to include consultation with Congress, that will be
involved in authorizing, planning, and conducting these operations; and
future organizational and resource requirements for conducting the
global counterterrorism mission.
I believe the answers to these questions will help us frame our
oversight responsibility, and I also think it will help provide the
details for the special operations commander and the Department of
Defense in relation to their responsibilities and their missions in
this new responsibility they have been given.
These are just some of the highlights with respect to the Emerging
Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee. I want my colleagues to know of
these threats. There are other issues I would like to comment upon in
addition to those related to my responsibilities on the subcommittee.
There was, in the committee, a proposal to, in my view, change the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. I thank my colleagues because,
through collaboration with Senators Ensign, Allen, and others, we were
able to do what I think the committee wanted to do: to provide the
opportunity to temporarily suspend these regulations if property is
needed by a State for emergency purposes but not to undermine
completely and irrevocably the responsibility we have to provide
suitable excess Government facilities for homeless purposes. I am very
pleased and proud the committee was so responsive and so cooperative in
that regard.
I also included in the bill an amendment which again was adopted
unanimously--I thank my colleagues--that would direct the Secretary of
Defense to provide guidelines to the Defense Policy Board. This is an
advisory committee consisting of distinguished Americans who provide
advice and insight, without compensation, to the Secretary of Defense.
It is a very important board but recently it has come under some
criticism.
I think in order to dispel that criticism but also to convince and
assure the public that access to information and access to key
decisionmakers is not being used for profit-making purposes but solely
is an exercise in the patriotism of the individual members of the
board, I ask that the Secretary of Defense provide guidelines. I hope
these guidelines are forthcoming. I think they will be useful. I am
pleased they are now included within the bill.
Let me turn to several other topics quickly because I see my
colleagues are also in the Chamber to speak.
Within the context of missile defense is an area of the bill that I
have some grave reservations. We have decided to pursue missile
defense. The President has made the decision, and it is his prerogative
to do so, to withdraw from the ABM Treaty. The question before us today
is, will we do this in a logical, thorough, systematic way? Will we do
it in a way in which we can assure the American public we are
proceeding with all deliberate speed but also in a way that we can
justify a product that eventually will be useful to national defense?
These are the basic issues that come before us today.
The President has announced, however, that he intends to field a
national missile defense system by September 2004, despite the fact the
Pentagon's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation concluded, in
his fiscal year 2002 annual report, that the system ``has yet to
demonstrate significant operational capability.'' So the plan, in
effect, is to field the system before we even know if it will work.
I think that raises grave questions about the usefulness of such a
system and grave questions about the level of funding that is going to
support a system if we are not ready to declare it operationally useful
yet we are ready to declare it will be deployed.
We also understand after 9/11 there are other ways to attack the
homeland of the United States and that it is not just through the use
of long-range missiles. We have to, in our debate and our discussions
and our decisions, be very careful with resources that could be spent
in other ways to protect our country and our homeland, particularly.
One of the other aspects of the system that is proposed for
deployment is that the decision has been made to field this system
without a radar capable of distinguishing between a warhead and a
decoy. The radar is a key aspect of any missile defense system.
Indeed, the Clinton administration was criticized very harshly for
their national Missile Defense Program, yet this administration has
decided to deploy a system that appears, at least on the surface, to be
far less capable than the one proposed by President Clinton,
particularly when it comes to the radar architecture.
Another issue, with respect to missile defense, is the decision to
significantly reduce the number of tests. Ironically, it seems that one
of the byproducts of the President's decision to rapidly field a
national missile defense is a concomitant reduction in the amount of
testing. It seems to me that is sort of doing things exactly the wrong
way; that if you are going to accelerate deployment, you would
accelerate testing also.

I believe if we are going to have confidence in a system that we
field, we have to make the investment in testing now, and not just
simply reply upon our faith in technology that has not yet been
adequately tested.

[[Page S6593]]

Originally, 20 national missile defense tests had been scheduled to
occur between mid-2002 and 2007, but after the President's deployment
decision, 9 of these 20 tests were canceled without explanation.
Furthermore, the scheduled date to complete this new, very minimal test
plan is now 2009 instead of 2007. That is 5 years after the advertised
deployment of this system in 2004.
We have to recognize this Missile Defense Program is the largest
single acquisition program in the Department of Defense, with a budget
request of more than $9 billion in fiscal year 2004 alone.
For perspective, this funding could buy 9 DDG-51-class destroyers, 45
F-22 Raptor fighter aircraft, or more than 2,800 Stryker armored
vehicles. So the decisions we make are not without cost, not without
opportunity costs.
The investment we make in missiles means, quite literally, we cannot
buy new destroyers; today we cannot buy more F-22 Raptor fighter
aircraft; we cannot buy more Stryker armored vehicles. So again, I
think we have to look very carefully at the deployment, at the testing.
I think we are all committed to the notion of someday putting in
place a missile defense system that will effectively defend the United
States, but we cannot do it hastily, and we cannot do it simply on a
wish that it works. I believe we have to prove it works before we
deploy it or simply declare it is deployed.
Over the last several years, we have tried to put some structure, if
you will, in the Missile Defense Program. For example, at the beginning
of fiscal year 2002, Congress required that the Bush administration
establish cost, schedule, testing, and performance goals for missile
defense, and we directed the General Accounting Office to review
whether progress was being made toward these established goals.
By the end of 2002, the Bush administration had still not established
any meaningful goals for missile defense. Consequently, in November
2002, the Director of Acquisition and Sourcing Management at the GAO
wrote to the committee to say that since no goals had been established,
GAO could not complete its review.
I think, at a minimum, there should be costs, there should be
schedules, there should be goals, certainly at a level so the GAO can
at least offer a preliminary assessment of whether these goals are
being achieved or what effort must be expended to achieve these goals.
That is something that has not been done.
I support prudent research and development and testing on national
missile defense, but I think ultimately we all want to assure the
American people that when we put something in the field, it will work,
and that we know precisely what it will do when it is in the field. I
don't think that is too much to ask the administration.

Finally, let me cover a topic that will receive a great deal of
attention over the next couple days. That is the issue of nuclear
policy. I have grave concerns over some of the provisions in the bill.
Under the guise of maintaining flexibility and keeping all options
open, this bill approves and encourages the administration to continue
its push to develop, test, deploy, and possibly use nuclear weapons. I
heard my colleague Senator Levin earlier today referencing the quote by
former Ambassador Brooks, the head of NSSA, who said his bias is to
something that can be used. For many decades, our bias was against even
thinking about the use of nuclear weapons if we could avoid it.
One of the consequences of the proposal for a low-yield nuclear
weapon, for a robust nuclear earth penetrator is, if not a fact, an
observation that as you make weapons such that their collateral damage
is minimal, there is a tendency to use them. We have to ask ourselves
in our recent conflict in Baghdad, would we have dropped dumb bombs in
the middle of crowded neighborhoods in an attempt to attack the
leadership of Iraq? It would have been a much harder call. But because
we had precision weapons with low collateral damage, as a result the
call was much easier--a tough call, nevertheless, but easier.
I fear that as we move down this path for low-yield nuclear weapons,
more usable nuclear weapons, the threshold, the inhibition against use
will come down also. This is just not another tool in our tool kit.
Nuclear weapons have been, since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a weapon every
nation has tried to avoid using in combat. I hope we can continue that
effort, but I fear the language, the momentum, the incentives that have
created these exceptions in the bill are driving us down the wrong
path.
We should respond by amending the legislation to reflect the
continuing desire to put nuclear weapons outside of use, to
delegitimize their use in conflict. We will have opportunity over the
next several days to debate in much more detail the issue of nuclear
weapons, the issue of missile defense.
I believe this legislation overall is sound. If we could make
successful amendments to some of the provisions with respect to missile
defense and particularly the provisions with respect to nuclear
weapons, we can send to conference a bill of which we will all be very
proud. I hope in the next few days we can do that.
I thank the chairman and ranking member for their thoughtful approach
and for their continued efforts over the next few days.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the very valued member of the
committee, a graduate of West Point, served on active duty. I am not
sure I would want to be in that company you commanded; pretty rough
character. You are too modest.
You referenced the $500 million added to this bill for S&T, and it
sort of came out of the subcommittee. You and Senator Roberts deserve a
lot of credit for that. That is money well invested.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if I could ask the Senator to yield for 30
seconds so I could add my thanks to the Senator from Rhode Island for
his indispensable contribution to the Armed Services Committee. He
mentioned a few issues where he had some very strong feelings. These
issues are just a few of the many where he has made an extraordinary
contribution by experience and by intellect. He is really in a position
to add immeasurably to the work of our committee. We are all very much
in his debt for it.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to express my
support for the Department of Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year
2004. I particularly thank Chairman Warner and ranking member Senator
Levin for the extraordinary job they do each and every day to ensure
our national security priorities are adequately addressed. I also thank
them both for continuing to work in a bipartisan way to ensure that
decisions are made in the best interests of the country.
As the new ranking member for the Personnel Subcommittee, I have
enjoyed working with the subcommittee chairman, Senator Chambliss. I
hope the President will take note of the complimentary remarks I am
going to make about the chairman. I congratulate him for the
outstanding leadership of this subcommittee. Together we have kept our
focus on doing what we can to improve the quality of life of our
service members, Active and Reserve, their families, our retirees, and
civilian employees. I particularly appreciate his personal attention
and cooperation with me.
I am particularly pleased about several provisions in the
subcommittee mark that reflect our appreciation for the sacrifices of
our service members and our desire to see they are adequately
compensated when placed in harm's way. These include a minimum pay
raise of 3.7 percent especially for the junior service members who have
received less under the administration's proposal; a change in the high
PERSTEMPO allowance that will actually put money in the pockets of our
service members who deploy frequently; increases in imminent danger
pay, family separation allowances and, as Senator Collins mentioned,
the death gratuity; and authorization for full replacement coverage for
lost or damaged household goods.
Our mark also includes provisions that address concerns and needs of
our Reserve and National Guard service members who are serving so
successfully. These include extending survivor benefit plan annuities
to surviving spouses of reservists who died from an injury or illness
incurred in the line of

[[Page S6594]]

duty during inactive duty training; a requirement for specially trained
beneficiary counseling and assistance coordinators to help our National
Guard and Reserve members and their families navigate the complex
TRICARE health system; medical and dental screening and care for
Reserve component members as soon as they are alerted for deployment;
and a requirement for the Secretary of Defense to report on the
mobilization of the reserves that will give us the data we need to make
needed changes in the force mix and use of our Guard and Reserve
personnel.
I am also pleased the committee responded to legislation I introduced
to provide a special pay incentive for Reservists, National Guard, and
Active Duty service members who deploy for long durations. This
incentive will help alleviate some of the hardships suffered by
military families when their loved ones are called up for lengthy or
numerous deployments. With the Armed Forces depending on military
reserves for such a large percentage of troops, more and more sailors,
soldiers, air personnel, and marines are facing long call-ups that keep
them away from their regular employment. These call-ups produce a
severe financial hardship for the troops as their normal employment
lives and income are disrupted, often for months, and in some cases for
up to 2 years.
Finally, I fully endorse the supplemental impact aid contained in our
mark. We simply have to ensure the schools that educate our sons and
daughters of military personnel have adequate funding to provide for a
quality education. Our service members will leave, and we will be
unable to recruit if we don't provide this for their families.
I greatly appreciate the bipartisan manner in which the chairman,
Senator Chambliss, has chaired the Personnel Subcommittee, and I
believe we have worked as a team and with a common goal of improving
the lives of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, DOD civilians,
retirees, and the families of all these groups. I thank him for his
excellent leadership, and also thank his staff, Dick Walsh and Mrs.
Lewis, and Mr. Gary Leeling from the Democratic staff.
I again thank Chairman Warner and Senator Levin for their leadership.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his work on the
committee. We value very much his contributions. He is very fair and
open-minded in the manner in which he makes decisions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is very appropriate that our Presiding
Officer is the chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee. He and Senator
Ben Nelson have worked closely together to give us a product of which
we can be proud. We are very indebted to the two of you.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.

Amendment No. 696 to Amendment No. 689

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I have an amendment to the pending
amendment, and I send it to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Graham] proposes an
amendment numbered 696 to amendment No. 689.

Mr. GRAHAM. 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:

On page 157, line 8:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted insert the
following:
``(f)(1) At any time after the Secretary concerned notifies
the commander of a unit of the Selected Reserve of the Ready
Reserve that all members of the unit are to be called or
ordered to active duty under a provision of law referred to
in section 101(a)(13)(B) in support of an operation mission
or contingency operation during a natural emergency or in
time of war. This shall become effective one day after
enactment of the bill.
On page 157, line 19 in lieu of the matter to be inserted
insert the following:
``(2) A member provided medical or dental screening or care
under paragraph (1) may not be charged for the screening or
care. This section shall become effective two days after
enactment.

SEC. ____. EXPANDED ELIGIBILITY OF READY RESERVISTS FOR
TRICARE.

(a) Eligibility.--Chapter 55 of title 10, United 5 States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 1097b the
following new section:

``Sec. 1097c. TRICARE program: Reserves not on active duty

``(a) Eligibility.--A member of the Selected Reserve of the
Ready Reserve of the armed forces not otherwise eligible for
enrollment in the TRICARE program under this chapter for the
same benefits as a member of the armed forces eligible under
section 1074(a) of this title may enroll for self or for self
and family for the same benefits under this section.
``(b) Premiums.--(1) An enlisted member of the armed forces
enrolled in the TRICARE program under this section shall pay
an annual premium of $330 for self only coverage and $560 for
self and family coverage for which enrolled under this
section.
``(2) An officer of the armed forces enrolled in the
TRICARE program under this section shall pay an annual
premium of $380 for self only coverage and $610 for self and
family coverage for which enrolled under this section.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 1097b the following new item:

``1097c. Section 101 head.''.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Zell
Miller be added as a cosponsor to my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I compliment Senator
Daschle and the folks he worked with to try to come up with the
solution to the retention problem we are going to have. It is
inevitable because these forces are being utilized at such rates.
Senator Daschle put forward an amendment that would basically allow
Guard and Reserve personnel the benefit of health care as a condition
of membership. I congratulate him for doing that. I have an amendment
that has a little bit different approach to it. We have similar
cosponsors. The reason I am doing this is to get my amendment out so we
can have two looks at the same problem and see if we can address the
concerns that are growing in the country regarding the utilization
rates of Guard and Reserve personnel.
The comment the chairman had about Senator Daschle's amendment he
will have about this amendment. We need to look at it. There is no
money in the budget resolution for it. But I think what we are trying
to do, in a bipartisan fashion, is put on the table for the country to
digest, as well as the Senate, House, and Department of Defense, what
it is going to be like 10 or 20 years from now if we keep using Guard
and Reserve members at the level we are doing it now.
The honest answer is, if you are in the Guard and Reserve, you are
going to be called on more and not less because the war on terrorism
will go on for a while. It is not anywhere near over. Iraq has a
component to it for the Guard and Reserve. People are in Bosnia, and
that is a Guard function. This amendment, along with what Senator
Daschle is trying to do, puts some new programs on the table to make it
more attractive to enlist in the Reserve or Guard and to stay.
Senator Warner's concerns are very legitimate. The force has changed.
The utilization rates of Guard and Reserve forces have changed. In the
last gulf war, I was serving at MacIntire National Guard base as a
staff judge advocate for the base. During that service, it was eye
opening for me. When a Guard member is called to active duty, as our
units were, half of the people went over to the desert; the other half
stayed behind. I stayed behind to provide legal services to the members
and their families.
When you are called to active duty, more times than not the pay you
receive versus that as a civilian goes down. There are provisions under
the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act to allow renegotiation of
interest payments, and to do some short-term things to make the burden
of being called to active duty for a Guard or Reserve family a bit
easier to bear. But more times than not, there is a dramatic reduction
in income for the Guard and Reserve member called to active duty.
Sometimes these tours can last a year or more.
What we are trying to do is create a benefit package that is not
better than the Active Forces and that complements the Guard and
Reserve forces

[[Page S6595]]

and provides an incentive that will make it more attractive to stay. If
you are a small business owner, as a Guard or Reserve member, sometimes
your business suffers greatly. As a lawyer, I was called to active duty
for about 100 days, so my partners had to take over my obligations. If
I had been a sole practitioner, it would have been tough. But that is
what you sign up for--to help your country.

We are suggesting to create a benefit package more like that of the
Active Forces, and one that is more user friendly. When a Guard or
Reserve member is called to active duty, family counseling is not
usually available at those bases. Some are at civilian airports.
Military families have counseling available. They have many assets
available on Air Force and Army bases that provide support for the
families. Literally, the Guard and Reserve families have to make it up
as they go.
Our Presiding Officer is a cosponsor of the bill. He has been a great
advocate of the Guard and Reserve and Active Forces.
We have to understand this is one big family. The Guard and Reserve
component serves in a unique way, but it is vital to the overall
mission. What we are trying to do--Senator Daschle and myself and
others, in a bipartisan fashion--is address the health care problem.
Here is what happens. If you are called to active duty and you are in
the civilian community, you have one set of doctors and health care
network available to you. When you are activated, you have to change
systems. So we are trying to create continuity of health care.
My main goal is to allow a Guard or Reserve member to access health
care in a fashion that makes health care better for the overall
military family unit. This is the difference between our approach and
Senator Daschle's. His bill has two ways that a Guard or Reserve family
can have access to health care. One is that they can sign up for
TRICARE at the same participation rate as Federal employees, and that
would be $420 for a single individual, $1,446 for a Guard or Reserve
family.
Our bill allows you to be a member of TRICARE as an active-duty
military family, and your premiums would be $330 for a single enlisted
person, $560 for enlisted families, $380 for a single officer, $610 for
an officer's family. Basically, we have taken what a military retiree
would pay in premiums to be a member of TRICARE and added $100 in
additional costs for an enlisted person, $150 for an officer. That is
still a great deal. It lowers the cost. It is cheaper to the military
families in Senator Daschle's approach.
The big difference between our amendments is that, under Senator
Daschle's amendment, the Federal Government--the military could pay a
subsidy to the private sector health insurance company covering the
military person, the Guard or Reserve person.
My concern with that is the study that we have seen suggests it may
be that up to 90 percent Guard or Reserve people will choose an option
where the Government subsidizes health care in the private sector. My
goal is to get more people into TRICARE to make it better for the
overall military family, and at affordable rates.
It is a distinction that matters somewhat. But the point of both of
these amendments is to provide health care to Guard and Reserve
families that has a continuity component and that is affordable. We
need to address this as a nation because you have given some numbers on
the other side about how many Guard or Reserve families don't have
health care or adequate health care. Both bills take us in that
direction. The key difference is, under my proposal, it would work in a
bipartisan fashion with Senator Clinton and others. A Guard or Reserve
family, or military person, would be in the TRICARE system like their
active-duty component, giving a boost to TRICARE overall.
I wanted to bring this amendment to the floor. I congratulate Senator
Daschle and all the Republicans and Democrats, including both of my
colleagues from Georgia, Senators Miller and Chambliss. Senator Clinton
appeared at a news conference when we unveiled the bill. Let me tell
you, she has been terrific to work with. We are probably polar
opposites in terms of political ideology most times, but to have her
join this cause and help push this bill is a testament to the power of
this bill and of this issue.
With that said, I offer the amendment. I hope our colleagues will
look at what both amendments do. I hope colleagues will look seriously
at this body trying to provide, as soon as possible in the future, in a
responsible way, health care to the entire military family unit.
That unit does include in a substantial way Guard and Reserve
members, and they are part of the military family. We cannot do a
mission without the Guard and Reserve. We do not want to have a better
benefits package. We want to have an attractive benefits package that
will be good for retention and recruitment. That is the spirit in which
this amendment is offered.
The chairman's concerns are legitimate. This has been scored at $1.4
billion a year. Senator Daschle's amendment is $1.2 billion a year, but
they are not taking into account that under their proposal, many people
would not go into TRICARE but ask for payments for their health care in
the private sector.
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue.
Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Absolutely.
Mr. WARNER. I feel obligated to be consistent, even though there is a
very clear difference between Senator Graham's amendment and that of
the distinguished Democratic leader. There is no offset; is that my
understanding?
Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. That is correct. It is not paid for.
Mr. WARNER. The Senator clearly has indicated the first year may be
$400 million to $500 million.
Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Yes, $400 million.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in the event this is carried by the
Senate, goes to conference and survives, conferees will have to search
within the confines of the bill to raise that money. My understanding
is it is about $2 billion in the outyears per year; is that correct?
Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. I think it is $1.4 billion, and Senator
Daschle's amendment is $1.2 billion, but the points are well made.
Mr. WARNER. At this time, I have to indicate my opposition.
Regrettably, I do that, but I wish to be consistent and fair to all
Senators. I am fearful if we do not carefully evaluate the whole
panoply of amendments that are likely to come forward to improve the
benefits for the Guard and Reserve, we are going to end up with a bill
that might go tilt.
I must say, though, I certainly share the Senator's views that the
Guard and Reserve have done wonderful service, together with their
families. It is exceedingly hard for these families to let their loved
ones go on these missions. We shall look at it on the morrow. I thank
the Senator for his courtesies.
(Mr. ENSIGN assumed the chair.)
Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator will yield--we are trying to
figure out the numbers on this--just for a question?
Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Yes.
Mr. LEVIN. Perhaps we can get the numbers clarified overnight.
Senator Daschle's estimate, after the first few years, where, I guess,
there is a phase-in of some kind, is $1.2 billion, as the Senator from
South Carolina indicated. I am trying to understand why that number
might be lower than the number of the Senator from South Carolina,
given the fact that under Senator Daschle's approach, the service
members could keep their private insurance and then have it reimbursed
by the Defense Department, which would seem to be a better deal for the
service member. The service member has an option to maintain his
private insurance but, on the other hand, might have a larger cost to
the Government. I wonder if the numbers of the two amendments come from
the same place and looking at the same time.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. That is a very good question. Here is
my understanding of how those numbers relate to each other.
The cost to the Government under Senator Daschle's package is $1.2
billion per year. The package I am offering is $1.4 billion. So it is
more costly to the Government with the way it is constructed at this
point. To the military member, it is several hundred dollars a month
and more advantageous with our proposal.

[[Page S6596]]

Senator Daschle's proposal takes a 78-percent participation rate that
all of us pay in the Federal health care program. What I do is take the
retiree contribution to TRICARE and add $100 for enlisted and $150 for
officers.
Here is the big difference: By having the second option where the
Federal Government will pay an unknown amount of the premium that a
Reserve or Guard member has in the private sector and is not identified
how much we will pay, that changes the participation rates
dramatically.
We have been told, under our proposal, it is a 70-percent
participation rate. Under Senator Daschle's proposal, it is 50 percent.
When you include the component of where we would pay to subsidize the
private health care, it could go up to 90 percent in terms of that
component, and nobody knows what that cost is.
Mr. LEVIN. Is the Senator indicating the cost of maintaining the
private care option is not included in the estimates that Senator
Daschle received?
Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. The participation rates are at 80,000.
They are basing the current numbers on the 2002, 80,000 reservists
mobilized. They are telling us that is not a true number; that, in
reality, if this second option were offered, they would go from 80,000
to almost 350,000, and that has to be included.
Mr. LEVIN. So the Senator is suggesting--it is important to get these
numbers straightened out overnight--that the cost to the Government of
the second option that Senator Daschle offers, which is to maintain
private insurance, that cost is not included in the estimate which was
given to Senator Daschle?
Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. It is not included in the true form. It
has as a cost estimate using 80,000 reservists when, in fact, they tell
us the participation rates will be three times higher than that.
Mr. LEVIN. In which case the estimate would not be accurate.
Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. That is correct.
Mr. LEVIN. We are going to ask our staffs to take a look at this
issue overnight. There is a real difference.
Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. I understand.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 1050,
the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004. Before
talking about this bill, I wish to comment on what my colleague from
South Carolina just talked about with respect to his amendment on
health care.
I commend both he and Senator Daschle for their leadership on this
particular issue. We are in some very difficult times in America from a
military perspective. We are calling on our Guard and Reserve more and
more every single day. We want to do more to provide the benefits to
attract high-quality men and women into the Guard and Reserve and
retain them once we get them there.
We are getting our fair share of America's finest into the Guard and
Reserve, and anything we can do from a benefits standpoint to make sure
we continue to do that and to keep them there are issues we certainly
need to look at.
I personally like the concept of Senator Graham a little better than
Senator Daschle's, although I am not in any way critical of Senator
Daschle's amendment. What I like about Senator Graham's amendment is
that we have a health care benefit within the active military that is
called TRICARE. TRICARE is a fairly new health program which provides
health care benefits to our active-duty personnel.
We have had some problems with TRICARE in getting it implemented, but
we have gotten most of those kinks in TRICARE worked out. What Senator
Graham's amendment will do versus Senator Daschle's amendment is to
strengthen TRICARE, and I think anything we can do to strengthen
TRICARE and have it benefit the active duty, as well as the Guard and
Reserve, is an approach we ought to use.
I commend both Senators. Senator Graham has particularly taken a
leadership role with regard to this issue. I certainly have enjoyed
working with him on it.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on Personnel within the Armed
Services Committee, it has been a distinct honor and privilege for this
freshman Senator to work with Senator Warner and Senator Levin. They
are two men during my 8 years in the House of Representatives for whom
I came to have great respect and great admiration, not just for their
leadership on armed services issues, but on other matters as well, and
to have the opportunity to work with them in the very close way I have
had the chance to do over the last several months since becoming a
member of the Armed Services Committee has been a distinct pleasure for
me. They have certainly worked well together and worked in a bipartisan
way within the committee to make sure we did produce a bipartisan bill.
America's defense is not a political issue. It is not a Republican
issue or a Democratic issue. It is an American issue. These two
gentlemen have provided the type of leadership America so desperately
likes to see when it comes to any issue, but particularly with respect
to defense issues.
I commend my ranking member, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska. First of
all, Senator Nelson is a very gracious and grand American gentleman.
The Senator from Nebraska has a number of military installations he
represents, and to have the chance to visit with him on issues that are
unique to Nebraska versus issues that are unique to Georgia has really
been a delight for me.
What I have enjoyed doing most of all in working with Senator Nelson
is talking about issues that are of concern to our men and women in the
military with respect to quality of life, educating their children,
paying them greater benefits, whether it is pay raises or health care
benefits or whatever. There is no greater champion for the men and
women in our military uniforms than Senator Ben Nelson. I have truly
enjoyed working with him and am very pleased we were able to craft a
section of the Defense Authorization Act for 2004 together, and to do
so in a very bipartisan way.
The committee recommended authorization of $99.2 billion for military
personnel, an increase of $4.8 billion over the fiscal year 2003
authorization. It also approved several key provisions I will outline
that fulfill our committee's express goal of continuing our commitment
to improving the quality of life for the men and women of the Armed
Forces--active duty, Reserve, Guard, and Retired--and their families.
S. 1050 authorizes an across-the-board pay raise of 3.7 percent for
all military personnel. Additionally, targeted pay raises ranging from
5.25 percent to 6.25 percent are authorized for warrant officers and
the Service's most experienced noncommissioned officers. These pay
raises, along with existing incentive pays and bonuses, will continue
to make careers in the military more attractive and send the message to
all active and Reserve component personnel that their service in
uniform is invaluable.
Following up on the initiative taken by the Senate in the Emergency
Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2003, the
committee recommended permanent increases in the family separation
allowance, from $100 to $250 a month, and in hostile fire, imminent
danger pay from $150 a month to $250 a month. The subcommittee also
supported legislative changes to high deployment pay proposed by DoD
that will require close tracking of individual deployments and
appropriately compensate those members who are repeatedly called away
from their home bases for extended periods of time. These increases
recognize the sacrifices made by military personnel and their loved
ones who endure separations and the harsh realities of defending the
Nation in the global war on terrorism.
The committee approved an incentive pay of $100 a month for military
personnel stationed in Korea. Arduous working conditions, substandard
housing, and tours of duty unaccompanied by family members are
hallmarks of duty in Korea. As the Nation marks the fourth and final
year of the United States' 50th Anniversary of the Korean War
Commemoration, and as the need for continuing vigilance on the Korean
Peninsula becomes ever clear, thus additional compensation for service
members in Korea is fully justified.

The subcommittee members were very concerned about the welfare of

[[Page S6597]]

survivors of all deceased military personnel--active duty, Reserve, and
Retired. The committee accepted our recommendations to double the death
gratuity from $6,000 to $12,000 retroactive to 9/11, 2001, and to
extend automatic survivor benefit plan benefits to survivors of
inactive duty Reservists who die while serving on active duty.
The committee responded to requests from the Department of Defense
for assistance in force shaping by authorizing a new incentive pay for
military personnel in overmanned ratings to encourage them to accept
the challenge of converting to ratings and military occupational
specialties that are experiencing shortages.
The committee responded to concerns about the operation of TRICARE
standard, directing the Secretary of Defense to take necessary measures
to ensure the adequacy of this TRICARE option.
The committee approved a proposal that will authorize unlimited use
of military commissaries by qualifying members of the Ready Reserve.
The ``citizen soldiers'' of the Guard and Reserve, who have so ably
answered the Nation's call, before and after the attack of September
2001, deserve full access to this important benefit of service.
The committee authorized additional Army National Guard and Air
National Guard full-time support personnel to assist in fielding 12
additional weapons of mass destruction civil support teams. Upon
implementation, this will raise the total number of teams nationwide to
44.
The committee included a provision that will facilitate medical and
dental screening and medical care for members of the Selected Reserve
who are assigned to units that have been alerted for mobilization. The
committee also included a provision that will ensure that Guard and
Reserve leaders are eligible for command responsibility pay.
These are only a few highlights of S. 1050 which, I believe, indicate
our sincere commitment to our troops and their families. As chairman of
the Subcommittee on Personnel, I am proud to be a part of ensuring that
we meet that commitment.
I will take a minute to commend our staff. As many hours as we put
in--it is now 7:15 tonight and we will be going later than that--staff
put in many more hours than we did. To my committee staffers, Dick
Walsh and Patty Lewis, we say thank you for a great job and for all of
your hard work and dedication to the men and women in uniform, and to
Gary Leeling, who is the Democratic staffer who has worked so closely
with Dick and Patty.
This has been a joint effort on the part of all three of these
staffers. The same way Senator Nelson and I have worked in a bipartisan
way, these folks have worked in a bipartisan way.
Gary, we say thanks to you for a terrific job on behalf of all of our
men and women.
Again, I thank Senator Nelson for his outstanding work and his
cooperation. It has been a pleasure to work with him. We cannot say
enough about the great leadership Senator Warner and Senator Levin, and
their service to our country, particularly their service to the men and
women who serve in uniform in every branch of our military. They are
doing a terrific job of making sure the American military is second to
no other military in the world.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, before our distinguished colleague departs
the floor, I appreciate his thoughtful comments, but I guarantee him--
Senator Levin and I have been doing this now for 25 years, but we are
no stronger than the members we have on the committee. When the Senator
from Georgia joined us, our strength increased. I intend to get that
work product out of him 100 percent. I thank him for joining us, and
for all he does on this committee and for the men and women in the
Armed Forces.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the Senator.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Members of the Senate who
participated in the progress today. We have had good colloquies and
strong statements. We have two pending amendments. I hope the
respective leaders tomorrow can establish a time for voting on those
amendments. Senator Levin and myself are going to be right here from
roughly 10 a.m. on. I am hopeful that other amendments can be brought
forward. We are anxious--and it is a bipartisan desire--to move this
bill at its earliest time because we have important legislative
measures that must be addressed this week prior to the recess that is
scheduled.

One more of great significance is action on the debt limit. I am
quite sure we are not going to leave town until that is in place.

Amendment No. 697

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. I send an amendment to the desk and I ask unanimous consent
the pending amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for himself, Mr.
Dorgan, and Mr. Nelson of Florida, proposes an amendment
numbered 697.

Mr. REID. 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:

(Purpose: To permit retired members of the Armed Forces who have a
service-connected disability to receive both military retired pay by
reason of their years of military service and disability compensation
from the Department of Veterans Affairs for their disability)

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

SEC. 644. FULL PAYMENT OF BOTH RETIRED PAY AND COMPENSATION
TO DISABLED MILITARY RETIREES.

(a) Restoration of Full Retired Pay Benefits.--Section 1414
of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as
follows:

``Sec. 1414. Members eligible for retired pay who have
service-connected disabilities: payment of retired pay and
veterans' disability compensation

``(a) Payment of Both Retired Pay and Compensation.--Except
as provided in subsection (b), a member or former member of
the uniformed services who is entitled to retired pay (other
than as specified in subsection (c)) and who is also entitled
to veterans' disability compensation is entitled to be paid
both without regard to sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38.
``(b) Special Rule for Chapter 61 Career Retirees.--The
retired pay of a member retired under chapter 61 of this
title with 20 years or more of service otherwise creditable
under section 1405 of this title at the time of the member's
retirement is subject to reduction under sections 5304 and
5305 of title 38, but only to the extent that the amount of
the member's retired pay under chapter 61 of this title
exceeds the amount of retired pay to which the member would
have been entitled under any other provision of law based
upon the member's service in the uniformed services if the
member had not been retired under chapter 61 of this title.
``(c) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not apply to a member
retired under chapter 61 of this title with less than 20
years of service otherwise creditable under section 1405 of
this title at the time of the member's retirement.
``(d) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `retired pay' includes retainer pay,
emergency officers' retirement pay, and naval pension.
``(2) The term `veterans' disability compensation' has the
meaning given the term `compensation' in section 101(13) of
title 38.''.
(b) Repeal of Special Compensation Programs.--Sections 1413
and 1413a of such title are repealed.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by striking the items
relating to sections 1413, 1413a, and 1414 and inserting the
following:

``1414. Members eligible for retired pay who have service-connected
disabilities: payment of retired pay and veterans'
disability compensation.''.

(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on--
(1) the first day of the first month that begins after the
date of the enactment of this Act; or
(2) the first day of the fiscal year that begins in the
calendar year in which this Act is enacted, if later than the
date specified in paragraph (1).
(e) Prohibition on Retroactive Benefits.--No benefits may
be paid to any person by reason of section 1414 of title 10,
United States Code, as amended by subsection (a), for any
period before the effective date applicable under subsection
(d).

Mr. REID. This is an amendment we have offered on a number of
occasions.

[[Page S6598]]

We worked well with the two managers of the bill. This deals with
concurrent receipts. This amendment is offered on my behalf and that of
Senator Dorgan. I understand, with the strict rules we are working
under this year, that this amendment may not be relevant according to
the rule now before the Senate.
I ask the Chair to rule on whether or not this amendment is relevant.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment is
not relevant.
Mr. REID. I accept the ruling of the Chair. I am disappointed. This
is a very important issue. As I say, Senator Dorgan and I feel very
strongly about this, and the two managers of the bill have been most
generous in their work in conference. In the past, we have gotten
nothing in the House; everything we have done has been in the Senate.
I will look for another vehicle to move this forward in the future.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished leader. For many years now the
Senator has taken strong leadership on this issue. At some point in
time, the Senate and Congress as a whole will have to face this issue.
I recognize that this is not a relevant amendment pursuant to the
consent agreement and we cannot proceed.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me add my thanks to the Senator from
Nevada for two things: First, for his faithful commitment to this
issue. Currently, we see it as an issue of the Senator from Nevada and
the Senator from North Dakota and a number of other Senators who have
joined to try to bring equity in this area. We made at least some
progress; it is because of their energy we have made the progress we
have.
Second, I thank him for his acceptance of the ruling of the Chair. It
is very important he does that because all Members need to accept the
rulings of the Chair in the absence, it seems to me, of some
overwhelming unusual precedent that would allow us to try to overrule
the Chair. The whip's, the Democratic whip's approach is one which I
think reflects the best traditions and the best instincts of this body.
I thank him.
It also helped Senator Warner and I to complete this bill within the
parameters of the unanimous consent agreement.
Mr. REID. I ask my amendment be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
The amendment (No. 697) was withdrawn.

____________________