[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 150 (Tuesday, October 20, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12695-S12696]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               MILITARY READINESS AND THE DEFENSE BUDGET

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, over the past several weeks, the Senate 
Armed Services Committee held a series of hearings to review the status 
of our armed forces. I scheduled these hearings because I have been 
concerned for some time that the Administration's defense budget was 
inadequate to maintain readiness and because members and staff were 
bringing back anecdotal information indicating the readiness of our 
armed forces was declining.
  On September 29, the committee heard from General Shelton, the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other members of the Joint 
Chiefs, General Reimer, Admiral Johnson, General Ryan, and General 
Krulak. The hearing has been described by the media as adversarial, 
however, I would describe it as open, candid and productive. It was not 
surprising that the Chiefs acknowledged the U.S. military is falling 
into a readiness crisis and faces the danger of becoming a ``hollow'' 
force if appropriate measures are not taken. They specifically 
indicated the need for additional resources now and in the out years. 
Most illustrative of the testimony is the following quote by General 
Shelton:

       I must admit up front that our forces are showing 
     increasing signs of serious wear. Anecdotal and now 
     measurable evidence indicates that our current readiness is 
     fraying and that the long-term health of the Total Force is 
     in jeopardy.

  Mr. President, on October 6, the committee followed up the hearing 
with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with a hearing at which Secretary of 
Defense Cohen and General Shelton testified. Although the focus of the 
hearing was to be primarily on world trouble spots, the readiness 
status of our forces also became a subject of intense debate. Secretary 
Cohen reiterated the concerns of the service chiefs and indicated that 
he would seek additional funds in the fiscal year 2000 budget.
  Mr. President, the indicators that most concerned the service chiefs 
and brought them to the realization that readiness was clearly 
declining included downturns in recruiting and retention, a shortfall 
in unit training, and widespread equipment breakdowns and spare parts 
shortages. These are basic indicators whose impact is felt throughout 
the ranks, in units throughout all the services and affect operations, 
training, morale and esprit de corps.
  Mr. President, when pressed to explain the reasons for the decline in 
readiness, Secretary Cohen and the Joint Chiefs of Staff attributed the 
cause primarily to the high operational tempo and the under funding of 
the defense budgets. General Reimer encapsulated the problem in this 
way during the September 29 hearing:

       Soldiers are asking, ``When is it going to stop? When will 
     the downsizing end? When will our leaders stop asking us to 
     do more with less?'' Our soldiers are smart, hard working, 
     and dedicated. They are also very tired.

  For many of us, the acknowledged shortfall in defense spending is not 
a surprise. Last year, during the Senate debate on the budget 
resolution, I expressed my concerns that funding levels for defense 
considered in the budget agreement would not provide sufficient funds 
to adequately sustain over time the personnel, quality of life, 
readiness and modernization programs critical to our military services. 
Regretfully, my concerns have become a reality sooner than expected and 
we must now take measures to resolve these problems and reverse the 
decline in the readiness of our military services.
  Mr. President, as long as the administration continues to pursue a 
foreign policy that requires the U.S. military to be a global police 
force, our troops will be challenged by an operational tempo higher 
than that of the cold war. If the administration persists in this 
endeavor, we must ensure that our armed forces have the funds to carry 
out these operations while maintaining a force structure that 
withstands the impact of the high operational and personnel tempos 
associated with our current aggressive foreign policy.
  More importantly, we have the responsibility to correct those quality 
of life and modernization shortfalls identified during our hearings. 
General Shelton recommended the following:

       My recommendation is to apply additional funding to two 
     very real, very pressing concerns. First, we need to fix the 
     so-called REDUX retirement system and return the bulk of our 
     force to the program that covers our more senior members--
     that is, a retirement program that provides 50 percent of 
     average base pay upon completion of twenty years of service. 
     Second, we must begin to close the substantial gap between 
     what we pay our men and women in uniform and what their 
     civilian counterparts with similar skills, training, and 
     education are earning.

  General Reimer described the modernization problem as follows:

       In order to preserve future readiness, we must begin today 
     to increase our modernization accounts and to develop the 
     equipment, force structures, professional development 
     systems, training, and doctrine we will need to prepare for 
     the future. And we must develop all these capabilities 
     together.

  Mr. President, during the October 29 hearing, Secretary Cohen assured 
us that he would address these problems in the fiscal year 2000 budget 
request. In my judgement, it would require a substantial increase in 
the defense budget to alleviate the problems recently acknowledged by 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff. During the hearings, the service chiefs 
testified they needed approximately $17.5 billion additional annually 
to correct the near and long term readiness problems. This amount does 
not include a pay increase nor does it include the funding necessary to 
change the retirement program.

  With respect to the retirement issue, the Armed Services Committee 
will consider carefully the recommendations of the Secretary of Defense 
in his fiscal year 2000 budget request and will address this issue in 
the Defense authorization bill. Senator Levin and I wrote the Secretary 
of Defense on October 8 indicating that we believe he should conduct 
appropriate analyses to determine the greatest readiness payoff among 
the measures under consideration to improve recruiting and retention, 
including pay, retirement, housing, health care, personnel tempo, and 
morale and recreation programs and facilities. These analyses will be 
crucial to making the difficult funding decisions we will face next 
year. I ask unanimous consent that our letter of October 8 be printed 
in the Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the Joint Chiefs described alarming 
indicators of declining readiness. I strongly believe that if there is 
an actual emergency that should be addressed in this omnibus 
supplemental bill, it should be military readiness. The Joint Chiefs 
testified that while the $1 billion readiness supplemental requested by 
the Department of Defense would be helpful, it is inadequate to 
maintain the readiness of our military forces. I believe that, as the 
highest priority, the Congress should have provided an emergency 
supplemental for military readiness of at least $2 billion. Mr. 
President, while I appreciate and commend the Chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee and the majority leader for negotiating this 
agreement under difficult circumstances, I regret that the final 
agreement provides only half that amount which I believe is required 
now to shore up our military readiness.
  Mr. President, next year, we are going to have to face up to the 
serious fiscal problems our military services are experiencing in 
addition to already existing outlay problems. The Secretary of Defense 
is conferring now with the Office of Management and Budget to determine 
how additional funds can be provided for defense next year and in the 
out years. I do not believe the administration will request

[[Page S12696]]

the additional $20 billion or so which the Joint Chiefs indicated will 
be required annually over the next 5 years to address personnel, 
readiness, and modernization deficiencies.
  The Congress will have to come to grips with these funding realities 
or consider significantly scaling back our worldwide commitments. We 
cannot continue to have it both ways. It is unfair to our men and women 
in uniform and cannot be sustained over time.
  Mr. President, our hearings have substantiated the readiness and 
funding problem facing our armed forces. The solution to these problems 
will require the close cooperation between the Congress and the 
administration. It will require the Congress to relook the balanced 
budget agreement and will require challenging decisions by all parties. 
We have no choice but to make careful and deliberate decisions. The 
future of our Nation and the lives of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, 
and marines depend on it.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                  Committee on Armed Services,

                                  Washington, DC, October 8, 1998.
     Hon. William S. Cohen,
     Secretary of Defense,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Secretary: In light of your recent testimony and 
     the testimony of the Joint Chiefs of Staff before the 
     Committee, it is obvious that maintaining the delicate 
     balance among the key components of personnel and quality of 
     life, readiness and modernization in the FY2000-2005 Future 
     Years Defense Plan will be difficult. The current discussions 
     of ``catch-up'' pay raises, returning to a richer military 
     retirement system, funding modernization programs, providing 
     adequate training funds and controlling high personnel and 
     operational tempos make your task of setting priorities a 
     significant challenge.
       As you develop the defense budget request for fiscal year 
     2000, it is imperative that the Department thoroughly analyze 
     any proposals to address the pay gap or return to the pre-
     August 1986 military retirement system. We are totally 
     committed, as we are sure you are, to taking care of our 
     military personnel and their families. However, before 
     enacting any proposals in this area with significant long-
     term costs, the Department of Defense and the Congress must 
     have a clear view of the likely impact of the proposals on 
     recruiting, retention, and military readiness.
       During our hearing on October 6, 1998, you testified that 
     you would address the issues of military pay and retirement 
     in your fiscal year 2000 budget. As you and the Chiefs 
     testified, there are a number of programs that combine to 
     make up Quality of Life for our military personnel and their 
     families, including pay, retirement, housing, health care, 
     personnel tempo and morale and recreation programs and 
     facilities. We believe that recommendations included in your 
     budget request for the areas indicated above must be fully 
     supported by careful analyses justifying the costs and 
     providing assurance of measurable increases in recruiting, 
     retention and military readiness.
       We look forward to reviewing your recommendations in the FY 
     2000 budget request.
           Sincerely,
     Carl Levin, 
       Ranking Member.
     Strom Thurmond, 
       Chairman.

                          ____________________