[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 19, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S551-S554]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE SPECIAL DUTY ASSIGNMENT PAY EQUITY ACT OF
1999
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
that restores a measure of pay equity for our nation's Guardsmen and
Reservists. The men and women who serve in the Guard and Reserves are
the cornerstones of our national defense and domestic infrastructure
and deserve more than a pat on the back.
Mr. President, as I'm certain my colleagues are well aware, the Guard
and Reserve are integral parts of overseas missions, including recent
and on-going missions to Iraq and Bosnia. According to statements by
DOD officials, guardsmen and reservists will continue to play an
increasingly important role in national defense strategy. The National
Guard and Reserves deserve the full support they need to carry out
their duties.
[[Page S552]]
National Guard and Reserve members are becoming increasingly relied
upon to shoulder more of the burden of military operations. We need to
compensate our citizen-soldiers for this increasing reliance on the
Reserve forces. Mr. President, this boils down to an issue of fairness.
Mr. President, my bill would correct special duty assignment pay
inequities between the Reserve components and the active duty. These
inequities should be corrected to take into account the National Guard
and Reserves' increased role in our national security, especially on
the front lines. Given the increased use of the Reserve components and
DOD's increased reliance on them, Reservists deserve fair pay. My bill
states that a Reservist who is entitled to basic pay and is performing
special duty be paid special duty assignment pay.
Mr. President, right now, Reservists are getting shortchanged despite
the vital role they play in our national defense. The special duty
assignment pay program ensures readiness by compensating specific
soldiers who are assigned to duty positions that demand special
training and extraordinary effort to maintain a level of satisfactory
performance. The program, as it stands now, effectively reduces the
ability of the National Guard and Reserve to retain highly dedicated
and specialized soldiers.
The special duty assignment pay program provides an additional
monthly financial incentive paid to enlisted soldiers and airmen who
are required to perform extremely demanding duties that require an
unusual degree of responsibility. These special duty assignments
include certain command sergeants major, guidance counselors, retention
non-commissioned officers (NCO's), drill sergeants, and members of the
Special Forces. These soldiers, however, do not receive special duty
assignment pay while in an IDT status (drill weekends).
Between fiscal years 1998 and 1999, spending for the program was cut
by $1.6 million, which has placed a fiscal restraint on the number of
personnel the Army National Guard is able to provide for under this
program. These soldiers deserve better.
Mr. President, this bill is paid for by terminating the ineffective,
unnecessary, outdated Cold War relic known as Project ELF, or the
Extremely Low Frequency Communication System, which costs approximately
$12 million per year.
Mr. President, the differences in pay and benefits are particularly
disturbing since National Guard and Reserve members give up their
civilian salaries during the time they are called up or volunteer for
active duty.
As I'm sure all my colleagues have heard, the President will propose
an enormous boost in defense spending over the next six years; an
increase of $12 billion for fiscal year 2000 and about $110 billion
over the next six years. I have tremendous reservations about spending
hikes of this magnitude, but have no such reservations in supporting
this nation's citizen-soldiers. The National Guard and Reserve deserve
pay and benefit equity and that means paying them what they're worth.
Mr. President, according to the National Guard, shortfalls in the
operations and maintenance account compromise the Guard's readiness
levels, capabilities, force structure, and end strength. Failing to
fully support these vital areas will have both direct and indirect
effects. The shortfall puts the Guard's personnel, schools, training,
full-time support, and retention and recruitment at risk. Perhaps more
importantly, however, it erodes the morale of our citizen-soldiers.
Over these past years, the Administration has increasingly called on
the Guard and Reserves to handle wider-ranging tasks, while
simultaneously offering defense budgets with shortfalls of hundreds of
millions of dollars. These shortfalls have increasingly greater effect
given the guard and reserves' increased operations burdens. This is a
result of new missions, increased deployments, and training
requirements.
Earlier this month, Charles Cragin, the assistant secretary of
defense for reserve affairs, presented DOD's position with regard to
the department's working relationship with the National Guard and
Reserve. He stated that all branches of the military reserves will be
called upon more frequently as the nation pares back the number of
soldiers on active duty. This has clearly been DOD's policy for the
past few years, but Mr. Cragin went a little further by stating that
the reserve units can no longer be considered ``weekend warriors'' but
primary components of national defense.
Mr. President, in the past, DOD viewed the armed forces as a two-
pronged system, with active-duty troops being the primary prong,
reinforced by the Reserve component. That strategy has changed with the
downsizing of active forces. Defense officials now see reserves as part
of the ``total force'' of the military.
The National Guard and Reserves will be called more frequently to
active duty for domestic support roles and abroad in various peace-
keeping efforts. They will also be vital players on special teams
trained to deal with weapons of mass destruction deployed within our
own borders. According to many military experts, this represents a more
salient threat to the United States than the threat of a ballistic
missile attack that many of my colleagues have spent so much time
addressing.
As I'm sure my colleagues know by now, the Army National Guard
represents a full 34 percent of total army forces, including 55 percent
of combat divisions and brigades, 46 percent of combat support, and 25
percent of combat service support, yet receives just 9.5 percent of
Army funds.
Mr. President, it should come as no surprise that we have failed to
invest fully in the National Guard. It's no surprise because it's the
best bargain in the Defense Department. DOD has never been known as a
frugal department. From $436 hammers to $640 toilet seats to $2 billion
bombers that don't work and the department doesn't seem to want to use,
the Department of Defense has a storied history of wasting our tax
dollars. Here is an opportunity to spend defense dollars on something
that works, that is worthwhile, and enjoys broad support on both sides
of the aisle.
The National Guard fits the bill. According to a National Guard
study, the average cost to train and equip an active duty soldier is
$73,000 per year, while it costs $17,000 per year to train and equip a
National Guard soldier. The cost of maintaining Army National Guard
units is just 23 percent of the cost of maintaining Active Army units.
It is time for the Pentagon to quit complaining about lack of funding
and begin using their money more wisely and efficiently.
Mr. President, I have had the opportunity to see some of these
soldiers off as they embarked on these missions and have welcomed them
home upon their return, and I have been struck by the courage and
professionalism they display. Guardsmen and Reservists have been vital
on overseas missions, and here at home. In Wisconsin, the State Guard
provides vital support during state emergencies, including floods, ice
storms, and train derailments.
Mr. President, we have a duty to honor the service of our National
Guardsmen and Reservists. One way to do that is to adequately
compensate them for their service. I hope my colleagues agree that our
citizen-soldiers serve an invaluable role in our national defense, and
their paychecks should reflect their contribution.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 122
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Guard and Reserve Special
Duty Assignment Pay Equity Act of 1999''.
SEC. 2. ENTITLEMENT OF RESERVES NOT ON ACTIVE DUTY TO RECEIVE
SPECIAL DUTY ASSIGNMENT PAY.
(a) Authority.--Section 307(a) of title 37, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after ``is entitled to basic
pay'' in the first sentence the following: ``, or is entitled
to compensation under section 206 of this title in the case
of a member of a reserve component not on active duty,''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the first day of the first month that
begins on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
[[Page S553]]
SEC. 3. OFFSET OF COST BY TERMINATION OF THE OPERATION OF THE
EXTREMELY LOW FREQUENCY COMMUNICATION SYSTEM OF
THE NAVY.
(a) Termination Required.--The Secretary of the Navy shall
terminate the operation of the Extremely Low Frequency
Communication System of the Navy.
(b) Maintenance of Infrastructure.--The Secretary shall
maintain the infrastructure necessary for resuming operation
of the Extremely Low Frequency Communication System.
(c) Excess Savings To Be Credited to Deficit Reduction.--To
the extent, if any, that the amount of expenditures forgone
for a fiscal year for the operation of the Extremely Low
Frequency Communication System by reason of this section
exceeds the increased cost of paying special duty assignment
pay in that fiscal year as a result of the amendment made by
section 2, the excess amount shall be credited to budget
deficit reduction for that fiscal year.
______
By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 123. A bill to phase out Federal funding of the Tennessee Valley
Authority; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
tennessee valley authority
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation,
similar to bills I offered in the two previous Congresses, to terminate
funding for the non-power programs of the Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA). In FY 99, after terminating funding for these programs in the FY
99 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, the Congress revived funding
for these programs in the Omnibus Appropriations measure.
The TVA was created in 1933 as a government-owned corporation for the
unified development of a river basin comprised of parts of seven
states. Those activities included the construction of an extensive
power system, for which the region is now famous, and regional
development or ``non-power'' programs. TVA's responsibilities in the
non-power programs include maintaining its system of dams, reservoirs
and navigation facilities, and managing TVA-held lands. In addition,
TVA provides recreational programs, makes economic development grants
to communities, promotes public use of its land and water resources,
and operates an Environmental Research Center. Only the TVA power
programs are intended to be self-supporting, by relying on TVA utility
customers to foot the bill. The cost of these ``non-power'' programs,
on the other hand, is covered by appropriated taxpayer funds.
This legislation terminates funding for all appropriated programs of
the TVA after FY 2000. While I understand the role that TVA has played
in our history, I also know that we face tremendous federal budget
pressure to reduce spending in many areas. I believe that TVA's
discretionary funds should be on the table, and that Congress should
act, in accordance with this legislation, to put the TVA appropriated
programs on a glide path toward dependence on sources of funds other
than appropriated funds. This legislation is a reasonable phased-in
approach to achieve this objective, and explicitly codifies both prior
recommendations made by the Administration and the TVA Chairman.
We should terminate TVA's appropriated programs because there are
lingering concerns, brought to light in a 1993 Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) report, that non-power program funds subsidize activities
that should be paid for by non-federal interests. When I ran for the
Senate in 1992, I developed an 82+ point plan to eliminate the federal
deficit and have continued to work on the implementation of that plan
since that time. That plan includes a number of elements in the natural
resource area, including the termination of TVA's appropriations-funded
programs.
In its 1993 report, CBO focused on two programs: the TVA Stewardship
Program and the Environmental Research Center, which no longer receives
federal funds. Stewardship activities receive the largest share of
TVA's appropriated funds. The funds are used for dam repair and
maintenance activities. According to 1995 testimony provided by TVA
before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Water Appropriations, when
TVA repairs a dam it pays 70%, on average, of repair costs with
appropriated dollars and covers the remaining 30% with funds collected
from electricity ratepayers.
This practice of charging a portion of dam repair costs to the
taxpayer, CBO highlighted, amounts to a significant subsidy. If TVA
were a private utility, and it made modifications to a dam or performed
routine dredging, the ratepayers would pay for all of the costs
associated with that activity.
Despite CBO's charges that a portion of the Stewardship funds may be
subsidizing the power program, I have heard from a number of my
constituents who are concerned that some of the TVA's non-power
activities are critical federal functions. In order to be certain that
Congress would be acting properly to terminate certain functions while
preserving others under TVA or transferring them to other federal
agencies, this bill directs OMB to study TVA's non-power programs. That
study, which must be completed by June 1, 1999, requires OMB to
evaluate TVA's non-power programs, describe which of those are
necessary federal functions, and recommend whether those which are
federal functions should be performed by TVA or by another agency. That
way, Mr. President, Congress will be fully informed before making a
final decision to terminate these funds.
Again, while I understand the important role that TVA played in the
development of the Tennessee Valley, many other areas of the country
have become more creative in federal and state financing arrangements
to address regional concerns. Specifically, in those areas where there
may be excesses within TVA, I believe we can do better to curb
subsidies and eliminate the burden on taxpayers without completely
eliminating the TVA, as some in the other body have suggested.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this measure be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 123
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY.
(a) Discontinuance of Appropriations.--Section 27 of the
Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831z), is
amended by inserting ``for fiscal years through fiscal year
2000'' before the period.
(b) Plan.--Not later than June 1, 1999, the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget shall develop and submit a
plan to Congress that--
(1) reviews the non-power activities conducted by the
Tennessee Valley Authority using appropriated funds; and
(2) determines whether the non-power activities performed
by the Tennessee Valley Authority can be adequately performed
by other federal agencies, and if so, describes the resources
needed by other agencies to perform such activities; and
(3) describes on-going federal interest in the continuation
of the non-power activities currently performed by the
Tennessee Valley Authority; and
(4) recommends any legislation that may be appropriate to
carry out the objectives of this Act.
______
By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 124. A bill to amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act to prohibit
the Secretary of Agriculture from basing minimum prices for Class I
milk on the distance or transportation costs from any location that is
not within a marketing area, except under certain circumstances, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
ABOLISHING THE ANTI-EAU CLAIRE RULE
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a measure which
will serve as a first step towards eliminating the inequities borne by
the dairy farmers of Wisconsin and the upper Midwest under the Federal
Milk Marketing Order system. The Federal Milk Marketing Order system,
created nearly 60 years ago, establishes minimum prices for milk paid
to producers throughout various marketing areas in the U.S. For sixty
years, this system has discriminated against producers in the Upper
Midwest by awarding a high price to dairy farmers in proportion to the
distance of their farms from Eau Claire, Wisconsin.
This legislation is very simple. It identifies the single most
harmful and unjust feature of the current system, and corrects it.
Under the current archaic law, the price for fluid milk increases at
a rate of 21 cents per hundred miles from Eau Claire, Wisconsin, even
though most milk marketing orders do not receive any milk from
Wisconsin. Fluid milk prices, as a result, are $2.98 higher in Florida
than in Wisconsin and over $1.00 higher in Texas. This method of
pricing fluid milk is not only arbitrary, but also out of date and out
of sync
[[Page S554]]
with the market conditions of 1999. It is time for this method of
pricing--known as single-basing-point pricing--to come to an end.
The bill I introduce today will prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture
from using distance or transportation costs from any location as the
basis for pricing milk, unless significant quantities of milk are
actually transported from that location into the recipient market. The
Secretary will have to comply with the statutory requirement that
supply and demand factors be considered as specified in the
Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act when setting milk prices in
marketing orders. The fact remains that single-basing-point pricing
simply cannot be justified based on supply and demand for milk both in
local and national markets.
This bill also requires the Secretary to report to Congress on
specifically which criteria are used to set milk prices. Finally, the
Secretary will have to certify to Congress that the criteria used by
the Department do not in any way attempt to circumvent the prohibition
on using distance or transportation cost as basis for pricing milk.
This one change is so crucial to Upper Midwest producers, because the
current system has penalized them for many years. By providing
disparate profits for producers in other parts of the country and
creating artificial economic incentives for milk production, Wisconsin
producers have seen national surpluses rise, and milk prices fall.
Rather than providing adequate supplies of fluid milk in some parts of
the country, the prices have led to excess production.
The prices have provided production incentives beyond those needed to
ensure a local supply of fluid milk in some regions, leading to an
increase in manufactured products in those marketing orders. Those
manufactured products directly compete with Wisconsin's processed
products, eroding our markets and driving national prices down.
The perverse nature of this system is further illustrated by the fact
that since 1995 some regions of the U.S., notably the Central states
and the Southwest, are producing so much milk that they are actually
shipping fluid milk north to the Upper Midwest. The high fluid milk
prices have generated so much excess production, that these markets
distant from Eau Claire are now encroaching upon not only our
manufactured markets, but also our markets for fluid milk, further
eroding prices in Wisconsin.
The market distorting effects of the fluid price differentials in
federal orders are manifest in the Congressional Budget Office estimate
that eliminating the orders would save $669 million over five years.
Government outlays would fall, CBO concludes, because production would
fall in response to lower milk prices and there would be fewer
government purchases of surplus milk. The regions which would gain and
lose in this scenario illustrate the discrimination inherent to the
current system. Economic analyses show that farm revenues in a market
undisturbed by Federal Orders would actually increase in the Upper
Midwest and fall in most other milk-producing regions.
The data clearly show that Upper Midwest producers are hurt by
distortions built into a single-basing-point system that prevent them
from competing effectively in a national market.
While this system has been around since 1937, the practice of basing
fluid milk price differentials on the distance from Eau Claire was
formalized in the 1960's, when the Upper Midwest arguably was the
primary reserve for additional supplies of milk. The idea was to
encourage local supplies of fluid milk in areas of the country that did
not traditionally produce enough fluid milk to meet their own needs.
Mr. President, that is no longer the case. The Upper Midwest is
neither the lowest cost production area nor a primary source of reserve
supplies of milk. In many of the markets with higher fluid milk
differentials, milk is produced efficiently, and in some cases, at
lower cost than the upper Midwest. Unfortunately, the prices didn't
adjust with changing economic conditions, most notably the shift of the
dairy industry away from the Upper Midwest and towards the Southwest,
specifically California, which now leads the nation in milk production.
Fluid milk prices should have been lowered to reflect that trend.
Instead, in 1985, the prices were increased for markets distant from
Eau Claire. USDA has refused to use the administrative authority
provided by Congress to make the appropriate adjustments to reflect
economic realities. They continue to stand behind single-basing-point
pricing.
The result has been a decline in the Upper Midwest dairy industry,
not because they can't produce a product that can compete in the market
place, but because the system discriminates against them. Since 1980,
Wisconsin has lost over 15,000 dairy farmers. Today, Wisconsin loses
dairy farmers at a rate of 5 per day. The Upper Midwest, with the
lowest fluid milk prices, is shrinking as a dairy region despite the
dairy-friendly climate of the region. Other regions with higher fluid
milk prices are growing rapidly.
In an unregulated market with a level playing field, these shifts in
production might be fair. But in a market where the government is
setting the prices and providing that artificial advantage to regions
outside the Upper Midwest, the current system is unconscionable.
This bill is a first step in reforming federal orders by prohibiting
a grossly unfair practice that should have been dropped long ago.
Although I understand that, because of mandates in the 1996 Farm Bill,
the USDA is currently deliberating possible changes to the current
system, one of the options being considered maintains this debilitating
single-basing-point pricing system. This bill is the beginning of
reform. It identifies the one change that is absolutely necessary in
any outcome--the elimination of single-basing-point pricing.
I urge the Secretary of Agriculture to do the right thing and bring
reform to this out-dated system. No proposal is reform without this
important policy change.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 124
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LOCATION ADJUSTMENTS FOR MINIMUM PRICES FOR CLASS
I MILK.
Section 8c(5) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C.
608c(5)), reenacted with amendments by the Agricultural
Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (A)--
(A) in clause (3) of the second sentence, by inserting
after ``the locations'' the following: ``within a marketing
area subject to the order''; and
(B) by striking the last 2 sentences and inserting the
following: ``Notwithstanding subsection (18) or any other
provision of law, when fixing minimum prices for milk of the
highest use classification in a marketing area subject to an
order under this subsection, the Secretary may not, directly
or indirectly, base the prices on the distance from, or all
or part of the costs incurred to transport milk to or from,
any location that is not within the marketing area subject to
the order, unless milk from the location constitutes at least
50 percent of the total supply of milk of the highest use
classification in the marketing area. The Secretary shall
report to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry of the Senate on the criteria that are used as
the basis for the minimum prices referred to in the preceding
sentence, including a certification that the minimum prices
are made in accordance with the preceding sentence.''; and
(2) in paragraph (B)(c), by inserting after ``the
locations'' the following: ``within a marketing area subject
to the order''.
______
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. McCain):
S. 125. A bill to reduce the number of executive branch political
appointees; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
____________________