[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.

                          ____________________