[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 27 (Monday, February 22, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1683-S1702]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SOLDIERS', SAILORS', AIRMEN'S AND MARINES' BILL OF RIGHTS ACT OF 1999
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
proceed to the consideration of S. 4 for debate only.
The clerk will report the bill.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 4) to improve pay and retirement equity for
members of the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill which had been reported
from the Committee on Armed Services, with an amendment to strike all
after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Soldiers', Sailors',
Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999''.
[[Page S1684]]
TITLE I--PAY AND ALLOWANCES
SEC. 101. FISCAL YEAR 2000 INCREASE AND RESTRUCTURING OF
BASIC PAY.
(a) Waiver of Section 1009 Adjustment.--Any adjustment
required by section 1009 of title 37, United States Code, in
the rates of monthly basic pay authorized members of the
uniformed services by section 203(a) of such title to become
effective during fiscal year 2000 shall not be made.
(b) January 1, Increase in Basic Pay.--Effective on January
1, 2000, the rates of monthly basic pay for members of the
uniformed services shall be increased by 4.8 percent.
(c) Basic Pay Reform.--(1) Effective on July 1, 2000, the
rates of monthly basic pay for members of the uniformed
services within each pay grade are as follows:
COMMISSIONED OFFICERS \1\
Years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States
Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pay Grade 2 or less Over 2 Over 3 Over 4 Over 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O-10 \2\........ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
O-9............. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
O-8............. 6,594.30 6,810.30 6,953.10 6,993.30 7,171.80
O-7............. 5,479.50 5,851.80 5,851.50 5,894.40 6,114.60
O-6............. 4,061.10 4,461.60 4,754.40 4,754.40 4,772.40
O-5............. 3,248.40 3,813.90 4,077.90 4,127.70 4,291.80
O-4............. 2,737.80 3,333.90 3,556.20 3,606.04 3,812.40
O-3 \3\......... 2,544.00 2,884.20 3,112.80 3,364.80 3,525.90
O-2 \3\......... 2,218.80 2,527.20 2,910.90 3,000.00 3,071.10
O-1 \3\......... 1,926.30 2,004.90 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10
-------------------------------------------------------
Over 8 Over 10 Over 12 Over 14 Over 16
-------------------------------------------------------
O-10 \2\........ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
O-9............. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
O-8............. 7,471.50 7,540.80 7,824.60 7,906.20 8,150.10
O-7............. 6,282.00 6,475.80 6,669.00 6,863.10 7,471.50
O-6............. 4,976.70 5,004.00 5,004.00 5,169.30 5,791.20
O-5............. 4,291.80 4,420.80 4,659.30 4,971.90 5,286.00
O-4............. 3,980.40 4,251.50 4,464.00 4,611.00 4,758.90
O-3 \3\......... 3,702.60 3,850.20 4,040.40 4,139.10 4,139.10
O-2 \3\......... 3,071.10 3,071.10 3,071.10 3,071.10 3,071.10
O-1 \3\......... 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10
-------------------------------------------------------
Over 18 Over 20 Over 22 Over 24 Over 26
-------------------------------------------------------
O-10 \2\........ $0.00 $10,655.1 $10,707.6 $10,930.2 $11,318.40
0 0 0
O-9............. 0.00 9,319.50 9,453.60 9,647.70 9,986.40
O-8............. 8,503.80 8,830.20 9,048.00 9,048.00 9,048.00
O-7............. 7,985.40 7,985.40 7,985.40 7,985.40 8,025.60
O-6............. 6,086.10 6,381.30 6,549.00 6,719.10 7,049.10
O-5............. 5,436.00 5,583.60 5,751.90 5,751.90 5,751.90
O-4............. 4,808.70 4,808.70 4,808.70 4,808.70 4,808.70
O-3 \3\......... 4,139.10 4,139.10 4,139.10 4,139.10 4,139.10
O-2 \3\......... 3,071.10 3,071.10 3,071.10 3,071.10 3,071.10
O-1 \3\......... 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Basic pay for these officers is limited to the rate of basic pay for
level V of the Executive Schedule.
\2\ While serving as Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, Chief of Staff of the Army, Chief of Naval Operations, Chief of
Staff of the Air Force, Commandant of the Marine Corps, or Commandant
of the Coast Guard, basic pay for this grade is calculated to be
$12,441.00, regardless of cumulative years of service computed under
section 205 of title 37, United States Code. Nevertheless, basic pay
for these officers is limited to the rate of basic pay for level V of
the Executive Schedule.
\3\ Does not apply to commissioned officers who have been credited with
over 4 years of active duty service as an enlisted member or warrant
officer.
COMMISSIONED OFFICERS WITH OVER 4 YEARS OF ACTIVE DUTY SERVICE AS AN
ENLISTED MEMBER OR WARRANT OFFICER
Years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States
Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pay Grade 2 or less Over 2 Over 3 Over 4 Over 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O-3E \4\........ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,364.80 $3,525.90
O-2E \4\........ 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,009.00 3,071.10
O-1E \4\........ 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,423.10 2,588.40
-------------------------------------------------------
Over 8 Over 10 Over 12 Over 14 Over 16
-------------------------------------------------------
O-3E \4\........ $3,702.60 $3,850.20 $4,040.40 $4,200.30 $4,291.80
O-2E \4\........ 3,168.60 3,333.90 3,461.40 3,556.20 3,556.20
O-1E \4\........ 2,683.80 2,781.30 2,877.60 3,009.00 3,009.00
-------------------------------------------------------
Over 18 Over 20 Over 22 Over 24 Over 26
-------------------------------------------------------
O-3E............ $4,416.90 $4,416.90 $4,416.90 $4,416.90 $4,416.90
O-2E............ 3,556.20 3,556.20 3,556.20 3,556.20 3,556.20
O-1E............ 3,009.00 3,009.00 3,009.00 3,009.00 3,009.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WARRANT OFFICERS
Years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States
Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pay Grade 2 or less Over 2 Over 3 Over 4 Over 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
W-5............. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
W-4............. 2,592.00 2,788.50 2,868.60 2,947.50 3,083.40
W-3............. 2,355.90 2,555.40 2,555.40 2,588.40 2,694.30
W-2............. 2,063.40 2,232.60 2,232.60 2,305.80 2,423.10
W-1............. 1,719.00 1,971.00 1,971.00 2,135.70 2,232.60
-------------------------------------------------------
Over 8 Over 10 Over 12 Over 14 Over 16
-------------------------------------------------------
W-5............. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
W-4............. 3,217.20 3,352.80 3,485.10 3,622.20 3,753.60
W-3............. 2,814.90 2,974.20 3,071.10 3,177.00 3,298.20
W-2............. 2,555.40 2,852.60 2,749.80 2,844.30 2,949.00
W-1............. 2,332.80 2,433.30 2,533.20 2,634.00 2,734.80
-------------------------------------------------------
Over 18 Over 20 Over 22 Over 24 Over 26
-------------------------------------------------------
W-5............. $0.00 $4,475.10 $4,628.70 $4,782.90 $4,937.40
[[Page S1685]]
W-4............. 3,888.00 4,019.00 4,155.60 4,289.70 4,427.10
W-3............. 3,418.50 3,539.10 3,659.40 3,780.00 3,900.90
W-2............. 3,058.40 3,163.80 3,270.90 3,378.30 3,378.30
W-1............. 2,835.00 2,910.90 2,910.90 2,910.90 2,910.90
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENLISTED MEMBERS
Years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States
Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pay Grade 2 or less Over 2 Over 3 Over 4 Over 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-9 \4\......... $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
E-8............. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
E-7............. 1,765.80 1,927.80 2,001.00 2,073.00 2,147.70
E-6............. 1,518.90 1,678.20 1,752.60 1,824.30 1,899.30
E-5............. 1,332.60 1,494.00 1,566.00 1,640.40 1,714.50
E-4............. 1,242.90 1,373.10 1,447.20 1,520.10 1,593.90
E-3............. 1,171.50 1,260.60 1,334.10 1,335.90 1,335.90
E-2............. 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40
E-1............. \5\ 1,005 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60
.60
-------------------------------------------------------
Over 8 Over 10 Over 12 Over 14 Over 16
-------------------------------------------------------
E-9 \4\......... $0.00 $3,015.30 $3,083.40 $3,169.80 $3,271.50
E-8............. 2,528.40 2,601.60 2,669.70 2,751.60 2,840.10
E-7............. 2,220.90 2,294.10 2,367.30 2,439.30 2,514.00
E-6............. 1,973.10 2,047.20 2,118.60 2,191.50 2,244.60
E-5............. 1,789.50 1,861.50 1,936.20 1,936.20 1,936.20
E-4............. 1,593.90 1,593.90 1,593.90 1,593.90 1,593.90
E-3............. 1,335.90 1,335.90 1,335.90 1,335.90 1,335.90
E-2............. 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40
E-1............. 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60
-------------------------------------------------------
Over 18 Over 20 Over 22 Over 24 Over 26
-------------------------------------------------------
E-9 \4\......... $3,373.20 $3,473.40 $3,609.30 $3,744.00 $3,915.80
E-8............. 2,932.50 3,026.10 3,161.10 3,295.50 3,483.60
E-7............. 2,588.10 2,660.40 2,787.60 2,926.20 3,134.40
E-6............. 2,283.30 2,283.30 2,285.70 2,285.70 2,285.70
E-5............. 1,936.20 1,936.20 1,936.20 1,936.20 1,936.20
E-4............. 1,593.90 1,593.90 1,593.90 1,593.90 1,593.90
E-3............. 1,335.90 1,335.90 1,335.90 1,335.90 1,335.90
E-2............. 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,123.20 1,127.40
E-1............. 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ While serving as Sergeant Major of the Army, Master Chief Petty
Officer of the Navy, Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force, Sergeant
Major of the Marine Corps, or Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast
Guard, basic pay for this grade is $4,701.00, regardless of cumulative
years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States
Code.
\5\ In the case of members in the grade E-1 who have served less than 4
months on active duty, basic pay is $930.30.
SEC. 102. PAY INCREASES FOR FISCAL YEARS AFTER FISCAL YEAR
2000.
(a) ECI+0.5 Percent Increase for All Members.--Section
1009(c) of title 37, United States Code, is amended to read
as follows:
``(c) ECI+0.5 Percent Increase for All Members.--Subject to
subsection (d), an adjustment taking effect under this
section during a fiscal year shall provide all eligible
members with an increase in the monthly basic pay by the
percentage equal to the sum of one percent plus the
percentage calculated as provided under section 5303(a) of
title 5 (without regard to whether rates of pay under the
statutory pay systems are actually increased during such
fiscal year under that section by the percentage so
calculated).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 2000.
SEC. 103. SPECIAL SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE.
(a) Allowance.--(1) Chapter 7 of title 37, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 402 the following
new section:
``Sec. 402a. Special subsistence allowance
``(a) Entitlement.--Upon the application of an eligible
member of a uniformed service described in subsection (b),
the Secretary concerned shall pay the member a special
subsistence allowance for each month for which the member is
eligible to receive food stamp assistance.
``(b) Covered Members.--An enlisted member referred to
subsection (a) is an enlisted member in pay grade E-5 or
below.
``(c) Termination of Entitlement.--The entitlement of a
member to receive payment of a special subsistence allowance
terminates upon the occurrence of any of the following
events:
``(1) Termination of eligibility for food stamp assistance.
``(2) Payment of the special subsistence allowance for 12
consecutive months.
``(3) Promotion of the member to a higher grade.
``(4) Transfer of the member in a permanent change of
station.
``(d) Reestablished Entitlement.--(1) After a termination
of a member's entitlement to the special subsistence
allowance under subsection (c), the Secretary concerned shall
resume payment of the special subsistence allowance to the
member if the Secretary determines, upon further application
of the member, that the member is eligible to receive food
stamps.
``(2) Payments resumed under this subsection shall
terminate under subsection (c) upon the occurrence of an
event described in that subsection after the resumption of
the payments.
``(3) The number of times that payments are resumed under
this subsection is unlimited.
``(e) Documentation of Eligibility.--A member of the
uniformed services applying for the special subsistence
allowance under this section shall furnish the Secretary
concerned with such evidence of the member's eligibility for
food stamp assistance as the Secretary may require in
connection with the application.
``(f) Amount of Allowance.--The monthly amount of the
special subsistence allowance under this section is $180.
``(g) Relationship to Basic Allowance for Subsistence.--The
special subsistence allowance under this section is in
addition to the basic allowance for subsistence under section
402 of this title.
``(h) Food Stamp Assistance Defined.--In this section, the
term `food stamp assistance' means assistance under the Food
Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.).
``(i) Termination of Authority.--No special subsistence
allowance may be made under this section for any month
beginning after September 30, 2004.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section
402 the following:
``402a. Special subsistence allowance.''.
(b) Effective Date.--Section 402a of title 37, United
States Code, shall take effect on the first day of the first
month that begins not less than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(c) Annual Report.--(1) Not later than March 1 of each year
after 1999, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress
a report setting forth the number of members of the uniformed
services who are eligible for assistance under the Food Stamp
Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.).
(2) In preparing the report, the Secretary shall consult
with the Secretary of Transportation (with respect to the
Coast Guard), the Secretary of Health and Human Services
(with respect to the commissioned corps of the Public Health
Service), and the Secretary of Commerce (with respect to the
commissioned officers of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration), who shall provide the Secretary of Defense
with any information that the Secretary determines necessary
to prepare the report.
(3) No report is required under this section after March 1,
2004.
[[Page S1686]]
TITLE II--RETIREMENT BENEFITS
SEC. 201. RETIRED PAY OPTIONS FOR PERSONNEL ENTERING
UNIFORMED SERVICES ON OR AFTER AUGUST 1, 1986.
(a) Reduced Retired Pay Only for Members Electing 15-Year
Service Bonus.--(1) Paragraph (2) of section 1409(b) of title
10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after ``July
31, 1986,'' the following: ``has elected to receive a bonus
under section 318 of title 37,''.
(2)(A) Paragraph (2)(A) of section 1401a(b) of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``The Secretary
shall increase the retired pay of each member and former
member who first became a member of a uniformed service
before August 1, 1986,'' and inserting ``Except as otherwise
provided in this subsection, the Secretary shall increase the
retired pay of each member and former member''.
(B) Paragraph (3) of such section 1401a(b) is amended by
inserting after ``August 1, 1986,'' the following: ``and has
elected to receive a bonus under section 318 of title 37,''.
(3) Section 1410 of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after ``August 1, 1986,'' the following:
``who has elected to receive a bonus under section 318 of
title 37,''.
(b) Optional Lump-Sum Bonus at 15 Years of Service.--(1)
Chapter 5 of title 37, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 318. Special pay: 15-year service bonus elected by
members entering on or after August 1, 1986
``(a) Payment of Bonus.--The Secretary concerned shall pay
a bonus to a member of a uniformed service who is eligible
and elects to receive the bonus under this section.
``(b) Eligibility for Bonus.--A member of a uniformed
service serving on active duty is eligible to receive a bonus
under this section if the member--
``(1) first became a member of a uniformed service on or
after August 1, 1986;
``(2) has completed 15 years of active duty in the
uniformed services; and
``(3) if not already obligated to remain on active duty for
a period that would result in at least 20 years of active-
duty service, executes a written agreement (prescribed by the
Secretary concerned) to remain continuously on active duty
for five years after the date of the completion of 15 years
of active-duty service.
``(c) Election.--(1) A member eligible to receive a bonus
under this section may elect to receive the bonus. The
election shall be made in such form and within such period as
the Secretary concerned requires.
``(2) An election made under this subsection is
irrevocable.
``(d) Notification of Eligibility.--The Secretary concerned
shall transmit a written notification of the opportunity to
elect to receive a bonus under this section to each member
who is eligible (or upon execution of an agreement described
in subsection (b)(3), would be eligible) to receive the
bonus. The Secretary shall complete the notification within
180 days after the date on which the member completes 15
years of active duty. The notification shall include the
procedures for electing to receive the bonus and an
explanation of the effects under sections 1401a, 1409, and
1410 of title 10 that such an election has on the computation
of any retired or retainer pay which the member may become
eligible to receive.
``(e) Form and Amount of Bonus.--A bonus under this section
shall be paid in one lump sum of $30,000.
``(f) Time for Payment.--Payment of a bonus to a member
electing to receive the bonus under this section shall be
made not later than the first month that begins on or after
the date that is 60 days after the Secretary concerned
receives from the member an election that satisfies the
requirements imposed under subsection (c).
``(g) Repayment of Bonus.--(1) If a person paid a bonus
under this section fails to complete the total period of
active duty specified in the agreement entered into under
subsection (b)(3), the person shall refund to the United
States the amount that bears the same ratio to the amount of
the bonus payment as the unserved part of that total period
bears to the total period.
``(2) Subject to paragraph (3), an obligation to reimburse
the United States imposed under paragraph (1) is for all
purposes a debt owed to the United States.
``(3) The Secretary concerned may waive, in whole or in
part, a refund required under paragraph (1) if the Secretary
concerned determines that recovery would be against equity
and good conscience or would be contrary to the best
interests of the United States.
``(4) A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11 that is
entered less than five years after the termination of an
agreement under this section does not discharge the member
signing such agreement from a debt arising under the
agreement or this subsection.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``318. Special pay: 15-year service bonus elected by members entering
on or after August 1, 1986.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments to Survivor Benefit Plan
Provisions.--(1) Section 1451(h)(3) of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by inserting ``of certain
members'' after ``retirement''.
(2) Section 1452(i) of such title is amended by striking
``When the retired pay'' and inserting ``Whenever the retired
pay''.
(d) Related Technical Amendments.--(1) Section 1401a(b) of
title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking the heading for paragraph (1) and inserting
``Increase required.--'';
(B) by striking the heading for paragraph (2) and inserting
``Percentage increase.--''; and
(C) by striking the heading for paragraph (3) and inserting
``Reduced percentage for certain post-august 1, 1986
members.--''.
(2) Section 1409(b)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by inserting ``certain'' after ``Reduction applicable
to'' in the paragraph heading.
(3)(A) The heading of section 1410 of such title is amended
by inserting ``certain'' before ``members''.
(B) The item relating to such section in the table of
sections at the beginning of chapter 71 of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by inserting ``certain'' before
``members''.
SEC. 202. PARTICIPATION IN THRIFT SAVINGS PLAN.
(a) Participation Authority.--(1)(A) Chapter 3 of title 37,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``Sec. 211. Participation in Thrift Savings Plan
``(a) Authority.--A member of the uniformed services
serving on active duty for a period of more than 30 days may
participate in the Thrift Savings Plan in accordance with
section 8440e of title 5.
``(b) Rule of Construction Regarding Separation.--For the
purposes of section 8440e of title 5, the following actions
shall be considered separation of a member of the uniformed
services from Government employment:
``(1) Release of the member from active-duty service (not
followed by a resumption of active-duty service within 30
days after the effective date of the release).
``(2) Transfer of the member by the Secretary concerned to
a retired list maintained by the Secretary.''.
(B) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``211. Participation in Thrift Savings Plan.''.
(2)(A) Subchapter III of chapter 84 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 8440e. Members of the uniformed services on active
duty
``(a) Participation Authorized.--(1) A member of the
uniformed services authorized to participate in the Thrift
Savings Plan under section 211(a) of title 37 may contribute
to the Thrift Savings Fund.
``(2) An election to contribute to the Thrift Savings Fund
under paragraph (1) may be made only during a period provided
under section 8432(b) for individuals subject to this
chapter.
``(b) Applicability of Thrift Savings Plan Provisions.--
Except as otherwise provided in this section, the provisions
of this subchapter and subchapter VII of this chapter shall
apply with respect to members of the uniformed services
making contributions to the Thrift Savings Fund as if such
members were employees within the meaning of section
8401(11).
``(c) Maximum Contribution From Basic Pay.--The amount
contributed by a member of the uniformed services for any pay
period out of basic pay may not exceed 5 percent of such
member's basic pay for such pay period.
``(d) Other Member Contributions.--A member of the
uniformed services making contributions to the Thrift Savings
Fund out of basic pay may also contribute (by direct transfer
to the Fund) any part of any special or incentive pay that
the member receives under section 308, 308a, 308f, or 318 of
title 37. No contribution made under this subsection shall be
subject to, or taken into account for purposes of, the first
sentence of section 8432(d), relating to the applicability of
any limitation under section 415 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986.
``(e) Agency Contributions Generally Prohibited.--Except as
provided in section 211(c) of title 37, no contribution under
section 8432(c) of this title may be made for the benefit of
a member of the uniformed services making contributions to
the Thrift Savings Fund under subsection (a).
``(f) Benefits and Elections of Benefits.--In applying
section 8433 to a member of the uniformed services who has an
account balance in the Thrift Savings Fund--
``(1) any reference in such section to separation from
Government employment shall be construed to refer to an
action described in section 211(b) of title 37; and
``(2) the reference in section 8433(g)(1) to contributions
made under section 8432(a) shall be treated as being a
reference to contributions made to the Fund by the member,
whether made under section 8351, 8432(a), or this section.
``(g) Basic Pay Defined.--For purposes of this section, the
term `basic pay' means basic pay that is payable under
section 204 of title 37.''.
(B) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 84 of
title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding after the
item relating to section 8440d the following:
``8440e. Members of the uniformed services on active duty.''.
(3) Section 8432b(b) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Each employee'' and
inserting ``Except as provided in paragraph (4), each
employee'';
(B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new
paragraph (4):
``(4) No contribution may be made under this section for a
period for which an employee made a contribution under
section 8440e.''.
(4) Section 8473 of title 5, United States Code, is
amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``14 members'' and
inserting ``15 members''; and
(B) in subsection (b)--
(i) by striking ``14 members'' and inserting ``15
members'';
(ii) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (8);
[[Page S1687]]
(iii) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (9)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(iv) by adding at the end the following:
``(10) 1 shall be appointed to represent participants
(under section 8440e) who are members of the uniformed
services.''.
(5) Paragraph (11) of section 8351(b) of title 5, United
States Code, is redesignated as paragraph (8).
(b) Applicability.--The authority of members of the
uniformed services to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan
under section 211 of title 37, United States Code (as added
by subsection (a)(1)), shall take effect on July 1, 2000.
(c) Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Executive Director appointed
by the Federal Thrift Retirement Investment Board shall issue
regulations to implement section 8440e of title 5, United
States Code (as added by subsection (a)(2)) and section 211
of title 37, United States Code (as added by subsection
(a)(1)).
SEC. 203. SPECIAL RETENTION INITIATIVE.
Section 211 of title 37, United States Code, as added by
section 202, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Agency Contributions for Retention in Critical
Specialties.--(1) The Secretary concerned may enter into an
agreement with a member to make contributions to the Thrift
Savings Fund for the benefit of the member if the member--
``(A) is in a specialty designated by the Secretary as
critical to meet requirements (whether such specialty is
designated as critical to meet wartime or peacetime
requirements); and
``(B) commits in such agreement to continue to serve on
active duty in that specialty for a period of six years.
``(2) Under any agreement entered into with a member under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall make contributions to the
Fund for the benefit of the member for each pay period of the
6-year period of the agreement for which the member makes a
contribution out of basic pay to the Fund under this section.
Paragraph (2) of section 8432(c) applies to the Secretary's
obligation to make contributions under this paragraph, except
that the reference in such paragraph to contributions under
paragraph (1) of such section does not apply.''.
TITLE III--MONTGOMERY GI BILL BENEFITS
SEC. 301. INCREASE IN RATES OF EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR
FULL-TIME EDUCATION.
(a) Increase.--Section 3015 of title 38, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``$528'' and
inserting ``$600''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``$429'' and
inserting ``$488''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 1999, and shall apply with
respect to educational assistance allowances paid for months
after September 1999. However, no adjustment in rates of
educational assistance shall be made under subsection (g) of
section 3015 of title 38, United States Code, for fiscal year
2000.
SEC. 302. TERMINATION OF REDUCTIONS OF BASIC PAY.
(a) Repeals.--(1) Section 3011 of title 38, United States
Code, is amended by striking subsection (b).
(2) Section 3012 of such title is amended by striking
subsection (c).
(3) The amendments made by paragraphs (1) and (2) shall
take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and
shall apply to individuals whose initial obligated period of
active duty under section 3011 or 3012 of title 38, United
States Code, as the case may be, begins on or after such
date.
(b) Termination of Reductions in Progress.--Any reduction
in the basic pay of an individual referred to in section
3011(b) of title 38, United States Code, by reason of such
section 3011(b), or of any individual referred to in section
3012(c) of such title by reason of such section 3012(c), as
of the date of the enactment of this Act shall cease
commencing with the first month beginning after such date,
and any obligation of such individual under such section
3011(b) or 3012(c), as the case may be, as of the day before
such date shall be deemed to be fully satisfied as of such
date.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 3034(e)(1) of title 38,
United States Code, is amended in the second sentence by
striking ``as soon as practicable'' and all that follows
through ``such additional times'' and inserting ``at such
times''.
SEC. 303. ACCELERATED PAYMENTS OF EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE.
Section 3014 of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``The Secretary shall
pay''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection (b):
``(b)(1) When the Secretary determines that it is
appropriate to accelerate payments under the regulations
prescribed pursuant to paragraph (6), the Secretary may make
payments of basic educational assistance allowance under this
subchapter on an accelerated basis.
``(2) The Secretary may pay a basic educational assistance
allowance on an accelerated basis only to an individual
entitled to payment of the allowance under this subchapter
who has made a request for payment of the allowance on an
accelerated basis.
``(3) In the event an adjustment under section 3015(g) of
this title in the monthly rate of basic educational
assistance will occur during a period for which a payment of
an allowance is made on an accelerated basis under this
subsection, the Secretary shall--
``(A) pay on an accelerated basis the amount the allowance
otherwise payable under this subchapter for the period
without regard to the adjustment under that section; and
``(B) pay on the date of the adjustment any additional
amount of the allowance that is payable for the period as a
result of the adjustment.
``(4) The entitlement to a basic educational assistance
allowance under this subchapter of an individual who is paid
an allowance on an accelerated basis under this subsection
shall be charged at a rate equal to one month for each month
of the period covered by the accelerated payment of the
allowance.
``(5) A basic educational assistance allowance shall be
paid on an accelerated basis under this subsection as
follows:
``(A) In the case of an allowance for a course leading to a
standard college degree, at the beginning of the quarter,
semester, or term of the course in a lump-sum amount
equivalent to the aggregate amount of monthly allowance
otherwise payable under this subchapter for the quarter,
semester, or term, as the case may be, of the course.
``(B) In the case of an allowance for a course other than a
course referred to in subparagraph (A)--
``(i) at the later of (I) the beginning of the course, or
(II) a reasonable time after the request for payment by the
individual concerned; and
``(ii) in any amount requested by the individual concerned
up to the aggregate amount of monthly allowance otherwise
payable under this subchapter for the period of the course.
``(6) The Secretary shall prescribe regulations for
purposes of making payments of basic educational allowance on
an accelerated basis under this subsection. Such regulations
shall specify the circumstances under which accelerated
payments should be made and include requirements relating to
the request for, making and delivery of, and receipt and use
of such payments.''.
SEC. 304. TRANSFER OF ENTITLEMENT TO EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE.
(a) Authority To Transfer to Family Member.--Subchapter II
of chapter 30 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 3020. Transfer of entitlement to basic educational
assistance
``(a) The Secretary may, for the purpose of enhancing
recruiting and retention, and at the Secretary's sole
discretion, permit an individual entitled to educational
assistance under this subchapter to elect to transfer such
individual's entitlement to such assistance, in whole or in
part, to the individuals specified in subsection (b).
``(b) An individual's entitlement to educational assistance
may be transferred when authorized under subsection (a) as
follows:
``(1) To the individual's spouse.
``(2) To one or more of the individual's children.
``(3) To a combination of the individuals referred to in
paragraphs (1) and (2).
``(c)(1) An individual electing to transfer an entitlement
to educational assistance under this section shall--
``(A) designate the individual or individuals to whom such
entitlement is being transferred and the percentage of such
entitlement to be transferred to each such individual; and
``(B) specify the period for which the transfer shall be
effective for each individual designated under subparagraph
(A).
``(2) The aggregate amount of the entitlement transferable
by an individual under this section may not exceed the
aggregate amount of the entitlement of such individual to
educational assistance under this subchapter.
``(3) An individual electing to transfer an entitlement
under this section may elect to modify or revoke the transfer
at any time before the use of the transferred entitlement. An
individual shall make the election by submitting written
notice of such election to the Secretary.
``(d)(1) The use of any entitlement transferred under this
section shall be charged against the entitlement of the
individual making the transfer at the rate of one month for
each month of transferred entitlement that is used.
``(2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), an individual
using entitlement transferred under this section shall be
subject to the provisions of this chapter in such use as if
such individual were entitled to the educational assistance
covered by the transferred entitlement in the individual's
own right.
``(3) Notwithstanding section 3031 of this title, a child
shall complete the use of any entitlement transferred to the
child under this section before the child attains the age of
26 years.
``(e) In the event of an overpayment of educational
assistance with respect to an individual to whom entitlement
is transferred under this section, such individual and the
individual making the transfer under this section shall be
jointly and severally liable to the United States for the
amount of the overpayment for purposes of section 3685 of
this title.
``(f) The Secretary shall prescribe regulations for
purposes of this section. Such regulations shall specify the
manner and effect of an election to modify or revoke a
transfer of entitlement under subsection (c)(3).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 3019 the following new item:
``3020. Transfer of entitlement to basic educational assistance.''.
TITLE IV--REPORT
SEC. 401. ANNUAL REPORT ON EFFECTS OF INITIATIVES ON
RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION.
(a) Requirement for Report.--On December 1 of each year,
the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report
that sets forth the
[[Page S1688]]
Secretary's assessment of the effects that the provisions of
this Act and the amendments made by the Act are having on
recruitment and retention of personnel for the Armed Forces.
(b) First Report.--The first report under this section
shall be submitted not later than December 1, 2000.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, my distinguished colleague and ranking
member of the Senate Armed Services Committee desires to make a
request.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank my good friend from Virginia.
Privilege of the Floor
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Gary Leeling of the
Armed Services Committee staff be permitted privileges of the floor
during debate on S. 4.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, it is the intention of the Senator from
Virginia, in his capacity as chairman of the Armed Services Committee,
to make an opening statement regarding this very important piece of
legislation. I shall be followed by my distinguished colleague, the
ranking member, and then we ask other Members, particularly those on
the committee, to join us in the Chamber such that we can, hopefully,
this afternoon in a very material and constructive way, begin the
Senate's deliberation on this absolutely critical piece of legislation.
Today, the Senate begins consideration of S. 4, the Soldiers',
Sailors', Airmen's and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999. The bill is
an integral part of the national security element of the Republican
agenda, I might say, Madam President, that Senator Lott and other
leaders announced in the January 19 timeframe of this year.
Last fall, Senator Lott, in an excellent exchange of letters with the
President and Republican chairmen, identified key problems with the
military pay levels and the military pay system. Following this
exchange of letters, the Armed Services Committee held hearings on
September 29, 1998, and again on January 5, 1999, the first business
this year, in which General Shelton and the service chiefs described
the many problems--underline ``many''--military services are
experiencing because of the years of shortfalls in funding.
During these hearings, particular emphasis was put on readiness, the
retention of highly trained people and the inability--very critical,
Madam President--the inability today of the military services to
achieve their recruiting goals; that is, the young men and young women
in their very first step, often their first job, full-time job, they
have ever had. We have experienced here in the past year substantial
shortfalls, and one of the many purposes of this bill is to try to
address that problem.
I say with a great sense of pride that the Joint Chiefs, individually
and collectively, showed great courage in their presentations both last
September and again this January. They spoke candidly of the problems
borne by the men and women in the military today and how increased
defense funding was needed in order to begin to alleviate these serious
problems. General Shelton and the service chiefs urged the President
and the Congress to support a military pay raise that would begin to
address the inequities between military pay and civilian wages and to
resolve the inequity of what is known as the Redux retirement system.
Senators Lott, McCain and Roberts took the initiative and showed
leadership in developing early drafts of this legislation. These
Senators worked within the Armed Services Committee to craft a bill
that would address the problems identified by the Joint Chiefs in a
comprehensive and responsible manner. When the Armed Services Committee
reported this bill out on February 2, 1999, 18 of 20 members of that
committee voted in favor of the bill. The two remaining members voted
present, and we will hear from them. I don't say that by way of
criticism. They have their own views. And one, of course, is my
distinguished friend and colleague, the ranking member.
S. 4 will provide military personnel a 4.8-percent pay raise on
January 1, 2000, and will require that future military pay raises be
based on the Annual Employment Costs Index plus one-half a percent. The
bill restructures the military pay tables to recognize the value of
promotions and to weight the pay raise toward mid-career,
noncommissioned officers and officers where retention is most critical.
The Joint Chiefs testified that there is a pay gap between military and
private sector wages of approximately 14 percent. This bill moves
aggressively to close this gap and ensure military personnel are
compensated in an equitable manner.
The bill provides military personnel who entered the service after
July 1, 1986, the option to revert to the previous military retirement
system that provided a 50-percent multiplier to their base pay averaged
over their highest 3 years, and includes cost of living adjustments or
to accept in the alternative a $30,000 bonus and remain under the Redux
retirement system.
The Joint Chiefs testified that the Redux retirement system is
responsible for an increasing number of mid-career military personnel
deciding to leave the service. S. 4 will offer these highly trained
personnel an attractive incentive to continue to serve a full career.
Now, Madam President, in total fairness on this, and to be very
candid, there are differences of opinion on the manner in which this
bill approaches the retirement system, both the 50 percent and the
$30,000 bonus. General Shelton, in particular, has counseled me on
several occasions in a very friendly and forthright way, expressing
some of his concerns, and, indeed, he has written me on these points.
So we are going to have to consider very carefully in the course of our
floor deliberations here in the next few days exactly what those
concerns are and is this bill drafted correctly.
Now, to continue, we will establish a thrift savings plan that will
allow service members to save up to 50 percent of their base pay before
taxes and will permit them to directly deposit their enlistment and
reenlistment bonuses into their thrift savings plan.
In a separate section, the bill authorizes service Secretaries to
match the thrift savings plan contributions of those service members
serving in critical--and the operative word here is ``critical''--
specialties for a period of 6 years in return for a 6-year service
commitment--those specialties, primarily high-tech specialties, which
today are, in the job market, among the strongest committed to young
people to come into the private sector. And the Department of Defense
has to have a compensation package so that we can fairly compete with
these offers from the private sector and to fairly treat those who have
gone through this arduous period of technical training, to fairly treat
them in recognition of their abilities in this high-tech arena. This is
a powerful tool to assist the services in retaining key personnel in
the most critical specialties.
Senator McCain, on another part of this bill, was the key proponent
of an initiative that would authorize a special subsistence allowance
to assist the most needy junior military personnel who are eligible for
food stamps under other programs. This allowance would provide those
families an additional $180 a month and would reduce the number of
military families on the food stamp rolls.
Now, that is an important initiative likewise that will require a
good deal of deliberation on this floor because there are some concerns
about it in the Department of Defense. But I think it is a bold
initiative and we don't want, to the extent we can avoid it, to have
the young men and women of the Armed Forces having to rely on food
stamps to support their families.
During the markup of S. 4 in the Armed Services Committee, we
incorporated several provisions from S. 169, a bill introduced by
Senator Cleland and cosponsored by the Democratic members of the
committee. The committee agreed to include a series of provisions that
will enhance the current Montgomery GI bill benefit. These enhancements
will eliminate the $1,200 annual cost-share by service members, will
increase educational benefits payments, will permit monthly benefit
payments to be paid in a lump sum at the beginning of a semester or
schoolterm, and, finally, will at the discretion of the service
Secretary permit the service member to transfer educational benefits to
his or her dependents. Now, Madam President, if the Senate will indulge
me in just a personal recollection, I am privileged to stand here as a
U.S. Senator from
[[Page S1689]]
Virginia I think solely as a consequence of my very modest active duty
in the closing months of World War II, and then once again during the
Korean service. That modest service of active duty enabled me to have
the GI bill, which gave me, first, my degree in general engineering,
followed then, for service in the Korean conflict, by a degree in law.
So this Senator wants to support in every way the same opportunities
that were accorded to me, which enabled me to achieve the goals that I
set for myself, for this next generation. So I salute Senator Cleland
and I hope we can find a means to finance this very important
initiative by this extraordinary soldier, citizen, and now Senator from
the great State of Georgia.
I want to make it clear to my colleagues that enhancing Montgomery GI
bill benefits is a matter before the committee and we have so notified
the committee. The Armed Services Committee included these legislative
provisions, which were recommended in the recent report of the
Commission on Service Members and Veterans Transition Assistance,
because these increased benefits will certainly be strong incentives
for continued military service. I am confident that Senator Specter
and, indeed, Senator Rockefeller and others will bring to the attention
of the Senate in these few days of deliberation their views on this
part of my bill.
When the Armed Services Committee reported S. 4 to the Senate, the
CBO cost estimate was not available. I have now received the estimate
for S. 4 from the Congressional Budget Office, and I ask unanimous
consent that this last estimate be made part of the Record, together
with an analysis made by our own staff which in many ways simplifies
the comprehensive report of this important piece of work.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, February 12, 1999.
Hon. John W. Warner,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 4, the Soldiers',
Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them.
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson,
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
s. 4--soldiers', sailors', airmen's, and marines' bill of rights act of
1999
Summary: S. 4 would increase various elements of
compensation for current and former members of the armed
forces. Specifically, it would increase pay for military
personnel, provide a special allowance for low-income
members, increase retirement benefits for certain members,
increase educational benefits, and allow members on active
duty to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan.
Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, enactment
of the bill would raise discretionary spending by about $1.1
billion in 2000 and $13.8 billion over the 2000-2004 period.
In 2009, those costs would total about $6.5 billion. Because
the increase in retirement benefits would apply only to
members who entered the service after July 1986, annual costs
would continue to rise for a few years after 2009. Additional
benefits earned under the proposal between August 1, 1986,
and the effective date would add about $4.5 billion to the
unfunded liability of the military retirement trust fund.
Because the bill would affect direct spending and revenues,
pay-as-you-go procedures would apply. Increased educational
benefits and higher annuities for certain military retirees
would increase direct spending by about $765 million a year
over the 2000-2004 period. In 2009 direct spending costs
would total about $2.6 billion. The annual direct spending
costs for military retirement would eventually be about 11
percent higher than spending under current law. Greater use
of education benefits under the bill would raise long-run
costs by about $3 billion a year. By allowing servicemembers
to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan, the bill would
lower revenues by $311 million over the 2000-2004 period and
about $141 million by 2009.
Section 4 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes from
the application of that act any legislative provisions that
are necessary for the national security. That exclusion might
apply to the provisions of this bill. In any case, the bill
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of S. 4 is shown in Table 1, assuming that
the bill will be enacted by October 1, 1999. Spending from
the bill would fall under budget functions 700 (veterans'
benefits and services), 050 (national defense), and 600
(income security).
TABLE 1.--ESTIMATED COSTS OF S. 4, AS REPORTED BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIRECT SPENDING AND REVENUES
Proposed Changes:
Estimated Budget Authority...................... 537 599 870 887 927 1,108 1,435 1,940 2,270 2,633
Estimated Outlays............................... 537 599 870 887 927 1,108 1,435 1,940 2,270 2,633
Revenues........................................ -10 -44 -67 -86 -103 -113 -120 -127 -134 -141
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONS
Proposed Changes:
Estimated Authorization Level................... 1,089 2,196 3,118 3,505 3,980 4,373 4,852 5,422 5,952 6,548
Estimated Outlays............................... 1,075 2,164 3,103 3,487 3,963 4,354 4,832 5,400 5,928 6,520
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis of estimate: The budgetary impact of the bill would
stem from three sets of provisions: those affecting military
retirement programs, pay of current members, and veterans'
education. Table 2 shows the costs of provisions affecting
military pay and retirement benefits that would raise direct
spending, lower revenues, and raise discretionary costs to
the Department of Defense (DoD). Table 3 shows the increase
in direct spending that would result from provisions raising
veterans' education benefits.
TABLE 2.--ESTIMATED COSTS OF PROVISIONS AFFECTING MILITARY COMPENSATION IN S.4, AS REPORTED BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
[Outlays by fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT OF APPROPRIATION
Spending Under Current Law for Military 70,367 73,005 68,472 70,590 70,633 70,633 73,033 70,633 68,233 70,633 70,633
Personnel \1\............................
=============================================================================================================
Proposed Changes:
Retirement Benefits................... 0 674 862 1,437 1,453 1,541 1,550 1,597 1,709 1,760 1,767
Retention Initiative.................. 0 2 7 15 23 28 31 33 35 37 39
Pay Increases......................... 0 386 1,269 1,625 1,985 2,368 2,773 3,202 3,656 4,131 4,714
Subsistence Allowance................. 0 13 26 26 26 26 0 0 0 0 0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................ 0 1,075 2,164 3,103 3,487 3,963 4,354 4,832 5,400 5,928 6,520
=============================================================================================================
Spending Under S. 4 for Military Personnel 70,367 74,080 70,636 73,693 74,120 74,596 77,387 74,465 73,633 76,561 77,153
\1\......................................
DIRECT SPENDING
Retirement Annuities
Spending Under Current Law................ 31,935 32,884 33,887 34,871 34,956 37,026 38,125 39,233 40,360 41,500 42,657
Proposed Changes.......................... 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 5 25 66 125
Spending Under S. 4....................... 31,935 32,885 33,888 34,873 35,958 37,029 38,128 39,238 40,385 41,566 42,782
Food Stamps
Spending Under Current Law................ 20,730 21,399 22,431 23,251 23,913 24,629 25,303 26,005 26,715 27,426 28,152
Proposed Changes.......................... 0 -3 -5 -5 -5 -5 0 0 0 0 0
[[Page S1690]]
Spending Under S. 4....................... 20,730 21,396 22,426 23,246 23,908 24,624 25,303 26,005 26,715 27,426 28,152
REVENUES
Thrift Savings Plan....................... 0 -10 -44 -67 -86 -103 -113 -120 -127 -134 -141
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1999 level is the estimated spending from amounts appropriated for 1999 and prior years. The current law amounts for 2000-2009 assume that
appropriations remain at the 1999 Level. If they are adjusted for inflation, the base amounts would rise by about $2,500 million per year, but the
estimated changes would remain as shown.
Sources: Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation.
Retirement benefits
S. 4 contains provisions that would allow current members
to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan and increase
retirement benefits for members who entered the service after
July 31, 1986, and are covered under the system known as
REDUX.
Background. The Military Retirement Reform Act of 1986
(REDUX) governs the retirement of military personnel who
initially entered the armed forces after July 31, 1986. Under
REDUX a retiree's initial annuity ranges from 40 percent to
75 percent of the individual's highest three years of basic
pay. Retirees with 20 years of service will receive 40
percent, and the fraction will grow with each additional year
of service and reach the maximum at 30 years of service. When
the retiree is 62 years old, the annuity is raised in most
cases to equal 2.5 percent of the average of the highest 36
months of basic pay for each year of service up to maximum of
75 percent. Also, under REDUX cost-of-living adjustments
(COLAs) equal the change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI)
less 1 percentage point. However, when the retiree reaches
age 62 the annuity is raised to reflect all of the CPI growth
until that point, but thereafter annual COLAs continue to
equal the CPI less one percentage point.
Current law provides two different formulas for other
individuals who become eligible for nondisability retirement
benefit but are not covered by REDUX. Military personnel who
first became members of the armed forces before September 8,
1980, receive retired pay equal to a multiple of their
highest amount of basic pay; the multiple is 2.5 percent for
every year of service up to 75 percent. Retirees who first
became members of the armed forces between September 8, 1980,
and July 31, 1986, receive retired pay based on the average
of the highest 36 months of basic pay and the multiplier of
2.5 percent for each year of service. Annuities for both of
these groups are fully adjusted for changes in the CPI.
Repeal of REDUX/Optional Lump-Sum Bonus. Under section 201,
members who under current law would retire under REDUX would
face a choice upon reaching 15 years of service. They could
elect to receive a lump-sum bonus of $30,000 and retire under
the REDUX plan or they could forgo that payment and upon
retirement receive annuities under the plan in effect for
retirees who first became members of the armed forces between
September 8, 1980, and July 31, 1986. CBO estimates that
total costs to DoD under the provision would total about $674
million in 2000 and average about $1.4 billion a year through
2009.
Accrual Costs. Prior to 2009 the primary budgetary impact
would stem from the payments that DoD would make to the
military retirement trust fund. The military retirement
system is financed in part by payments from appropriated
funds to the military retirement trust fund based on an
estimate of the system's accruing liabilities. Repealing
REDUX would increase payments from the military personnel
accounts to the military retirement fund (a DoD outlay in
budget function 050) to finance the increased liability to
the fund resulting from additional years of service under
a more generous system.
CBO estimates that the resulting increase in discretionary
spending from the accrual payments would average about $0.8
billion by 2004 and about $1.0 billion over the next 10
years. The costs to DoD would increase each year because not
all military personnel are covered by REDUX. Under current
law the percentage of the force covered by REDUX will grow
until everyone in the force will have entered military
service after July 31, 1986.
Accrual costs depend on many factors, including
endstrengths, projected years of service at the time of
retirement, grade structure or salary history, and projected
rates of military pay raises, inflation, and interest rates.
CBO's assumptions are consistent with the ones used recently
by DoD's actuaries. The estimates also assume that in the
long run annual pay raises are 4.0 percent, changes in the
CPI are 3.5 percent a year, and interest rates for the trust
fund's holdings of Treasury securities are 6.5 percent
annually. CBO's assumptions about how many individuals would
choose lump-sum payments instead of a higher retirement
annuity are explained in the following paragraph.
Lump-sum Payments. In addition, CBO estimates that DoD
would spend about $500 million a year for the lump-sum
payments, assuming that 50 percent of enlisted personnel and
about 40 percent of officers would elect to receive the lower
annuity in retirement. That estimate is based on DoD's
experience under two buy-out programs in recent years. The
Voluntary Separation Incentive (VSI) and the Special
Separation Benefit (SSB) were two programs that DoD used
extensively during the 1992-1996 period. VSI was a payment
over a period of years, and SSB was a lump-sum payment that
had a lower present value than VSI. About 86 percent of
enlisted personnel selected SSB, and about half of the
officers did. Because the present value of forgoing the
annuity reduction under REDUX is significantly greater than
$30,000 and because that difference tends to be greater than
the difference between VSI and SSB, CBO assumes that smaller
fractions of officers and enlisted personnel would opt for
the lump-sum payment than chose SSB. The members who would be
affected by this provision entered service in 1986; thus,
they would not be eligible for the lump-sum payment until
2001.
Direct Spending Under Section 201. Section 201 would also
increase direct spending from the military retirement trust
fund by $1 million in 2000 and by about $233 million over the
2000-2009 period. The outlay impact before 2006 is primarily
due to higher cost-of-living allowances for individuals who
receive a disability annuity. Starting in 2006 the impact is
almost all due to regular retirements. In the long run,
direct spending for military retirement would be about 11
percent higher than under current law.
Thrift Savings Plan. Section 202 would allow members of the
uniformed services on active duty for a period of more than
30 days to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP).
Contributions would be capped at 5.0 percent of basic pay
plus any part of special or incentive pay that a member
receives. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the
revenue loss caused by deferred income tax payments would
total $10 million in 2000, $103 million in 2004, and about
$141 million by 2009.
Special Retention Initiative. Under section 203, the
Secretary of Defense could make additional contributions to
TSP for military personnel in designated occupational
specialties or as part of an agreement for an extended term
of service. CBO estimates that the discretionary costs from
the resulting agency contributions to TSP would total $2
million in 2000 and would increase to $28 million by 2004,
based on DoD's use of similar authority to award bonuses for
enlistment or reenlistment.
Compensation of military personnel
S. 4 contains two sets of provisions that would affect
compensation for those currently serving in the military. One
would increase annual pay raises and change the table
governing pay according to grade and years of service. The
other would increase compensation to members who would
otherwise be eligible for food stamps.
Pay Increases. Sections 101 and 102 contain provisions that
would provide across-the-board and targeted pay raises.
Across-the-board pay raises would be a total of 4.8 percent
in 2000 and 0.5 percent above the Employment Cost Index (ECI)
in future years. Because those raises would be 0.5 percent
above the full ECI raise called for in current law, CBO
estimates that incremental cost would be about $197 million
in 2000 and average about $1.7 billion over the 2000-2009
period. The estimate is based on current projections of
military strength levels and its distribution by pay grade.
Additional pay raises would be targeted at personnel in
specific grades and with certain years of service. The
changes to the military pay table would increase basic pay by
about $189 million in 2000 and an average of about $860
million annually over the 2000-2009 period, based on the pay
schedule and pay raises specified in the bill as well as
current projections of military strength levels and its
distribution by pay grade.
Special Subsistence Allowance. Section 103 would create a
new allowance through 2004 for military personnel who qualify
for food stamps. Eligibility for the allowance would
terminate if the member no longer qualified for food stamps
due to promotions, pay increases, or transfer to a different
duty station. In addition, a member would not be eligible for
the allowance after receiving it for 12 consecutive months,
although they would be able to reapply. CBO estimates that
the allowance would increase personnel costs by roughly $13
million in 2000 and $26 million annually through 2004,
based on information from DoD on the number of military
personnel who currently receive food stamps.
CBO estimates that most of the 11,000 personnel in grades
E-5 or below will remain on food stamps and apply for the
special subsistence allowance. However, the additional $180
of monthly income would replace the average household's
monthly food stamp benefit by $54, resulting in savings of
about $7
[[Page S1691]]
million each year in the Food Stamp program over the 2001-
2004 period. The special subsistence allowance might also
serve as an incentive for eligible but nonparticipating
military personnel to apply for food stamps. CBO estimated
that 1,500 additional service members who participate in the
Food Stamp program in an average month at an annual cost of
$2 million. Thus, this provision is estimated to result in a
net savings to the Food Stamp program of $3 million in 2000
and $5 million each year over the 2001-2004 period.
Veterans' readjustment benefits
As shown in Table 3, the bill contains four provisions that
would raise direct spending for veterans' readjustment
benefits, specifically the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB).
Rates of Assistance. Section 301 would raise the rate of
educational assistance to certain veterans with service on
active duty. Participating veterans who served at least three
years on active duty would receive as much as $600 a month
instead of $528 a month as under current law. Similar
veterans with at least two years of active duty would be
eligible for a maximum benefit of $488 a month, an increase
of $59 dollars a month. Under section 301, the cost-of-living
allowance scheduled for 2000 would not occur. CBO estimates
that this provision would increase direct spending by over
$100 million a year over the next 10 years, based on current
rates of participation in this program.
Termination of Member Contributions. Section 302 would
eliminate the contribution that MGIB participants pay under
current law. Unless members elect not to participate in the
MGIB, current law requires a contribution of $1,200 toward
the program. Based on current rates of participation, which
is nearly universal, CBO estimates that this provision would
result in forgone receipts of about $195 million a year.
Accelerated Payments. Section 303 would permit veterans to
receive a lump-sum payment for benefits they would receive
monthly over the term of their training, for example, a
semester in college or the period of a course's instruction
for other forms of training. CBO estimates that this
provision would increase direct spending in 2000 by about
$134 million and by about $27 million in 2001. Increased
costs would occur initially as payments from one fiscal year
are made in the preceding year. There would be no net effect
in subsequent years because in a given year payments shifted
to the preceding year would be offset by payments shifted
from the following year. CBO estimates that about 50
percent of MGIB beneficiaries would elect to receive an
accelerated payment in 2000 and that a total of 60 percent
would make that election in 2001 and later years. The
estimate is also based on current rates of participation
in this program.
TABLE 3.--ESTIMATED COSTS OF PROVISIONS AFFECTING VETERANS' READJUSTMENT BENEFITS IN S. 4, AS REPORTED BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
[Outlays by fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIRECT SPENDING
Spending Under Current Law for Veterans' 1,374 1,366 1,372 1,385 1,397 1,400 1,405 1,411 1,424 1,446 1,472
Readjustment Benefits....................
=============================================================================================================
Proposed Changes:
Rates of Assistance................... 0 98 100 101 103 104 105 106 108 110 113
Member Contributions.................. 0 197 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195
Accelerated Payments.................. 0 134 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Transfer of Entitlement............... 0 110 281 577 592 630 805 1,129 1,612 1,899 2,200
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal--Proposed Changes.......... 0 539 603 873 890 929 1,105 1,430 1,915 2,204 2,508
=============================================================================================================
Spending Under S. 4 for Veterans' 1,374 1,905 1,975 2,258 2,287 2,329 2,510 2,841 3,339 3,650 3,980
Readjustment Benefits....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfer of Entitlement. Section 304 would provide DoD with
the authority to allow military personnel to transfer their
entitlement to MGIB benefits to any combination of spouse and
children. CBO expects that DoD would use the authority in
2000 to enhance recruiting and retention and that the benefit
would be limited to current members of the armed forces and
those who might join for the first time. Over the first five
years almost all of the estimated costs would stem from
transfers to spouses, who would tend to train on a part-time
basis. Transfers to members' children are estimated to begin
in 2004, and spending for children's education would account
for more than half of the program's cost beginning in 2006.
CBO estimates that the provision would raise costs by about
$110 million in 2000, about $2.2 billion over the first five
years, and about $9.8 billion over the 2000-2009 period. In
the long run, costs would rise to about $3 billion a year. If
the benefit were awarded to current veterans. CBO estimates
that the costs would be a couple of billion dollars higher
over the 2000-2009 period.
CBO assumes that about 35 percent of all MGIB participants
would transfer their entitlement to their spouses and
children. Currently, about half of all MGIB participants do
not use their benefits, thus about 70 percent of the
remaining half are expected to transfer it. CBO estimates
that about a third of the transfers would be to spouses and
that eventually about 200,000 spouses each year would receive
a benefit for part-time training, averaging about $2,700 in
fiscal year 2000. CBO estimates that in the long run over
500,000 children of members or former members would use the
educational assistance each year but that level would not be
reached until about 2013. Full-time students would receive
about $5,400 in 2000 under the bill.
Pay-as-you-go considerations: Section 252 of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 sets up pay-
as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct
spending or receipts. The net changes in outlays and
governmental receipts that are subject to pay-as-you-go
procedures are shown in the following table. For the purposes
of enforcing pay-as-you-go procedures, only the effects in
the current year, the budget year, and the succeeding four
years are counted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal years, in millions of dollars--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in outlays........................ 0 537 599 870 887 927 1,108 1,435 1,940 2,270 2,633
Changes in receipts....................... 0 -10 -44 -67 -86 -103 -113 -120 -127 -134 -141
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: Section 4 of
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes from the
application of that act any legislative provisions that are
necessary for the national security. That exclusion might
apply to the provisions of this bill. In any case, the bill
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates.
Previous CBO estimate: On September 28, 1998, CBO prepared
a cost estimate for a proposal to repeal the Military
Retirement Reform Act of 1986 (REDUX). This estimate relies
on many of the same actuarial assumptions, models, and
estimates from the Office of the Actuary at DoD that CBO used
in the earlier estimate. However, this estimate also reflects
the provisions of S. 4 that would offer certain members an
option to stay under the REDUX system and that would raise
the pay base applicable to computing the costs of military
retirement.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Cost: The estimates for
defense programs were prepared by Jeannette Deshong (military
and civilian personnel) and Dawn Sauter (Military retirement
and veterans' benefits). They can be reached at 226-2840.
Valerie Baxter prepared the estimates for food stamps. She
can be reached at 226-2820. Impact on State, Local, and
Tribal Governments: Leo Lex (225-3220). Impact on the Private
Sector: R. William Thomas (226-2900).
Estimate approved by: Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
The Cost of S. 4
Major Points
Majority of the discretionary incremental increase in S. 4
over the Administration's plan is due to the larger pay
raises after FY 00, (4.4% in S. 4 versus 3.9% in the budget
request).
Direct spending in S. 4 is attributable to changes in the
Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB).
Revenue loss in S. 4 is due to the institution of a
military Thrift Savings Plan (TSP).
The direct spending and the loss of revenues makes S. 4
subject to a budget point of order.
Background. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has
provided a cost estimate of S. 4, The Soldiers' Sailors',
Airmen's and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999 and the cost
for the Administration's pay raise and retirement plan. In
developing the cost of the Administration's plan, CBO used
two different sets of economic assumptions, making a direct
comparison to S. 4 difficult. One cost estimate developed by
CBO, costs the Administration's plan using lower ECIs than
what is currently reflected in the budget request (this plan
is listed as CBO's ECIs). The second cost estimate of the
Administration's plan reflects the budget request (this plan
is
[[Page S1692]]
listed as OMB's ECIs). The basic difference between the two
CBO estimates is the size of the military pay raise after
fiscal year 2000. Currently, the fiscal year 2000 defense
budget request programs future raises at 3.9%. CBO believes
that an ECI in the future will be lower and this could lower
future pay raises to 3.2%.
Using the pay raise that is currently in the budget request
(3.9%), provides for a more direct comparison to S. 4. If
ECIs are lowered in the future, subsequent budget requests
will reflect this new economic assumption. Summary of the
costs for the Administration's plan and S. 4 are below. More
detailed CBO cost estimates are attached.
[In billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY00 FYDP FY 00-09
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. 4:
Discretionary Spending............ 1.075 18.146 40.826
Direct Spending................... .537 4.928 13.206
Loss of Revenues.................. (.010) (.423) (.522)
Administration's Plan (OMB ECI):
Discretionary Spending............ 1.497 15.764 35.767
Direct Spending................... .001 .008 .351
Loss of Revenues.................. NA NA NA
Administration's Plan (CBO ECI):
Directionary Spending............. 1.497 13.889 24.281
Direct Spending................... .001 .008 .351
Loss of Revenues.................. NA NA NA
S. 4 vs Administration's Plan (OMB
ECI):
Discretionary Spending............ (.422) 2.382 5.059
Direct Spending................... .536 4.920 8.147
Loss of Revenues.................. (.010) (.423) (.522)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, the CBO estimates that enactment of S. 4
will raise discretionary spending by about $1.1 billion in fiscal year
2000 and $13.8 billion over the 2000-2004 time period. There are, of
course, direct spending and forgone tax revenue issues that we will
have to overcome. I have been working with Senator Domenici, Senator
Stevens, and others to address these issues in the budget resolution
and the defense authorization bill, which are ongoing deliberations.
The important perspective to consider here is that, even though this
bill is expensive, the alternative is unacceptable. I wish to stress
that: The alternative is unacceptable. We, simply, as a nation--the
leader of the world, with the strongest and the largest armed force of
any nation in the world, an armed force which is deployed overseas,
now, in many places, preserving freedom and trying to secure freedom
for others--we simply cannot allow the best military force in the world
to wither and atrophy. We must be prepared to pay the price in dollars
to fulfill our constitutional duties ``To raise and support Armies,''
and ``To provide and maintain a Navy.'' As I and other Members of the
Senate--and that is of course taken from the Constitution. And
subsequent thereto we have the Air Force, and of course the Marines
have been with us forever, but that is the wording out of the
Constitution.
As I and the other Members of the Senate have visited military bases
here in the United States, in Bosnia, and in other deployment areas, we
have found that our young service men and women and their families are
doing a tremendous job, under adverse conditions in many cases--
tremendous stress on the family--and how proud we are, particularly of
the many wives and others in the families who make this system work. It
is a family matter.
In order to demonstrate to these highly trained and dedicated
military personnel that we appreciate their sacrifices and
contributions, we must move quickly to pass this legislation. Such
action will permit military personnel and their families to make the
decision, hopefully, to continue to serve and will assist the military
services in recruiting the high-quality force we have worked so hard to
achieve. And that means front-end acquisition at the recruiting
stations.
I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important legislation and again
salute those of my colleagues who were the early pioneers--Senators
Lott, McCain, Roberts, and others--and I am proud to join with them
today in presenting this bill to the Senate.
Also, Madam President, I want to bring to the attention of the Senate
a very important letter which arrived here just late Friday from the
Secretary of Defense. I ask unanimous consent to have this printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Secretary of Defense,
Washington, DC, February 19, 1999.
Hon. John W. Warner,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear John: I am following up on the comments General
Shelton and I made concerning S. 4, the Soldiers', Sailors',
Airmen's and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999 during our
posture hearing before your committee. First, let me thank
you for your early action to endorse the President's
initiative to improve compensation for our military
personnel. I fully appreciate the desire of the Committee to
take the lead for the Senate on these important matters.
Unfortunately, there are a number of elements of the bill
which cause concern and the Department has not had an
opportunity to testify on this bill and outline concerns. So
I am taking this opportunity to present to you our
reservations.
Again, let me emphasize that I sincerely appreciate your
endorsing key elements of the Department's proposal,
including: (1) a large across-the-board pay raise increase
for military service members; (2) substantial increases in
retirement benefits, such that all members can receive a
retirement pay that is 50% of their average high salary at 20
years, vice 40% for many members; and (3) reform of the
military pay tables, including increased raises for
promotions. I especially appreciate your endorsement of pay
table reform which more than anything will correct pay
inequities. These three items are fully funded in the defense
budget I submitted last month.
S. 4 propose even larger pay raises, higher cost-of-living
adjustments, and other items which are not in the budget I
submitted. I estimate that these additional items will cost
$7 billion in discretionary funding through FY2005. I am
concerned that until there is a budget resolution that sets
the defense budget level, this bill constitutes an unfunded
requirement on the Department. Absent an increase in the
topline for Defense, these items will only displace other key
elements of our program. It could be counterproductive and
completely contrary to our mutual desire not to undercut our
modernization effort and other readiness priorities. For
these reasons, it is imperative to proceed within the regular
authorization process and after we have agreement on a budget
topline.
S. 4 also contains expanded education benefits for veterans
and their dependents that would incur costs in addition to
the $7 billion noted above. These benefit proposals stem in
part from the just-released Report of the Congressional
Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition
Assistance. The Department was not asked to testify before
the Senate Armed Services committee on S. 4 and the Senate
Veterans Affairs Committee held only one hearing on the
commission's report. As the Department had only a limited
opportunity to review and comment on the commission's
recommendations, I believe that the commission's significant
policy changes contained in S. 4 warrant additional study.
Implementing these expanded levels would equate to a 36%
increase before inflation within one year. I believe the
impact of last year's increases should be considered before
enacting further changes.
I appreciate the Committee's intent to address the
legitimate needs of servicemembers regarding pay and
retirement. However, I am concerned that S. 4 could have the
opposite effect by raising hopes that cannot be fulfilled
until the final budget number is set. Resolving these
questions within the normal authorization and budget
processes is by far the most desirable approach.
Sincerely,
Bill Cohen.
Mr. WARNER. ``Dear John,'' writes our former colleague Senator Cohen,
I am following up on the comments General Shelton and I
made concerning S. 4, the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's and
Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999 during our posture
hearing before your committee. First, let me thank you for
your early action to endorse the President's initiative to
improve compensation for our military personnel. I fully
appreciate the desire of the Committee to take the lead for
the Senate on these important matters. Unfortunately, there
are a number of elements of the bill which cause concern and
the Department has not had an opportunity to testify on this
bill and outline our concerns. So I am taking this
opportunity to present to you our reservations.
On the question of the opportunity to testify, of course we had the
two hearings, one in September and again this January, so there was a
great deal of testimony that was used directly in formulating this
bill. However, the subcommittee, under the distinguished chairman
Senator Allard, will be meeting this week to take up further hearings
on the bill.
Again, let me emphasize that I sincerely appreciate your
endorsing key elements of the Department's proposal,
including: (1) a large across-the-board pay raise increase
for military service members; (2) substantial increases in
retirement benefits, such that all members can receive a
retirement pay that is 50% of their average high salary at 20
years, vice 40% for many members; and (3) reform of the
military pay tables, including increased raises for
promotions, I especially appreciate your endorsement of pay
table reform which more than anything will correct pay
inequities. These three items are fully funded in the defense
budget I submitted last month.
S. 4 proposes even larger pay raises, higher cost-of-living
adjustments, and other items which are not in the budget I
submitted. I estimate that these additional items will cost
$7 billion in discretionary funding through FY2005. I am
concerned that until there is a budget resolution that sets
the defense budget level, this bill constitutes an unfunded
requirement on the Department. Absent an increase in the
topline for Defense, these items
[[Page S1693]]
will only displace other key elements of our program. It
could be counterproductive and completely contrary to our
mutual desire not to undercut our modernization effort and
other readiness priorities. For these reasons, it is
imperative to proceed within the regular authorization
process and after we have agreement on a budget topline.
That is constructive criticism, but at the same time I think it is
very important, and again I commend our leadership, that we lay this
bill down today to send a signal to the men and women of the Armed
Services that the U.S. Senate on the first bill, really, to be taken up
in this new Congress--that is the type of priority that we attach their
pay, retirement, and other benefits.
S. 4 also contains expanded education benefits for veterans
and their dependents that would incur costs in addition to
the $7 billion noted above. These benefit proposals stem in
part from the just-released Report of the Congressional
Commission on Service-members and Veterans Transition
Assistance. The Department was not asked to testify before
the Senate Armed Services Committee on S. 4 and the Senate
Veterans Affairs Committee held only one hearing on the
commission's report. As the Department had only a limited
opportunity to review and comment on the commission's
recommendations, I believe that the commission's significant
policy changes contained in S. 4 warrant additional study.
I assure my good friend, Secretary Cohen, that study is ongoing and
will be thoroughly debated here in the coming days.
Implementing these expanded levels would equate to a 36%
increase before inflation within one year. I believe the
impact of last year's increases should be considered before
enacting further changes.
I appreciate the Commission's intent to address the
legitimate needs of servicemembers regarding pay and
retirement. However, I am concerned that S. 4 could have the
opposite effect by raising hopes that cannot be fulfilled
until the final budget number is set. Resolving these
questions within the normal authorization and budget
processes is by far the most desirable approach.
I can respect that viewpoint from our good friend, our recently
departed colleague. But nevertheless, we are going to forge ahead and
do our very best to achieve the basic goals for which he, I think, very
courteously applauds us as a committee and those Members who have
worked on it.
Madam President, following his letter, I would like to put in a
letter by the military coalition which, again, draws the debate lines
on these several points that I have raised. I will perhaps refer to
this later, but at this time, I want to yield the floor so my
distinguished colleague can give his remarks.
Privilege of the Floor
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the staff members of
the Committee on Armed Services, appearing on the list which is
appended hereto, be extended the privilege of the floor during the
consideration of S. 4.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.
Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, Members of this body are keenly aware of
the demands we place on our troops, the circumstances in which they
live and work and the fact we often pay them less and expect them to do
far more than employers in the private sector.
I commend Secretary Cohen, General Shelton, and the Joint Chiefs of
Staff for recognizing that military recruitment and retention has begun
to suffer and for acting forcefully to address this problem.
The fiscal year 2000 defense budget includes funding for an across-
the-board increase in military salaries, targeted pay raises to better
reward performance, and a change to the military retirement system to
place service members who entered after 1986 on a footing more
comparable to those who entered the service at an earlier date. These
changes should help provide fairer compensation to our men and women in
uniform, and we should act together to enact them into law.
The bill before us contains provisions similar to those proposed by
Secretary Cohen's budget, but there are several ways in which the
benefits offered by S. 4 are even more generous. It includes the
following: First, the administration proposal contains a 4.4-percent
across-the-board pay increase. S. 4 contains a 4.8-percent pay raise.
Second, the administration budget assumes, but does not require, pay
raises of 3.9 percent a year for the remainder of the FYDP. S. 4
mandates in permanent law raises of .5 percent more than the employment
cost index.
Third, the administration proposal would restore the same 50 percent
of base pay for post-1986 retirees as for pre-1986 retirees. S. 4 would
provide the same change while also restoring the more generous pre-1986
full CPI COLAs. Under S. 4, post-1986 retirees could accept a one-time,
lump-sum payment of $30,000 and opt out of this generous retirement
system.
Fourth, S. 4 authorizes active duty service members to participate in
the Thrift Savings Plan for Federal employees. The administration
proposal contained no similar provision.
Fifth, S. 4 contains a special allowance for service members who are
eligible to receive food stamps. The administration proposal contained
no similar provision.
And sixth, S. 4 contains provisions first proposed by Senator Cleland
and consistent with the recommendations of the Congressional Commission
on Service Members and Veterans Transition Assistance to improve the
educational benefits provided to service members through the GI bill.
The administration proposal contained no similar provision.
I have some concerns about a number of these provisions, but there is
little doubt that they would substantially improve the pay and benefits
available to members of the Armed Forces. The GI bill provisions, in
particular, should provide substantial incentives to help address the
current recruiting and retention problems facing the military services,
while offering our men and women in uniform an educational opportunity
in the proudest tradition of our country.
For this reason, I agree with the sponsors of the bill that we should
do what we can to make these benefits a reality. So on that question, I
hope there is no Member of this body, and I know there is no member of
the Armed Services Committee not in agreement that we should do what we
can to make these benefits in S. 4 a reality.
But the question is, How can we best make that happen. Do we best
serve the interests of the troops by bringing this bill to the floor
for consideration before we have passed a budget resolution and before
we know whether money will be available to pay for this bill? Do we
best serve our troops by separating the pay and the benefits issues
from the rest of the authorization, even if that can force us to delay
improvements in living and working conditions, and even if that forces
us to postpone the introduction of new equipment? Or would we better
serve the interest of our troops by considering the provisions of this
bill in our normal authorization process after the budget resolution
has been passed and we have had an opportunity to conduct hearings on
the specifics of the proposal in our Personnel Subcommittee?
Madam President, I want to alert my colleagues that regardless of
whether we pass this bill now or later, we will have to face up to some
significant issues down the road. Our military leaders have told us
that they want us to change the military retirement system, but the
proposals in S. 4 are very different from their proposal. Indeed,
Secretary Cohen and General Shelton recently testified that they would
support the added benefits in this bill only if--and I emphasize only
if--they are paid for without cutting into other defense programs. At
this point in the legislative cycle, before we have agreed upon a
budget, we cannot give them that assurance, and we cannot give our
troops that assurance.
For this reason, the Secretary of Defense wrote the committee last
Friday to express strong concerns about whether this bill could be paid
for without an adverse impact on national defense. My good friend,
Senator Warner, has read the letter, but I am just going to focus on a
couple of paragraphs in that letter because of Secretary Cohen's
concerns about whether this bill could be paid for without an adverse
impact on the national defense.
Here is what Secretary Cohen wrote in part:
S. 4 proposes even larger pay raises, higher cost-of-living
adjustments, and other items which are not in the budget I
submitted. I estimate that these . . . items will cost $7
billion in discretionary funding through
[[Page S1694]]
FY2005. I am concerned that until there is a budget
resolution that sets the defense budget level, this bill
constitutes an unfunded requirement on the Department. Absent
an increase in the topline for Defense, these items will only
displace other key elements of our program. It could be
counterproductive and completely contrary to our mutual
desire not to undercut our modernization effort and other
readiness priorities. For these reasons, it is imperative to
proceed within the regular authorization process and after we
have agreement on a budget topline.
And further on, Secretary Cohen said the following:
I appreciate the committee's intent to address the
legitimate needs of servicemembers regarding pay and
retirement. However, I am concerned that S. 4 could have the
opposite effect by raising hopes that cannot be fulfilled
until the final budget number is set. Resolving these
questions within the normal authorization and budget
processes is by far the most desirable approach.
Madam President, this is an expensive bill. The Congressional Budget
Office estimates that the enhanced pay in benefits provided for in S. 4
will cost almost $12 billion more than the administration proposal over
the next 6 years. The increases over the President's budget include
added costs of $5.6 billion for the more generous pay raises in the
bill, $1.2 billion for the enhanced retirement and Thrift Savings Plan
provisions, $100 million for the special subsistence allowance, and
$4.9 billion for the new GI bill provisions.
For several reasons, it would appear possible that these estimates
may be understated.
First, the CBO estimate assumes that 50 percent of the enlisted
personnel and about 40 percent of officers would elect to receive a
$30,000 lump-sum bonus in lieu of a higher annuity in retirement.
However, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has raised serious
concerns about the $30,000 buyout, and testified that the Chiefs will
recommend that the troops opt instead for the more expensive retirement
annuity.
Second, while the current law governing military pay raises includes
a discretionary formula, setting the COLA at .5 percent below the rate
of inflation, allowing the President to take into account a broad array
of factors, this bill would establish a mandatory COLA at .5 percent
above the rate of inflation forever. The CBO estimate addresses the
change in the anticipated formula, but because CBO estimates are
limited to a narrow budget window, that estimate does not address the
added cost to the pay raise that goes on without any time limit
whatsoever.
And third, and finally, if Congress stands by the historic concept of
pay equity and provides annual pay increases for civilian employees of
the Federal Government equal to those proposed in this bill for members
of the military services, the Department of Defense would face a
substantial bill for increased civilian pay as well; and, of course,
our overall budget outside of the Department of Defense would also have
a substantial bill for increased civilian pay as well.
Madam President, little consideration appears to have been given to
how we will pay for these increased benefits. At least three 60-vote
points of order could be made against this bill under the provisions of
the Budget Act--because it would exceed mandatory spending allocations,
it would reduce revenues, and it would increase the deficit. That stark
fact should demonstrate that we are considering this bill outside the
normal legislative cycle. There could be serious consequences to acting
on a major spending authorization for fiscal year 2000 and beyond
separate from the authorization bill of which it is a part and before
we have even considered the budget resolution for fiscal year 2000.
Do we intend to revise the budget agreement to pay for this bill? If
so, where will the money come from? Will we take it out of surplus? Or
will we make some as yet unspecified cuts in the already tight budget
for domestic programs to pay for it? At this early point in the
legislative cycle, we simply do not know. We can only say that unlike
the administration's pay and retirement proposal, which was fully paid
for in the President's budget, this bill represents a promise to the
troops that may or may not be possible to redeem.
If the defense budget is not substantially increased, and if the bill
before us is adopted by the House and becomes law, we would need to cut
the readiness and modernization accounts to offset the costs of this
bill. As the Secretary of Defense has pointed out, such cuts coming at
a time when our senior military leadership have already expressed
concerns about our readiness could have a serious impact on our
national security. For this reason, the Secretary of Defense and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stated that they would support
the increased benefits contained in the bill only if the additional
money does not come out of other defense programs.
Now that is really the key to this. Will these benefits, which we all
would like to see put in place, come from other defense programs or
will there be a new budget agreement? We do not know. We should know
before we act on this bill; but we are not going to know. This bill
comes to the floor without knowing the answer to that critical
question: whether or not these benefits are going to come out of other
defense programs or whether there will be a new budget agreement which
lifts the cap for defense.
When Secretary Cohen and General Shelton testified before the Armed
Services Committee on February 3, the Secretary stated that any further
increases to military pay and benefits should be considered in
conjunction with the defense authorization bill. And here is what the
Secretary said:
[W]e do have to propose this as a package, because if we
raise expectations unrealistically and we cannot fulfill them
we have done a disservice to our troops. Secondly, if we are
going to take it out of the readiness accounts and
procurement, we have also done a disservice. So the package
that we have put together we think makes sense and we hope
that any variation will be paid for, period.
That is pretty stark and pretty succinct. It comes from our top
military leadership that ``we hope that any variation will be paid for,
period.'' The increases in this bill above the increases in the
President's budget are not paid for in this bill. The Secretary of
Defense says, ``we hope that any variation will be paid for, period.''
Now, we are not doing the troops a favor if we say that we are going
to increase their benefits but then do not follow through with the
appropriation that is necessary to increase their benefits. I do not
think there is a member of the Armed Services Committee or a Member of
this body who does not believe we should increase the benefits as much
as we can to our troops. They deserve it. But we are doing this in a
vacuum, separate from the defense authorization bill. And that opens
the possibility that we would be passing a bill which says we will give
you these extra benefits but then down the line when it comes to an
appropriations process or a budget process there is no added funds for
defense, and then either these benefits are not funded later on, which
would be terrible after we promised them, or we will take the increase
out of readiness or modernization or out of housing or some other
needed aspect of our defense budget.
So I believe that every Member of this body would like to support the
improved pay and benefits that would be afforded to our men and women
in uniform by this bill. And the question is not whether this
additional step is a desirable one--it is--but we should take it only
if we can pay for it. And we have to know whether or not we are going
to be able to pay for it or else we could be doing damage to morale
instead of increasing the needed benefits for our troops.
So, for this reason, I may offer an amendment at an appropriate time
to express the sense of the Senate that the provisions of this bill are
subject to further consideration in the authorization and the
appropriation process, after we have agreed on a budget resolution and
a determination can then be made whether sufficient funds are available
to pay for the bill and a sufficient determination could be made as to
what impact those changes will have, if any, on needed readiness and
modernization programs in the Department of Defense.
I believe that approach would give us an opportunity both to do what
this bill does, which is to send an early message to the troops, which
the sponsors of the bill have suggested, while at the same time
demonstrating some care and some caution by indicating, consistent with
the request from the Secretary of Defense, which is now in the Record,
that the bill will receive further consideration as part of this
[[Page S1695]]
year's defense authorization bill, after we have passed a budget and
after we know how much money will be available for national defense.
Madam President, I yield the floor, and I thank the Chair.
Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I think the argument has been framed. My
friend and colleague points up his desire to follow the procedures that
he and I followed for 21 years as a member of the Armed Services
Committee. But, Madam President, I accept responsibility for bringing
up this bill early and encouraging our leadership to give me their
support. And here is the reason. Let me just give you one example of
the problems we are seeing in our military today.
During fiscal year 1998, the military lost 1,641 more pilots than
they expected.
They very carefully planned for a certain amount of attrition through
retirements at the end of 20 years--or whenever it may be--and for
those persons who decided not to make the military a career, it was
time to accept other challenges. Those figures show you have to retain
a certain percentage in each of those key pay grades of pilots in order
to keep the airplane flying, in order to fulfill the missions abroad.
President Clinton has sent the men and women of the Armed Forces of the
United States abroad more than any other President in the history of
this great Nation. We need these people, particularly the airmen. We
are 1,641 airmen short.
Let's translate that into dollars. The average cost to train a
military pilot is about $5.8 million. To replace 1,600 pilots will cost
the Department of Defense over $9 billion--repeat, $9 billion. If the
enhanced benefits within this bill--the subject of criticism by my
colleague--can reduce the unprogrammed losses of pilots by even one-
third, we will have more than made up for the additional costs of S. 4
compared to what the Department of Defense bill sent up. There is an
example.
If you need one more, it is right here. Last year, the Army missed
the recruiting goals by about 800. The Navy missed their recruiting
goals by 7,000. So far this year, the Army has failed to meet the first
quarter of this new fiscal year goals by 2,500. According to the Army's
own estimates, they will in 1999--unless this bill and other signals
that we send change the course--they will in 1999 have 10,000 fewer
recruits than what they need to man the forces all over the world.
What does that mean, Madam President? That means that some soldier
must stay that added time overseas on an assignment, away from his
family, or be recalled from his assignment here in the United States to
go overseas and replace another, more often than he or she ever
anticipated. As a result, these people are getting out of the middle
pay grades and the youngsters aren't coming in.
I will take responsibility for bringing up this bill. I will take
responsibility for going in for the high figures for this pay increase.
Yes, we will accept that, because in any negotiation that I have to
undertake with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the
chairman of the Budget Committee, I want to go in with a top figure,
hoping I can do better than what the administration came up with in
their pieces of legislation.
These are the problems we are facing, the real problems--shortfalls,
shortfalls, shortfalls--resulting in loss of time with family, fewer
skills, and the inability to attract and find young men and women to
come into the services.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I agree with my good friend from Virginia
in terms of the need to both attract and retain people. It is also
important that we pay for the benefits in this bill.
We are not doing anybody a favor if we say we are going to increase
the pay, and then we cut their housing. We are not doing anybody a
favor if we say there will be an added pay increase to what the
President proposes, and then cut flying hours and steaming hours so
that people don't have the training that they want as members of the
military.
I don't know of anybody who is more keenly aware of the need to both
recruit and retain people than our Secretary of Defense. I can't think
of anybody other than the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Joint
Chiefs themselves who are more keenly aware of these shortfalls. That
is why we have these increases in the President's budget. But the
Secretary of Defense, who is responsible for increasing recruitment and
retention, has proposed a budget to us which he believes will do just
that. He says in his letter to both the chairman and to me:
. . . it is imperative to proceed within the regular
authorization process and after we have agreement on a budget
topline.
The reason he said that is because, ``It could be counterproductive
and completely contrary to our mutual desire not to undercut our
modernization effort and other readiness priorities'' to do otherwise.
So in terms of the benefits in this bill, I am not one who is
criticizing the benefits in this bill at all. I commend these benefits.
I just want to pay for them. That is the only issue. Whether we are
going to pay for these benefits or we are just going to say in a bill
that these benefits are going to be increased, without knowing where
the increase is coming from, without knowing whether the budget
resolution is going to put more money in for defense, without knowing
whether or not these increases in benefits, this pay, and retirement
are going to come out of readiness, modernization, housing, or where
they will come from in there is not a top line.
The benefits, it seems to me, are appropriate. But paying for them is
essential, or else we are going to unleash two things. One is false
hopes, which will then be dashed, which is, it seems to me, the worst
of all worlds--false hopes in our uniformed military people that they
will be getting a pay raise larger than the one proposed by the
President. Or we are going to be carrying through with the provisions
of this bill, and unless there is an increase in the top line, we will
be seeing a degradation in readiness or modernization or housing or
other important needs, both of the Nation and of our uniformed military
personnel.
So I am very supportive of the benefits in this bill. What I am
pointing out is the missing part of this bill. This is half a bill.
This isn't a full bill. This is half of the bill. This is increasing
the benefits but it is not saying how we will pay for those benefits.
It is half the ledger without the other half of the ledger. That is the
problem with this bill.
It seems to me what we should do is what the Secretary of Defense has
suggested, which is to make these benefits part of the overall
authorization bill, which is where they belong and where,
traditionally, they have always been lodged and where they have always
been considered.
We, hopefully, can provide these benefits. I hope and pray we can
provide these benefits. They are useful benefits. But we have to pay
for them or else we are not doing the responsible and thoughtful thing.
We must pay for them as the Secretary of Defense has urged us to do.
Otherwise, in his words,
I am concerned that S. 4 could have the opposite effect by
raising hopes that could not be fulfilled until the final
budget number is set.
And the ``opposite effect'' that he is referring to is addressing the
legitimate needs of service members regarding pay and retirement.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent Doug Flanders of
my staff have floor privileges during the entire debate on the Senate
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROBB. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBB. Madam President, I express my appreciation to my
colleagues, particularly the Senator from Colorado, for giving me a
moment to
[[Page S1696]]
get over to the floor before he begins his address.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. ROBB. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that during the
floor consideration of S. 4, Herb Cupo, a congressional fellow from the
Department of the Navy, be granted floor privileges.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBB. Madam President, as a cosponsor of S. 4, the Soldiers',
Sailors', Airmen's and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, I am
pleased that we are moving forward on this legislation.
S. 4 provides the resources to begin to reverse the steady downward
spirals we have seen in military retention and recruiting.
S. 4 provides significant pay raises, improved retirement pay, and
enhanced GI bill benefits. It is an important step--one of several--
that the Congress must take this year to help the military pull out of
what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs describes as ``a nosedive that
might cause irreparable damage to this great force.'' It is also a
strong signal to our most important military asset--our men and women
in uniform, and their families--that we are serious about taking care
of them.
Being a cosponsor, however, hasn't alleviated my concern that we may
be moving too quickly on this legislation. This bill has substantial
budgetary implications, many of which we are only beginning to
quantify.
Specifically, we don't know yet exactly what this bill will cost, nor
whether it is structured to best fix ongoing retention and recruiting
problems. Moreover, we haven't yet taken the time to assess where any
additional defense dollars should be spent in the broader context. For
example, if we put some of these additional funds toward new equipment,
we could improve our ability to fight in future wars, and by providing
our troops with higher quality, more reliable equipment, we also
improve recruiting and retention. This is just one of many examples of
why I believe--as the ranking member of the committee believes--that it
is important to think through any defense budget increases in a
strategic and not just a piecemeal manner.
Now, one way to improve the bill to ensure that we are improving
recruiting and retention in a more direct and cost-effective manner is
to closely align any pay increases with problem specialties. Along with
Senators Cleland and Kennedy, I intend to offer a ``Special and
Incentive Pay Amendment'' to S. 4, which I filed on February 3.
This amendment targets certain smaller categories of military service
where our retention challenges are particularly daunting, categories
where we recruit highly skilled personnel, provide them costly
training, and then fight to induce these individuals to remain on
active duty when they face uniquely difficult or dangerous missions,
coupled with powerful financial incentives to leave the military for
the civilian sector. Examples include career enlisted fliers, Navy
SEALS, and Navy surface warfare officers.
Only 25 percent of our surface warfare officers remain on active duty
through their department head tour, which normally comes between the
sixth and eighth year of commissioned service. During the drawdown,
this wasn't a particular problem, but now with smaller numbers of ships
in the fleet, we simply don't have the officers to maintain and man
critical at-sea billets.
In the Navy SEAL community, attrition has increased over 15 percent
in the past 3 years, while demand for these highly trained individuals
by our warfighting CINCs has increased sharply.
In fiscal year 1998, manning in another category of highly trained
and difficult individuals--Navy divers--was below 85 percent. That same
year, only about 60 percent of our military career linguists met or
exceeded the minimum requirements in listening or reading proficiency.
A host of retention problems exist for nuclear-qualified officers and
enlisted personnel as well.
The amendment does several things. It establishes a special pay for
surface warfare officers and Navy SEALS to encourage them to remain in
the service at critical points. It provides added incentive pay for our
Navy and Air Force enlisted aircrews. Several existing bonuses are
increased, including those for divers, nuclear qualified officers,
linguists, and other critical specialties. Finally, the enlisted bonus
ceiling is increased.
These are critical remedies for critical specialties. The Nation
simply can't afford to continue to pay as much as we do to recruit and
train these talented individuals only to see them leave the service out
of frustration over the inadequacies of their pay and benefits.
Madam President, this special and incentive pay amendment to S. 4 is
exactly the kind of targeted ``fix'' Congress can and should support,
and I hope our colleagues will support it when we bring S. 4 up for the
votes.
I also intend to offer an amendment to modify existing title 37
legislation with respect to the bonuses we pay to our career aviation
officers.
The impact of poor officer retention has been particularly hard on
our pilot communities. For example, overall Navy pilot retention
decreased to 39 percent in fiscal year 1997 and further declined to 32
percent in fiscal year 1998. This trend is expected to continue for the
foreseeable future.
While continuation of midlevel officers represents the greatest
aviation retention challenge, there has also been an increase in
resignations of more senior aviators, particularly due to intense
competition from private industry. To address these problems, the
services have identified a requirement for greater flexibility with
their principal aviation retention shaping tool known as aviation
continuation pay, or ACP.
The amendment that I have just described would allow the services to
do just that. ACP is currently limited to 14 years, and only covers
officers in the grades 0-5 and below. This amendment would pay ACP up
to 25 years, and expand eligibility one grade to cover officers at the
0-6 level. The maximum aviation continuation payment allowed for each
year of additional obligation would go up from $12,000 to $25,000.
Finally, the provision recognizes the aggregate retention needs of
the services by eliminating the requirement to annually define critical
aviation specialties.
These refinements to title 37, along with other innovative
compensation initiatives this body will consider, should begin to
reverse the steady downward trends in aviation retention by allowing
each service to tailor compensation programs to meet their specific
retention challenges and accommodate their unique career path
requirements.
I might add that both of these amendments I have referred to have the
full support of the Department of Defense.
With that, Madam President, I yield the floor. Again, I thank my
distinguished colleague from Colorado for his courtesy.
Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, S. 4, The Soldiers', Sailors',
Airmen's and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, may be the most
significant national security legislation approved by the Senate this
year. It will provide the basis for major improvements in the welfare
of our military personnel and their families, recruiting and retention
and, in turn, the readiness of our Armed Forces.
Although I was a cosponsor of the bill introduced by the leadership,
the bipartisan bill reported out by the Armed Services Committee is a
stronger piece of legislation because it includes a provision revising
the benefits under the Montgomery GI bill. This provision proposed by
Senator Cleland will be a major recruiting incentive and provide
significant educational benefits to our military personnel and
indirectly to families.
Madam President, despite initial criticism by some officials in the
Department of Defense, the provision in the bill providing an option to
the career service member to choose a $30,000 bonus and stay in REDUX
or a 50 percent retirement is gaining support among the military
community. The initial criticism that by choosing the bonus over full
retirement would short
[[Page S1697]]
change the individual was based on incomplete data. The fact is that a
Sergeant First Class in the Army who retires at 20 years under REDUX,
who invested the bonus five years earlier in a tax deferred stock fund,
would gain $46,000 more in lifetime benefits than an identical retiree
under the full retirement plan.
Madam President, I understand there are concerns, which I share,
regarding the potential cost of the bill. Although we have to consider
cost, we must also remember that we have the best all-volunteer
military in the World. If we are to maintain that caliber force, we
must be prepared to pay for it. I support the bill before us and urge
the Senate to demonstrate bipartisan support for the bill and for our
soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines.
Madam President, as a final comment, I want to congratulate our new
Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, and the
Majority Leader, Senator Lott, for designating S. 4 as the first bill
considered by the Committee and the Senate. This gesture sends a strong
message to our military personnel that they and our national security
are foremost in the Senate's interest.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the
Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America on this subject be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America,
Washington, DC, February 18, 1999.
Hon. Strom Thurmond,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Thurmond: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the
world's largest business federation, representing more than
three million businesses and organizations of every size,
sector, and region, strongly urges you to support S. 4, the
Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights
Act of 1999.
After many years of defense spending cuts, it is now time
to reverse the trend and begin focusing on appropriate
measures to ensure the United States Military is able to
recruit and retain skilled military personnel. Under the
provisions of S. 4, the basic pay for members of the
uniformed services would increase by 4.8%, effective January
1, 2000.
The U.S. Chamber is concerned about military retention and
readiness because without these fundamental aspects of a
strong National Security policy, the continued prosperity of
the United States economy would be threatened. Within this
policy, the United States must stem the erosion of qualified
personnel from our armed forces to ensure an adequate level
of readiness. Although S. 4 will not address all aspects of
military retention, it will send a strong signal that the
United States recognizes and appreciates the critical work of
members of the United States Military. Thank you in advance
of your support for S. 4.
Sincerely,
R. Bruce Josten,
Executive Vice president,
Government Affairs.
Mr. ALLARD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I thank the Senator from South Carolina
for his remarks, and I appreciate the leadership he has shown over the
years on the issues that are important to the Armed Services Committee,
on which I serve with him. It is an honor to serve on the committee
with both he and Senator Warner as chairman.
First, I want to commend the Chairman for his efforts. Senator
Warner's leadership on ushering S. 4 to the Senate floor has been
significantly important. Without his insistence and courage to move
ahead, we could not be where we are today on this bill.
I'm glad this is the first bill to come before the Senate, not just
for substantive reasons but for the message we are sending to our men
and women in uniform. They put their lives on the line everyday for our
freedom and they need to know they will receive what they earn. We need
to continually send the message that we care about them and the
families they have to leave while on duty.
Unfortunately, I believe this message has not been sent during the
last six years. From the Secretary of Defense down, we have been
hearing the difficulty the services have had in recruiting and
retaining their service personnel, and complaints about the gap between
the military and civilian pay. During the last six years, the defense
budget has decreased 25 percent in real economic terms, while at the
same time our troops have been sent abroad 45 times--and this doesn't
include the latest journey into Kosovo. I do not now want to argue the
need for all these deployments, but I will say that we cannot keep
asking our armed services to do more and more while giving them less
and less. This trend must be reversed and fast. S. 4 is the first step
in changing this downward trend. But, better pay and benefits is only
one step in improving the quality of life for our soldiers. Soon, we
must address the problems of frequent deployments, prolonged absences,
readiness shortfalls and the other myriad problems facing our military
or else all the important changes in this bill will be lost.
The first problem I want to address is the issue of pay. If we want
to keep the best and brightest then we need to pay them at levels
favorable with salaries in the private sector. The current pay gap is
anywhere between 5.5 to 13.5 percent and is projected to exceed 15
percent by the year 2005. Pay raises have lagged behind the average
private sector raises for 12 of the last 16 years. I agree with
Secretary Cohen and General Shelton when they say that we can never pay
our military personnel enough, but we can pay them too little--and that
is what has been done over the last decade.
S. 4 provides a much needed 4.8 percent pay raise, the first major
raise since 1982. I point out that the 4.8-percent pay raise is the
first major pay raise since 1982.
This may not erase the pay gap problem, but at least it is a start to
giving the military what they deserve for the long hours they provide
in the defense of our Nation.
One horrendous example of this low pay is the enlisted soldiers on
food stamps. The first time I heard that we had military personnel on
food stamps I was outraged. Thanks to Senator McCain's and Senator
Roberts' efforts, S. 4 will address this problem.
According to the Department of Defense, over 11,000 service members
are eligible to receive food stamps. Almost as staggering as this
problem was the response given to it by the administration. According
to a 1997 AP story in the Colorado Springs Gazette newspaper, Pentagon
spokesman Kenneth Bacon said, ``It's too bad, but it's a function of
the size of their family more than anything else.'' He said that the
problem has been around for decades. He said today, ``More soldiers are
married and have families than in the past.''
While I agree with size of the families being a factor, I disagree
that this is just ``too bad.'' It is wrong and must be addressed
immediately. But since that statement in 1997, the administration has
done nothing to fix the problem. That is why I am happy that S. 4 will
no longer just say ``too bad.'' This bill will provide $180 per month
subsistence pay for enlisted personnel in grades E-5 and below who
voluntarily demonstrate an eligibility for food stamps. The allowance,
along with the pay raise, is estimated to help nearly 10,000 military
personnel climb above the food stamp wage scale.
Also, a January 31, 1999, Denver Post article highlights another
problem associated with low pay, and that is retaining highly trained
personnel. The 3d Space Operations Squadron, whose personnel fly our
military satellites from Schriever Air Force Base in Colorado Springs,
has starting salaries of $13,000. However, it should be of no surprise
that these highly trained personnel are being coaxed to leave the
military for the private sector with starting salaries of over $50,000.
While there is no way the military can compete with salaries such as
these, a pay raise will help ease the problems of keeping these
personnel.
The article also points out that the 3rd Space Operation has a
turnover as high as 45 percent. With the commercial space industry
booming, especially in Colorado, many of these companies will pay top
dollar for these young men and women who haven't even been certified on
satellites but have the highly technical training. This results in
higher spending in order to train the new people for the vacant slots.
At this point, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
this Denver Post article.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[[Page S1698]]
[From the Denver Post, Jan. 31, 1999]
Satellite Savvy Draws Dollars--Air Force Training in Big Demand
(By Erin Emery)
Schriever Air Force Base.--Airman Faith Boyd is a 20-
something mom with a high school diploma and a job in which
making a mistake can have life-and-death consequences for
warriors in the field.
Boyd works behind the razor-sharp fences at Schriever Air
Force Base, a place that some people say has the feel of a
top-secret Area 51. Here, on the barren plains 15 miles east
of Colorado Springs, the nation's Department of Defense
satellites--about 60 of them worth $40 billion--are
controlled.
Boyd, 23, works in an air-conditioned room full of
computers with other Generation Xers. She's assigned to the
3rd Space Operations Squadron, where the mission is weighted
in responsibility. The job: manage and maintain satellites
that relay communications for the military.
Starting salary: $13,000 a year.
In two years, though, when Boyd's four-year commitment to
the Air Force is completed, headhunters who recruit for
companies like Lockheed-Martin, Motorola and Boeing will wine
and dine her and try to coax her to leave the Air Force for a
job in the private sector.
Starting salary: $55,000 annually.
``I do feel lucky,'' said Boyd, who also helps teach
newcomers to be satellite systems operators.
The robust commercial space industry is a $51 billion
enterprise worldwide that is expected to triple in size by
2006. As it continues to grow, so will demand for people who
can control the satellites.
``You've heard of this guy Bill Gates?'' Col. Mike Kelly,
deputy commander of the 50th Space Operations Group at
Schriever said of the head of Microsoft. ``He's putting up
Teledesic. He's going to fly a constellation of 288
satellites, the `Internet in the Sky,' and he's going to need
some people to fly them.''
One of the places that recruiters will look is Schriever,
at 2 SOPS and across the hall, at the 3rd Space Operations
Squadron, where young people are controlling the Global
Positioning System, a constellation of satellites that relay
highly accurate navigational information. Last year, turnover
was as high as 45 percent, said Maj. Lee-Volker Cox,
operations flight commander. Some of that turnover
represented people transferring to other jobs in the
military.
``I think that probably the biggest retention issue facing
Space Command is the growth of the civilian space industry,''
said Capt. Paul Hermann, a 1990 Air Force Academy graduate
who works in 2nd Space Operations Squadron. ``There is no
place for those companies to go and get qualified people to
do jobs.''
experience hard to get
There are about 560 satellites in space, and 1,000 more are
scheduled to be launched in the next decade.
Schriever Air Force Base is one of the few places in the
world where young people can get hands-on experience flying
satellites.
``When you're looking for people in the satellite control
business, that certainly is one of the places where you want
to look,'' said Paul Unger, a vice president of Chicago-based
A T Kearney Executive Search, which recruits people for
executive jobs in the satellite industry. ``It's one of those
disciplines that you really have to be a by-the-book person.
You have to be very disciplined to follow procedures, but you
have to be able to snap into action and solve very complex
problems that, at times, don't have by-the-book solutions.''
But while companies are dangling big dollars in front of
people, the Air Force is doing everything it can to keep
them--except pay them $55,000 salaries.
The Air Force is offering a $4,000 signing bonus to people
who agree to work in jobs like Boyd's and enlist for six
years instead of four.
weighing the benefits
Air Force officials are stressing the multitude of benefits
offered in the service that may not be found in the private
sector: free day care, free legal service and free membership
to a base fitness center, Plus, airmen can get college
credits for completing technical training and they get a
stipend toward tuition to earn a college degree.
Across the military services, a 4.4 percent pay increase--
the largest pay increase for service members in several
years--kicks in Jan. 1, 2000.
Only five years ago, there wasn't much opportunity in the
Air Force for enlisted people like Boyd. Officers out-
numbered enlisted personnel three to one; now it is the other
way around.
The Air Force has standardized the procedures--the commands
that airmen type into computers--for contacting what people
in the industry call ``birds.''
``The procedures say, `If this happens, do this,' '' said
Capt. Porf Dubon, who writes instructions for satellite
operators.
Standardizing procedures has resulted in dramatic changes
in personnel, mainly in their ages.
``There can be nights when probably the oldest person is 25
or 26 years old,'' said Dubon, 32. ``There can be nights when
you'll have a crew of 18- to 20-year-olds here by themselves.
Some team members have college degrees, while others have
high school diplomas.
After joining the Air Force, airmen take a test that
measures aptitude for various professions. Those who have a
knack for electronics get the opportunity to come to
Schriever and learn to fly satellites. After six months of
school--eight hours a day--they go to work controlling
satellites but are shadowed by someone with more experience
until they become certified satellite systems operators.
headhunters calling
Sgt. James Butler, 30, who trains people to be satellite
systems operators, said headhunters call him about twice a
week.
While some companies are offering $55,000 to do the same
job he does in the Air Force, if Butler willing to move, he
could make $65,000 or more in Virginia or Maryland.
``No degree, just experience,'' Butler said. ``We've had
calls from people who will pay $40,000 a year and the people
haven't run ops yet, they're not even certified but they've
had the training.''
Even though Butler, who has been in the Air Force for 11
years, could practically double his salary if he took a job
with a private firm, he'll probably stay put. He has only
nine years until retirement.
The military is trying to improve its retirement plan so
that personnel who entered after 1986 will get 50 percent of
their basic pay after 20 years of service, not the current 40
percent.
Though $55,000 a year looks pretty good, retirement at age
39 looks even better.
Mr. ALLARD. The retention problem is not just felt at space command
but cuts across all the services. Secretary Cohen, General Shelton, and
all the service secretaries and chiefs say that the men and women are
our greatest assets, but, unfortunately, we are losing our greatest
assets in mass numbers.
I ask the rhetorical question of whether we would let our planes and
ships disappear. Then why should we stand by and let this happen?
Planes, ships, tanks, guns, and the rest are useless without properly
trained personnel.
The Air Force has stated they are 855 pilots short this year and
expect to be short 2,000 pilots by the year 2002. This leaves the Air
Force with less experienced pilots and higher training costs. Their
enlisted retention is no better.
I would like to refer the Members of the Senate to a chart that I
have drawn up here which points out the enlisted retention rate for
1998. The first term reenlistment goal is 55 percent, but in 1998 it
was only 54 percent. The second term reenlistment goal is 75 percent
but only achieved 69 percent. The career goal is 95 percent while only
getting 93 percent reenlistment. This is the first time that the Air
Force has failed to meet its retention goals in all three categories
since 1981.
Some may believe these numbers are acceptable, but each and every
percentage loss hurts the war-fighting skills and readiness across the
board for the Air Force.
For the Navy, we only have to look at the recent examples of the USS
Enterprise. While deployed in the gulf, the USS Enterprise was short
nearly 600 sailors.
I look again to another chart where we talk about the Navy 1998
officer retention rates: surface warfare officers retention, only 25
percent, against a steady state need of 38 percent. Like the Air Force,
the Navy aviator retention was 39 percent in 1997 and further dropped
to 32 percent in 1998, which falls short of the 35-percent level
required to fill critical department head and flight leader positions.
Submarine officers had a 27-percent retention rate, which is far short
of the 38 percent needed in fiscal year 2001 in order to meet the
stated manning requirements. For the vaunted SEAL forces, their rates
have fallen to a dismal 58 percent from a historical level of over 80
percent.
The only good news comes from the Army and the Marines. These
branches have met their retention goals but have said that they are
having major problems in critical war-fighting skill areas which must
be addressed to stay at current readiness.
All of these numbers are not to glaze people's eyes over but to open
some eyes to the problems our military is facing. These retention
problems are real and must be addressed. Inadequate retention only
heightens the problems of longer deployments, increased frequency of
deployment, and longer work hours due to less personnel.
This not only places our military in precarious and dangerous
situations, but places great stress on their families and loved ones.
S. 4 addresses these problems through pay table reforms that focus
[[Page S1699]]
the emphasis on those retention problem areas--midcareer NCOs and
officers. It will reward promotion and achievement over longevity with
bumps in pay ranging from 4.8 percent to 10.3 percent. Plus, we provide
new incentives to the services to address their other specific problem
retention areas.
According to the Pentagon, another retention problem, and one of the
major complaints, is the current Redux retirement system for those who
entered service after 1986. I understand the repeal of the current
system is one area that is problematic for some Senators. But we have
taken the Secretary, the JCS, and all the service secretaries and
chiefs at their word that Redux needs to be repealed. No matter how one
comes down on this issue, if the retirement system is a retention
problem, it simply cannot be ignored. That is why S. 4 addresses the
problem in what I believe is a responsible manner. Service personnel
who entered the military on or after August 1, 1986, will be given the
option to return to the pre-1986 retirement system of 50 percent of
base pay for the average of the 3 highest years or take a $30,000 bonus
to stay in the Redux system, which is 40 percent of the 3 high years.
In addition, the bill allows service members to participate in the
Thrift Savings Plan by placing up to 5 percent of their pretax base pay
into one, or any combination, of the TSP's funds --the G, or government
securities fund; the F, or bond fund; the C, or common stock fund.
Further, the bill allows service members to place any enlistment,
reenlistment, and the $30,000 lump-sum bonuses into their TSP.
Unlike General Shelton, I don't find the $30,000 bonus an insult, but
an innovation in providing more market base and higher yielding--a
higher yielding retirement fund.
To show you how this can work, here is a chart from an article in the
Army Times. It is the third chart I am showing here on the floor where
it shows the various pay grades and how the retirement options might be
affected through those pay grades.
If we look at E-6 with 20 years, the Redux was $378,394; pre-1986 it
was $489,942; but then we go to the Redux/bonus and then the buildup in
the bond fund is substantial, the buildup shown on the chart would be
$477,174; and if the Redux was invested in a higher yield fund such as
the stock fund, we would look at somewhere around $553,826.
These figures have been projected on this chart through the various
grades of E-7 for 20 years, E-7 for 23 years, E-8 for 28 years, and E-9
for 30 years, with the concomitant change in bonus, and how those
dollars would build up within those funds, and they are substantial.
I think it is an innovative and very interesting approach to dealing
with the retirement and retention problems of our military services.
Another interesting aspect from this article is, according to the
Retired Officers Association, for every service member who accepted
this bonus, the Government will save about $66,000 per member. In the
end, the service men and women could have a higher retirement, while at
the same time saving the Government money. Insulting? No. Innovative? I
say yes.
On a side note, I want to give credit to our very able committee
staffer, Charlie Abell, for this idea and congratulate him for this
innovation. Some ask, ``Will they use this bonus wisely?'' I believe if
we can ask our military men and women to take care of billion-dollar
equipment and put their lives on the line for us, we should be able to
trust them with their own money.
Second, as everyone knows, financial counseling is a must for anyone
who plans for retirement. I hope the military is currently providing
these services. Let's give the military the option and ability to
control their own retirement and best fit it to their needs.
A final effort in this bill is to use Government matching funds for
TSP accounts or Thrift Savings Plan accounts as a retention tool. We
give the service Secretaries the flexibility to offer up to 5 percent
matching contributions for 6 years in return for a 6-year commitment in
skill areas that they deem necessary. This gives the services the
ability to fix their own needs with all the tools available to them.
Finally, I want to touch on the problem of recruitment. All we have
to do is look to the front page of the February 17, 1999, Washington
Post. The below-the-fold headline reads, ``Military Lags in Filling
Ranks.'' In the story, Army Secretary Caldera says that the Department
of Defense needs to allow the Army to recruit more high school dropouts
with GEDs to make up the 10,000-soldier shortfall this year.
At this time, I ask unanimous consent to have the Washington Post
article printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Feb. 17, 1999]
Military Lags in Filling Ranks
(By Dana Priest)
Army Secretary Louis Caldera argued yesterday that the
Defense Department should allow the Army to recruit more high
school dropouts with equivalency diplomas to help make up a
projected shortfall of as many as 10,000 soldiers this year.
Caldera's idea, which would require a change in standard
adopted five years ago, reflects growing alarm within the
Army, Navy and Air Force that they are failing to attract
enough recruits from the new generation of young adults and
that the shortage will only get worse if the trend is not
reversed.
``Frankly, right now we have rules that don't make sense,''
he said. The rules have ``put us in a box that really hurts.
Every day we turn away people who want to join.''
Like the Air Force and Navy, the Army is facing the worst
peacetime recruiting shortfall in its history. Of the major
services, only the Marines have attracted a sufficient number
of recruits in recent years.
Contributing factors include a strong economy, fewer
surviving military veterans to act as role models for their
sons and daughters, and a less adventurous mission as the
services adjust to the post-Cold War world without a clearly
defined enemy.
Caldera said the Army should adopt other means of testing a
potential recruit's abilities and should allow in more high
school dropouts who have passed high school equivalency
tests.
``The Army is an institution that should not write off
young people in America who need a second chance,'' he added
at a breakfast with defense reporters. ``The military should
not be the one that slams the door of opportunity in your
face.''
Under Defense Department policy, 10 percent of new recruits
are allowed to be high school dropouts who have passed the
high school equivalency test and score well on armed services
entrance exams. But for many years, especially during the
downsizing of the 1990s, the services set much higher
standards in practice. They either required that all new
recruits have high school diplomas or allowed in only a few
with the equivalent of a diploma.
But as downsizing bottomed out several years ago and the
economy got stronger, recruiting stations went empty.
The Army fell 2,300 short of its recruiting goal in the
first quarter of fiscal year 1999 and Caldera said the
projected shortfall could go as high as 10,000 this year.
The Navy faced 6,900 empty positions last year. Although it
has reached its goal in the first quarter of fiscal year
1999, last month it announced it will increase from 5 to 10
percent the number of high school dropouts it accepts.
The Air Force, which has faced a severe pilot shortage for
several years, projected it will be 2,000 pilots short of the
13,641 it says it needs by 2002. In addition, the Air Force
had a shortfall of 421 in its enlisted ranks for the first
quarter of this fiscal year and continued to slip in the
second quarter, said Air Force officials.
``We're coming up on the greatest shortage we've ever had
in peacetime,'' said Lt. Col. Russ Frasz, an Air Force
recruiting official.
The services have responded to the problem with signing
bonuses, retention bonuses and more money for college
education. They have also put thousands more recruiters into
the field and tens of millions of dollars into new
advertising campaigns.
The Navy, for example, put 500 more recruiters on the
streets last year, opened 150 new recruiting stations and
increased its advertising budget this fiscal year from $58
million to $70 million.
What it got in return was 9,012 new sailors, nearly 800
more than it needed. But that was only for the first quarter
of the year and, given the shortfall in recent years, no one
in the Navy is relaxed about the future.
``We are getting back on track but there is still hard work
to do,'' said Rear Adm. Barbara McGann, the Navy's top
recruiting official.
Caldera, a lawyer and former member of the California
legislature who took over as Army secretary in July, said the
long-term solution involves more than money and advertising.
Civilian leaders who grew up in the activist 1960s have
failed to make the case to the new generation that military
service should be a civic responsibility, he said, adding:
``There are young people out there who are hungry for someone
to talk to them about responsibility.''
help wanted
Most branches of the military have not been meeting their
recruitment goals.
[[Page S1700]]
[Fiscal year first quarter]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998-- 1999--
Branch ---------------------------------------
Goal Actual Goal Actual
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army............................ 72,550 71,749 12,420 10,120
Air Force....................... 13,986 13,338 7,532 7,111
Navy............................ 55,321 48,429 8,216 9,012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Defense Department.
Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, if you look at this chart we see the
problems the services are having in recruiting. This is the fourth
chart on the floor that I have provided.
In 1998 the Army fell almost 800 recruits short of their goal, and
are over 2,000 recruits short of their first quarter goal.
If we look at the Air Force, the Air Force's 1998 number was 600
recruits short of their goal and over 400 recruits short in the first
quarter.
Also, for the first time ever the Air Force will advertise on
television to increase their lagging numbers.
The Navy's 1998 shortfall was 6,892 recruits. While it met its first
quarter, they had to raise their high school dropout rate acceptance
from 5 percent to 10 percent.
These are troubling numbers and these numbers are one of the reasons
why the Personnel Subcommittee, which I chair--my good friend, Senator
Cleland, is the ranking member--has called for its first hearing to
focus on recruitment and retention problems. We cannot allow our armed
services to become hollow due to the lack of personnel. The best way to
ensure that we recruit and retain the best and brightest is to pay them
the wages they deserve and provide the benefits to keep them.
While S. 4 does not directly address recruitment, it does make
changes which we believe will assist our military recruiters. Beyond
the pay raise incentives, the bill enhances the Montgomery GI bill
benefits. S. 4 will eliminate the $1,200 contribution required of
members who elect to participate in the GI bill, increase monthly GI
bill benefits anywhere between $60 to $70, allow service members to
transfer education benefits to immediate family members, and then to
accelerate lump-sum benefits for an entire term, semester, or quarter
at college, and full amounts for courses not leading to a college
degree.
The Armed Services Committee believes that these enhancements will
make entering the military more attractive to more people, especially
when the private sector offers so many more options than in the past.
I will conclude with a few personal thoughts. I understand that this
bill is not acceptable to all Senators, but if you plan on voting no, I
ask that you think about a few people--the young service man or woman
who is about to be sent to Kosovo, or the service member who is coming
back from Bosnia, or even second tour of Bosnia; or about the pilot
patrolling the no-fly zone in Iraq; or the sailor who is doing double
duty because his ship is undermanned and so he will have to be away
from his family longer than necessary. How will you tell them that they
are not worth the extra money in S. 4?
Let me finish with a statement from a letter which I believe was
printed in the National Association of Uniformed Services Journal and
reprinted in the Northern Colorado chapter of the Retired Officers
Association's newsletter, entitled, ``Why Am I Getting Out?''
The bottom line is ``Patriotism is great, but it doesn't
put food on the table or provide for your family.'' One
soldier who requires food stamps is a shame. We can do better
for those from whom we ask so much.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I am honored to join with the
distinguished Senators who have been sponsoring and working for the
passage of the bill that we believe will help our soldiers, sailors,
airmen, and marines to increase their pay, their retirement benefits,
and other benefits. They will know that this Nation affirms them,
believes in them, and cares about them, and is not going to stand by
and allow recruitment and retention to go in the tank and to not give
them the kind of pay and benefits they have to have to live in this
world.
We have taken advantage of them in many ways, and it is time to put
an end to that. We have done a lot of things to reduce our defense
structure. In 1992, we had 1.8 million men and women in the services.
By the year 2000, we will be at 1.38 million. We will drop another 24
percent during this period of time. But we, at the same time, increased
the pressures and responsibilities our service men and women are
facing. They are being sent around the world at greater and greater
rates.
The operational tempo--the OPTEMPO they call it--has never been
higher. I had the opportunity recently to be with an Air Force officer
in Montgomery, AL, at Maxwell Air Force Base. He told me he was in
Bosnia and received orders to be stationed in Korea. He called his wife
who was then in Montgomery and explained this situation to her, and she
replied, ``Well, you can go to Korea, I'm going back to North
Carolina.''
These kinds of assignments may sound easy to people sitting in
Washington, but it is important to families. They will do it. Our
soldiers and sailors give of themselves and sacrifice on a regular
basis, but they need to know we care about them, that we are willing to
pay them a decent wage, that we are going to maintain good retirement
benefits and health care benefits for them.
There has been a lack of confidence in that, and that, I believe, is
one reason retention is down--that and a good economy; people have more
choices. We have reduced our enlistment rates. It is harder and harder
to enlist and most of the services are not meeting their enlistment
rates now, their goals.
It is a matter of real importance. I salute Senator Wayne Allard who
chairs our Personnel Subcommittee on Armed Services for his leadership,
and Senator John Warner, the chairman of the committee, who made this a
top priority. We don't want to wait around with it. We want to pass it
early this session, and we want to be able to send a message to the men
and women who stand ready at any time to defend this Nation, to send
them the message that we care about them, we are hearing their
concerns, and we are going to respond to them.
I recently had a conversation with a senior retired officer. We were
talking about the need to restore the 50-percent retirement. He said
one of the concerns that he had and that he was hearing among our
service men and women is that older NCO's --noncommissioned officers--
are saying to younger NCO's, ``Well, I got a 50-percent retirement;
sorry, you're not going to get that,'' and it makes them feel less
appreciated. It makes them feel like they are not getting a fair shake,
and it makes them more and more willing to give up a service that they
may really love and enjoy and believe in and take a job in the private
sector.
So I think there are a lot of reasons why changing this retirement
benefit from 40 to 50 percent is what we need to do, and I salute
Senator Allard for it.
I am also an absolutely committed supporter of the Federal
Government's Thrift Plan. I think it is one of the best ideas that has
been done for the men and women who work for the U.S. Government, and
extending it to the military is a great idea. It should be done. They
will make their contributions, in effect, to an IRA.
As years go by, they will see that fund--that is, their fund--
increase and increase over the years. They will feel that that is an
additional benefit, an additional basis to stay in the active service
of their country in the military and not get out at an earlier time.
I think it is also terrible, really shameful, that we have allowed
large numbers of our service men and women to have to ask for food
stamps. They qualify for food stamps. That is something we must end. I
believe this bill understood that, and it will end that and give them
the opportunity to receive other compensations than having to go down
to the food stamp office to ask for those benefits. I think we owe them
that.
Finally, Madam President, let me just say this. I talked to a senior
officer just today about the military and about this bill. He was
extraordinarily supportive of it, but he told me this. He
[[Page S1701]]
said it is really more than just the money. Our people who make their
career in the service of this country, who are prepared at any time to
give their life for their country, those people, those men and women,
are committed to public service. And what we need to do most of all is
to affirm them and to raise up the respect we give to them. They are
prepared, at a moment's notice, to go in harm's way for the people of
this country.
So I believe this bill, in a way, does that. It is saying: We are
hearing your concerns. We are going to move promptly. We are going to
make this legislation one of the top priorities of this Congress. We
are going to move it out of here quickly. And we are going to get a
raise to you and retirement changes that will benefit you, that will
end food stamps for you, and give you a Thrift Plan opportunity you
have never had before. We are going to say we care about what you are
doing. We thank you for your service.
I believe that is the kind of signal we need to send. It is not all.
We have to deal with such things as spare parts, a national missile
defense. We have to decide whether we have enough people in the
military now. All these kinds of things we are going to be dealing with
later on in the year. But right now we need to move with this
legislation.
I thank the majority leader, Trent Lott, for being an early sponsor
and supporter of it and for making a commitment to bring it up at an
early time. And again, let me say how much I have been honored to serve
with Senator Wayne Allard. He chairs the subcommittee where this
legislation has begun. He is doing an outstanding job for our Nation in
so many different ways but particularly as chairman of this
subcommittee. I am also pleased to see Senator Levin here. He is the
ranking member of this committee and is committed to our Nation's
strength and defenses. And it is a pleasure to see that this
legislation is moving forward in an expeditious manner.
Thank you, Madam President.
Mr. ALLARD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). The Senator from Colorado is
recognized.
Mr. ALLARD. I would just like to state that that was a great
statement that my colleague from Alabama made. And I just want him to
know what a pleasure and honor it is for me to be able to serve on
Armed Services with him. We came together into this august body, and I
look forward to many years of working with him and trying to shore up
the defense of this country.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have long been a strong advocate for a
well-educated American work-force. Vermont's quality of life is related
closely to the educational opportunities available to her citizens.
Education is a cornerstone of our healthy economy. These same notions
apply with similar effect to our men and women in the military. Modern,
technologically advanced systems and complex missions depend on the
skills and wisdom of well-educated personnel. S. 4 modestly enhances
the educational opportunities for our men and women on active duty. It
should do the same for the members of our Guard and Reserve.
Consequently, I strongly urge my fellow Senators to support the three
education-related amendments which Senator Cleland and I will be
offering to S. 4, the appropriately named ``Soldiers', Sailors',
Airmen's and Marines' Bill of Rights.'' It is appropriate because one's
use of the term ``Bill of Rights'' invariably suggests the concepts of
fairness and equity.
Perhaps Secretary of Defense William Cohen had this in the back of
his mind in September of 1997 when he instructed the Department of
Defense to eliminate ``all residual barriers, structural and cultural''
to effective integration of the Guard, Reserve and Active Components
into a ``seamless Total Force.'' Precisely one year later his Deputy,
John Hamre, looked back to that day and observed:
We have made great progress integrating our active and
Reserve forces into one team, trained and ready for the 21st
century. Our military leaders are getting the message.
Structural and cultural barriers that reduce readiness and
impedes interoperability between active and Reserve personnel
are gradually being eliminated. We must now assess the
progress we have made, acknowledge those barriers to
integration that still exist, and, most importantly, set our
plans into motion.
If these wise words are to have full effect we must work to rectify
an oversight in S. 4, which, as written, enhances educational benefits
for a portion of our seamless Total Force but neglects the remainder.
Consequently, to promote parity among all components of our military I
will be offering the following three amendments:
The first: Allow members of the Guard and Reserve the ability to
accelerate payments of educational assistance in the same manner
currently provided in S. 4 to the Active Duty military.
The second: Allow members of the Guard and Reserve the ability to
transfer their entitlement to educational assistance to their family
members in the same manner currently provided in S. 4 to the Active
Duty military.
The third: Allow members of the Guard and Reserve who have served at
least ten years in the Selected Reserve, an eligibility period of five
years after separation from the military to use their entitlement to
educational benefits. (Active duty military members have a ten year
period.)
Just a few weeks ago, four Reserve Component members lost their lives
when their KC-135 went down in Germany while flying active duty
missions for the Air Force. Death did not discriminate between Active
and Reserve Components. Nor should S. 4.
The opportunity to face this ultimate risk will only increase as we
do place greater demands on our Guard and Reserve units to participate
in our global missions. Since Operation Desert Storm the pace of
operations has swelled by more than 300% for the Guard alone and is
widely expected to climb higher.
We all know the value of the Guard and Reserve for missions close to
home. In Vermont they saved our citizens from the drastic effects of
record setting ice storms last winter. Recently, other units helped
with hurricanes in Florida, North Carolina and South Carolina. They
assist our citizens during droughts and blizzards. They enrich our
communities with Youth Challenge programs and they conduct an ongoing
war on drugs. Just last year we added protection of the U.S. from
weapons of mass destruction to that list, and the list keeps growing.
It is now time to bring their educational benefits in balance.
As many of you know, I believe in the value of life-long learning to
our society. Access to continuing education has become an essential
component to one's advancement through all stages of modern careers. S.
4 modestly improves this access for our brave men and women on active
duty. It should do the same for our Guard and Reserves.
I urge my colleagues to help bring parity, equity and fairness to the
educational opportunities available to all components of our military.
The Guard and Reserve have been called upon increasingly to contribute
to the Total Force. They face similar challenges to recruiting and
retention. They should have similar access to educational
opportunities.
Mr. President, let me now turn to another important amendment Senator
Cleland and I will be introducing. Specifically, we propose allowing
our men and women in the Guard and Reserve the opportunity to
participate in the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) in the same manner S. 4
provides to their colleagues on active duty.
Allowing members of the Guard and Reserve to participate in the
Federal Employees TSP is long overdue and I strongly support the
proposal to make it law. This program is good for federal workers and
it would benefit members of the Guard and Reserve financially for them
to participate in the TSP. Under this system, they would be the sole
contributors to their accounts, much like civil servants who are under
the old Civil Service Retirement System. Since there would be no
federal match to their accounts the cost would be very low to the
branches of the military and to the taxpayers, as well. Additional
savings in individual accounts will be important to those individuals
who serve our nation in regular, but temporary capacities. The payroll
deduction feature of the TSP is an easy way to save. The accounts are
managed prudently by the Thrift Savings Board. Participation in the
system is high and satisfaction with it is also very high.
Those of us on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committees
have
[[Page S1702]]
been spending quite a bit of energy trying to encourage Americans to
save more money. As a New Englander, I speak for my constituents when I
say that we know a lot about THRIFT. This is a good amendment that will
encourage thrift and I hope my colleagues will support it.
Given that our Guard and Reserve are shouldering an increasing share
of our world-wide missions, they should have the same savings
opportunity that S. 4 gives to the active duty. Now is the time to
ensure that our reserve component personnel are not overlooked.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise to join my Senate
colleagues in supporting the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and
Marines' Bill of Rights as it comes to the floor for debate. As a
former Marine, I am especially proud that the Senate Armed Services
Committee has recognized the important contribution of my branch of
service by including Marines in the title of this bill.
This bipartisan legislation addresses the critical need of improving
retention in our military services. We've heard much over the past
months about the impending crisis in maintaining the force strength of
our military. For example, the Air Force has missed its recruitment
targets for the past three months, in all three of its recruitment
categories. This is the first time that the Air Force has ever faced
this problem. It is critical that we intervene now while the problem is
still manageable. This bill concentrates on improving the
attractiveness of a career in the military, not only for new recruits,
but also for second and third term re-enlistments.
First, this bill raises the pay of service personnel to keep salaries
competitive with civilian equivalents. Second, it provides incentives
for active duty personnel to keep longer service commitments by
repairing the damage done in 1986 to the military retirement system.
Third, this bill provides service members with the opportunity to save
for their own retirement by allowing military personnel to contribute
up to 5% of their base pay, before taxes, into the Thrift Savings Plan.
Finally, this bill enhances the Montgomery GI Bill educational
benefits. I'm also aware that some of my colleagues will be offering
other amendments that will further enhance the incentives for long term
service. These collective changes encourage both current and
prospective service members to make the military an attractive
alternative for an extended career.
One of the first commitments in the Constitution is to provide for
the common defense. We're demonstrating our commitment to the
Constitution and our nation's defense today by taking this first step
in improving the long-neglected quality of life for our service
members. As we have already seen, when we don't take care of the people
who are out in harm's way, they end up leaving the service. We have
almost reached the point of needlessly risking the lives of those
members choosing service careers due to the increased commitments
required of them.
So, we shouldn't just stop with this bill and call our work complete.
Pay and Retirement incentives are not the only concerns voiced by
military personnel when they discuss quality of life. They care about
being able to participate in their family's activities. They want to be
able to help raise their children. They want to provide a home for
their families where the roofs don't leak and the water and sewer
systems work. They want to be trained to handle the weapons they must
use to maximize their ability to survive in a firefight. In our push to
pass this piece of legislation, let's not forget that these other
quality of life issues that service men and women weigh when they
consider the military as a life-long career. As a next step, we should
commit to eliminating the military construction backlog that has grown
to a 100-plus-year maintenance cycle at its current funding level.
Those who have seen military action in the Gulf or Panama or other
regions will ask how Veterans are treated. We should commit to
improving veterans' heath care and access to the VA system. No service
member is naive enough to believe that military life will be easy or
without sacrifice. However, we shouldn't intentionally be making the
sacrifice for duty greater than it needs to be. Nor should we let the
administration's promise of improving true quality of life stop at pay
and retirement benefits. We owe it to our service members to continue
addressing all areas of quality of life to make sure that our
commitment of defense for the citizens of the United States is both
real and effective. I'll be using my position on the Appropriations
Committee as well as chairing the Military Construction Subcommittee to
push for additional improvements in these other important quality of
life issues.
But let's not forget why we are here today. As demonstrated globally,
the quality of our uniformed service personnel is second to none. By
providing focused incentives for increasing the attractiveness of a
military career, we ensure that our services will sustain its worldwide
competitive edge. We owe it to the parents, spouses, and children of
our service members to make sure that their physical devotion to
patriotism doesn't come at fiscal expense. This bill is a critical
first step in meeting our commitments to both family and country. I
strongly encourage my colleagues to vote for its passage.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time, and
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________