[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 23, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1746-S1755]
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
resume consideration of S. 4, which the clerk will report.
The bill 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 resumed consideration of the bill.
Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. I first wish to inquire of our colleague if he felt he
had adequate time to conclude his remarks. If not, I think we could
accommodate him. Could someone ask the Senator to return momentarily?
Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield, the Senator from Illinois did
indicate to me he had completed. Thank you for your concern.
Mr. WARNER. Thank you.
Mr. President, we are ready to resume. I see the Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I think the Senator from Idaho has an amendment,
after which I would like to be recognized to talk about an amendment as
well.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished Senator.
Mr. President, fortunately we have a flurry of activity on this bill.
We have an amendment to be offered momentarily by our distinguished
colleague from Idaho. There are some 21 amendments that have been made
known to the managers, Mr. Levin and myself. And I am confident we can
make some strong gains today on this bill.
The leadership--and I presume in consultation with the Democratic
leader--desire a vote at the conclusion of our two luncheon caucuses
today. So after further consultation with the leadership, I think they
will direct me to seek from the Senate an understanding that we will
vote at about 2:15 on the amendment of the Senator from Idaho.
Mr. President, before we proceed further on the bill this morning, I
would like to--each day as the bill is brought up, I am going to
address what I call the overnight constructive criticism that is
brought to bear on this piece of legislation. And I ask unanimous
consent to have printed in today's Record an editorial from the
Washington Post, dated Tuesday, February 23, 1999, entitled ``Bad Bill
in the Senate.''
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Feb. 23, 1999]
Bad Bill in the Senate
The Senate this week is scheduled to debate a showy
military pay and pension bill whose enactment many members
realize would be a mistake but which no one in either party
seems prepared to oppose. The Republican leadership ordered
it split off from the rest of the defense authorization bill
to make it the first substantive bill of the year.
The goal is to demonstrate that Republicans do indeed have
a legislative agenda, and to take back from the president a
defense spending issue that Republicans regard as their own.
He too proposed pay and pension increases in his budget. His
were already more generous, particularly as to pensions, than
military personnel needs can justify. No matter; the bill,
which most Democrats as well as all Republicans on the Armed
Services Committee supported, is more generous still.
The services are having trouble with both recruitment and
retention in a strong economy. The pay raises in the bill may
well be justified in light of this, and help the services
compete. The pension proposals are the problem. They would
undo a hard-won reform that Ronald Reagan joined in enacting
in 1986, one purpose of which was to save money, another to
improve retention. The system this bill would restore was
dropped because it was thought to encourage experienced
people to leave the serve, not stay.
The estimated cost when fully effective is in the
neighborhood of $5 billion a year. The effect, if it happens,
will be to squeeze other parts of the military budget that
themselves are already tighter than they should be. The
current uniformed chiefs, who support the step in part as a
way of boosting morale, may not regret it, but their
successors will.
Last year the leaders of the Armed Services Committee
cautioned against a costly pension increase until the issue
could be studied. Several major studies are soon to be
completed, yet, for the flimsiest political reasons, the bill
is being rushed to a vote without them. A hurry-up vote on an
enormously costly bill with little to back it up can't
possible be good politics. It surely isn't good policy. It's
especially not good defense policy. A vote in favor will make
the opposite of the showing the leadership intends.
Mr. WARNER. I will not take up too much time of the Senate here
today, but I welcome constructive criticism, such as forwarded by this
piece and others. And I am ready to meet it head on and reply and
explain exactly what it is that this Senator intends to achieve through
this bill.
We are faced every day that we get up with fewer and fewer young men
and women willing to sign on the dotted line and take up an initial
career in the U.S. military, and it is very serious for all the
services. Every day we wake up, fewer and fewer men and women who have
been in the services, who have received--in many instances, pilots the
most notable--an extraordinary taxpayer investment in their training,
are not seeking the opportunity to remain in the services. We have to
address these two ``hemorrhaging'' problems. That is the purpose for
driving this bill through.
I am confident when we emerge in conclusion of this bill, and we come
to the final passage, we will probably have a better shaped instrument
than is before the Senate at this time, but that shaping has to take
place on this floor with constructive criticism such as the editorial
sets forth.
This bill was driven by the testimony of the Chairman and the members
of the Joint Chiefs in September and again in January.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record statements of
the Chairman and Members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Retirement
gen. henry h. shelton, usa, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff
September 29, 1998
First, we need to fix the so-called REDUX retirement system
and return the bulk of our forces to a program that covers
our most senior members--that is, a retirement system that
provides 50 percent of average base pay upon completion of 20
years of service.
If we fail to address these critical personnel issues, we
will put at risk one of our greatest achievements for the
last quarter century, the all volunteer force.
It is the quality of the men and women who serve that sets
the U.S. military apart from all potential adversaries. These
talented people are the ones who won the Cold War and insured
our victory in Desert Storm. These dedicated professionals
make it possible for the United States to accomplish the many
missions we are called on to perform around the world every
single day.
I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the troops and their
families appreciate this very much. But as I have noted that
alone will not be enough. As we develop the Fiscal Year 2000
budget proposal, we will take a hard look on what must be
done on core compensation issues such as pay and retirement
to maintain the quality of the people in the military. No
task is more important in my view.
January 5, 1999
The ideal here would be the full retirement system. However
the triad that we referred to we consider to be very
important, and the reason in our recommendation initially was
to go with the 50 percent retirement with the COLA, the CPI
minus 1 percent retirement with a 2 percent floor, was
because the full retirement was a very expensive system to
restore and we wanted to make sure that we, in fact, could
have money to apply to pay reform because we think that is
very important too, that we reward performance vice just
longevity and put it in those mid-grades
[[Page S1747]]
in the enlisted force as well as the officer force where we
have got retention challenges today in addition the standard
across the board raise of 3.6 in '99 and 4.4 percent in '00.
Chairman, this Congress has already taken an important step
in this process by supporting the 3.6 percent pay adjustment
for the military in 1999, preventing the pay gap from growing
any wider still. And as the President has pledged support for
a 4.4 percent pay raise in the Fiscal Year 2000 budget and
for adjustments in subsequent years at the ECI rate, this
will at least prevent a widening of the gap.
Senator Kempthorne, there was no specific agreement on that
particular issue because, as we pointed out during the
session with the President, there is a number of ways that
this issue can be addressed. We are currently looking at
various options and what the cost of this would be, not just
for a single year, for '00, for example, but across the FYDP.
So we had not reached that level of specificity when we met
with the President. That is currently being worked within the
Department of Defense.
Senator Kempthorne. Do you feel you will see efforts in
that direction with the Fiscal Year 2000 budget?
General Shelton. The President's instructions to us were to
come back to him and work with OMB. That certainly, as you
have heard this morning, is high on our agenda, to make sure
that we apply some of the resources to those two issues, pay
and retirement.
statement by dennis j. reimer, chief of staff, u.s. army
January 5, 1999
I would also say, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, that the soldiers are very excited about the pay
and compensation package. I would urge your immediate and
prompt support of the total package.
Soldiers are concerned about what they read about the pay
gap. Whether it is 8.5 or 13.5 percent, they know that there
is a pay gap out there. They are concerned about a retirement
system that is coming into being where we promised them 40
percent of take-home pay, but they are finding out that 40
percent of their take-home pay does not equal 40 percent of
their base pay.
There is no set solution, and I do not think pay and
retirement benefits alone is going to solve our problem, but
it is vital that we send that message out there to those
soldiers that we really care about them. But it is more about
making them feel good about the contributions they have made.
It is more about making them feel like they are doing the
things they joined the army to do.
Statement of Admiral Jay L. Johnson, U.S. Navy, Chief of Naval
Operations
September 29, 1998
I would offer the following waterfront perspective having
just returned from the Pacific Northwest. First of all, the
resilience and esprit of our men and women is probably no
surprise to you, but it is most gratifying to me. But they,
indeed, have very serious concerns. They are working harder
with no end in sight. They are underpaid relative to what is
available to them on the outside. They believe the REDUX
retirement system, as you have heard, is broken, and they
are, frankly, tired of being asked to do more with less.
These things are on their minds as they make career
decisions.
In summary, my number one short-term concern is taking care
of our people, pay, retirement, OPTEMPO, stability at home,
and my number one long-term concern is building enough ships
and enough aircraft to recapitalize the force we know we
need.
January 5, 1999
I fully support Sec Cohen's initiative calling for a 4.4%
across the board pay raise, pay table reform, and restoration
of the 50% retirement package. This triad of initiatives is
absolutely essential in FY00 if we are to reverse the
negative trends in recruiting and retention.
I must reiterate a final point: I ask that you support Sec
Cohen's triad of pay and retirement initiatives as the most
critical of our needs with this FY00 budget.
General Reimer
January 5, 1999
There is no set solution, and I do not think pay and
retirement benefits alone is going to solve our problem, but
it is vital that we send that message out there to those
soldiers that we really care about them. But it is more about
making them feel good about the contributions they have made.
It is more about making them feel like they are doing the
things they joined the army to do.
Statement of Gen. Charles C. Krulak, Commandant of the Marine Corps,
U.S. Marine Corps
January 5, 1999
Our unit commanders routinely cite dissatisfaction with the
40 percent retirement pension at 20 years of service (called
REDUX) as one of the foremost reasons for separations prior
to retirement eligibility. Originally intended to keep our
military personnel in for longer periods of time, it has had
the exact opposite effect. Marines who entered the service
after 1986 are, 12 yrs later, just beginning to understand
the importance of their future retirement. They note the
disparity between their pension benefit and the 50 percent,
``traditional'' pension at 20 yrs afforded to their
predecessors, and they wonder why their service is considered
less significant. They are asking themselves whether 40
percent of basic pay at the earliest retirement date is
adequate compensation for the level of sacrifice our Nation
demands from them and their families. Their answer is not to
stay in longer, as was the goal of REDUX, their answer is to
get out. Their answer is not to make the services a career.
The commanders' assessments indicate that Redux considerably
reduced enticements for having a military career and will
increasingly become a deciding factor regarding continued
service. The negative impact on retention, in turn, will
degrade the stability and quality of our officer and non-
commissioned officer force. Readiness will eventually suffer
as more experienced personnel leave for the civilian job
market and are replaced by less experienced, and in some
cases less qualified, Marines.
By restoring the traditional retirement plan, preserving
benefit services, pursuing the reduction of the civilian-
military pay gap, and enhancing their quality of life through
appropriate equipment and infrastructure repair and
replacement, we can demonstrate a clear and genuine
appreciation for the selfless service provided by our Marines
and their families. Your support for this goal was evident in
the 3.6% pay increase for 1999. As we continue in our quest
to further close the civilian-military pay gap and reduce
this critical readiness challenge, we need your continued
support for the planned 4.4% pay raise in 2000 and the
proposed replacement of the Redux retirement plan.
Statement of Gen. Michael E. Ryan, Chief of Staff, USAF
January 5, 1999
For the Air Force to continue attracting and retaining
quality people, we must be competitive with contemporary
labor markets. Restoring the retirement system as a retention
incentive is our top priority.
Admiral Johnson
January 5, 1999
Pay and retirement benefits rank among our Sailors' top
dissatisfiers. We must be able to offer our Sailors a quality
of life that is competitive with their civilian counterparts.
The Congressionally approved pay increase of 3.6%, which took
effect Jan 1, 1999, was greatly appreciated. However, the pay
gap that exists and the reduced retirement package for those
who joined the Navy after August 1986 continue to hamper our
recruiting and retention efforts.
I fully support Sec. Cohen's initiative calling for a 4.4%
across the board pay raise, pay table reform, and restoration
of the 50% retirement package. This triad of initiatives is
absolutely essential in FY00 if we are to reverse the
negative trends in recruiting and retention.
I must reiterate a final point: I ask that you support Sec.
Cohen's triad of pay and retirement initiatives as the most
critical of our needs with this FY00 budget.
In summary, my number one short-term concern is taking care
of our people, pay, retirement, OPTEMPO, stability at home,
and my number one long-term concern is building enough ships
and enough aircraft to recapitalize the force we know we
need.
General Krulak
January 5, 1999
By restoring the traditional retirement plan, preserving
benefit services, pursuing the reduction of the civilian-
military pay gap, and enhancing their quality of life through
appropriate equipment and infrastructure repair and
replacement, we can demonstrate a clear and genuine
appreciation for the selfless service provided by our Marines
and their families. Your support for this goal was evident in
the 3.6% pay increase for 1999. As we continue in our quest
to further close the civilian-military pay gap and reduce
this critical readiness challenge, we need your continued
support for the planned 4.4% pay raise in 2000 and the
proposed replacement of the Redux retirement plan.
Pay
Gen. Henry H. Shelton
September 29, 1998
In our recent efforts to balance these important and
competing requirements, we have allowed the pay of our
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines to fall well behind
that of the civilian counterparts.
One can argue about how large the pay gap is depending on
the base year selected, but the estimates range from 8.5
percent to 13.5 percent, and very few deny that the gap is
real.
If we fail to address these critical personnel issues, we
will put at risk one of our greatest achievements for the
last quarter century, the all volunteer force.
It is the quality of the men and women who serve that sets
the U.S. military apart from all potential adversaries. These
talented people are the ones who won the Cold War and insured
our victory in Desert Storm. These dedicated professionals
make it possible for the United States to accomplish the many
missions we are called on to perform around the world every
single day.
We must begin to close the substantial gap between what we
pay our men and women in uniform and what their civilian
counterparts with similar skills, training and education are
earning.
I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the troops and their
families appreciate this very much. But as I have noted, that
alone will not be enough. As we develop the Fiscal Year 2000
budget proposal, we will take a
[[Page S1748]]
hard look on what must be done on core compensation issues
such as pay and retirement to maintain the quality of the
people in the military. No task is more important in my view.
And, as I said earlier, there are various estimates about
the magnitude of the pay gap and there are several time lines
that could be considered for closing that gap. But we must
act soon to send a clear signal to the backbone of our
officers, that their leadership and this Congress recognize
the value of their service and their sacrifices, and that we
have not lost sight of our commitment to the success of the
all volunteer force.
III. Personnel
Gen. Henry H. Shelton
September 29, 1998
We already see troubling signs that we are not on the path
to success in that effort. Our retention rates are falling,
particularly in some of our most critical skills, like
aviation and electronics, the very skills that are in demand
in our vibrant economy. And we are having to work harder to
attract the motivated, well-educated young people we need to
operate our increasingly complex systems.
So, Mr. Chairman, my recommendation is to apply additional
funding to two very real, very pressing concerns. First, we
need to fix the so-called REDUX retirement system and return
the bulk of our force to the program that covers our more
senior members--that is, a retirement program that provides
50 percent of average base pay upon completion of twenty
years of service. Second, we must begin to close the
substantial gap between what we pay our men and women in
uniform and what their civilian counterparts with similar
skills, training, and education are earning.
The President has pledged support for a 4.4 percent pay
raise in the Fiscal Year 2000 budget and for adjustments in
subsequent years at the ECI rate to at least prevent further
widening of the pay gap.
Gen. Dennis J. Reimer
September 29, 1998
Personnel shortfalls were having an adverse impact on
current readiness, and these concerns were clearly reflected
in their Unit Status Reports (USRs).
The net effect of the drawdown and change process has been
too few soldiers to fill too many requirements. That left us
with too many undermanned and unmanned squads and crews, and
shortages in officer and noncommissioned officer positions.
Today, funding concerns have replaced manning as the number
one issue for commanders.
Quality of life
One can argue about how large the pay gap is depending on
the base-year selected, but the estimates range from 8.5
percent to 13.5 percent. Few deny that the gap is real.
Another key factor seriously affecting our force today is
the different retirement system for the most junior two-
thirds of the force. In 1986, Congress changed the Armed
Forces retirement system to one that is increasingly
perceived by our military members as simply not good enough
to justify making a career of military service.
Gen. Dennis J. Reimer
September 29, 1998
As operations continue apace, the cost of maintaining
excess capacity and inefficient business practices can only
be supported at the expense of readiness and quality of life.
Over the past few years, commanders have resourced BASOPS
and RPM at the absolute minimum in order to protect training.
Adm. Jay L. Johnson
September 29, 1998
The quality of life of our Sailors is the issue that
concerns me above all others. Our ability to attract and
retain an all-volunteer force is increasingly being tasted in
the face of the strong national economy.
If we do not reduce the workload and provide Sailors with
pay and benefits competitive with their civilian
counterparts, they will leave the Service.
The very nature of our operation--forward deployed with a
high OPTEMPO--is also taking a toll on our people. The
frustrations our Sailors are experiencing is related to the
increasing amount of time they are spending at sea while
deployed and at work while non-deployed.
Gen. Michael E. Ryan
September 29, 1998
We are especially interested in restoring the retirement
system as a retention incentive. At the same time, we need to
keep pace with inflation and close the gap between the
military and private sector wages. Pay and retirement are not
the only reasons of concern.
Gen. Charles C. Krulak
September 29, 1998
Our austere military construction program also remains
seriously underfunded, allowing us to focus only on meeting
our most immediate readiness needs, complying with safety and
environmental standards, and maintaining our commitment to
bachelor quarters construction.
At current funding levels, our plant replacement cycle
exceeds 190 years, compared with an industry standard of 50
years! Our goal is to replace our physical plant every 100
years be investing one percent of the plant value in new
construction. Attainment of this goal would require an
additional $75 million one year by investing one percent of
the plant value in new construction. Attainment of this goal
would require an additional $75 each year across the FYDP. If
we attempted to achieve the industry standard, it would
require an additional $275 million per year. We have a family
housing deficit of 10,000 units which is not corrected under
the current FYDP, and there are 12,000 houses which require
revitalization. The Department of Defense goal is to
eliminate all substandard housing by FY10. At current funding
levels, we will not attain that goal until FY15. Essential
rehabilitation as required by Department of Defense guidance
would necessitate an additional $940 million.
Mr. WARNER. This committee has done a conscientious effort to react
to the specific directions given to us by the senior military officers
of the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Marine Corps.
I thank the indulgence of the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Idaho.
Amendment No. 9
(Purpose: To repeal the reduction in military retired pay for civilian
employees of the Federal Government)
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and I ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] proposes an amendment
numbered 9.
Mr. CRAPO. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 39, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
SEC. 204. REPEAL OF REDUCTION IN RETIRED PAY FOR CIVILIAN
EMPLOYEES.
(a) Repeal.--(1) Section 5532 of title 5, United States
Code, is repealed.
(2) The chapter analysis at the beginning of chapter 55 of
such title is amended by striking out the item relating to
section 5532.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the first day of the first month that
begins after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, this amendment is cosponsored by Senator
Lott. It is an amendment that will repeal the current statute that
reduces retirement payment for regular officers of the uniformed
service who choose to work for the Federal Government. The uniformed
services include the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, the Public
Health Service, and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency.
If a retired officer from the uniformed services comes to work for
the Senate, his or her retirement pay is reduced by about 50 percent,
after the first $8,000, to offset for payments from the Senate.
The retired officer can request a waiver but the executive,
legislative and judicial branches of government handle the waiver
process differently on a case by case basis.
The dual compensation limitation is also discriminatory in that
regular officers are covered by reservists and enlisted personnel are
not covered by the limitation.
My amendment should be scored at zero because no additional
discretionary funds are required to implement the change and the
uniformed services retirement system is fully funded to pay retirees
their full retirement benefit that they have earned.
In fact, because of this law, many of them are discouraged from
seeking employment from the federal government. I have been unable to
find one good reason to explain why we should want our law to
discourage retired members of the uniformed services from seeking full
time employment with the federal government. It deprives them of an
important opportunity for employment and it deprives our government
from their able expertise and service.
This amendment would fix this inequity, and give retired officers
equal pay for equal work from the federal government and it would give
the federal government access to a workforce that currently avoids
employment with the federal government.
I hope this amendment will be accepted by all involved. I yield back
my time.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I could just say a word about the
amendment pending from the distinguished Senator from Idaho. I am
prepared to support that amendment. It is long overdue, and I think it
just removes
[[Page S1749]]
another one of the inequities that, regrettably, from time to time
throughout history come up through our system. Those men and women who
serve in the active forces for great periods of time should not be
penalized when a Reserve officer or a Guard officer or others, don't
have a comparable situation. So I commend the Senator.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wanted to briefly explain my reasons for
opposing this amendment to S. 4, the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's and
Marines' Bill of Rights. This amendment may look alright on the
surface, but it falls apart when it is closely examined. Apparently, no
one has estimated how much this amendment would cost if it became law,
and no one knows how we would fund the changes that this amendment
would require in the pension system. I cannot in good conscience
support a measure when we have not considered that basic information.
I fully support the goals of this bill and this amendment. I think
that our men and women in uniform deserve good pay and benefits, but we
must be responsible when we take these sorts of actions. Our uniformed
personnel would be the first to tell us that. There have been no
hearings on this amendment or this bill, and there is no evidence that
this change in pension policy for military retirees will improve
retention.
I want to focus on the issue of how we would pay for this amendment.
It seems to me that a vote for this amendment is a vote to cut military
procurement, research and development, military construction, or some
other item in the defense budget. If it is not a vote to cut the
defense budget, a vote for this amendment would have us dip into the
surplus to cover the full pensions of military retirees. I would prefer
to see the surplus go towards ensuring the long-term solvency of Social
Security. Perhaps, though, the drafters of this amendment do not intend
to find offsets in the defense budget or use the surplus. In that case,
the only thing left to do to fund this amendment is to go into domestic
spending. I would most certainly be opposed to that course of action.
In short, none of the three possible options for funding this amendment
appeals to me, and that is why I opposed it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Texas.
MILITARY HEALTH CARE
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am going to offer an amendment later
today which I hope can become a part of the bill and will be acceptable
to the managers. I have been trying to work with everyone who is
concerned about the military health care issue, and I look forward to
having it be a part of this bill.
Today, I, along with one of my cosponsors, Senator Edwards from North
Carolina, will talk about what is in this very important amendment.
Both Senator Hagel and Senator Helms are also cosponsors of this
amendment.
I have just finished touring every single base in Texas--Army, Navy,
Air Force--and I have talked to young enlisted people, young
noncommissioned officers, recruits. I went to Lackland and I talked to
people who are in their first month in the Air Force. I talked to these
young people, as well as people all the way up and down the line, about
their concerns. Of course, we know that we are having the biggest
retention problem that we have had in the military for a long time. In
fact, for every pilot we keep in the Air Force, we lose two. We are
also looking at tough recruiting.
We are looking for ways to say to our military personnel, we want you
to come and be a part of our armed services because we are proud of the
job that our armed services do; and we are saying to the experienced
people in our military, we want you to stay because we need our
experienced pilots and sailors and those who are on the ground. We need
every one of you to stay in.
I talked about why they aren't staying in. First and foremost is pay.
We are addressing that in the military bill of rights. Second to pay is
health care. Health care is part of the package that we promised to our
military personnel. It is part of the package that we say we are going
to give to the military, to their families and to retirees. We say we
will provide for your health care now and we will provide for it when
you retire. That is part of the incentive for signing up for the
military.
I became very concerned and started looking at the different military
health care options. It differs around the country. TRICARE, which has
been adopted by much of the military, is the system that really needs
fixing. TRICARE says to community doctors, we will reimburse you to
serve our military personnel. In fact, we have cut back on military
health care facilities in the Base Closing Commission. There are fewer
health care facilities, so we reached out into the community.
The problem is the bureaucracy. Getting a claim is causing the
doctors to say, ``I don't need this, I can't deal with it. It is much
worse than Medicare or any other government program with which we have
worked.'' Doctors are saying, ``I'm not going to serve our military
personnel.''
If you are in the town of Abilene and you can't get a pediatrician
for the children of the military personnel, this is a problem.
I, along with Senators Edwards, Hagel and Helms, have introduced a
bill called the Military Health Care Improvement Act of 1999. This is
the amendment that we are offering today. Basically, what the amendment
does is require that benefits be portable across the regions
established in the current system so that once you have a TRICARE
coverage and you move--which we know our military personnel do every 2
or 3 years--you will be able to keep that coverage as you cross
regions. That will make it much easier for our personnel to know
exactly the kind of care they are getting. We would ensure that
military coverage is comparable to the average coverage available to
civilian Government employees, many of whom work side by side with our
military personnel. We think it should be comparable.
Third, we minimize the bureaucratic red tape and streamline the
claims processing. This is one of the big problems. It will not cost
money to fix--and probably will save money. If we could streamline the
claims processing, it will be easier for the Department of Defense, and
certainly easier for the person who is getting this health care. It
would increase reimbursement levels to attract and retain qualified
health care providers. Now, this is an option with the Department of
Defense, where they need to be able to increase the coverage. It would
allow the Department of Defense to say, all right, as an incentive to
get this coverage for our personnel in this area, we will increase the
reimbursement levels.
Fifth, it would increase the revenues to military treatment
facilities by permitting reimbursement at Medicare rates from third
party payers. Now, this is something that will be very important to our
military hospitals, where they can get reimbursed at the Medicare
level, or they can be reimbursed by Medicare through subvention. We
want them to be able to do that. That will, in fact, help our
Department of Defense get the same level of reimbursement into the
military hospitals that anyone going to a civilian hospital would be
entitled to.
So we are very hopeful that this amendment will just be accepted by
the sponsors of the bill, because you can't have a military bill of
rights that says we are going to deal with the biggest issues of
recruiting and retention that we have in the military without
addressing health care.
I want to commend the chairman and the distinguished ranking member
of the Armed Services Committee for getting this bill up and out as the
very first piece of major legislation we are going to pass in this
session. They are increasing the pay, and that is the key issue for
most people in our military. And they are bringing the pension up to
the 50-percent level. I applaud them for that.
I want to add a third element of the problems that our military are
facing, and that is quality health care. We have more military families
than we have ever had in the military before. Back in the old days,
many of our people in the military, the personnel, were single. That is
not the case today. Now most of them are married and most of them have
families. So we must deal with that reality and make the military
family-friendly if we are going to keep the good people of our country
who want to be married and have families, which is the normal thing
that we
[[Page S1750]]
would like for people to have the option to do.
So that is the crux of our amendment. I think it is a good amendment.
I believe the Department of Defense will have a lot of latitude to work
with this issue. But it must be addressed. We cannot have shoddy health
care coverage that differs in different regions of the country,
depending on what the military health care facilities are. If you don't
have a military hospital in a city that has a military base, you have
to provide for that health care. We want it to be good quality health
care.
I will never forget when I was over in Saudi Arabia visiting an Air
Force base with our personnel. We were talking to these fliers and
asked, ``What is your biggest problem?'' One flier said, ``Senator, my
biggest problem is that I called home yesterday and my wife was in
tears because we have a sick baby and not a doctor in the city will
serve our baby. That is the biggest problem I have.'' And I said,
``Wait a minute, that is a problem we can fix.''
That is what the amendment that I and Senator Edwards and Senator
Hagel and Senator Helms are offering today. We don't want one pilot in
our military in Saudi Arabia or in Turkey or in Bosnia or in Italy or
anywhere else to tell us that their biggest problem is that they called
home last night and their wife is in tears with a sick baby who cannot
get a pediatrician to see that baby.
So that is what our amendment will do. I appreciate the distinguished
chairman of the committee allowing me to talk about this amendment. I
really hope that he is going to accept this amendment because this
could be the third part of the improvement that he is seeking, by
increasing the pay, by increasing the pensions, and health care. I hope
that we can do this so that we can say truthfully to everyone that
comes into a recruiting office that we are going to give you the health
care, the pay, and the pension that will make this a great job, because
we want you to serve our country and protect our freedom.
Thank you.
Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to commend our colleague from
Texas. I express once again the regret of the Armed Services Committee
that we could not keep her on that committee. We knew the demands of
Texas were perhaps matched by the Appropriations Committee, where she
also has the opportunity to work with the Defense Subcommittee on
Appropriations so that she is still very much involved in defense
issues.
This, I hope, is an amendment that we can accept. We will be working
with the Senator from Texas throughout perhaps today and tomorrow. But
she is absolutely right. My constituents, as I travel among the bases,
bring this to my attention wherever I go. I commend the Senator for her
leadership.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the chairman. If the Senator will make me an
honorary member of the Armed Services Committee, I will be there in a
flash.
Mr. WARNER. The Senator can come back tomorrow. We want to hear from
our colleague who is going to address this bill.
Are we agreeable on the vote at 2:15?
Mr. LEVIN. I haven't seen that yet. If you will withhold on that.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Larry Slade,
a fellow in Senator McCain's office, be allowed access to the Chamber
during the discussion of S. 4.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. First, relative to the amendment of the Senators from
Texas and North Carolina, we understand that both of them have joined
together in that amendment. We are very supportive of that effort. We
think it is an important effort. Health care for themselves and mainly
for their families is the number one concern of our uniformed military.
This amendment would be very, very helpful.
I want to commend both Senator Hutchison and Senator Edwards for this
amendment. I look forward to accepting this amendment. More important,
I think the uniformed military and their families look forward to this
improvement. I commend both of them. After Senator Edwards is
recognized next, when we then go back to the amendment of the Senator
from Idaho, I will have a question to ask of him.
I yield the floor at this time.
Mr. EDWARDS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from North
Carolina, Mr. Edwards.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, Senator Warner and
Senator Levin for their comments. I rise today in support of Senator
Hutchison's amendment. I think it is critically important that we set
minimal standards for TRICARE, which provides health insurance care for
all of our military personnel, their dependents, and retirees.
There are currently 6.6 million people who are enrolled in TRICARE
and 350,000 who are located in North Carolina. So I want to talk
briefly about why this amendment is critical not only to the country,
but also to the people of North Carolina.
Comdr. Ronald Smith, who is in the Greensboro-High Point area of
North Carolina, has warned me about the experiences of his soldiers
with TRICARE. In all of Guilford County, which is actually one of the
largest counties in the State of North Carolina in terms of population,
not a single primary care manager is willing to see his soldiers or
their dependents. The nearest TRICARE hospital available is Womack Army
Hospital, which is almost a 2-hour drive away.
Just last week, one of his active duty female soldiers drove to
another county to see one of the only two primary care providers
available in that area, only to find that they would not let her leave
without paying a copayment, even as an active duty member of the
military.
Commander Smith tells me that local pharmacists are unwilling to fill
military personnel prescriptions without up-front payment because they
have had trouble getting reimbursed by TRICARE. Consequently, one
second-class petty officer who recently came down with a bad case of
the flu 4 days before payday was forced to take a no-interest loan in
order to pay the prescriptions to treat her condition. Another active
duty soldier held off on getting her blood pressure medication
prescription refilled--she went without the medication for a week--
because she couldn't afford the out-of-pocket expense for the
medication.
All of this happens because local private physicians and pharmacist
are unwilling to contract with TRICARE due to the lengthy waiting
period for reimbursement and because reimbursement rates often fall
below those allowed even by Medicare.
Recently in Onslow County, NC, the Onslow Hospital Authority voted
unanimously to terminate the contract with TRICARE when it expires on
May 1 and to renegotiate a new one. Onslow Memorial Hospital is
currently owed more than $2 million in back claims from TRICARE.
Sgt. John Williams of Fayetteville, NC, recently wrote to me with his
experience. His family is enrolled in TRICARE Prime. His daughter
received a dermatologist consult in November from Womack Army Hospital.
However, her appointments with the physician were canceled by the
doctor's office three times, the last time with the explanation that
the doctor had quit. In order to get an appointment with the new
dermatologist, the girl had to go back through Womack. Sergeant
Williams was told that if he chose to take her to a specialist at Duke
of his own choice, TRICARE wouldn't pay and that a $300 charge would
have to come out of his own packet.
Sabrina Williams had been waiting 81 days, at the time of Sergeant
Williams' letter in January, to be seen by a dermatologist. In the
meantime, the rash she was complaining of initially has spread over her
entire body. She now has a second appointment with the dermatologist on
March 1. Her first referral was on November 6 of last year.
As Senator Hutchison recognizes and as I recognize, we have to do
better. Of course, I share everyone's concern about the cost of
implementing this program. Indeed, I am concerned about
[[Page S1751]]
the cost of the whole bill. But after this TRICARE amendment, we have
drafted a provision for assessing the cost of implementation within 6
months of enactment, and I am confident it will not cost much. We are
aiming for increased efficiency with this, not increased costs.
I believe that the TRICARE system can be made to work if we work to
make it better. This amendment takes the initial steps to addressing
some of the main problems that are widely recognized by all of those
participating in TRICARE.
Our service men and women deserve reliable, quality health care. We
must show them that we value their commitment to our country by
following through on our commitment to provide this fundamental
benefit.
I urge my colleagues to support this measure. The TRICARE system has
serious problems that need to be fixed. So I am proud to cosponsor
Senator Hutchison's amendment.
Thank you. I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we thank the Senators. Subject to
concurrence by the distinguished ranking member and others, I hope we
can arrive at a vote on this amendment this afternoon, with an
opportunity preceding that vote with the sponsors to once again address
it. I understand another Senator has indicated his desire to speak to
this amendment.
So I hope we can put this up as a package and have it addressed by
the Senate in the form of a vote this afternoon.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I would
like to first say how much I appreciate Senator Edwards working with me
on this amendment. This is a very important issue in North Carolina. He
certainly understands it. I appreciate his statements.
I ask the chairman if we can have about 15 or 20 minutes in closing
before we go to a vote once this is acceptable. Then we could hear from
Senator Hagel as well as Senator Edwards.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that could be done. I would like to
conclude the discussion on this amendment because we wish to go into
recess at 12 o'clock and there are several other Senators desiring to
be recognized. I thank the Senator from Texas.
At this time, Mr. President, I think it is in order--we have revised
it. While we are waiting for that, it is my understanding Senator Levin
has some questions for the Senator from Idaho.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if my good friend from Virginia will yield
on this unanimous consent proposal which he is about to propound, I
understand it is going to be revised.
Mr. WARNER. That is correct.
Mr. LEVIN. It has to be further amended, because we want to make sure
that in the event there is a point of order--we don't know whether
there will be one or not--but in the event there is a point of order,
that a motion to waive that point of order would be debatable. I don't
know that there will. But the Budget Committee folks are now apparently
in a hearing. We can't get an answer from them as to whether or not
there is an interest in making a point of order, assuming one lies. And
I am not sure we even know yet whether or not a point of order lies.
But we want to protect the rights of those Members.
So in order to do that, we have to protect the rights of anyone to
make a point of order and to debate a motion to waive that point of
order. That is being written.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I assure my colleague that this is now
being redrawn.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it needs to be redrawn further in order to
protect the point of order and motion to debate.
Mr. WARNER. We will put that aside.
Mr. LEVIN. We can just add it. Perhaps, while we are waiting for
that, I can ask our friend from Idaho a question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair.
Amendment No. 9
Mr. LEVIN. I generally support the thrust of the Senator's amendment.
But I also want to make sure that it accomplishes its goal in the
Congress too.
One of the issues which has been raised is whether or not the
amendment addresses the administrative cap that exists on salaries here
in the Senate, and I understand there is a similar administrative cap
that exists in the House as well. That is one of the issues as to
whether or not changing the law here will, in effect, accomplish the
purpose or then just create another inconsistency between Congress and
the executive branch.
So that is one issue which perhaps the Senator can address. The other
issue is just the concern that I have as a member of the Governmental
Affairs Committee which is that we should give that committee an
opportunity to take a look at this amendment, because there is a civil
service aspect to this which they may have some feelings about and we
were trying to see whether or not there is any desire on the part of
either the chairman, ranking member of Governmental Affairs, or anyone
else on that committee to speak on this amendment. We have been unable
to ascertain that.
But taking the first question first, I am wondering whether or not
the Senator would comment on the question whether or not his amendment
would address the current administrative cap that exists on staff
salaries here in the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. I thank the Chair and the Senator from Michigan. I
appreciate the Senator's commitment.
This amendment simply eliminates the dual compensation prohibition in
the statute. It does not specifically address the administrative cap
that Congress has on top of that limitation placed on those who seek
employment with Congress.
It should be clarified that although it does not remove the cap that
the Senate and House have administratively placed on their own
circumstances, it does solve the problem for our military retirees in
all other branches of Government. And with regard to the Congress, it
solves the problem up to the cap that Congress has put into place,
which is a significant benefit to those who now are not able to get any
support from the circumstance after the first $8,000 of compensation.
I agree with what I assume to be the ranking member's concerns and
would be very willing to work with them to try to address that
situation with regard to the administrative cap imposed by the Senate
and by the House. But we must solve these problems one step at a time,
and the first step must be to eliminate the dual compensation
prohibition in the statute.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if my friend from Virginia will
address this issue as well. We have an administrative cap on staff
salaries here in the Senate, and this amendment does not address that
administrative cap. So we would be correcting one problem.
I happen to support the thrust of that, which is that we would not be
putting our active duty retirees at a disadvantage compared to our
Reserve retirees. But we are also creating, in a sense, another
inequality because the executive branch now would have no restriction
administratively, whereas we apparently will retain this administrative
cap.
So I am concerned about that inequity that would be created between
ourselves and the executive branch with the passage of this, and I
simply want to point it out. I think the direction here is the right
one. But I do think we are facing another inequity. We are creating, in
effect, another equity by eliminating the executive branch statutory
cap and eliminating our statutory cap, leaving in place the
administrative cap that is already in there.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my friend and colleague raises a very
valid point, and I suggest that we address that in the course of this
bill but allow this amendment to go forward, because numerically we are
talking about a relatively small number of officers who, fortunately--
and I underline ``fortunately''--have offered their service to the
Congress in comparison to many others throughout other agencies and
departments in the Government.
So I would not want the amendment by our distinguished colleague to
be delayed from a vote subject to our reconsideration of this very
important issue.
[[Page S1752]]
As you might imagine, I think it is incumbent upon primarily the two
of us to consult with one of our more distinguished colleagues around
here whose knowledge of the Senate and salaries gave rise to this
amendment. I would certainly want his input before we tried to make any
adjustment.
Why don't we leave it that we can go ahead with this amendment, and
at a time convenient in the course of the deliberations on this bill we
will address the other problem.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Virginia for that
response. I wonder if the Senator from Idaho has discussed with the
persons who were involved actively in placing that administrative cap
in the--relative to the issue of removing that cap, have there been any
discussions and, if so, could he share those perhaps with the Senate.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, no, I have not discussed removing the
administrative cap with those who placed it, but I would be very
willing, as I said before, to do so and to work toward that end because
I agree that that is one more inequity that should be removed. I think
it is an inequity that already exists and, as the chairman indicated,
only applies--if this amendment passes, it only applies at the very
highest levels of salary, then only to a very small number of
personnel, but that inequity should also be removed, and I would be
glad to work on that effort.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in a moment the chairman will be
propounding a unanimous consent request which I will support.
I do want to have one caveat on it, however, and that is that the
Governmental Affairs members, as far as I know, have not had an
opportunity to review this. This is within their jurisdiction; it
affects civil service, and I think we should alert--I am hereby
alerting them that there would be a vote on this matter at 2:15--and I
think that in the event that a member of that committee, or anyone else
for that reason, that it is within the jurisdiction of another
committee, wanted to speak on this amendment before it were adopted, I
would support a request from such a member to have an opportunity to
speak for a brief amount of time prior to the vote. It would require a
change in the unanimous consent agreement, and I am going to support
this unanimous consent agreement so we can sequence some votes at 2:15,
but I do want to alert our colleagues particularly on the Governmental
Affairs Committee that this is an amendment within their jurisdiction,
and if any member of that committee or any other member wants to speak
to it for that reason, that this is not in the jurisdiction of Armed
Services but a different committee, I would support--that doesn't mean
it will succeed, but I will support a modification in our unanimous
consent agreement at 2:15 to permit a short period of time for such
amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I suggest that I propound the request,
then the Senator propound his amendment. And I am certain that I will
agree to it.
So at this time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote
occur on or in relation to amendment No. 9 at 2:15 today, and that no
amendments be in order prior to the vote on amendment No. 9, and,
further, no points of order be waived with respect to the amendment. I
further ask that with respect to a motion to waive the Budget Act or
portions thereof, the motion to waive be debatable.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that concludes this amendment. There are
two Senators seeking recognition, and therefore I am going to yield the
floor momentarily.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I have some general remarks about the
bill. I know that under the previous order we are to recess at 12, and
I will try to make my remarks as brief as possible. I know the senior
Senator from Kansas has some remarks as well.
I know there is a lot of concern about the U.S. involvement in
putting troops into Kosovo. I wish to bring to the attention of my
colleagues a conference report that was passed last year as part of the
defense appropriations bill that says--as a matter of fact it is law--
the President and the administration must come to the Congress with a
report of that deployment. Senator Hutchison and I will be making some
remarks sometime later this afternoon in regard to this provision.
I ask unanimous consent to have this page of the Conference Report
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Making Appropriations for the Department of Defense for the Fiscal Year
Ending September 30, 1999, and for Other Purposes--Conference Report
(H. Rept. 105-746)
Sec. 8115. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available under this Act may be obligated or expended
for any additional deployment of forces of the Armed Forces
of the United States to Yugoslavia, Albania, or Macedonia
unless and until the President, after consultation with the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Majority Leader
of the Senate, the Minority Leader of the House of
Representatives, and the Minority Leader of the Senate,
transmits to Congress a report on the deployment that
includes the following:
(1) The President's certification that the presence of
those forces in each country to which the forces are to be
deployed is necessary in the national security interests of
the United States.
(2) The reasons why the deployment is in the national
security interests of the United States.
(3) The number of United States military personnel to be
deployed to each country.
(4) The mission and objectives of forces to be deployed.
(5) The expected schedule for accomplishing the objectives
of the deployment.
(6) The exit strategy for United States forces engaged in
the deployment.
(7) The costs associated with the deployment and the
funding sources for paying those costs.
(8) The anticipated effects of the deployment on the
morale, retention, and effectiveness of United States forces.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a deployment of
forces--
(1) in accordance with United Nations Security Council
Resolution 795; or
(2) under circumstances determined by the President to be
an emergency necessitating immediate deployment of the
forces.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to restrict the
authority of the President under the Constitution to protect
the lives of United States citizens.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might interject here----
Mr. ROBERTS. I would be delighted to yield to the distinguished
Senator.
Mr. WARNER. On the question of procedure, there is an order for the
Senate to go into recess at 12. I ask unanimous consent that that order
be extended beyond the hour of 12 to accommodate Senators. How much
time would the Senator like?
Mr. ROBERTS. I should be able to finish in 15 minutes.
Mr. WARNER. Perhaps a little less maybe.
Mr. ROBERTS. Maybe 13\1/2\.
Mr. WARNER. Would 10 do?
And the Senator from Kansas, how much time does he want?
Mr. BROWNBACK. I think I could do it in 7 minutes.
Mr. WARNER. And the Senator from Louisiana?
Ms. LANDRIEU. Four minutes.
Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess
at the hour of 12:15.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would want
to clarify it. That would then be the sequence of the remarks?
Mr. WARNER. That is correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President I rise today to voice my strong support
for this legislation that is designed to provide fair compensation,
improved educational opportunities, enhanced financial saving program,
and a fair retirement system for the men, women and families of the
Armed Forces of the United States.
America is facing a serious crisis in the recruitment and retention
of key members of the military. This crisis is a very complicated issue
and one that has a complex answer. I am confident that the elements of
this bill, S. 4, are an integral part of the solution to these
problems. But I am also confident that passage alone will not correct
all of the problems we face.
Near the end of the last Congress and after talking to soldiers in
the field, senior enlisted and officer leadership of the US military, I
was struck with the myriad of problems facing our service members.
These problems are contributing to the rapid decline in mid grade
[[Page S1753]]
retention and the growing inability to recruit new members of our
military.
I might add that I was just out to Fort Leavenworth, KS, and the Army
is 40 percent short in regard to the recruiting targets they have to
have to simply accomplish their mission. That is as of last week. I
came to the floor and laid out what I saw as the key components of
their discontent. Rather than restate my comments of last fall, let me
just highlight my key points:
1. We have significantly increased the work load on a substantially
smaller military.
Since the percentage of service members that are married has grown,
this increased work load has amplified the negative effect of
deployments on the morale of our troops and their families. The
reluctance of families to continue to tolerate these separations
contributes to the loss of mid-career personnel.
2. With a significantly increased deployment schedule on a
substantially smaller force, the value and importance of today's
missions impacts on the willingness of the men and women to join or
commit to the military as a career.
Without clearly articulated mission goals and objectives founded in
the fundamental of the U.S. vital national interest, the ability to
recruit and retain motivated men and women for our military will remain
difficult.
3. Although the skill level required of the men and women of our
military continues to grow, the pay differential between the same
skilled civilian and the military continues to widen.
The current pay of many of our young military families is so low that
it is not adequate to keep them off of welfare programs. The prospect
of continued and frequent, long deployments coupled with the
opportunity to get better pay on the ``outside'' for the same work
contributes to the inability to attract and retain the skills needed
for today's military.
4. We ask our military to deploy at a much higher pace than ever
before, we assign missions that do not meet the ``national interest''
threshold, we pay them less than they could get for the same or similar
skills as a civilian, and in many cases we ask them to live in
substandard housing.
It goes without saying that the culmination of these problems
contribute to the dissatisfaction with the military as a career and its
attractiveness to potential recruits.
5. The members of our military are working harder, deploying more,
receiving less pay than civilians are for the same job, living in
inadequate housing, and now are seeing a reduction in their retirement
benefits.
It is not difficult to understand that with this collection of
negatives, the military is experiencing problems in retention and
recruiting.
As I have stated before, S. 4 does not solve all of the problems
contributing to the crisis in retention and recruiting but it does
strike at the heart of many of the problems facing our military.
Specifically:
It works to close the gap between civilian and military pay for
similar skills. Just as importantly, it reforms the military pay tables
to better reward promotion rather than longevity.
It establishes a savings program by authorizing members of the
military to put up to 5% of their basic pay in a thrift savings plan--a
plan already available to other federal workers. Additionally, it
allows service secretaries to focus some matching funds for the thrift
savings plan to certain critical skills.
It corrects the problems of the current retirement system by giving
service members a choice to stay on the current retirement plan and
receive $30,000 to put in a savings plan for their future or opt to
return to the pre 1986 retirement system. This $30,000 has been the
subject of some discussion and perhaps some misunderstanding. I will
address this issue later.
It works toward getting our military family off of food stamps by
giving special pay to food-stamp eligible members. I find nothing more
disheartening or embarrassing than to know that our military
compensation is so marginal that we have families on food stamps.
It makes significant improvements to the Montgomery GI bill. The GI
bill has long been a backbone in attracting and retaining military
members.
S.4 takes significant progress toward relieving the stress on our
military families but there are key contributors to that stress that a
bill such as this cannot address.
This bill can not address the willingness of this administration to
deploy our troops on mission that are not in our vital national
interest.
This bill can not address the willingness of this administration to
assign them to missions where there is no clearly defined strategy or
desired end state.
This bill can not address the willingness of this administration to
under fund the military for the many operations they are assigned.
This bill can not address the willingness of this administration to
under fund critical modernization and procurement accounts.
The net result of the administration unwillingness to address the
impact on the military by the high rate of long deployments,
questionable mission quality, and under funding of critical accounts is
a double whammy on the men and women of the military.
They are not only deploying longer and more frequently and therefore
spending much more time away from their families, but when they return
to their home base, they also are faced with long hours in repairing
old equipment or making preparation for the next deployment. I am told
that this the real pain for many in our military families--they can't
even relax with their family after a long deployment.
Mr. President, I know some of my colleagues are concerned that there
has been little study to show the elements of this bill are necessary
or will give a return that is proportionate to the cost of this bill.
Without doubt this is a very expensive bill but the cost to national
security by not correcting the problems of retention and recruitment
are not even calculable.
But before I discuss the lack of hard data, let me return to the
$30,000 bonus for staying on the REDUX plan.
The concern voiced by some is that military members may spend the
$30,000 on short term needs or even gratification such as a new car.
That certainly could happen but I am counting on the solid leadership
of military commanders to educate and explain the investing opportunity
that money represents to the very bright, well educated men and women
of today's military.
There are already several examples of how that $30,000 could grow
over a career if reasonably invested. The very fact that our members
are apparently concerned about their future retirement gives me comfort
that if they choose to stay on REDUX and except the bonus, most will
not squander this opportunity to invest for their retirement.
Some members of Congress are not convinced that REDUX is a problem at
all and does not contribute measurably to the retention problem the
military faces.
They are asking: Where is the study that shows REDUX is why many
members are leaving the military? Mr. President, there is no study.
There is only the alarm of the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all of the Service Chiefs, and the senior
enlisted members of all of the services.
Additionally, I do not find it surprising that there is no data
because the people that are affected by REDUX are just now reaching the
point in their career that they are thinking about the decision to stay
in the military for a career or leave. I ask the members of Congress to
remember that the decision to except or reject REDUX as a retirement
plan or leave the military rests solely with each military individual
and not because an analysts' projection of how many will accept or
reject REDUX. Our senior leaders of our military are saying REDUX is a
significant part of their decision to leave.
Shall we ignore them and wait until enough service members have left
to satisfy the statistician? Do not forget we are also having a
exceptionally difficult time recruiting new members. Nor can we forget
that while we run this data gathering experiment, critical, un-
replaceable skills are walking way from military service every day in
alarming numbers.
Unfortunately, we are too accustomed to working with weapons systems
that we can halt production until
[[Page S1754]]
the wing-drop problem is fixed, or until the required testing is
completed to our satisfaction. Unquestionably the men and women are the
key element to all of our weapon systems but they cannot be put on hold
until the retention problem is clearly defined nor can we slow
retirement or withhold pay until the theorist have the problems neatly
packaged.
We do not have that luxury to delay or wait for all the data to be
generated with the people that are willing to defend this Nation. We
have created an ``all volunteer service'' and they volunteer to join
and they will go home if they perceive they are not being treated
fairly or the Nation does not care that they and their families make
great sacrifices to serve in the defense of our country. We can only
listen to them and their leaders and make our best judgment about the
right course of action to recruit and retain the people we need for
today's military. S. 4 makes significant progress toward addressing the
problems they tell us are contributing to the crisis in retention and
recruiting facing the United States military.
I strongly support the bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Kansas.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, before I start, I ask unanimous consent
that a member of my staff, Steve Thompson, be granted the privilege of
the floor during debate and consideration of S. 4.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am delighted to be here joining my
colleague from Kansas and other Members, expressing support for S. 4,
the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of
1999.
This bill comes at a time when our services are facing increased
difficulties in hiring and keeping quality personnel because of low
pay, inadequate benefits, and increasingly frequent deployments. There
is nobody who would say that what I just stated is untrue. Those are
all true. They are all impacting our military personnel today. I join
my colleague from Kansas, who serves on the Armed Services Committee,
in strongly supporting this bill and saying that the first and foremost
requirement of the Federal Government is to provide for the common
defense and we are not providing adequately for the common defense. We
have to do that. And, if we let down on that obligation because it does
not show up high in the poll numbers or some other reason, we are
failing our duty to this country to provide the first and foremost
thing that we are required to do.
Let me remind my fellow Senators that defense spending has declined
in real terms every year for the last 11 years and now comprises a
lower percentage of our budget than ever before. We have seen a 19-
percent decline in defense spending since 1992. Is the world that much
of a safer place today? We have troops scattered everywhere around the
world and we have had a 19-percent decline in defense spending since
1992. We have peacekeeping operations, we have had global contingencies
in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, the Persian Gulf, and now we are facing
deployment decisions in Kosovo. This is an extremely high operation
tempo that is being maintained over this period of time, with an
enormous strain on troops and on their families.
Even under adverse conditions, our troops have continued to perform
their task superbly. The lower defense spending combined with an
increased deployment schedule and inadequate benefits, though, have
resulted in an all-time low enlistment and inability to retain quality
personnel: Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. America's service
men and women and their families deserve a better quality of life. They
put their lives on the line to protect our freedoms and the least we
can do--the least we can do, I would think, is provide adequate pay,
decent living conditions, and some educational opportunities.
This bill includes several provisions that will benefit our military
personnel and increase retention and enlistment. It will include a 4.8-
percent military pay raise. This, plus future pay raises at the
employment cost index plus 0.5 percent, helps close the gap between
military and civilian pay.
In addition, we have included military pay table reform that will
increase pay for those personnel in midcareer points by up to about
10.3 percent. These are experienced personnel that we cannot afford to
lose.
We also revised the military retirement system by allowing service
personnel the option, after 15 years of service, to revert to the pre-
1986 military retirement system or take a one-time $30,000 bonus if
they remain under the current system. We allow Thrift Savings Plans,
similar to what other Federal employees get. Our military members
deserve to have the same opportunities that other Government employees
have.
We also enhanced the Montgomery GI bill. This educational benefit has
already sent hundreds of thousands of veterans to college and, I might
add, has been a key fuel in pushing forward our economy. These
educational benefits come back to the Federal Government in economic
growth and opportunity and tax revenues. This is a good investment for
everybody, and they will be transferable to immediate family members.
But most important, this bill provides for a special subsistence
allowance for enlisted personnel eligible for food stamps.
If you can imagine that, you are in the U.S. military, you are
putting your life on the line and you are living on food stamps--living
on food stamps. For those service members who demonstrate eligibility
for food stamps, this bill provides them with a monthly allowance of
$180 per month. This will keep our military personnel off food stamps
and provide them with the support they need.
Mr. President, this to me is just unconscionable, that you really
would put your life, your family at stake, and what are we paying you?
We are not paying you enough if you can get food stamps, that you would
qualify for food stamps. That is ridiculous, and we need to change it.
This bill, S. 4, does change it.
I close by cautioning my fellow Members of the Senate that this may
not be enough to stem the exodus of our service members. The Department
of Defense and Congress must pursue additional remedies that will
rectify the retention problem. This legislation takes a good first
step, and I certainly urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Ms. LANDRIEU addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today, along with my
colleagues, in support of S. 4, the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's and
Marines' Bill of Rights Act. Our military has the finest hardware and
equipment in the world, but, as any general or admiral will tell you,
the real source of America's strength is America's fighting men and
women. We spend billions of dollars to train and equip our troops. I
believe the investment has paid off, but we have neglected one very
important aspect of this equation. As we now have an all-volunteer
force, our training and weapons will be wasted if we cannot keep
quality personnel in our Armed Forces.
Everyone has seen, I think, the recent press accounts about the
personnel shortfalls, particularly in the Navy and Air Force. The
discussion in the Washington Post about the status of the U.S.S. Harry
Truman, our newest aircraft carrier, provided dramatic evidence of how
deep this crisis has grown in our inability to man this vessel.
Fortunately, the Senate is able to act now to begin to reverse this
trend. S. 4 provides us with a very significant across-the-board
minimum pay increase of 4.8 percent. In addition, there will be other
increases staggered on top of this targeted to specific areas of the
military.
As Secretary Cohen has stated, I do not believe we can pay our troops
too much, but I do believe we can pay them too little. That is the
state we find ourselves in today. In a booming economy, Mr. President,
with low unemployment, our well-trained soldiers and sailors can walk
off a base and often double their salary for less work. It has made
retention very difficult, and we are taking a great stride in
alleviating the situation with S. 4.
The value of this bill is not just in the actual pay increase, it is
also an
[[Page S1755]]
important gesture that tells our fighting men and women that their
Government cares about their well-being and appreciates the very
difficult task that we ask them to perform and we are hearing them
loudly and clearly.
We will keep in mind that pay increases alone, however, cannot solve
this problem, as many of my colleagues have said earlier this morning.
The military will never be competitive with the private sector on a
dollar-for-dollar basis.
My friend, Senator Cleland from Georgia, made a similar remark in
committee the other day that stuck with me. I think he was quoting
someone else, but he said the armed services may recruit a soldier, but
we retain a family. And that is so true.
When we talk about keeping our troops in the service, we have to
remember that the quality-of-life issues for the family is really the
core issue--soldiers wanting to be good spouses, soldiers wanting to be
good parents, soldiers wanting to have a good quality of life for their
family.
So while pay is certainly part of the equation, it also extends to
housing, medical care, education benefits for spouses and children, day
care, operations tempo, and a myriad of other issues that make up a
family's quality of life. There is still much to do. This bill is only
a beginning, but it is a good step.
One of the important steps taken in this bill--and it is quite
innovative and I thank, again, the Senator from Georgia for bringing
this up in committee--is that we will allow military personnel to
transfer their Montgomery GI bill benefits to their spouses or
dependents. For midcareer, officer or enlisted person, the knowledge
that their children will have access to a quality education by enabling
them to use their benefits is a smart incentive and one that is cost
effective for us. It is an example of how we can tailor our benefits in
a way that meets the needs of precisely the kind of people we want to
retain.
I also believe it is very important for us to remember the
contribution of our Guard and Reserve forces in these discussions. For
this reason, I have a series of amendments that address some of the
inequity between the benefits programs for our regulars and the Guard
and the Reserve units.
With a leaner military, Mr. President, we cannot perform the complex
missions of our military without a strong Guard and strong Reserve
component. We must always keep our eyes on this reality when addressing
retention issues.
I am proud of the statement that the Senate is making with this
legislation. I commend our chairman and our ranking member for bringing
this bill to the floor this early in this Congress. I hope that this
will not be the end of our work, but rather a strong beginning, a
bipartisan beginning. I look forward to working with my colleagues on
the committee to make the real difference in the quality of life for
America's military personnel.
I thank you, Mr. President.
____________________