[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.

                          ____________________