[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 24, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1847-S1864]
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 
resume consideration of the bill.
  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Pending:

       Sarbanes/Warner Amendment No. 19, to express the sense of 
     Congress that there should continue to be parity between the 
     adjustments in the compensation of members of the uniformed 
     services and the adjustments in the compensation of civilian 
     employees of the United States.
       Cleland Amendment No. 6, to permit members of the Ready 
     Reserve to contribute to the Thrift Savings Plan for 
     compensation attributable to their service in the Ready 
     Reserve.

  Mr. WARNER. Now, Mr. President, with regard to the amendments, we are 
working out a number of these amendments. As I said, I am optimistic 
that this matter can be completed, hopefully by early afternoon.
  The possible amendments still remaining are:
  An amendment regarding Guard and Reserve participation in the Thrift 
Savings Plan, by Mr. Cleland--that is scheduled for a vote, so that 
will soon be disposed of;
  Modify the MGIB to permit reservists to transfer benefits to family 
members, Mr. Jeffords;
  Permit RC to receive lump sum GI bill payments for certain courses, 
Mr. Jeffords;
  Civilian pay raise of 4.8 percent; that is the Warner-Sarbanes; we 
will be voting on that momentarily;
  Expand use of the MGIB to include prep for college and grad school 
entrance exams, Mr. Rockefeller;
  Make food stamps and WIC available to soldiers overseas--that is, 
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines overseas--Mr. Harkin;
  Sense of the Senate re: 2-month extension of the tax-filing deadline 
for uniformed services personnel stationed

[[Page S1848]]

outside the United States, Mr. Coverdell;
  Sense of the Senate regarding processing of claims for veterans 
benefits, Mr. Bingaman;
  Sense of the Senate regarding the possibility that provisions of S. 4 
may be reconsidered during the authorization or appropriations process 
by my distinguished colleague, the ranking member here, Mr. Levin;
  Technical change to section 202, Senators Warner and Allard.
  Now, I think that concludes it. There were several amendments by the 
Senator from Missouri, Mr. Ashcroft; I have discussed those with him. 
And another one by Mr. Jeffords, and another one by Mr. Levin--I will 
be discussing those amendments. I think it is not likely they will be 
brought up.
  At this time, perhaps my distinguished colleague, the comanager of 
the bill, will have a few comments?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me share the optimism of my friend from 
Virginia that we will be able to complete the work on this bill by 
early afternoon. I see no reason why we should not be able to do that. 
I hope, in fact, that we can.
  We have a little time this morning before we start voting, which we 
were going to divide between the proponents of the amendments, if they 
would like some of these few minutes remaining. I know the manager will 
join me.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator is correct. I see a Member on the floor, a 
distinguished member of our committee, the Senator from Georgia. At the 
time he desires recognition, it will be given.
  Mr. President, before the Senator from Georgia proceeds to give his 
remarks, perhaps we could call on another member of the committee, the 
chairman of the Manpower Subcommittee, Senator Allard, in hopes that he 
can talk a little bit about the hearing that the subcommittee will have 
today on the very issues that are in this bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator will withhold for a moment so we 
could ask the Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Maryland how 
much time they might want on their amendments. Since there are only 5 
or 6 minutes left, perhaps we could apportion it fairly.
  Mr. ALLARD. I am in no hurry to speak.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator from Virginia would agree if we 
could inquire of the two Senators whether we might divide the remaining 
6 minutes between them?
  Mr. WARNER. Absolutely. I will just say a word following Mr. 
Sarbanes' remarks.
  Mr. LEVIN. What would my colleague propose, three 2-minute 
opportunities?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote then 
begin at 9:50, to allow time for our two colleagues to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Georgia.


                            Amendment No. 6

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I am proud to offer this amendment to S. 
4, with my colleagues Senator Jeffords, Senator Bingaman, and Senator 
Landrieu, to give the men and women of the National Guard and Reserve 
the opportunity to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan.
  Members of the Guard and Reserve have been participating at record 
levels. Nearly 270,000 Reservists and Guardsmen were mobilized during 
Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Over 17,000 have answered 
the Nation's call to bring peace to Bosina. Members of the Guard and 
Reserve have delivered millions of pounds of humanitarian aid all over 
the world. And, closer to home, they have responded to numerous state 
and federal emergencies. Thousands of Reservists and Guardsmen are 
serving in communities across the country and around the world every 
day.
  I firmly believe we should recognize the contributions the Guard and 
Reserve have made to our defense efforts over the years.
  We should recognize those contributions by extending to members of 
the Guard and Reserve the same savings opportunity we are offering 
their active duty counterparts under S. 4. The Guard and Reserve are an 
integral part of our national defense strategy. We can't afford to 
overlook them.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I wish to discuss the amendment Senator 
Cleland and I have proposed. Specifically, we propose allowing our men 
and women in the Guard and Reserve the opportunity to participate in 
the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) in the same manner S. 4 provides to their 
colleagues on active duty.
  Allowing members of the Guard and Reserve to participate in the 
Federal Employees TSP is long overdue and I strongly support the 
proposal to make it law. This program is good for federal workers and 
it would benefit members of the Guard and Reserve financially for them 
to participate in the TSP. Under this system, they would be the sole 
contributors to their accounts, much like civil servants who are under 
the old Civil Service Retirement System. Since there would be no 
federal match to their accounts the cost would be very low to the 
branches of the military and to the taxpayers, as well. Additional 
savings in individual accounts will be important to those individuals 
who serve our Nation in regular, but temporary capacities. The payroll 
deduction feature of the TSP is an easy way to save. The accounts are 
managed prudently by the Thrift Savings Board. Participation in the 
system is high and satisfaction with it is also very high.
  Those of us on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committees 
have been spending quite a bit of energy trying to encourage Americans 
to save more money. As a New Englander, I speak for my constituents 
when I say that we know a lot about thrift. This is a good amendment 
that will encourage thrift and I hope my colleagues will support it.
  Given that our Guard and Reserve are shouldering an increasing share 
of our world-wide missions, they should have the same savings 
opportunity that S. 4 gives to the active duty. Now is the time to 
ensure that our reserve component personnel are not overlooked.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                            Amendment No. 19

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, the amendment that I and Senator Warner 
and Senator Robb and Senator Mikulski have offered is before the 
Senate. This is a very straightforward amendment expressing the sense 
of the Congress that parity between Federal civilian pay and military 
pay should be maintained. We should continue that parity. A comparison 
by CRS of military and civilian pay increases finds that 80 percent of 
the military and civilian pay increases in the last 25 years have been 
identical. Disparate treatment goes against established congressional 
policy that has ensured parity with all those who work to serve our 
Nation, whether in the Armed Forces or in the civilian workforce.
  One of the rationales for the increase for military personnel, which 
is in this legislation which I support, has been to address the 
concerns about retention and recruitment problems. We have comparable 
problems with respect to the civilian service, and I think it is 
important to note that more and more of graduating classes indicate 
less interest in the Federal service. A GAO report in 1990 found that 
low pay was the most cited reason for employees leaving the civil 
service or refusing to take a Federal position in the first place.
  Over the years, particularly in recent years, Federal employees have 
made significant sacrifices in the name of deficit reduction. The law 
governing Federal civilian pay has never been fully implemented since 
1994. In fact, Federal civilian workers received a reduced annual 
adjustment. The gap continues to grow, which we are very concerned 
about. We have been through a downsizing period during which the 
Federal employees have continued to provide high-quality service. So I 
strongly urge my colleagues to support this provision. It is an effort 
to achieve a first-rate public service.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am a principal cosponsor with my good 
friend and colleague from Maryland. I likewise very strongly urge all 
Senators to support this measure. We have

[[Page S1849]]

to keep a parity situation going. It seems the Senator from Maryland 
and I have worked together two decades on this very point.
  Mr. President, I think it will be wise if we yield back all time now 
and proceed with the vote, if that is agreeable. I hear no objection. 
So we yield back all time.
  Parliamentary inquiry. We have an amendment pending and it is now 
time to vote. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Amendment No. 19 previously proposed by the Senator from 
     Maryland [Mr. Sarbanes], for himself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Robb 
     and Ms. Mikulski.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested. Is 
there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 6, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 22 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--6

     Bunning
     Graham
     Gregg
     Kyl
     McCain
     Smith (NH)
  The amendment (No. 19) was agreed to.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                        Vote on Amendment No. 6

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Cleland 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Georgia.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 23 Leg.]

                               YEAS--100

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 6) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The Senator from Virginia is 
recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REED. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am joined here by Senator Reed. It is 
our joint intention to first hear from our distinguished colleague, a 
member of the committee, Senator Hutchinson, and then within 10 minutes 
we will take up, hopefully, the amendment. I think it is agreed to that 
the Senator from Iowa will have an amendment.
  Thank you. I yield the floor.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Arkansas is 
recognized.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair. I thank you for affording me this 
opportunity to speak on behalf of what I think is very needed 
legislation. I also applaud his efforts to begin the process of 
addressing in the committee our readiness needs, and in doing so in the 
most expeditious way beginning with our work in early January.
  I rise in enthusiastic support of the bill of which I am glad to be a 
cosponsor. I have only been a member of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee for a short period of time, but it has not taken long to 
become alarmed by the numerous readiness problems weakening our Armed 
Forces.
  On January 5, during my first hearing as a member of the Committee, 
the Air Force's Chief of Staff, General Ryan, testified that by fiscal 
year 2002, the Air Force would be short over 2,000 pilots. Overall 
readiness rates for the Air Force have fallen 18 percent since 1996, 4 
percent in the last quarter alone.
  At the same hearing, the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Johnson, 
testified that the Navy had fallen 22,000 sailors short of its fiscal 
year 1998 recruiting goal.
  The Navy's recruiting woes were vividly illustrated in a recent New 
York Times article. The article described the maiden voyage of the 
U.S.S. Harry S. Truman, the Navy's newest aircraft carrier.
  The Truman should have left port with a complement of 2,933 sailors. 
Instead, the Navy was only able to muster 2,543. That is a full 13 
percent below what is needed.
  The Navy and Air Forces are not the only services experiencing 
recruiting shortfalls. The Washington Times reported in January that 
the Army had already fallen 2,300 soldiers short of its recruiting 
goals for the first 3 months of this fiscal year, 10,000 soldiers short 
of its congressionally authorized end-strength.
  The Army is so concerned about this recruiting shortfall that it is 
considering lowering its standards, admitting more high school 
dropouts, and I think this portends serious threats to the future of 
our readiness capability.
  Are Americans being well served when they pay billions of dollars for 
the finest weapons systems in the world if there aren't enough highly 
motivated, highly trained soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines in 
uniform to operate that fine equipment and fine weapons systems?
  How did we arrive at this point? Recruitment and retention shortfalls 
are squarely to blame, and there are a number of factors that have 
contributed to today's circumstances. The military-civilian pay gap, I 
believe, is a major cause. That gap now stands at an estimated 14 
percent. That is a huge handicap the military must bear when it 
competes with the civilian sector for high school graduates.
  While America is fortunate to have a robust civilian economy, when it 
asks its sons and daughters to risk their lives in defense of our 
Nation, it must be willing to pay a fair wage. S. 4 will go a long way 
towards paying fair wages, thus eliminating this civilian-military pay 
gap.
  S. 4's 4.8-percent across-the-board pay raise will help in the area 
of enlisted retention. The targeted pay raises of up to 10.3 percent 
will help the military retain its midcareer noncommissioned officers 
and officers who

[[Page S1850]]

are leaving the services in alarming numbers.
  But this bill, Mr. President, isn't just about throwing money at a 
problem; it is also about fixing the mistakes of the past. S. 4 would 
restore a 50-percent basic pay retirement benefit at 20 years of 
service. That benefit, as we all know, was cut to 40 percent in 1986 as 
part of an effort to actually improve retention.
  You see, in the 1980's, too many service men and women were electing 
to retire right after the 20-year mark, enjoying that 50-percent 
pension while they were young enough to begin a second career. In what 
seemed to be a smart move at the time, the Congress instituted the 
REDUX system, lowering the retirement benefit for 20 years of service 
to 40 percent. Unfortunately, the legislation, as too often is the case 
in what we do, has had the opposite effect; the REDUX system's smaller 
pension has encouraged people to leave the services even earlier.
  How ironic that in 1999 the Department of Defense would be thrilled 
if service men and women left military service after only 20 years. 
That would mean they had served more than the 12 or 13 years so many of 
our junior officers are now serving before leaving today.
  But this bill does more than just fix some of yesterday's mistakes; 
it addresses some of today's concerns. For our men and women in 
uniform, S. 4 is about creating a brighter tomorrow as well. The 
Montgomery GI bill enhancements contained in this bill, while 
controversial, will do for military families what the original GI bill 
did for our soldiers. Increasing the monthly GI plan allowance and 
allowing service members to transfer their benefits to members of their 
immediate family will dramatically increase the accessibility of higher 
education in this country.
  Extending Montgomery GI bill benefits will also go a long way towards 
recognizing the important contributions made by military families. I 
have spoken to enough husbands and wives, sons and daughters, of 
service members to know that a military career punctuated by overseas 
deployments affects more than just the person wearing the uniform. 
Families of service members are truly part of a larger team, and they 
deserve more than just a pat on the back and saying thanks.

  Then I would add also that opening the Thrift Savings Plan to service 
members is another very important feature of S. 4. Allowing members to 
invest up to 5 percent of their income in the same program open to 
civilians will allow service members greater retirement security. As we 
have seen, the looming Social Security crisis threatens retirement for 
many individuals, and we know that individuals must take greater 
responsibility for those retirement savings.
  So as you can see, Mr. President, S. 4, while not a panacea for the 
readiness shortfalls affecting today's military, will fix some of 
yesterday's mistakes, help us to address some of the crises we are 
facing today, and provide a brighter tomorrow for our men and women in 
the armed services.
  So I urge my colleagues to join the members of the Armed Services 
Committee to pass this much needed legislation.
  I once again thank and compliment the chairman of the committee for 
the outstanding work he has done in moving this legislation forward so 
expeditiously in this Congress.
  I thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate our new colleague 
on the Armed Services Committee for those very insightful and helpful 
remarks. We are pleased that the Senator elected to join our committee, 
given all the other options that were open to the Senator. I thank the 
Senator very much for his cooperation on the bill, for his helpfulness, 
and we look forward to working with the Senator in the future.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Senator. I look forward to that.
  Mr. WARNER. Now, Mr. President, I understand the Senator from West 
Virginia wishes to offer an amendment.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank my distinguished colleague from the State of 
Virginia.


                            Amendment No. 21

    (Purpose: To provide for the availability of Montgomery GI Bill 
   benefits for preparatory courses for college and graduate school 
                            admission exams)

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I have an amendment at 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 West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller], for 
     himself and Mr. Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 21.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 46, between the matter following line 5 and line 6, 
     insert the following:

     SEC. 305. AVAILABILITY OF MONTGOMERY GI BILL BENEFITS FOR 
                   PREPARATORY COURSES FOR COLLEGE AND GRADUATE 
                   SCHOOL ENTRANCE EXAMS.

       For purposes of section 3002(3) of title 38, United States 
     Code, the term ``program of education'' shall include the 
     following:
       (1) A preparatory course for a test that is required or 
     utilized for admission to an institution of higher education.
       (2) A preparatory course for test that is required or 
     utilized for admission to a graduate school.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Chair very much, as I always do, for his 
uncanny ability to maintain order in the Senate, which is unparalleled.
  Mr. President, as Ranking Member of the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs, I have an especially strong interest in issues that improve 
the quality of life for the men and women who now serve and have 
already served in our Nation's military forces. These brave men and 
women often face extreme hardships in their service to our country, and 
later, in their efforts to successfully transition back to civilian 
life. S. 4, the ``Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of 
Rights Act of 1999,'' goes far to address some of these hardships.
  I believe that a major impetus of S. 4 is to enhance the military's 
ability to attract and retain the best young men and women to the ranks 
of America's Armed Forces. But S. 4 also has the collateral effect of 
improving the lives of servicemembers by providing them with a much-
needed pay increase and eliminating the $1,200 contribution that 
servicemembers must make to the Montgomery GI bill during their first 
year in service, while their salaries are at their lowest.
  S. 4 will also improve these servicemembers' transition to civilian 
life by increasing the basic monthly allowance of the MGIB from $528 to 
$600. This 12 percent increase follows on the heels of a 20-percent 
increase last year. The Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and 
Veterans Transition Assistance--the ``Transition Commission'' or 
``Commission''--recommended such an increase in its report to Congress, 
last month.
  The Commission was inspired by our former colleague, Senator Bob 
Dole, and provides data and recommendations on ways to improve the 
transitional period. The Commission's report highlights the fact that 
costs of tuition and fees for public and private educational 
institutions rose approximately 90 percent from 1980-1995, while the 
MGIB benefit rates only increased 42 percent from 1985 to 1995.
  The statistics regarding education and employment for veterans are 
revealing. Despite almost full enrollment in the program by 
servicemembers, the number of eligible veterans who take advantage of 
their MGIB benefits is startlingly low, only 48 percent. Less than 20 
percent of those who use the MGIB attend private institutions. And the 
Transition Commission reports that the unemployment rate for veterans 
ages 20-24 and 35-39 is higher than their non-veteran counterparts. All 
these are reasons why I believe that there is more that we can and must 
do.
  The Department of Veterans Affairs currently has authority to provide 
MGIB benefits for post-graduate exam preparatory courses that are 
required for a particular profession, such as CPA exam or bar review 
courses. However, it does not have authority to provide for pre-
admission preparatory coursework.
  The amendment I am offering would correct that disparity by allowing 
veterans to use their MGIB benefits for preparatory courses for 
entrance examinations required for college and graduate school 
admission. It would

[[Page S1851]]

not increase a veteran's basic entitlement or affect eligibility for 
benefits.
  By giving veterans the opportunity to better their admission test 
scores, this amendment would expand the choices available to veterans 
in their course of higher education. It will also improve access to the 
top educational institutions for veterans who sometimes were not the 
best students in high school, but are now better focused and committed 
to their education.
  Studies by national consulting companies have shown improvement of 
over 100 points on the SAT exam and an average improvement of seven 
points in LSAT scores for students who take exam preparatory courses. 
At some of the Nation's top schools, scores on entrance exams can count 
for half of the total application.
  An article in the April 13, 1998, New Republic stated, ``Thorough, 
expertly taught preparation can raise a student's ability to cope with, 
and hence succeed on, a particular exam. In many cases, then, test prep 
can make the difference between getting into a topflight law school and 
settling for the second tier.'' That is why it is critical that 
veterans have access to such courses.
  However, many of these exam preparatory courses are quite costly. One 
national provider charges as much as $750 for a two-month, part-time, 
SAT preparatory course. One educational advocacy group, Fairtest, 
argues that ``[t]he SAT has always favored students who can afford 
coaching over those who cannot . . .''
  The Transition Commission urged Congress to enact legislation that 
would fully fund a veteran's education at a college of their choice, so 
that veterans would not be limited by cost, but only by their own 
abilities. I believe that we should also assist veterans to enlarge the 
boundaries of their abilities. This is an investment in America's 
veterans and in America. Data from the VA shows that during the 
lifetime of the average WWII veteran, the U.S. Treasury received from 
two to eight times as much in income taxes as it paid out to the 
veteran in GI Bill benefits. Just imagine the return on investment from 
this small change in law.
  It is simply a matter of common sense. The government provides 
veterans the opportunity to get a higher education. We should now do 
what we can to make sure that veterans are getting the best education 
that they possibly can, by helping them to get into the best school 
possible.
  I am proud to offer this amendment to improve our veterans' ability 
to transition successfully from military to civilian life, and would 
like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Armed Services 
Committee for their support. I encourage my colleagues to join me in 
this effort.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we thank the Senator from West Virginia 
for bringing this to the attention of the committee. The amendment is 
cleared on this side. It is an excellent piece of legislation. Because 
our current generation is faced with test after test after test, 
indeed, they do need some help from time to time. This amendment will 
facilitate the use of funds which, I think, had it been envisioned at 
the time the original legislation was written, would have been 
included. So the Senator has come along to help our veterans a great 
deal. The amendment is accepted on this side.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, we also commend the Senator from West 
Virginia for his amendment, and I concur with the chairman's remarks. 
This would not materially increase in any way the costs associated with 
the Montgomery programs, and it would also provide additional 
opportunities for service members to pursue higher education. It is 
something that is consistent with the legislation, and it is an 
amendment which we support with enthusiasm.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. WARNER. I urge adoption, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If not, the question is on agreeing to the 
amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia.
  The amendment (No. 21) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REED. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                            Amendment No. 22

            (Purpose: To make certain technical corrections)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of myself and the Senator from Colorado and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for himself and Mr. 
     Allard, proposes an amendment numbered 22.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 21, line 19, insert ``2000,'' after ``January 1,''.
       On page 21, line 23, strike out ``(1)''.
       Beginning on page 22, in the table under the heading 
     ``commissioned officers with over 4 years of active duty 
     service as an enlisted member or warrant officer'', strike 
     out the superscript ``4'' each place it appears in the column 
     under the heading ``Pay Grade''.
       Beginning on page 27, line 25, strike out``the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services'' and all that follows through 
     ``Administration),'' on page 28, line 4.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this is a technical correction to section 
202 of the bill. When the Armed Services Committee drafted S. 4, it was 
our intent to permit the enlistment, reenlistment, and the REDUX bonus 
to be deposited directly into a service member's Thrift Savings 
account. In order to accomplish this, it was necessary to waive the 
limit on annual contributions to the Thrift Savings account. S. 4 as 
reported does not include the waiver. However, after the bill was 
reported, the Thrift board, which administers the Thrift Savings Plan, 
notified the committee that one of the additional statutory 
requirements was necessary--and that is the purpose of this amendment; 
it corrects the unintended oversight. Therefore, I believe this 
amendment is acceptable on both sides.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, we agree this amendment is necessary to 
accomplish the purposes of the bill, and we support it.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 22) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REED. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think our distinguished colleague from 
Iowa desires to speak to the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.


                            Amendment No. 23

 (Purpose: To facilitate provision of effective assistance for members 
     of the uniformed services eligible for food stamp assistance)

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and for 
myself and Mr. Bingaman ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for himself and Mr. 
     Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 23.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 25, strike lines 10 through 15, and insert the 
     following:

     (b)(1), the Secretary concerned shall pay the member a 
     special subsistence allowance for each month for which the 
     member is eligible to receive food stamp assistance, as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       ``(b) Covered Members.--(1) A member referred to subsection 
     (a) is an enlisted member in pay grade E-5 or below.
       ``(2) For the purposes of this section, a member shall be 
     considered as being eligible to receive food stamp assistance 
     if the household of the member meets the income standards of 
     eligibility established under section 5(c)(2) of the Food 
     Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2014(c)(2)), not taking into 
     account the special subsistence allowance that may be payable 
     to the member under this section and any allowance that is 
     payable to the member under section 403 or 404a of this 
     title.

[[Page S1852]]

       On page 28, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

     SEC. 104. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL 
                   NUTRITION PROGRAM.

       (a) Clarification of Benefits Responsibility.--Subsection 
     (a) of section 1060a of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``may carry out a program to provide 
     special supplemental food benefits'' and inserting ``shall 
     carry out a program to provide supplemental foods and 
     nutrition education''.
       (b) Relationship to WIC Program.--Subsection (b) of such 
     section is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Federal Payments.--For the purpose of providing 
     supplemental foods under the program required under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary of Agriculture shall make 
     available to the Secretary of Defense for each of fiscal 
     years 1999 through 2003, out of funds available for such 
     fiscal year pursuant to the authorization of appropriations 
     under section 17(g)(1) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 
     U.S.C. 1786(g)(1)), $10,000,000 plus such additional amount 
     as is necessary to provide supplemental foods under the 
     program for such fiscal year. The Secretary of Defense shall 
     use funds available for the Department of Defense to provide 
     nutrition education and to pay for costs for nutrition 
     services and administration under the program.''.
       (c) Program Administration.--Subsection (c)(1)(A) of such 
     section is amended by adding at the end the following: ``In 
     the determining of eligibility for the program benefits, a 
     person already certified for participation in the special 
     supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and 
     children under section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1996 
     (42 U.S.C. 1786) shall be considered eligible for the 
     duration of the certification period under that program.''.
       (d) Nutritional Risk Standards.--Subsection (c)(1)(B) of 
     such section is amended by inserting ``and nutritional risk 
     standards'' after ``income eligibility standards''.
       (e) Definitions.--Subsection (f) of such section is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) The terms `costs for nutrition services and 
     administration', `nutrition education' and `supplemental 
     foods' have the meanings given the terms in paragraphs (4), 
     (7), and (14), respectively, of section 17(b) of the Child 
     Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786(b)).''.
       (f) Report.--Not later than March 1, 2001, the Secretary of 
     Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, 
     shall submit to Congress a report on the implementation of 
     the special supplemental food program required under section 
     1060a of title 10, United States Code. The report shall 
     include a discussion of whether the amount required to be 
     provided by the Secretary of Agriculture for supplemental 
     foods under subsection (b) of that section is adequate for 
     the purpose and, if not, an estimate of the amount necessary 
     to provide supplemental foods under the program.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first I want to most sincerely compliment 
the distinguished Senator from Virginia, the chairman of the committee, 
and the ranking member, Senator Levin, for bringing this bill to the 
floor so expeditiously. The pay structure of the military needs to be 
addressed. We are losing too many good people.
  Last summer I happened to find myself up in Iceland, talking to some 
of the pilots up there who are performing pretty hazardous flying duty. 
I remember I met in the Oak Club with a bunch of them. They were 
pilots, highly trained--maybe they had been in 7 or 8 years--and now 
they are getting out. A lot of them wanted to stay but simply because 
of the families they had, the pay just wasn't there. We just cannot 
afford to keep losing that many good people out of the military. So 
this bill is long overdue, but it is welcome relief for a lot of our 
military families. I think it will go a long way toward retaining a lot 
of our qualified people.
  I know it is 4.8 percent. Frankly, if it was 5 percent, I would vote 
for it. If it was 6 percent, I would support it. I know we have 
budgetary constraints, but with a volunteer force like we have, and 
with some of the duty these people have to pull now in faraway places 
for a long period of time, not knowing what is around the corner, we 
have kind of a different situation than it was when the two of us were 
in the military some years ago.
  I think this is a good shot. It is needed right now. I know the 
chairman well. I know he feels very deeply about this and about the pay 
of our armed services personnel. But I hope we have an ongoing process 
to continue to look at this so we do not have these big gaps and lags 
in time when we lose a lot of our people. To whatever extent I can be 
helpful, I look forward to working with the distinguished chairman in 
this regard as we move ahead.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if the Senator will just yield, our good 
friend and colleague here has a distinguished career in the Navy, in 
aviation. As a pilot, he understands the risks that pilots undertake 
every day. People always think the risks only occur in combat. Those of 
us who were in training commands many years ago know it is quite 
different. Indeed, in combat are the aviators over Iraq this morning, 
enforcing U.N. Security Council resolutions. And pilots are awaiting 
the instructions with regard to the fighting that is going on in 
Kosovo. So this is a major piece of legislation to retain those people.
  I would just like to rhetorically ask my good friend a question. I 
know there is great concern among some of our colleagues, genuine 
concern, that this bill represents an awful lot of money. But I ask my 
colleagues, what good are the planes and the ships and the other 
equipment that we buy if there are not qualified people to operate 
them? Am I not correct, Senator?
  Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is absolutely correct. And especially now.
  In my time, I thought it was just overwhelming when I was flying a 
plane that cost $1 million.
  Mr. WARNER. For the record, it was a F-4, wasn't it?
  Mr. HARKIN. An F-4. I think $1 million or $1.5 million, something 
like that for the F-4s and F-8s.
  Mr. WARNER. I think we had about 7,000 at one time, compared to the 
aircraft buys of a half dozen or a dozen now.
  Mr. HARKIN. And they are up to the hundreds of millions of dollars. 
You entrust these airplanes to the pilots that are in their twenties. 
Sometimes I look at these pilots and think: Was I ever that young when 
I was flying an airplane? And these young men and women take 
extraordinary risks every day we send them off those catapults and a 
lot of times into dangerous situations. We just have to keep that in 
mind.

  The Senator is right. We can build the best aircraft, and we do, and 
they are highly sophisticated now, but unless you have that trained 
individual, who is not only trained but dedicated and wants to stay 
there, you are lacking something. That machine does not mean a darned 
thing. So that is why this bill is so important. Again, I compliment 
the chairman for taking this and really pushing it through.
  There is one thing, I say to my friend from Virginia, that came to my 
mind a couple of years ago. I am on the Defense Appropriations 
Committee, I am not on the authorizing committee, but it came to my 
attention here 2 or 3 years ago when I got on this issue of military 
people being on food stamps. It is just something about which I had not 
thought. It never occurred to me. It never hit me.
  I am on the Ag Committee, and of course I have been involved in the 
Food Stamp Program, and it is a good program. The Senator in the chair 
has been a strong supporter of the Food Stamp Program too, in the past. 
It is a good thing. But it just hit me as wrong. There is something 
wrong when our people in uniform qualify for food stamps. For some 
reason that just did not seem right to me. So I started a process of 
looking at it and writing letters to the Department of Defense, trying 
to get as much information as I could on this.
  Senator Domenici and I put some language in a bill once to get some 
data on this, as much as we could. We got bits and pieces of it, but we 
never really got all the information we needed. But we did find out 
that there were literally thousands of military personnel who, today, 
are on food stamps and who also get the WIC Program, the Women, Infants 
and Children Program, because they fall below that level.
  Again, to the chairman's great foresight, he did address this in this 
bill.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I want to make 
it very clear--people don't try to take credit around here, but I think 
others should acknowledge that they should receive it, and in this 
instance Senator McCain has been the Senator on our committee who has, 
time and time again, brought this to the attention of the committee, 
indeed the Senate as a whole. I have heard him address the American 
public in many forums on this issue. It was his work, and, indeed, the 
Presiding Officer had a hand in this issue also, the distinguished 
Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. HARKIN. Again, the Senator from Virginia shows the gentleman

[[Page S1853]]

that he really is by acknowledging the input of others into this issue, 
and I appreciate that. But the bill we have before us provides for a 
$180 bonus payment to any person in the armed services who qualifies 
for food stamps. That is a great step. I applaud it. I support it 
wholeheartedly. But, again, in looking at it, I think there are some 
areas that maybe need to be addressed further, and that is the purpose 
of my amendment.
  For example, the $180 bonus applies to service people in the country, 
in the United States, but not to service people overseas. Again, having 
served in the military and having been stationed overseas, I can tell 
you a lot of times it is a lot more expensive, especially if you are 
stationed in Japan or places like that where it is much more costly, 
much more expensive than it is for the people here in the States. So 
what my amendment would do would apply the $180 not just to personnel 
in the United States but to people overseas. It just extends it to them 
also.

  Second, under the bill, the process to get the bonus is they would 
first have to go to the food stamp office and get some paperwork done 
and show that they qualify. Then they come back to DOD and give them 
this documentation. Then they take other documentation back to the 
USDA. It was kind of a three-step process.
  What my amendment says is all they have to do is go to their 
personnel office, their paymaster for example, and say: Look, you know 
what my pay is. Here is my pay. You know how many dependents I have. 
The only thing that is missing is spousal income. So they would just 
document what their spousal income is. The military already has records 
on their dependents and their pay. And if they qualify, that is the end 
of it. They do not have to go through this bureaucratic nightmare of 
going to the USDA office and back and forth; it would be just a one-
step process. So my amendment tries to streamline that.
  Third, again--one of these Catch-22 situations we have here--if you 
live off base and you get a housing allowance, then that is--let me put 
it this way: It is counted in whether or not you are eligible for the 
$180.
  What my amendment says is if you get housing allowance, that is off 
the table, that is not counted as part of that, because in a lot of 
cases, housing allowances are eaten up by housing. It really doesn't 
add anything to their income. That is the third thing the amendment 
does.
  The last thing my amendment does is under the WIC Program, the Women, 
Infants and Children Program, if you are overseas--you can get it here, 
but you can't get it overseas. You would get the money in lieu of that. 
I am told that the average basic WIC allowance is about $32 a month for 
food; $10.50--is that right?--for administration. It is about $42 a 
month. That will be added for people who are overseas. If they were 
here, they could get WIC, but if they are overseas, they can't get it.
  Again, in terms of how much this costs, 2 years ago, we did have an 
amendment on the bill asking the DOD to give us the numbers on WIC and 
food stamps, and we have never received those figures from the 
Department of Defense. I don't know why we can't get them, but we can't 
get them. I did get a letter last August. I have to tell you, and I say 
this in all sincerity to my friend from Virginia, this letter disturbed 
me a little bit.
  I am going to read one paragraph of it. It is responding to section 
655 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1998. It 
required the Department of Defense to conduct a study of the members of 
the Armed Forces and their families who are at, near, or below the 
poverty line. It was sent to Chairman Thurmond and Senator Levin last 
August 18.
  Here is a paragraph that really disturbs me. I quote from the letter:

       Pay raises targeted to junior enlisted grades with the 
     objective of eliminating poverty or food stamp usage are 
     expensive and not consistent with the objectives of military 
     compensation.

  Wow. Not consistent with the objectives of military compensation?

       The Department does not support these measures. Nor does 
     the Department support pay raises that provide greater 
     percentage increases in basic pay and/or allowances to junior 
     members. Such a policy will disadvantage the senior enlisted 
     and officer forces relative to their civilian counterparts.

  I really don't understand that at all.

       It will also adversely impact retention, morale, and 
     productivity.

  Wait a minute, we are going to raise junior enlisted people above the 
poverty line, give them a bonus in lieu of food stamps here and abroad, 
and that will adversely impact retention, morale and productivity? I am 
sorry, I don't understand this.
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator allow me to state the following? I am 
personally in favor of your amendment, and we have put a request in to 
the Department of Defense to update the very facts you are addressing 
here.
  Therefore, pending receipt of that information from the Department of 
Defense, I respectfully ask that we lay your amendment aside after you, 
of course, have completed your presentation of the amendment, and then 
during the course of the next few hours, I will keep you advised with 
regard to the information that will hopefully be forthcoming, at which 
time the Senate can address the amendment presumably in a rollcall vote 
and hopefully sometime this afternoon. That is this Senator's 
intention.
  Mr. HARKIN. That is fine with this Senator.
  Mr. WARNER. I assure the Senator, we are diligent in trying to pursue 
this same information and get an update.
  Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate that. I will finish my statement very 
shortly, Mr. President.
  Again, this one paragraph really bothers me. Again, I don't 
understand how the Department of Defense can say that:

       [It does not] support pay raises that provide greater 
     percentage increases in basic pay and/or allowances to junior 
     members.

  I can see in terms of basic pay, but not allowances in terms of food 
stamps, for example. Then they say it will adversely impact retention, 
morale and productivity. I wish someone would explain that one to me.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the 
executive summary from which I quoted.
  There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           Executive Summary

       Military pay is intended to be sufficient to meet the basic 
     needs of all members--this is a fundamental premise of the 
     all-volunteer force. Yet, we find that some military members 
     have pay and allowances that place them at the poverty level 
     or eligible to receive food stamps and other forms of federal 
     assistance. These findings are troublesome to many and raise 
     the question as to the adequacy of military pay. This report 
     responds to a congressional request (P.L. 105-340, sec. 655) 
     that the Secretary of Defense conduct a study of poverty and 
     the military. Specifically, Congress asked that the study 
     include:
       An analysis of potential solutions for ensuring that 
     members of the Armed Forces and their families do not have to 
     subsist at, near, or below the poverty level, including 
     potential solutions involving changes in the system of 
     allowances for members.
       Identification of the military populations most likely to 
     need income support under Federal Government programs, 
     including: (i) The populations living in areas of the United 
     States where housing costs are notably high; (ii) the 
     populations living outside the United States; and (iii) the 
     number of persons in each identified population.
       The desirability of increasing rates of basic pay and 
     allowances for members over a defined period of years by a 
     range of percentages that provides for higher percentage 
     increases for lower ranking than for higher ranking members.
       The Department has identified 451 members, less than 3/
     100th of one percent of the military population, that could 
     potentially be at or below the poverty level. The most junior 
     of these members has a family size of 5 or greater in a grade 
     where 86% of members are single. The average age of this 
     entry grade is 19. For careerists to be below the poverty 
     level requires a family size of at least 8.
       Eligibility for food stamps, poverty programs, and other 
     federal assistance is negatively correlated with high housing 
     costs. The Department offsets high housing costs through the 
     basic allowance for housing (BAH) and, before BAH, the 
     variable housing allowance program. Under BAH, members will 
     have exactly the same out of pocket expenditure by grade no 
     matter where in the United States they are stationed. Because 
     members receive higher allowances in high-cost areas while 
     the gross income criterion for eligibility is fixed in CONUS, 
     it is more, rather than less, difficult to receive assistance 
     benefits in high housing cost locations.
       Members stationed overseas are not eligible for federal 
     assistance programs such as food stamps. These programs are 
     administered by state agencies within the United States and 
     there is no state sponsor in overseas locations. Overseas 
     housing and cost-of-

[[Page S1854]]

     living adjustments are more generous than those in the U.S. 
     The overseas housing allowance (OHA) reimburses housing costs 
     fully up to the 80th percentile. That means that 80% of our 
     members have their full rent and utilities paid by the 
     allowances. Overseas COLAs supplement income to reduce 
     overseas living costs to the U.S. average.
       Pay raises targeted to junior enlisted grades with the 
     objective of eliminating poverty or food stamp usage are 
     expensive and not consistent with the objectives of military 
     compensation. The Department does not support these measures. 
     Nor does the Department support pay raises that provide 
     greater percentage increases in basic pay and/or allowances 
     to junior members. Such a policy will disadvantage the senior 
     enlisted and officer forces relative to their civilian 
     counterparts. It will also adversely impact retention, 
     morale, and productivity. Pay compression will be further 
     aggravated by policies that attempt to lower senior enlisted 
     and officer pay relative to junior enlisted.
       Other measures such as targeted allowances for large 
     families are also not supported by the Department. Such 
     allowances increase inequities between singles and those with 
     dependents while creating inequities betweeen members with 
     average as opposed to large families.
       The Department does support efforts to treat members on- 
     and off-base equitably when applying for federal assistance. 
     Specifically, the Department feels that the value of inkind 
     housing received by members living on base should be included 
     in any calculation of gross income.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, lastly, the chairman, I know, is trying to 
get some figures from the Department of Defense on how much this costs. 
We have an estimate right now that the provision in the bill itself 
that provides for the $180 payment in lieu of food stamps will cost, at 
most, $26 million a year through the year 2004--$26 million a year 
through the year 2004.
  What Senator Bingaman and I are seeking to do is extending this 
overseas, streamlining the process--that doesn't cost anything--not 
counting the basic housing allowance and getting the $42 a month in the 
WIC payments to troops stationed overseas.
  Mr. President, I will bet you my bottom dollar and anything I have 
that it will not even double it. It can't double it. It would be 
impossible to double it because we have more people in the United 
States than we have stationed overseas. But even if it did double, we 
are talking about $52 million a year. I think the DOD budget next year 
is something like $270 billion. We can't afford $52 million?
  I am saying that would be the maximum if you double it. We would have 
exactly the same number of people overseas in the same pay grade than 
we have stationed here, and we know that is not so. I await the figures 
from the Department of Defense to see what they say. Since they have 
already given us an estimate of $26 million on the provision in the 
bill, I will be surprised if it comes in anything more than perhaps--
oh, I will take a guess --$35 million a year probably, just off the top 
of my head.
  Even if it doubled it, which it can't--there is no way it can--you 
are talking about $52 million a year. I think that is a small price to 
pay to make sure that none of our military people are on food stamps 
and that they are eligible to get the payment through the WIC Program 
if they are overseas.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a 
letter from Marilyn Sobke, president of the National Military Family 
Association, in which she states:

       The National Military Family Association strongly supports 
     your amendment that would finally extend the benefits of the 
     [WIC] Program to eligible military families stationed 
     overseas.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                 National Military


                                           Family Association,

                                Alexandria, VA, February 19, 1999.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: The National Military Family 
     Association (NMFA) strongly supports your amendment that 
     would finally extend the benefits of the Women's, Infants' 
     and Children's nutrition program to eligible military 
     families stationed overseas! As you are aware, Senator 
     Harkin, NMFA has long supported a solution to the problem for 
     these families, who lose their WIC benefits simply because 
     their country sends them to overseas duty stations.
       The amount of mail NMFA receives from both overseas social 
     agencies and individual families regarding the need for WIC 
     benefits has increased each year, even as the number of 
     families stationed in many of these areas has decreased. We 
     thank you again for your steadfast concern for these military 
     families.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Marilyn Sobke,
                                                        President.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as I understand it, we will set my 
amendment aside and await the figures from the Department of Defense. 
In the meantime, I hope Senators will support this amendment. It is not 
going to cost that much, but it has the objective of making sure that 
no one who puts on the uniform of the United States has to go down and 
stand in line to get food stamps. If nothing else, we ought to end 
that. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). Without objection, the 
amendment is set aside.
  Mr. REED addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I would briefly like to comment on Senator Harkin's amendment and 
then make more generalized comments on the bill overall. But first let 
me speak to Senator Harkin's amendment.
  I commend him for his initiative. He is responding to the needs of 
the youngest, most junior members of our military forces who need this 
type of support not only to provide for themselves and their families 
but to have the mental attitude and the freedom of mind, if you will, 
to commit themselves to a military career, and to do so from the very 
beginning of their careers so they start off on the right foot and they 
develop successfully as professional soldiers, sailors, airmen. All of 
this is very important. I commend the Senator for his initiative and I 
hope we can work out the budgetary aspects of this legislation and 
adopt this amendment.
  Now let me turn to the bill in general.
  First, let me commend the chairman and all of my colleagues on the 
committee for recognizing the seriousness of this problem of retention 
and recruitment. Indeed, it is a very serious problem. And this is a 
very serious solution, because it not only provides for resources for 
recruitment and retention, it does raise very legitimate and very 
significant budgetary issues which I will address as I discuss the 
issues overall.
  Let there be no mistake, there is a retention and recruitment problem 
within the military services today. Each year, the Department of 
Defense is responsible for recruiting 200,000 men and women to fill the 
active ranks of the military forces in the United States.

  In fiscal year 1998, the services were only able to recruit 180,000 
new soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. While the Air Force and 
Marines were able to achieve their recruiting goals in 1998, the Army 
fell short by 776 personnel, and the Navy was short by a significant 
number, 6,892. This is a problem and it is a problem that is getting 
worse.
  In the first 4 months of fiscal year 1999, the Marines again made 
their recruiting goal, and so did the Navy, but the Army fell short, 
reaching only 87 percent of its required strength level, and the Air 
Force only 94 percent of their required strength level.
  There is a problem with recruitment. And we know if you do not get 
good personnel to enter the military forces you cannot keep the 
strength levels up. There is also the associated problem of retaining 
these good individuals as they go through their military careers. Every 
service--and many of my colleagues have pointed this out--is struggling 
to keep pilots. These are highly skilled positions. These positions are 
not easily replaced. It takes years not only of training but of 
experience to develop the kind of combat skills necessary for an 
effective pilot.
  In the Air Force, for example, for every two pilots who enter the 
service, they are finding that three are leaving. That ratio is going 
to cause profound problems going forward. As my colleague from Arkansas 
pointed out, General Ryan in the Air Force estimated by fiscal year 
2002 the Air Force would be 2,000 pilots short. That is a serious 
erosion of our national security posture.
  The Navy is experiencing the problems of recruiting and retaining 
surface warfare officers. This causes them to extend sea duty by months 
and months and months, putting additional

[[Page S1855]]

pressure on military personnel. And it is this vicious circle, of fewer 
people to do the job, causing those who are on active duty to do more 
and more and more, that is adding additional pressure to the retention 
problem.
  This legislation addresses this problem very directly and with great 
gusto. There is a 4.8-percent pay increase. And that will not only make 
the daily lives of military personnel easier--not only give them the 
resources to provide for their families--it will also be a strong 
symbolic gesture that will show that this Congress understands the 
value of our men and women in the military forces. That symbolic, as 
well as very practical, response is very, very important.
  Also, this legislation will reform the pay table so that we can begin 
to reward more effectively and efficiently those midlevel 
noncommissioned officers and officers. These are the key people who 
make our military services the best in the world. They are the squad 
leaders; they are the platoon sergeants; they are the young officers 
who are at the front doing the job out on patrol in Bosnia and other 
places. It is individuals who are so important to our military 
services. With the new pay tables, we will be able to provide better 
incentives and we hope provide better retention incentives for these 
individuals.
  There is another measure in this bill which is also very important, 
and that is extending the Montgomery GI bill benefits not only to 
individual military personnel but also to their families. I must 
commend Senator Cleland, my colleague, whose idea it was. He was the 
source of this language. It is very powerful language, because when you 
look at the retention problem, you find you are talking generally about 
men and women who are in their late twenties, early thirties. They have 
12 years of active duty or so. They are also looking at their families 
and seeing children, 10, 11, 12 years old and beginning to understand 
really--not just theoretically--but really that they have to do 
something to put these children through college. And this provision 
will help them do that by allowing their benefits to be used for their 
children.

  This bill has many commendable components. Again, it stretches the 
budget dramatically. And that is an issue we have to deal with. But the 
principles included in this bill are very worthy of support.
  Let me suggest also, though, that this issue is not just about pay 
and compensation. Recruitment and retention are not just about pay and 
compensation. It is an important part, it might be the most salient 
issue, the one that we should deal with immediately and directly, but 
it is not the only issue, because there are many other factors that 
influence whether an individual will enter the military and, in many, 
many cases, whether that individual will stay on active duty.
  For example, there is the issue of operational tempo. We are 
stretching our military forces very, very thin. They are deployed in 
countries around the globe. They are deployed constantly. When they 
finish one deployment, they come home, they retrain, and suddenly, 
before expected in many cases, they are out once again in another 
deployment. This puts tremendous pressure on family life, puts 
tremendous pressure on the individual service members and their 
families. That is an issue we have to deal with. And we are not dealing 
with it simply by raising pay and allowances.
  Then there is the issue of readiness. The degree that we take money 
and put it into the personnel pay side is less money that we will have 
available for other issues of readiness--frankly, other issues with 
regard to the equipment that they have and that they believe they must 
have to do their jobs. That is another issue.
  Finally, there is the issue which I alluded to about family concerns. 
The military is changing. This is not the same military we had 20 years 
ago or 30 years ago. This military is more a family organization in 
which it is quite likely that younger military personnel will have 
family and will have dependents. It is also a situation now where the 
spouses of military personnel have to work. They have to work because, 
like so many families in America, they need two paychecks even if we 
increase the pay.
  But in many cases you have spouses who feel that their own 
professional and personal development require them to work. And it is 
very difficult, particularly when you reach that 30-year-old mark with 
someone who is a spouse who has a job, for them to pick up and suddenly 
move from one post to another. It might be a good change of assignment 
for the military member, but it could mean the death knell of the 
career for the spouse. That is another factor.
  There are limited opportunities for advancement. The military has 
gotten smaller. There is also, in this economy, the law of private 
incentive. We will never be able to pay as much money to a pilot as 
American Airlines or Delta. So increasing pay is important, but we also 
have to recognize that there are many, many other forces at work. When 
you consider these additional factors, you also have to recognize that 
it is, I think, probably more prudent to try to do this legislation in 
the context of the overall authorization bill and not separately. And 
it is also prudent to wait for some information and some analysis that 
will shortly be forthcoming.

  The Department of Defense, CBO, and GAO are studying these problems 
as we speak. We would be very prudent, I think, to wait for their 
information.
  For example, the GAO report will indicate, we believe, that the 
biggest complaint among military personnel--this is from a Defense Week 
article of February 22--is not pay and allowances; it is heavy 
workloads, job dissatisfaction, and poor health care. So, again, we are 
moving promptly to address this issue, but a little bit more 
circumspection might reward us with a better ultimate product.
  We are considering this bill today. We should consider this bill 
today.
  We also should be very conscious of the cost factors involved.
  We understand that this bill will likely be about $12 billion more 
than the President's proposal. That proposal has been fully paid for 
within the budget. We have to ask ourselves sincerely and reasonably, 
will this additional increment of billions of dollars make a difference 
in recruitment and retention? Second, where will we get these funds? 
These are legitimate questions that we have to consider.
  Secretary Cohen is acutely sensitive of these issues. In a February 
19 letter to Senator Levin, he said:

       I am concerned that until there is a budget resolution that 
     sets the defense budget level, this bill constitutes an 
     unfunded requirement on the Department. Absent an increase in 
     the topline for Defense, these items will only displace other 
     key elements of our program. It would be counterproductive 
     and completely contrary to our mutual desire not to undercut 
     our modernization effort and other readiness priorities.

  Therefore, as enthusiastic as we are to see that military men and 
women are rewarded in pay and benefits for their great services to the 
country, we have to be very, very careful when it comes to this 
increase in the amount of spending because it could result in cuts in 
other programs, in modernization programs, in other types of family-
like programs which might be equally important to ensure retention of 
military personnel.
  I understand and I support what we are trying to do in concept. I 
believe that this legislation must be changed, though, ultimately to 
recognize the severe budgetary constraints before we can accept it as 
law. I hope that when this bill comes back from conference it will not 
only have these very, very worthy elements, but it will be within a 
budget cap that we all agree is appropriate for not only the Department 
of Defense, but for our overall efforts.

  We have a responsibility to our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, 
our marines, a responsibility to our taxpayers. We have to discharge 
both. I hope we pass this legislation, that we bring it back from 
conference in a much more constrained budgetary form. If we don't do 
that, I very well may be compelled to oppose it at that point. Today, I 
support it. I support it because the principles it includes are 
important. They address the fundamental problem in the military. It 
will represent, I hope, progress towards a final, more balanced 
solution.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of the committee, we welcome the

[[Page S1856]]

Senators joining our committee this year. Senator Reed brings a 
distinguished background in the military services, having been on 
active duty himself at one point. It was an excellent statement.
  Mr. President, I see another one of our very valued ``old-timer'' 
Members seeking recognition, so I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dana Krupa, 
a fellow in my office, be allowed floor privileges during the pendency 
of this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Virginia and 
compliment him and the Senator from Michigan, my good friend, Senator 
Levin, for their leadership in getting this set of issues before the 
Senate and ensuring quick progress in dealing with the very real issue 
that faces our military personnel.


                            Amendment No. 24

(Purpose: To state the sense of the Senate regarding the processing of 
                     claims for veterans' benefits)

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and I 
ask that amendment be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 24.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 46, after line 16, add the following:
                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 501. SENSE OF SENATE REGARDING PROCESSING OF CLAIMS FOR 
                   VETERANS' BENEFITS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) Despite advances in technology, telecommunications, and 
     training, the Department of Veterans Affairs currently 
     requires 20 percent more time to process claims for veterans' 
     benefits than the Department required to process such claims 
     in 1997.
       (2) The Department does not currently process claims for 
     veterans' benefits in a timely manner.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate to urge 
     the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to--
       (1) review the program, policies, and procedures of the 
     Veterans Benefits Administration of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs in order to identify areas in which the 
     Administration does not currently process claims for 
     veterans' benefits in a manner consistent with the objectives 
     set forth in the National Performance Review (including 
     objectives regarding timeliness of Executive branch 
     activities); and
       (2) initiate any actions necessary to ensure that the 
     Administration processes claims for such benefits in a manner 
     consistent with such objectives.
       (3) report to the Congress by June 1, 1999 on measures 
     taken to improve processing time for veterans' claims.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is merely a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution regarding an element of pay and benefits to service members, 
and particularly those service men and women who have already served 
their country or are retired from the military service. In all of our 
discussions about the need to provide greater incentives for young 
Americans to serve and to remain in the military, we can't forget how 
important it is for the Nation to follow through on the promises that 
we have made to our veterans; to know that the benefits that are 
promised will be delivered is a very important tool in recruiting and 
retaining quality personnel in our military.
  I have been disturbed, as I am sure some of my colleagues have been, 
by the recent reports in the press that have indicated that getting 
claims by our Nation's veterans actually resolved and paid by the 
Veterans' Administration has become an increasing problem. Many 
veterans are having to wait an unconscionably long period of time 
before their cases have been resolved. I hear about this in my home 
State. I was there all last week and heard about it at several points.
  I recently read of a case that originated in 1967 that has still not 
been conclusively resolved. Veterans in my State of New Mexico have 
complained that the time taken to process individual claims has grown 
considerably worse over the past year. We have a billboard that has 
been put up in our State by a veterans group complaining about this 
issue. We have had picketing at congressional offices to raise 
awareness of this issue. According to the press, the average VA claim 
has been pending for 151 days nationwide, while in Albuquerque the 
average has increased to 161 days.
  I tried to look into the situation and from what I can tell, the 
prospects for improvement are fairly slim. We have significant staff 
cutbacks--at least in my State, in Albuquerque--that have made the 
problem worse. But there have been other factors such as limited 
training and lack of automation in the VA that have contributed to the 
situation.
  Mr. President, this problem is not peculiar to New Mexico. Yesterday, 
the Washington Post included an article that suggested the problem is 
being experienced in many States, if not in all. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent to have that article printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 VA Enters `Different World' of Computers--Anti-Paper Effort To Start 
                                Locally

                          (By Bill McAllister)

       Shortly after he arrived in Washington to take charge of 
     the Department of Veterans Affairs' notoriously troubled 
     benefit programs, Joseph Thompson gave Clinton administration 
     officials a succinct assessment. ``We're in the 14th year of 
     a seven-year modernization program.''
       Repeatedly pilloried by Congress, the General Accounting 
     Office and senior VA officials, efforts to improve Thompson's 
     sprawling Veterans Benefits Administration are no joke. His 
     agency, which has offices in every state, has defied numerous 
     efforts to improve the speed with which it handles 2.5 
     million veterans claims a year.
       Today, 15 months after he took office as undersecretary for 
     veterans benefits, Thompson will announce a major initiative 
     to end the VA's dependence on the huge paper files that 
     remain the lifeblood--and the bane--of the VA's claims 
     bureaucracy. With the cooperation of seven high-tech 
     companies, the VA will initiate a pilot program to put all 
     the claims files at its Washington regional office in an 
     electronic database.
       Thompson hopes that the program not only will speed the 
     handling of Washington area claims, but that it also will 
     give the VA ``a peek into a different world in which we are 
     going to have to live,'' a world dominated by computers. It 
     also could provide the department with the outline of a 
     national computer claims network, which Thompson says the VA 
     eventually must create.
       The former head of the VA's New York benefits office, 
     Thompson acknowledged in an interview yesterday that his 
     ambitious plans face a lot of skepticism from Capitol Hill 
     and from veterans. Congress, which must fund any national 
     system, is demanding proof that his plans will work, Thompson 
     said.
       Fifty-seven percent of veterans interviewed by the VA have 
     given Thompson's current benefits programs a thumbs down 
     because claims processing is painfully slow and difficult to 
     deal with. ``We know they are unhappy,'' Thompson said. ``If 
     you were seeing those numbers in a private company, you'd be 
     packing your bags.''
       Thompson, a career VA employee whose work in New York was 
     praised by Vice President Gore and his National Performance 
     Review, won the help of a nonprofit business group called 
     Highway 1 after he pleaded for the support of private 
     industry.
       Highway 1, composed of Kodak, Microsoft, IBM, 
     MCI Worldwide, Computer Sciences Corp., Canon and Cicso 
     Systems, was amazed to discover how much paper dominates 
     the claims process.
       ``It was mind-blowing'' said Kimberly Jenkins, the 
     coalition's founder and chairman. ``There were stacks and 
     stacks of files, with rubber bands around them and frayed 
     paper, some dating back to the Civil War.''
       The effort at the Washington regional office is only part 
     of Thompson's efforts to reduce the paper jam in VA benefits 
     programs. He said the agency also will distribute new 
     software designed to help veterans fill out claims 
     applications.
       Many of the forms that the VA processes are filled out with 
     varying degrees of completeness on behalf of veterans by 
     local and state government veterans officials and by workers 
     affiliated with the large veterans service organizations, 
     such as the American Legion and Disabled American Veterans. 
     The new software should produce more complete and uniform 
     applications, Thompson said.
       Although Congress has repeatedly demanded that the VA 
     reduce the amount of time it takes to process claims, 
     Thompson argues that merely dispatching a claim quickly is 
     not good enough. ``You can be fast or you can be slow, but it 
     you don't make the right call, you've done a disservice to 
     the veteran and to the taxpayer,'' he tells the agency's 
     11,200 benefits workers.
       According to testimony Thompson gave to Congress last year, 
     the VA steadily reduced the amount of time it took to process 
     compensation claims from 213 days in 1994 to 133 days in 
     1997.

[[Page S1857]]

       But in 1997 the time jumped back up, and it now takes about 
     160 days to process new claims. Thompson blames the increase 
     in part on the increasingly complex types of claims that 
     veterans, such as those from the Persian Gulf War, are 
     filing.
       The delay, however, is a major challenge for Thompson 
     because the VA has promised Gore's National Performance 
     Review that by fiscal 2000 it hopes to process new 
     compensation claims ``in an average of 92 days.''
       In the past, VA officials could deal with demands that the 
     agency improve by redefining its work. Thompson recalled with 
     a laugh that his first VA boss told him it used to take his 
     office six months to process new claims. ``Now we have cut 
     that to 180 days,'' the official said.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Let me read a portion of the article which I think 
tells a lot of the story.

       In the past, VA officials could deal with demands that the 
     agency improve by redefining its work. Thompson [this is 
     Joseph Thompson, at the VA administration] recalled with a 
     laugh that his first VA boss told him it used to take his 
     office six months to process new claims. ``Now we have cut 
     that to 180 days,'' the official said.

  Although that is semihumorous, I do think that kind of an evasion of 
the problem has characterized the VA for too many years.
  The article pointed out that the Department of Veterans Affairs made 
significant progress in reducing the time it took to process veterans' 
claims between the years 1994 and 1997, but since then, the processing 
time has increased from 133 days on average to the current rate of 
about 160 days. The administration has called for steps to reduce that, 
to get it down to an average response time of 92 days, but I am 
concerned that the erosion of veterans' benefits, the difficulty that 
our veterans have in seeing those benefits delivered, will weigh 
against recruitment and retention of the quality personnel that we need 
in our Armed Forces today.
  This amendment states that it is the sense of the Senate the 
Department of Veterans Affairs should conduct a thorough review of the 
programs, procedures, and policies that govern this processing of 
veterans claims for benefits, and by June 1 of this year report to 
Congress on measures to be taken as a result of such a review.
  I hope by that time we can identify the measures that we need to 
include in the authorization bill and in the appropriations bill to 
assist in this effort.
  My hope is that the result of this review will be that we can reduce 
this processing time to bring it down to this 92-day average time. This 
is the administration's goal under the National Performance Review, 
which has come up with that estimate of the length of time that can be 
achieved. Obviously, even 92 days is too long. Better training and 
technology and staffing would allow us to shorten that even more. But, 
first, let's get to the 92 days.
  Mr. President, I have discussed this amendment with colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle. As far as I know, it is agreeable to all 
concerned. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this amendment is acceptable on this side. 
I see no need for further debate. We can move to the question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from New Mexico.
  The amendment (No. 24) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we are continuing to make progress. It is 
the understanding of the Senator from Virginia that Senator McCain is 
en route to the floor for the purpose of making a statement about the 
bill and to present an amendment for himself and Senator Coverdell.
  I also urge Senator Feingold to consider coming to the floor 
following that. Hopefully, it will be mutually convenient.
  Seeing no Senator seeking recognition at this time, I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of S. 4, 
the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's and Marines' Bill of Rights. Since 
Desert Storm I have been extremely concerned that our military has been 
losing the cutting edge and their ability to respond to crises or to 
maintain our superiority throughout the world. We have all watched as 
our Armed Forces became increasingly unable to retain their most 
qualified warfighters, fell short of their recruiting goals, and 
suffered severe morale problems across mission areas of each service. 
We heard repeatedly from the Department of Defense that they ``could do 
more with less'', until last September when the service chiefs came to 
us and confessed a very bleak picture indeed.

  Even as our military has been downsized to a more streamlined force, 
the Administration has deployed our servicemembers more and more into 
harm's way. With 6,700 troops still in Bosnia, two years after the 
original deadline for their withdrawal, we are preparing the ground for 
the deployment of 4,000 additional soldiers and Marines into Kosovo. 
And make no mistake, Kosovo is a considerably more complicated 
situation than existed in Bosnia. The United States does not support 
the Kosovar Albanian goal of independence, and so recognizes the right 
of Serbia to maintain control of its territory. At the same time, the 
brutality and utter ruthlessness with which President Milosevic has and 
continues to prosecute his campaign against the Albanian population of 
Kosovo demands the international community take steps to compel a 
termination of his actions. Slobodan Milosevic represents the 
personification of a kind of tyranny we had hoped we had seen the last 
of with the death of Stalin, yet which continues to appear in places 
like Uganda, Cambodia, and, in the 1990s, Yugoslavia. He must be 
curtailed through forceful persuasion, not only because objective 
morality dictates we do so, but because the Kosovar Albanians deserve 
to know that the more recalcitrant party to the talks and the 
overwhelmingly greater threat to human rights will be held accountable 
for his actions.
  Toward that end, the President has made a commitment to dispatch U.S. 
forces to Kosovo. It is with great reluctance that I will not oppose 
that deployment, as the risks to U.S. national interests should the 
fighting in Kosovo spread beyond its confines could be substantial, 
involving our Greek and Turkish allies and other countries threatened 
with internal dissension. But my support is qualified upon a series of 
measures that have yet to emerge as part of the Clinton 
Administration's overall approach to foreign policy and the role of 
force in support of that policy. Prior to the deployment, there must be 
a clearly established set of criteria for determining the nature 
and duration of the operation. There should be an exit strategy for how 
to withdraw those forces upon the completion of a mission understood by 
our military commanders in the field as well as by the American public 
here at home, or to extract them should fighting on the scale of that 
witnessed over the past year resume.

  Under no circumstances should U.S. forces be sent into Kosovo without 
clearly articulated rules of engagement. Peacekeeping missions are 
fraught with uncertainties regarding the identity of combatants within 
civilian populations. Our military personnel must know that they have 
authority to respond to threats with the requisite degree of force, and 
without having to go through the kind of bureaucratic and political 
nightmare that characterized the war in neighboring Bosnia-Herzegovina. 
There must be no dual-key arrangement. If this is a NATO operation, 
then NATO alone should dictate when force is used to compel the parties 
to comply with their obligations. Neither the so-called Contact Group 
nor the United Nations should be permitted to insert itself into 
operational aspects of the mission. If these conditions are met, up 
front, then I will support the deployment, albeit reluctantly.
  And, finally, the Administration should take one other step it has 
been historically reluctant to take: it should indicate how it intends 
to pay for the operation. It should not, as it

[[Page S1858]]

has done in the past, provide vague references to future supplemental 
appropriations bills and then draw the funds from existing, dedicated 
accounts. It should, even before the deployment begins, work with 
Congress to provide the requisite funds without depleting operations 
and maintenance and missile defense accounts.
  Skepticism, in this regard, is warranted. A historically high rate of 
deployments combined with a major reduction in overall force structure 
has caused readiness problems in the military that threaten our ability 
to respond to future contingencies in which vital interests are at 
stake. The Administration ignored this problem for six years, and its 
fiscal year 2000 budget submission is excessively replete with budget 
gimmickry that makes me question its commitment to correct near and 
long-term readiness problems.
  Before I leave the issue of Kosovo, let me just state that the events 
that just took place in France are certainly not the United States' 
finest hour in diplomacy. The President of the United States said that 
if two--not one but two--deadlines were reached that the United States 
would act militarily. They allowed those to pass. Somehow now a period 
of 3 weeks is supposed to take place while Kosovar Albanians consult 
with one another to decide whether or not they will abide by certain 
provisions of a proposed, as yet unseen peace agreement.
  Mr. President, the United States squandered a lot of credibility 
during this period of time, and there were a broad variety of reasons 
why that happened, including allowing the conduct of these negotiations 
to be supervised by others rather than the United States. But 
fundamentally there was a misunderstanding of the problem--a 
misunderstanding of the motivation of the participants, and very 
frankly there has been a commensurate erosion of U.S. credibility 
during this entire series of negotiations. I do not know how it is 
going to come out, but I think the prospects of further bloodletting 
have been increased as a result of these negotiations rather than the 
stated goal of them being decreased.
  It is the growth of those problems that brings us to where we are 
today; that bring us to consideration of the legislation before the 
Senate.
  Mr. President, this bipartisan bill contains a package of benefits 
for the Armed Forces that would go a very long way to fixing the 
readiness problems facing all the services. It combines overall pay 
increases with retirement incentives, exciting new savings plans, and 
educational benefits. It addresses the issue of service members on food 
stamps. It is focused and balanced, and directly answers the most 
pressing needs as stated by the service chiefs and service secretaries.
  Military pay, by almost all accounts, has fallen considerably behind 
civilian pay. Arguments can be made as to the precise pay differential, 
and at which pay grades and mission ares it is greatest, but there is 
no credible argument as to whether we need to address the pay gap. This 
is accomplished by the bill's proposed pay raise of 4.8 percent next 
year and raises based on the employment cost index plus half a percent 
thereafter.
  The tables that define military base pays for all ranks are archaic 
and badly in need of reform. Middle leadership positions for both 
enlisted and officers have to be rewarding. Few service members 
actually see themselves becoming the Master Sergeant of the Army or the 
Chief of Naval Operations. Many, however, do aspire to the rank of Army 
Lieutenant Colonel or Navy Senior Chief. Our legislation proposes a 
sweeping reform of the pay tables, rewarding service and promotion 
without over-compensating very senior officers.
  The reduced retirement plan implemented in 1986, known as Redux, is a 
major morale issue with service members. Although no one has retired 
under this plan, it is a constant reminder that military service is 
under-appreciated. Even if a service member is not affected by this 
plan, it is a morale issue because many of his peers and subordinates 
are. Repealing REDUX across the board is expensive, which is why our 
legislation gives the service member the choice of switching to the 
pre-REDUX plan or remaining with REDUX and taking a $30,000 bonus, 
which can in turn be rolled tax-free into the thrift savings plan. Many 
service members would choose this alternative in response to the needs 
of their family in the near term.
  Our bill also offers service members an opportunity to save for their 
future. The new thrift savings plan established in this bill allows 
members to put aside up to 5 percent of their pay and all special 
bonuses, tax free, in a plan that does require them to serve a full 
career of 20 years to earn that ``nest egg''. Each service is given the 
discretion of matching these funds up to the full 5 percent.
  The legislation also increases the monthly educational benefit of the 
GI Bill, allows lump sum payments up-front for school tuition, and 
cancels the servicemember's obligation to contribute the $1200 required 
to receive full benefits. Most importantly, it allows the transfer of 
these benefits to immediate family members, a proposal that will be 
welcomed with open arms by servicemembers struggling to put children 
through college.
  Lastly, S. 4 includes a provision for a special subsistence allowance 
that will take almost 10,000 service members off food stamps. This 
benefit will help the most junior and most needy of our hard-working 
enlisted troops. It will remove the stigma of food stamps from the 
military family and it will do so fairly, without aggravating pay 
discrepancies, and in an honorable manner.

  Mr. President, much has been said about this bill that is flat wrong. 
S. 4, as reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee, is not 
significantly more expensive than the Administration's proposal, and, 
in fact, may well be cheaper depending on the number of service members 
who choose to remain on the reduced retirement plan and take the 
$30,000 bonus. Seemingly subtle differences between S. 4 and the 
Administration's proposal are not lost on our bright young fighting men 
and women. S. 4 offers half a percent higher pay raise next year, no 
cost-of-living allowance caps, the opportunity for individual thrift 
svings plans, exciting educational benefits, and a special subsistence 
allowance that will help those most needy junior military families who 
today must use food stamps to make ends meet.
  I must admit that I have great concern about the potential for 
``Christmas tree'' amendments on this bill that inflate its costs well 
beyond what has been requested by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and what is 
clearly necessary to restore morals and personnel readiness. However, I 
am hopeful that any excessive or irrelevant provisions added during 
floor debate will be fairly addressed in confrerence with the House.
  Mr. President, our bill will have profound and immediate positive 
effects on morale and retention. In fact, I have heard from several 
service members over the last month who are deferring their decision to 
leave their service based on what we do here in Congress. They will not 
wait forever.
  Mr. President our military personnel need and deserve our immediate 
attention on this critical issue. These are the men and women who 
defend our nation day and night, 365 days a year, at home and overseas. 
They need our support and our appreciation. I urge my colleagues to 
support this bill and to work for a streamlined process that will 
expeditiously take the benefits of S. 4 to our fighting men and women.
  I especially thank the distinguished chairman of the committee, 
Senator Warner, who decided last year that this had to be our highest 
priority. He is keenly aware of the problems of morale and retention 
that affect our men and women in the military, which was so graphically 
demonstrated last year when the Joint Chiefs came over.
  Have no doubt, have no doubt, that the men and women in the military 
are watching what we do. I have already heard, as others have heard, 
this may be delayed; that the administration wants to delay it; some of 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want it delayed; some of 
my colleagues on this side of the aisle are saying it is too expensive; 
we should not move forward with it.
  Mr. President, what is more outrageous than having 11,000 enlisted 
families whom we are asking to defend this Nation existing on food 
stamps? That is an outrage and an insult to all of us as Americans. 
Don't we care enough about these young men and

[[Page S1859]]

women that we are willing to do what we can to get them off food 
stamps, and do it quickly? Aren't we aware that the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff came over and testified before the Armed Services 
Committee and said the reason we are not keeping these good men and 
women, the No. 1 reason, is because of the retirement system?
  I read editorials in the Washington Post--I think the chairman said 
there are two--that this is a bad idea; it affects the retirement 
system.
  What in the world does the Washington Post know? I challenge the 
editorial writer of the Washington Post to go out to any of these 
ships, any of these Army units, any Marine or Air Force base, and ask 
them why they are not staying in; ask them why their morale is at a low 
that we have not seen since the 1970s; ask them why their subordinates 
and their peers are not remaining in the military.
  They will tell the editorial writers and the skeptics who oppose this 
legislation, just as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did last 
September, that is the No. 1 issue. You can run all the computer 
studies, you can run all these numbers you want, you can say this 
doesn't really matter, but, Mr. President, it does matter to them. It 
does matter to them. Ask any of them. And that is what we are trying to 
face here.
  Yes, I want to join my friend, the chairman, in my concern about so 
much being added to this bill. A lot of these are very good things that 
are being added with these amendments, and I am sure they will play 
well with certain constituencies. But I want to tell my colleagues, I 
have every confidence that when we go to conference we are going to 
strip a lot out of this, because we cannot have this thing overloaded 
to the point where it falls of its own weight.
  The priorities we have are restoring the morale and retaining the men 
and women in the military. I would argue that almost any amendment on 
this bill which does not directly apply to that objective perhaps 
should be taken up another day, in the normal course of the 
authorization bill which we will probably bring to the floor sometime 
this coming summer. In the meantime, we cannot wait. We cannot wait.
  I received a letter yesterday from a naval officer who said: If this 
legislation is passed, then I and many of my colleagues will not make 
the decision that many of us had already made, and that is to leave the 
military.
  This is an important issue. We are about to send our young men and 
women into harm's way again in Kosovo, whether the majority of my 
colleagues happen to agree with that decision or not. Are we supposed 
to send them immediately into harm's way and tell them, well, we will 
have to wait on this issue of giving you a decent pay and allowance and 
a decent retirement system, at least in your view that is badly needed, 
or are we going to address those problems immediately?

  I won't go into it further, but there are times when I am reminded of 
the old Kipling poem about, ``It's Tommy this, an' Tommy that,'' but 
when the drums begin to roll, it is, ``Mr. Thompson, if you please.''
  I urge my colleagues to allow us to move forward as rapidly as 
possible with this legislation. Let's narrow down the amendments. Let's 
move forward with this, with the assurance to all of our colleagues 
that many of their worthy amendments should be addressed in a proper 
process.
  I thank the chairman, Senator Warner, again, along with Senator 
Levin, but especially Senator Warner whose experience and knowledge of 
men and women in the service is unequaled by any in this body, 
including his dedicated service to our Nation in the military, albeit 
it was in the Spanish-American War.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my very, very dear friend and 
colleague. Our association goes back many, many years when at one time, 
I suppose, you could consider me his boss, but those days when I was 
his boss ended with his distinguished family of predecessors who have 
served in our naval service with such distinction for so many 
generations.
  Before the Senator departs, I want to say that earlier, in the 
context of the Harkin amendment, I made it very clear to the Senate 
that that important provision on food stamps in our bill originated 
with the Senator, and it represents a lot of study and commitment that 
the Senator has made for a number of years on this issue; it just 
didn't come to mind yesterday. The Senator has spoken on it many times 
to our committee, to the Senate as a whole, and, indeed, to the Nation 
as a whole. The Senator has addressed the problems associated with food 
stamps.
  Also, the Senator mentioned the concern he has about NATO. I share a 
number of those concerns and particularly the relationship to the 
United Nations. I had a meeting early this morning with the Secretary 
General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, and later today I will put 
into the Record some remarks.
  Of course, I stressed with him our deep concern about Iraq and the 
need for greater unity of commitment and understanding in the United 
Nations on that question. But I also touched on the issue that they are 
entirely separate organizations, the United Nations and NATO, and there 
are times when we work together.
  And the Senator is quite correct in sending out a clarion call that 
as we approach the 50th anniversary and decisions relating to the 
future of NATO, and particularly what we call ``out-of-area missions,'' 
that again the separability of those two organizations be kept in mind. 
I hope at some point to more formally address that issue. I have been 
doing some research on it which I would be happy to share with my good 
friend and colleague.
  On Kosovo, our committee will be holding a hearing tomorrow, and I 
hope the Senator can schedule time to attend that hearing and, perhaps 
in his opening remarks in the course of the hearing, address some of 
the very concerns that the Senator stated here today.

  I thank my good friend for bringing to bear on the deliberations of 
the committee and the Senate as a whole his years of experience in the 
military. It is very important. Without it, we would be at a great 
loss. I thank my colleague.
  If I might ask one question, there was some thought that the Senator 
was going to offer an amendment on behalf of Mr. Coverdell. Could the 
Senator clarify that?
  Mr. McCAIN. It was my understanding that Senator Coverdell would like 
to do that.
  Mr. WARNER. He is going to do that.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield, I do want to help him in 
getting these amendments narrowed down. It is time, I tell all my 
colleagues, to move forward.
  Mr. WARNER. We are ready to move this bill, I say to the Senator, but 
in fairness we have to get some further cost information. The Senator 
from Arizona brought up his concern about costs. The Senator is a 
watchdog on that, and we are beginning to get that from the Department 
of Defense, particularly with the amendment of the Senator from Iowa 
regarding the extension of food stamps to overseas men and women of the 
Armed Forces. I don't know whether the Senator has a view he would like 
to add on that.
  Mr. McCAIN. I have not had a chance to examine it, but I would like 
to do it.
  Mr. WARNER. We are keeping the Senator's assistant informed of the 
information as it comes over.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator very much.
  Mr. President, we are proceeding with this bill apace. We understand 
the Senator from Wisconsin is going to come to the floor shortly for an 
amendment. We are anxious to move any others. There are only very few 
left. I intend to advise the majority leader and the Democratic leader 
that it is this Senator's objective that this bill can be passed this 
afternoon, final passage.
  Mr. President, I see no other Senator seeking recognition at this 
time, so, therefore, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S1860]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I want to address the bill that is 
presently before the Senate. I begin by congratulating the chairman of 
the committee, Senator Warner, and the ranking member, Senator 
Bingaman, for bringing this bill forward in the sense that it has 
addressed the issue of pay raise for our service people. This is 
important. I think we all recognize that our ability to attract in a 
volunteer service first-class folks who are going to be willing to put 
their lives on the line for us requires, in turn, that we pay them a 
fair compensation which reflects the gravity of the job that they are 
doing and the importance of the job that they are doing.
  So the pay raise part of this bill, I think, is a very appropriate 
element of the bill. In addition, I am very supportive of the attempts 
to address the health care issues, not only of the service men and 
women, but of their families, which is critical to the quality of life. 
Of course, housing needs of service individuals is also extremely 
important.
  Those elements of the bill, especially the pay and the health care 
parts, are, in my opinion, steps forward, and I congratulate the 
chairman for bringing the bill forward and bringing it so promptly to 
our attention.
  But I do have serious reservations about some other elements of this 
piece of legislation. There are two areas where I think this 
legislation either creates a new entitlement, which is inappropriate 
and extraordinarily expensive, or actually is counterproductive to its 
overall purpose.
  The first place that I have concern is in the area of the new 
entitlement for children of service individuals to receive, basically, 
the GI bill benefits. This is a significant expansion of the GI 
benefit. It has always been a superb benefit and a well-used benefit, 
but it has only been directed at the military personnel. Now it can be 
used by the spouses and by the children of military personnel.
  The potential costs in the outyears of this are extraordinary because 
it is an entitlement. They really are not recorded in this bill because 
this bill only has a 5-year window, and when we get out past that 5 
years, this number is going to be extremely high, and I think we will 
have, in my opinion, expanded this benefit in a way that will put great 
strain on the Defense Department budgets, which I do not think is the 
proper way to approach this.
  Education is important, but the GI bill has always been focused on 
the soldier, the sailor, the airman. It is not for the children, unless 
the soldier, the sailor or airman has died in service.
  We do have a large panoply of other types of educational initiatives 
in our Government that are available for military children, as well as 
for all other children, for that matter. It would be better to work an 
additional benefit for military children through those types of 
already-existing educational programs which are not entitlement 
oriented but are discretionary oriented. In my opinion, for that 
reason, this bill has a very serious flaw.
  The second problem this bill has, which I really do not understand 
why the decision was made to go in this direction, is that it reverses 
the decision we made back in 1986 to drop the 50 percent back to 40 
percent, the percentage of pay which a person will get on retirement 
after 20 years. The reason we did that, and the reason it passed so 
overwhelmingly back in 1986, was because we were trying to retain 
people in the military service. That is the reason that decision was 
made. We saw the purpose of that pension structure, 50 percent of pay 
upon 20 years of completion of service, as being, essentially, an 
encouragement to cause people to leave the military, and they were.

  So this bill reinstitutes an initiative which makes no sense if our 
purpose is to attract people and keep them in the military. I 
understand this bill also has a $30,000 bonus if you stay in the 
military and take the 40 percent. But the fact is, going back to 50 
percent is going to cause a lot of good officers and a lot of our more 
senior enlisted individuals to leave the service, because their age is 
usually in the early forties when they hit that 20 years, sometimes 
younger, but usually in the early forties, and that is the perfect time 
to go off and find a new career.
  If you have an incentive that you are going to get 50 percent of your 
pay if you go out and find a career, you have a huge incentive to leave 
the career you are in and go out and find a new career. So it makes 
much more sense to stay at the 40 percent. I think it would have made a 
great deal more sense in this bill if we said, rather than bumping it 
back up to 50 percent, something to the effect that we are going to 
stay at 40 percent and we are going to give the military, the Defense 
Department, the flexibility to take the money we would have used to go 
to 50 percent and use that money to create new programs which will 
encourage people to stay in the service rather than to leave the 
service.
  For example, the bonus is in this bill, but certainly there are other 
things that could be done that would encourage people to stay in the 
service after 20 years if there were a big pool of resources available 
to the Defense Department to set up educational programs or additional 
benefit structure programs or even a pay increase incentive program for 
people who reach that 20 years and are thinking of retiring.
  Instead of doing that, we are doing the exact opposite. We are saying 
we are going to bump your percentage up to 50 percent and encourage you 
to leave the military. It makes no sense; plus, it is extremely 
expensive. It is $2 billion and, once again, when we get outside the 5-
year window, the cost is very high.
  This is an extraordinarily expensive bill. We should not 
underestimate that it costs $45 million in discretionary money and 
$14.1 billion in new entitlement spending over the 5-year period. If 
you were to graph it, it would go up probably horizontally on the 
entitlements side because of the new entitlements in the education 
accounts.
  I think and I am hopeful that when the extraordinarily high quality 
leadership, which this committee has, takes a look at this bill again 
as it heads into conference, they will take a look at these two items, 
because these two items, in my opinion, create serious flaws in a bill 
that otherwise is very positive and is very appropriate.
  It seems to me that the first one is an expansion of the entitlement, 
which is inappropriate, and the 50 percent, which is counterproductive 
to the purposes of the bill. It would be logical if we go back and 
visit both of those items.
  I do have an amendment that I would be willing to offer on the second 
one, the 50 percent. I am hopeful that this committee, which is so well 
led--and I do not want to slow up the bill because I think it is a 
bill, I understand, that the committee wants to move--I am hopeful the 
committee will take a hard look at this, and if they don't, obviously, 
I might have to resort to the amendment. But, hopefully, there will be 
an attempt to take a look at this, at least in the conference stage so 
we can address what I think are the two flaws in this bill.
  I thank the President for his time, and yield back the remainder of 
my time.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague for his remarks. He is a keen 
observer of the budget process around here. And I recognize that we are 
going to have to take a look at some of these options. But it is going 
to send a strong message. And I think it is important.
  Mr. GREGG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.
  I wish to advise the Chair and all Senators that we are about to get 
some other amendments accepted here very quickly. And if we can accept 
about four amendments, I would hope maybe we can arrange for a break 
here at the noon hour, and then resume early in the afternoon. But that 
is a decision that is up to the leadership at this time.
  Mr. President, on the amendments, Senator Jeffords is on his way to 
the floor to address two of the three he has. The first one is in 
relation to what we call a lump-sum payment. And I am of the opinion 
that the committee is going to accept that. And the second is an 
extended window of eligibility; that is whereby a person in the service 
has a period of time, after they depart the service--somewhat extended 
now--within which to make certain decisions

[[Page S1861]]

regarding their eligibility under the various GI bill provisions. So I 
hope that we can accept those two.
  Senator Feingold has an amendment. And I think momentarily my 
colleague, the joint manager of the bill, will address that. That 
leaves the amendment from the Senator from Iowa, the Harkin amendment. 
And I think we are very close to closure on that. It is being redrafted 
in a manner in which I think it can be accepted.
  Senator?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President and Mr. Chairman.


                            Amendment No. 25

 (Purpose: To amend title 37, United States Code, to ensure equitable 
   treatment of members of the National Guard and the other reserve 
 components of the United States with regard to eligibility to receive 
                      special duty assignment pay)

  Ms. LANDRIEU. If I could, on behalf of Senator Feingold, who is 
unable to be here because he is in a committee hearing, to offer this 
amendment on his behalf. I send it to the desk. This amendment would 
correct special duty assignment pay inequities between the Reserve 
components and their active duty counterparts.
  I understand this is acceptable to you, and the amendment will be 
accepted.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu], for Mr. 
     Feingold, proposes an amendment numbered 25.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 28, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

     SEC. 104. ENTITLEMENT OF RESERVES NOT ON ACTIVE DUTY TO 
                   RECEIVE SPECIAL DUTY ASSIGNMENT PAY.

       (a) Authority.--Section 307(a) of title 37, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after ``is entitled to basic 
     pay'' in the first sentence the following: ``, or is entitled 
     to compensation under section 206 of this title in the case 
     of a member of a reserve component not on active duty,''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the first day of the first month that 
     begins on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment that 
will restore a measure of pay equity for our nation's Guardsmen and 
Reservists. The men and women who serve in the Guard and Reserves are 
cornerstones of our national defense and domestic infrastructure and 
deserve more than a pat on the back.
  Mr. President, as I'm certain my colleagues are well aware, the Guard 
and Reserve are integral parts of overseas missions, including recent 
and on-going missions to Iraq and Bosnia. According to statements by 
DoD officials, guardsmen and reservists will continue to play an 
increasingly important role in national defense strategy. The National 
Guard and Reserves deserve the full support they need to carry out 
their duties.
  National Guard and Reserve members are increasingly relied upon to 
shoulder more of the burden of military operations. We need to 
compensate our citizen-soldiers for this increasing reliance on the 
Reserve forces. Mr. President, this boils down to an issue of fairness.
  Mr. President, my amendment would correct special duty assignment pay 
inequities between the Reserve components of our armed forces and their 
active duty counterparts. These inequities should be corrected to take 
into account the National Guard and Reserves' increased role in our 
national security, especially on the front lines. Given the increased 
use of the Reserve components and DoD's increased reliance on them, 
Reservists deserve fair pay. My amendment provides that a Reservist who 
is entitled to basic pay and is performing special duty be paid special 
duty assignment pay.
  Mr. President, right now, Reservists are getting shortchanged despite 
the vital role they play in our national defense. The special duty 
assignment pay program ensures readiness by compensating specific 
soldiers who are assigned to duty positions that demand special 
training and extraordinary effort to maintain a level of satisfactory 
performance. The program, as it stands now, effectively reduces the 
ability of the National Guard and Reserve to retain highly dedicated 
and specialized soldiers.
  The special duty assignment pay program provides an additional 
monthly financial incentive paid to enlisted soldiers and airmen who 
are required to perform extremely demanding duties that require an 
unusual degree of responsibility. These special duty assignments 
include certain command sergeants major, guidance counselors, retention 
non-commissioned officers (NCO's), drill sergeants, and members of the 
Special Forces. These soldiers, however, do not receive special duty 
assignment pay while in an IDT status (drill weekends).
  Between fiscal years 1998 and 1999, spending for the program was cut 
by $1.6 million, which has placed a fiscal restraint on the number of 
personnel the Army National Guard is able to provide for under this 
program. These soldiers deserve better.
  Mr. President, these differences in pay and benefits are particularly 
disturbing since National Guard and Reserve members give up their 
civilian salaries during the time they are called up or volunteer for 
active duty.
  As I'm sure all my colleagues have heard, the President will propose 
an enormous boost in defense spending over the next six years; an 
increase of $12 billion for fiscal year 2000 and about $110 billion 
over the next six years. I have tremendous reservations about spending 
hikes of this magnitude, but have no such reservations about supporting 
this nation's citizen-soldiers in this small but important way. The 
National Guard and Reserve deserve pay and benefit equity and that 
means paying them what they're worth.
  Mr. President, according to the National Guard, shortfalls in the 
operations and maintenance account compromise the Guard's readiness 
levels, capabilities, force structure, and end strength. Failing to 
fully support these vital areas will have both direct and indirect 
effects. The shortfall puts the Guard's personnel, schools, training, 
full-time support, and retention and recruitment at risk. Perhaps more 
importantly, however, it erodes the morale of our citizen-soldiers.
  Over these past years, the Administration has increasingly called on 
the Guard and Reserves to handle wider-ranging tasks, while 
simultaneously offering defense budgets with shortfalls of hundreds of 
millions of dollars. These shortfalls have increasingly greater effect 
given the guard and reserves' increased operations burdens. This is a 
result of new missions, increased deployments, and training 
requirements.
  Earlier this year, Charles Cragin, the assistant secretary of defense 
for reserve affairs, presented DoD's position with regard to the 
department's working relationship with the National Guard and Reserve. 
He stated that all branches of the military reserves will be called 
upon more frequently as the nation pares back the number of soldiers on 
active duty. This has clearly been DoD's policy for the past few years, 
but Mr. Cragin went a little further by stating that the reserve units 
can no longer be considered ``weekend warriors'' but primary components 
of national defense.
  Mr. President, in the past, DoD viewed the armed forces as a two-
pronged system, with active-duty troops being the primary prong, 
reinforced by the Reserve component. That strategy has changed with the 
downsizing of active forces. Defense officials now see reserves as part 
of the ``total force'' of the military.
  The National Guard and Reserves will be called more frequently to 
active duty for domestic support roles and abroad in various peace-
keeping efforts. They will also be vital players on special teams 
trained to deal with weapons of mass destruction deployed within our 
own borders. According to many military experts, this represents a more 
salient threat to the United States than the threat of a ballistic 
missile attack that many of my colleagues have spent so much time 
addressing.
  Mr. President, I have had the opportunity to see some of these 
soldiers off as they embarked on these missions and have welcomed them 
home upon their return, and I have been struck by

[[Page S1862]]

the courage and professionalism they display. Guardsmen and Reservists 
have been vital on overseas missions, and here at home. In Wisconsin, 
the State Guard provides vital support during state emergencies, 
including floods, ice storms, and train derailments.
  Mr. President, we have a duty to honor the service of our National 
Guardsmen and Reservists. One way to do that is to equitably compensate 
them for their service. I hope my colleagues agree that our citizen-
soldiers serve an invaluable role in our national defense, and their 
paychecks should reflect their contribution.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. WARNER. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 25) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in the course of deliberations on the 
floor, there have been a number of amendments to extend benefits to 
Guard and Reserve forces. And momentarily we will be considering 
additional amendments. We are operating under a total force concept. I 
remember very well when I was in the Department of Defense working for 
then-Secretary Melvin Laird. He really started the concept of what we 
call ``total force.''
  Yes, we have Reserve and Guard forces active, but it is a total force 
in a time of need. There have been extraordinary contributions by 
Reserve and Guard officers, men and women, in the past decade, 
particularly in connection with the Bosnia deployments.
  For example, the air guard have flown, I think, approximately half of 
the missions involved, and I would like for the Record to get the exact 
figure on that during that period. They are still flying. Each one of 
us here in the Senate received notice of a detachment from our State 
that is now being deployed into that theater of operations to help an 
active duty group in the performance of their duties and perhaps even 
to relieve an active duty group so they could go back either to the 
continental United States or to their stations in Europe. So it is 
really one total force now.
  I know that Senators are concerned about the dollars involved in 
these various pay proposals. For example, this extended window of 
eligibility--that is only going to cost $5 to $10 million. That is a 
relatively small sum to accommodate these young people as they return 
from a period of active duty and then have to sit down and sort out 
their lives and figure out when they want to take on their education. 
What are their family responsibilities? Perhaps they want to try a job 
before they go back to get additional schooling. All of these things is 
a component, is going to help, in my judgment, to not only induce young 
people to come in, in the front end, but to keep those in uniform now 
remaining on active duty so the taxpayer in America can save the 
enormity of the cost associated with training a new service person.
  In the pilot training it goes into the multimillions of dollars to 
train these individuals to operate the high-performance aircraft, both 
fixed and rotary wing, that we have today. So bear with us. Those of us 
who are on the committee, I think, have a great appreciation not only 
for the budgetary considerations, but for the need to make these 
improvements at this time. It is absolutely essential that we do so, 
Mr. President.
  I really appreciate the support I have gotten, particularly from the 
leadership on both sides here, and Members of the Senate who have come 
up to me. While they have concerns about the budgetary considerations, 
they know, bottom line, that we have to fix this personnel situation. 
There is no sense in spending millions and millions--indeed billions--
of dollars to buy the new aircraft and ships if we do not have the 
personnel to operate them.
  The ships of the U.S. Navy now on deployment in the gulf region are 
undermanned because of the inability to retain the skilled personnel. 
We simply cannot ask those aboard the ship to accept the additional 
risk and overtime hours aboard that ship without trying to do 
everything we can back here in the Congress of the United States to 
straighten out this problem.
  Mr. President, I think it is just moments before Senator Jeffords 
appears on the floor. In the meantime, I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendment No. 12 and Amendment No. 13

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have long been a strong advocate for a 
well-educated American work-force. Vermont's quality of life is related 
closely to the educational opportunities available to her citizens. 
Education is a cornerstone of our healthy economy. These same notions 
apply with similar effect to our men and women in the military. Modern, 
technologically advanced systems and complex missions depend on the 
skills and wisdom of well-educated personnel. S. 4 modestly enhances 
the educational opportunities for our men and women on active duty. It 
should do the same for the members of our Guard and Reserve.
  This bill is appropriately named ``Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's and 
Marines' Bill of Rights.'' It is appropriate because use of the term 
``Bill of Rights'' invariably suggests the concepts of fairness and 
equity.
  Perhaps Secretary of Defense William Cohen had this in the back of 
his mind in September of 1997 when he instructed the Department of 
Defense to eliminate ``all residual barriers, structural and cultural'' 
to effective integration of the Guard, Reserve and Active Components 
into a ``seamless Total Force.'' Precisely one year later his Deputy, 
John Hamre, looked back to that day and observed:

       We have made great progress integrating our active and 
     Reserve forces into one team, trained and ready for the 21st 
     century. Our military leaders are getting the message. 
     Structural and cultural barriers that reduce readiness and 
     impede interoperability between active and Reserve personnel 
     are gradually being eliminated. We must now assess the 
     progress we have made, acknowledge those barriers to 
     integration that still exist, and, most importantly, set our 
     plans into motion.

  If these wise words are to have full effect we must work to rectify 
an oversight in S. 4, which, as written, enhances educational benefits 
for a portion of our seamless Total Force but neglects the remainder. 
Consequently, to promote parity among all components of our military 
Senator Landrieu and I are offering the following two amendments:
  The First: Allow members of the Guard and Reserve the ability to 
accelerate payments of educational assistance in the same manner 
currently provided in S. 4 to the Active Duty military.
  The Second: Allow members of the Guard and Reserve who have served at 
least ten years in the Selected Reserve, an eligibility period of five 
years after separation from the military to use their entitlement to 
educational benefits. (Active duty military members have a ten year 
period.)
  Just a few weeks ago, four Reserve Component members lost their lives 
when their KC-135 went down in Germany while flying active duty 
missions for the Air Force. Death did not discriminate between Active 
and Reserve Components. Nor should S. 4.
  The opportunity to face this ultimate risk will only increase as we 
place greater demands on our Guard and Reserve units to participate in 
our global missions. Since Operation Desert Storm the pace of 
operations has swelled by more than 300% for the Guard alone and is 
widely expected to climb higher.
  We all know the value of the Guard and Reserve for missions close to 
home. In Vermont they saved our citizens from the drastic effects of 
record setting ice storms last winter. Recently, other units helped 
with hurricanes in Florida, North Carolina and South Carolina. They 
assist our citizens during droughts and blizzards. They enrich our 
communities with Youth Challenge programs and they conduct an ongoing 
war on drugs. Just last year we added protection of the U.S. from 
weapons of mass destruction to that list, and the list keeps growing.
  It is now time to bring their educational benefits in balance.

[[Page S1863]]

  As many of you know, I believe in the value of life-long learning to 
our society. Access to continuing education has become an essential 
component to one's advancement through all stages of modern careers. S. 
4 modestly improves this access for our brave men and women on active 
duty. It should do the same for our Guard and Reserves.
  I urge my colleagues to help bring parity, equity and fairness to the 
educational opportunities available to all components of our military. 
The Guard and Reserve have been called upon increasingly to contribute 
to the Total Force. They face similar challenges to recruiting and 
retention. They should have similar access to educational 
opportunities.
  Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] for himself, Mr. 
     Bingaman, Mr. Cleland, and Ms. Landrieu, proposes amendments 
     numbered 12 and 13 en bloc.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of 
the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:


                            AMENDMENT NO. 12

 (Purpose: To authorize payment on an accelerated basis of educational 
 assistance for members of the Selected Reserve under chapter 1606 of 
                     title 10, United States Code)

       On page 46, strike lines 6 through 8 and insert the 
     following:

                  TITLE IV--OTHER EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS

     SEC. 401. ACCELERATED PAYMENTS OF CERTAIN EDUCATIONAL 
                   ASSISTANCE FOR MEMBERS OF THE SELECTED RESERVE.

       Section 16131 of title 10, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(j)(1) Whenever a person entitled to an educational 
     assistance allowance under this chapter so requests and the 
     Secretary concerned, in consultation with the Chief of the 
     reserve component concerned, determines it appropriate, the 
     Secretary may make payments of the educational assistance 
     allowance to the person on an accelerated basis.
       ``(2) An educational assistance allowance shall be paid to 
     a person on an accelerated basis under this subsection as 
     follows:
       ``(A) In the case of an allowance for a course leading to a 
     standard college degree, at the beginning of the quarter, 
     semester, or term of the course in a lump-sum amount 
     equivalent to the aggregate amount of monthly allowance 
     otherwise payable under this chapter for the quarter, 
     semester, or term, as the case may be, of the course.
       ``(B) In the case of an allowance for a course other than a 
     course referred to in subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) at the later of (I) the beginning of the course, or 
     (II) a reasonable time after the Secretary concerned receives 
     the person's request for payment on an accelerated basis; and
       ``(ii) in any amount requested by the person up to the 
     aggregate amount of monthly allowance otherwise payable under 
     this chapter for the period of the course.
       ``(3) If an adjustment in the monthly rate of educational 
     assistance allowances will be made under subsection (b)(2) 
     during a period for which a payment of the allowance is made 
     to a person on an accelerated basis, the Secretary concerned 
     shall--
       ``(A) pay on an accelerated basis the amount of the 
     allowance otherwise payable for the period without regard to 
     the adjustment under that subsection; and
       ``(B) pay on the date of the adjustment any additional 
     amount of the allowance that is payable for the period as a 
     result of the adjustment.
       ``(4) A person's entitlement to an educational assistance 
     allowance under this chapter shall be charged at a rate equal 
     to one month for each month of the period covered by an 
     accelerated payment of the allowance to the person under this 
     subsection.
       ``(5) The regulations prescribed by the Secretary of 
     Defense and the Secretary of Transportation under subsection 
     (a) shall provide for the payment of an educational 
     assistance allowance on an accelerated basis under this 
     subsection. The regulations shall specify the circumstances 
     under which accelerated payments may be made and the manner 
     of the delivery, receipt, and use of the allowance so paid
       ``(6) In this subsection, the term `Chief of the reserve 
     component concerned' means the following:
       ``(A) The Chief of the Army Reserve, with respect to 
     members of the Army Reserve.
       ``(B) the Chief of Naval Reserve, with respect to members 
     of the Naval Reserve.
       ``(C) The Chief of the Air Force Reserve, with respect to 
     members of the Air Force Reserve.
       ``(D) The Commander, Marine Reserve Forces, with respect to 
     members of the Marine Corps Reserve.
       ``(E) The Chief of the National Guard Bureau, with respect 
     to members of the Army National Guard and the Air National 
     Guard.
       ``(F) The Commandant of the Coast Guard, with respect to 
     members of the Coast Guard Reserve.''.

                            TITLE V--REPORT

     SEC. 501. ANNUAL REPORT ON EFFECTS OF INITIATIVES ON 
                   RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION.
                                  ____



                            AMENDMENT NO. 13

 (Purpose: To modify the time in which certain members of the Selected 
   Reserve may use their entitlement to educational assistance under 
             chapter 1606 of title 10, United States Code)

       On page 46, strike lines 6 through 8 and insert the 
     following:

                  TITLE IV--OTHER EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS

     SEC. 401. MODIFICATION OF TIME FOR USE BY CERTAIN MEMBERS OF 
                   THE SELECTED RESERVE OF ENTITLEMENT TO CERTAIN 
                   EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE.

       Section 16133(b) of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5)(A) In the case of a person who continues to serve as 
     member of the Selected Reserve as of the end of the 10-year 
     period applicable to the person under subsection (a), as 
     extended, if at all, under paragraph (4), the period during 
     which the person may use the person's entitlement shall 
     expire at the end of the 5-year period beginning on the date 
     the person is separated from the Selected Reserve.
       ``(B) The provisions of paragraph (4) shall apply with 
     respect to any period of active duty of a person referred to 
     in subparagraph (A) during the 5-year period referred to in 
     that subparagraph.''.

                            TITLE V--REPORT

     SEC. 501. ANNUAL REPORT ON EFFECTS OF INITIATIVES ON 
                   RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I spoke with Senator Jeffords earlier 
about being added as a cosponsor to both amendments 12 and 13.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator will be added 
as a cosponsor.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendments en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 12 and 13) were agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Now, I have indicated that this Senator would not accept 
the question of the transfer of amendment, the third amendment. Do I 
understand the Senator will not present that amendment?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. That is correct, I will not offer that amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. That completes all of the amendments of the Senator from 
Vermont?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. That does, and I appreciate your cooperation as well as 
the cooperation your staff has shown in allowing us to proceed.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I will make a brief comment. First, I thank the Senator 
from Vermont for bringing these two important amendments for our Guard 
and Reserve, and I thank the chairman for accepting them.
  I will make, just for the Record, a comment about the amendment that 
we are unable to accept because of its fairly high cost--stipulated to 
be about $900 million.
  My staff has informed me and the staff for the committee on our side 
that this seems to be a very, very important issue to the rank and 
file. One of the more popular aspects of our bill is the fact that we 
are now going to allow, at some additional cost, but I, frankly, 
believe, and I think most Members on both sides believe, it is well 
worth it to allow this Montgomery GI bill to be transferred to spouses 
and children--perhaps the most important incentive for people to remain 
in the military and to be active participants for a longer period of 
time. I hope we will consider perhaps next year, if not this year, 
extending the same benefits to the Guard and Reserve.

  The retention issues are somewhat different, but let me say that the 
Guard and Reserve are very, very important components to our military 
forces as we redesign and reorganize our military and depend more on 
the Guard and Reserve to step in, particularly in terms of our 
peacekeeping missions.
  It is very important that we maintain good and adequate benefits for 
the Guard and Reserve. So while we cannot accept that amendment at this 
time, I

[[Page S1864]]

wanted to put this statement in the Record and ask our chairman to 
perhaps consider next year that we offer the same benefits to our Guard 
and Reserve unit.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I, likewise, would like to see this. But I 
have to do what I have to do to keep the cost of this bill down. It is 
very large at this time.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I understand that.
  Mr. WARNER. Next year, we will take a fresh look. Momentarily, I will 
advise the Senate on the balance of the amendments that the managers 
know of. Hopefully, we can get to final passage very early this 
afternoon.
  We still have the amendment of the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, and 
that is, I am certain, going to be accepted on both sides. It relates 
to the costs. I think we will have a good estimate of the costs now 
coming in from the Department of Defense before we ask for passage of 
that amendment.
  Senator Coverdell has an important amendment--a sense of the Senate--
to codify some extension of tax filing deadlines for men and women of 
the Armed Forces.
  Mr. Levin may have an amendment, which is sort of generic to the 
entire bill, is my understanding. There is some indication that the 
Senator from Florida may wish to address an amendment. I have looked at 
it, and as soon as I have the opportunity to speak with him, I will 
express my strong concerns regarding that amendment on this bill. I 
will withhold those comments for now.
  Is the Senator finished?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes.

                          ____________________