[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 30 (Thursday, February 25, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2005-S2006]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       SOLDIERS', SAILORS', AIRMEN'S, AND MARINES' BILL OF RIGHTS

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to make a few remarks 
concerning S. 4, the military pay and benefits bill. Senator Warner, 
the esteemed new chairman of the Armed Service Committee, has begun 
what I'm sure will be a distinguished tenure by addressing an issue of 
critical importance. I don't know if there is a more vital resource in 
this nation than its men and women in uniform.
  Without question, certain services have a recruiting and retention 
problem. For a variety of reasons, officers and enlisted members are 
leaving the Army, Navy, and Air Force in droves, and these services are 
having problems bringing new people on board. Serious questions remain 
unresolved about the cause of this problem, or its best solution, yet 
we will probably vote out the bill this week without those answers, and 
with little concern for its fiscal impact.
  I am extremely concerned that this bill came out of the Armed 
Services Committee without the benefit of a single hearing and with 
little understanding of its effects on the budget. The rush to pass 
this bill is perplexing. We would normally address military pay raises, 
retirement reform, and the other bill provisions during consideration 
of the annual defense authorization bill. This course only makes more 
sense given the uncertainty we face regarding the budget impact of this 
bill. It would give the Senate ample opportunity to answer the myriad 
questions surrounding the bill's cost and budget implications.
  Mr. President, there are some significant budget concerns raised by 
this bill. It increases both discretionary spending and entitlement 
costs, and all of its costs are heavily back loaded.
  According to CBO, S. 4 increases discretionary spending by $40.8 
billion over the next 10 years. In addition, the bill's costs rise each 
year, reaching $6.5 billion by 2009, and would continue to rise for a 
number of years after that.
  The bill increases entitlement costs by $13.2 billion over the next 
10 years. Again, this figure does not fully reflect the eventual price 
tag as costs rise over time. CBO estimates that when the provisions of 
S. 4 are fully phased in, the entitlement costs for pensions would 
result in increased costs of $5 billion a year. Similarly, the 
additional costs for so-called readjustment benefits, essentially 
education benefits, would rise, and by 2009 would increase by $2.5 
billion per year.
  According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, when fully 
in effect, the bill as a whole would cost at least $15 billion per 
year, and possibly more. Most notably, none, let me repeat that, Mr. 
President, none of this is offset.
  Due to these effects on the budget, the bill is subject to not one, 
but three 60-vote points of order: (1) It exceeds the Armed Services 
Committee's allocation for entitlement spending for fiscal years 1999 
through fiscal year 2003; (2) It breaches the revenue floor by 
decreasing income tax revenues from the Thrift Savings Program 
provision; and (3) It has PAYGO problems because none of the new 
mandatory spending and tax revenue losses are offset.
  Mr. President, strictly from a budget point of view, regardless of 
the pay and pension policies in the bill, this can be fairly 
characterized as a budget buster. An eventual cost of $15 billion per 
year is large, and at the very least should be considered as part of an 
overall budget, not rushed through before we have passed a budget 
resolution.
  There are other concerns, Mr. President. The biggest question is 
whether this bill will actually improve recruitment and retention. Just 
this week, the General Accounting Office offered preliminary data on a 
study showing that money has been overstated as a factor affecting 
decisions to stay in or leave the military. Instead, GAO found, in a 
survey of more than 700 service members, that issues like a lack of 
spare parts; concerns with the health care system; increased 
deployments; and dissatisfaction with military leaders have at least as 
much effect on retention, if not more, than money. GAO is expected to 
finish the report in June.
  Not only that. The Defense Department and the Congressional Budget 
Office are expected to have their own reports in the coming weeks and 
months. Why not wait until then? Let's make sure we're doing the right 
things to maintain the world's best armed forces.
  Mr. President, I'd like to address some specific provisions in the 
bill. As we are all now well aware, the military pension system was 
changed in 1986. At the time, many, including those in President 
Reagan's Defense Department, argued that the pension system encouraged 
many of our servicemembers to leave the services early. They had the 
benefit of several years of study and hearings to reach that 
conclusion.
  My late colleague from Wisconsin, the former Secretary of Defense Les 
Aspin, devoted much of his career to shaping the world's best and most 
feared military. At the time we changed the military pension system, he 
voiced considerable concern that the pension benefits were so generous 
to those with 20 years of service, and still at a relatively young age, 
that they provided incentive to leave for the private sector, rather 
than stay in the service.
  Our former Armed Services Committee Chairman, Sam Nunn, stated that 
``returning to the old system would reduce--not strengthen--the 
willingness of personnel to remain in the service.'' That is a heady 
statement from a colleague whose judgment on defense issues is still 
widely respected by those serving in this body today.
  Just back in October, then-Chairman Thurmond and Senator Levin, the 
committee's ranking member, proclaimed that any change to the pension 
system should be subject to ``careful analysis.'' As yet, I haven't 
seen one. And I would like to see that careful analysis before moving 
forward with this bill.
  I have heard from the men and women out on the front lines. According 
to what I've heard, they are leaving because of ever-increasing 
deployments to uncertain destinations, ever-widening time away from 
their families, and dwindling advancement opportunities. Like anyone 
else, they want to see a better quality of life.
  I won't disagree with the view that many servicemembers need a raise. 
And I firmly believe that they should receive one, especially the 
enlisted folks, many of whom could be getting more money by flipping 
burgers at the closest fast food joint. These men and women have chosen 
to represent our country. They deserve to be paid adequately.
  Ultimately, though, Mr. President, too many questions about this bill 
remain unanswered. I, and I hope many of my colleagues, would like to 
know how this bill will affect our budget now and in the future. We 
just extricated ourselves from a budget quagmire. Shouldn't we have all 
the answers about a bill that will cost $55 billion over the next 10 
years before we vote on it? I just seems like common sense

[[Page S2006]]

to me. If we were to find that this bill won't harm Social Security and 
other important programs, and it will actually improve recruitment and 
retention, I would support it fully. Short of those answers, I cannot 
support putting our nation's budget on the precipice of disaster.
  Mr. President, we have time this year to hold hearings; to hear from 
officers and enlisted men and women; to hear from service chiefs; to 
receive expert studies. There is no reason to rush this important 
legislation.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________