[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 32 (Tuesday, March 2, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Page S2141]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

 Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I support giving our troops a pay 
raise, and I support improving the retirement package of career 
military personnel. However, the bill the Senate has considered, S. 4, 
the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's and Marines' Bill of Rights, is not 
only too expensive, it was also brought to the floor too hastily, 
without holding hearings on its provisions, and before we considered 
how the bill might affect the rest of the budget. Even though I want to 
see a pay raise and retirement reform, I had to vote against this 
excessively costly bill.
  When S. 4 was reported out of committee, it already cost $12 billion 
more than the President requested over the next five years. The bill as 
passed by the Senate is estimated to cost $17 billion more than the 
President asked for. That is just for the next five years. Using 
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) figures, S. 4 would consume one-
quarter of the projected non-Social Security surplus in the next fiscal 
year. Once personnel start to retire under its provisions, costs will 
skyrocket. CBO estimates that the retirement changes in S. 4 will 
eventually raise the costs of military pensions by a whopping 18 
percent. These increased costs will come due at the same time the baby 
boom generation retires, with the attendant strain on Social Security 
and Medicare.
  It is impossible to justify these steep increases in costs, 
particularly since not one hearing was held on S. 4. We all agree there 
are problems with recruitment and retention in the military, but we did 
not get the benefit of expert testimony--or any testimony at all--as to 
why, nor did we get input on how best to address these problems before 
passing this very expensive solution. Last year Congress asked the 
General Accounting Office (GAO) to do a detailed study of recruitment 
and retention problems. GAO has been conducting surveys and 
interviewing troops in the field to find out why they may plan to leave 
the service. GAO's preliminary findings show that ``money has been 
overstated as a retention factor.'' GAO's report is due in just a few 
months. Similar studies by CBO and the Pentagon are due out shortly. 
Some experts have said that dissatisfaction over military health care 
and the operations tempo were more important issues for those leaving 
the military.
  I find it most troubling that this bill was brought to the floor 
before we passed a budget resolution, and outside of the normal Defense 
Authorization bill. With no budget caps, and no other defense 
priorities to consider, the bill brought us into a never, never land of 
wishful thinking. The bill sets out the most generous package of 
benefits, but does not consider what might happen to the rest of the 
defense budget if these cost increases go into effect. Will we have to 
cut readiness, operations and maintenance, or procurement accounts? 
Will we be able to fund steps that could reduce the operations tempo or 
make it more predictable? Will we be able to fund improvements in 
military health care?
  The so-called firewalls between defense and domestic discretionary 
spending are down. That means that, rather than cutting other parts of 
the defense budget to pay for these increases, we may have to cut 
domestic programs instead, like education, the environment, or 
transportation. According to the Concord Coalition, 57 percent of the 
budget was devoted to entitlements in 1998, but we are now on track to 
devote 73 percent of the budget to entitlements by 2009. This bill will 
worsen the entitlement picture, and mean that more and more 
discretionary spending will have to be cut to cover growing 
entitlements.
  This was a very sad first bill for the Senate to consider after we 
finally turned the corner on deficits. We cannot go back to pre-1974 
Budget Act spending patterns. We must not abandon fiscal discipline and 
spend the surplus before we even see a penny of it. I hope and expect 
that fiscal sanity will be restored and that, when the bill returns 
from conference or as part of a larger measure, I will be able to vote 
for a well-deserved pay raise for our military personnel and a 
reasonable retirement package, but a package that fits within the 
budget framework and discipline we have all embraced.

                          ____________________