[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 20 (Tuesday, February 13, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1321-S1324]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire:
  S. 305. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to remove the 
reduction in the amount of Survivor Benefit Plan annuities at age 62; 
to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am delighted today to 
rise to discuss President Bush's commitment to strengthening America's 
national security. I know this is a matter that is very close to the 
heart of my colleague in the Chair, the Senator from Oklahoma. 
President Bush often said during the campaign to the military that 
``help is on the way.'' It is nice to know that help has arrived.
  The President is spending this week traveling to military 
installations to see and hear, for the first time since assuming 
office, the needs of the military.
  I can tell you, having just come back a few weeks ago from visiting 
the troops, marines and sailors aboard the U.S.S. Nassau in the 
Mediterranean, that they appreciate it when anybody from the Government 
comes to visit them where they are on location. Clearly, for the 
President of the United States to go directly to a military facility 
and look the troops in the eye and tell them that help is coming says a 
lot about the President. And believe me, it will do a lot for the 
morale of the military in this country. He is going to be traveling to 
additional military installations this week to see and hear just what 
the needs are as

[[Page S1322]]

those needs are addressed by the men and women who serve.
  He is committed to address these urgent needs, and specifically pay 
raises, housing, benefits, and the like. I fully support him in that 
effort. I believe for the last 8 years our military has suffered.
  I might just say it is nice to hear a President talking about 
strengthening the military. The needs of our military in the last 8 
years have not been funded, and our military has been overextended for 
too many peacekeeping missions for which it was neither trained nor 
equipped.
  In addition to that, oftentimes these missions were conducted without 
being budgeted, which forced the dollars to come out of the hides of 
the men and women who serve in terms of readiness and other accounts.
  As the Senator in the Chair understands full well, our military 
readiness is at an all-time low. Planes are not flying for lack of 
spare parts and numerous accidents. Two Army helicopters crashed 
yesterday. Ships aren't sailing for lack of fuel. Soldiers aren't 
training for lack of ammunition.
  I remember looking a young marine in the eye aboard the U.S.S. Nassau 
a couple of weeks ago and asking him if he needed anything other than a 
little more money. He said: Yes, I would like to have that, but I also 
would appreciate it, Senator, if you could give me some ammunition for 
this weapon that I need to fire. We don't have even dummy rounds to 
practice for this particular weapon. He showed me the weapon. I was 
shocked by that, frankly.
  But, again, let me reassure our military that help is on the way. In 
fact, I think it has arrived.
  Like the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, my friend Senator 
Warner, I support this effort by the administration to complete a top-
to-bottom assessment of the military. I think it is important when we 
do that assessment to do it on the basis of what the needs are and 
understand that we are doing it for that reason--to assess the needs--
and not to come to some foregone conclusion and then prove it with your 
top-to-bottom assessment. We need to be sure we are buying the right 
weapons for the right threats.
  The United States has a strong economy and a great open society. 
Unfortunately, it is the only remaining superpower in the world. That 
also makes us a target for those who oppose our values of life and our 
liberties. The world is not a friendly place. We see violence and 
unrest every night on the news.
  I do not know if people realize it, but when you go and talk to the 
men and women out there, their lives are on the line every day. I stood 
on the bridge of the U.S.S. Nassau in Malta and watched a small Maltese 
Navy gunboat circling around that ship 24 hours a day to keep guard so 
that no terrorists could get to that ship. Oftentimes, as we found with 
the U.S.S. Cole, we didn't have that kind of security from the host 
country.
  So weapons of mass destruction--nuclear, chemical, and biological--
continue to proliferate around the world into the hands of dictators 
and demagogues who might, in desperation, choose to oppose us and, 
worst of all, fall into the hands of terrorists.
  We face new threats, such as cyberattacks on our command and control 
networks and our vulnerable civil infrastructure. Our military needs to 
think through these new defense challenges and architect the right 
force for our Nation for the new century. I will give the 
administration the time it needs to work through these issues as they 
present a new budget.
  As a member of the Emerging Threats Subcommittee and Strategic Forces 
Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I fully appreciate 
the challenges that President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld face as they 
try to rebuild our military and simultaneously set us on the right 
course for this new century.
  It is not going to be an easy job. There are a lot of needs. We have 
a lot of ground to make up and a lot of new things to do. In the 
meantime, like Chairman Warner, I expect a new administration will be 
requesting a supplemental. But that is not my decision to make. I am 
hopeful that will be the case.
  There is no better way to understand the needs of our military than 
to get out of Washington and visit them. As I said, I salute the 
President for doing that. I went on the U.S.S. Nassau, and one of the 
sailors walked up to me and said: Senator, is there any reason why a 
member of the United States Navy like me who is an E2 cannot get sea 
pay? I am serving aboard ship, and everybody from E4 and above gets sea 
pay, and those of us at E1, E2, and E3 don't.
  We are going to take care of that. That matter has already been 
brought to the attention of the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee in the Senate as well as the relevant committees in the House 
of Representatives.
  But it felt good to be back at sea. It felt good to be on board ship. 
It reminded me of my service aboard the U.S.S. Navasota during the 
Vietnam war. It didn't feel good enough to reenlist, but it was a great 
time. There were 13 members of the U.S. Navy and Marines on board from 
New Hampshire. We listened, had lunch, and we talked. They deserve our 
support. They deserve compensation commensurate with the rest of 
America.

  From E1 to E3--the lowest pay grades in the Navy serving aboard that 
ship swabbing the decks and doing all the hard work--don't get sea pay, 
and those E4s and above do. That is wrong. We are going to take care of 
that.
  All of our sailors face the same threat. They deal with the same 
personal issues while they are away from home and family. They have 
children to raise. They have things to do that they miss--all kinds of 
family things they miss while they are away while we ask them to do it. 
They shouldn't be on food stamps and should have a reasonable salary. 
They ought to be compensated fairly. We are going to take care of the 
sea pay with legislation this year so that those E1 and E3 sailors will 
be compensated.
  I appreciate the military's current desire to hold out the prospect 
of sea pay as a reenlistment bonus. However, these sailors are paying 
the same price at sea as the senior sailors. To say you can serve your 
first elected tour of duty and not get it, but if you re-up, we will 
give to it to you, is simply wrong. We will find another incentive to 
get them to re-up. I think, frankly, for them to re-up, we should tell 
them we are going to appreciate you and we are going to pay you sea pay 
because you are away from your home and family.
  In addition to some of the readiness problems and personnel issues we 
are dealing with now in the military, I think one of the biggest 
challenges Secretary Rumsfeld is going to face is space and how we 
utilize space. Of course, Secretary Rumsfeld understands that as well 
as anybody. He chaired the space commission, so-called, that was 
created in our Armed Services defense bill. I was proud to be the 
author of that language. One of the plain reasons is the U.S. economy 
is so strong that we should use our satellite capabilities to fuel our 
new information-based science. Satellites support Americans every day. 
I don't think we realize how important they are. They support our 
weather, help hunters and boaters navigate; they provide pagers and 
telephones to communicate with travelers anywhere on the surface of the 
Earth.
  But we cannot stop there, however. We must also keep our promises to 
those who have already given a lifetime of service to this country.
  Just as our soldiers, sailors, and airmen were there for us, 
protecting us--we must be there for our veterans and military retirees.
  Therefore, I am introducing legislation today to eliminate the 
military survivor's benefit penalty.
  Mr. President, this legislation will repeal the existing reduction in 
the Survivor Benefit Plan spouses currently suffer when they reach the 
age of 62.
  Today, after years of paying heavy premiums for this optional 
benefit, survivors of military retirees receive 55 percent of their 
spouses service pay prior to age 62. However, once these spouses reach 
age 62, their benefits are drastically reduced to only 35 percent. The 
overwhelming majority of these beneficiaries are women. This reduction 
in benefits will have a devastating effect on their quality of life.
  In addition to eliminating this reduction in benefits which retired 
military spouses incur when they turn 62,

[[Page S1323]]

spouses whose loved one passed away after their 62nd birthday will also 
receive full 55 percent.
  Passage of this important legislation will bring the military 
Survivor Benefits Plan more in line with other Federal and civil 
servants employee health plans.
  After a lifetime of sacrifice, we owe it to our military retirees to 
provide them with peace of mind that their spouse will be taken care of 
after their death.
  Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support our retirees and pass 
this legislation immediately.

  One of the many important defense challenges President Bush and 
Secretary Rumsfeld face is protecting America's lead in space 
activities. One of the main reasons the U.S. economy is so strong is 
our use of satellite capabilities to fuel our new information-based 
society.
  Satellites support Americans every day. For example, they support our 
weather forecasts, help hunters and boaters navigate, provide pagers 
and phones that can communicate with travelers anywhere on the surface 
of the earth, and allow farmers to check on the health of their fields.
  Our soldiers, sailors, and airmen also rely on space assets. 
Accordingly, the utilization of space will also be at the forefront of 
our national security agenda during this century, and I will work to 
ensure that America expands its leadership in this military arena.
  To help the nation better posture for that future challenge, I 
authored the provision in the FY2000 Defense Authorization Act that 
created a commission 2 years ago called the ``Commission to Assess 
National Security Space Management and Organization,'' more commonly 
known today as the Space Commission.
  Coincidentally, the chairman chosen last year to lead that commission 
became our new Secretary of Defense--Donald Rumsfeld.
  Last month, they finished their work, and I commend Secretary 
Rumsfeld, the commissioners, and the staff for their outstanding work, 
and for thoroughly pulling together a great deal of research and data.
  The Commission's findings confirm my long-held view of the growing 
importance of space to the nation and my belief that space management 
and organization reforms are urgently needed as America's commercial, 
civil, and military reliance on space assets expands.
  The Commission's recommendations lay the foundations for what I have 
often maintained--military space activities should evolve to the 
eventual creation of a separate Space Force.
  The United States has shown the world the value of space in providing 
information superiority on the modern battlefield.

  As we move into the new century, we need to: Defend our current 
space-based information superiority; be able to deny our adversaries 
that same capability (thorough programs I have long supported like KE-
SAT and Clementine); and leverage the uniqueness of space to be able to 
rapidly project military force around the world (thorough programs I 
have long supported like Space Plane).
  We need a strong advocate for space to fight for and justify these 
new space programs needed for the 21st century in competition with many 
other pressing military investment requirements.
  Near-term management and organization reforms recommended by the 
Commission will begin to put in place the leadership and advocacy for 
space programs that have long been lacking.
  Another of the many defense challenges President Bush and Secretary 
Rumsfeld face is protecting America from missile attack.
  I salute the administration's commitment to deploying a robust 
missile defense for this nation. Many Americans don't realize that the 
United States does not have a defense against a missile attack today.
  Meanwhile, for years, Russia has deployed various missile defenses 
around Moscow and other sites which has been ignored by ABM Treaty 
proponents. These missiles could carry weapons of mass destruction--a 
nuclear, chemical, or biological warhead that could wreak havoc on a 
U.S. city. We have a constitutional responsibility to defend America. 
Homeland defense from missile attack is essential.
  With such a threat hanging over our leader's head, it is impossible 
to contemplate engaging globally in the best interest of the United 
States--no President would risk a U.S. city to come to the aid of an 
ally.
  Worst yet, countries like China and North Korea continue to 
proliferate missile technology to rogue nations.
  I am pleased that the President and his Cabinet have been so pro-
active in explaining this important issue to our allies.
  A U.S. missile defense system, both theater and national is not 
intended as a threat to any nation. It is intended to defend America, 
and we have a duty to deploy such a defense.
  While I salute the military's efforts to develop a near-term missile-
defense capability, I want to work with the administration to ensure we 
have a robust, multilayered architecture that includes the current 
land-based concept with sea-, air-, and space-based systems to 
eliminate this threat to U.S. cities and our deployed forces.
  Today, President Bush visited the only NATO facility on U.S. soil at 
the Joint Forces Command at Norfolk, VA. President Bush watched an 
allied U.S.-NATO coordinated response to a simulated missile attack.
  I understand the President commented ``Pretty exciting technology, 
and it's only going to get better.`` I agree that this technology is 
only going to get better. America needs to make a commitment to protect 
it's citizens from threats that come on a missile, including biological 
and chemical weapons.
  I look forward to working with the new administration, President Bush 
and Secretary Rumsfeld, to rebuild our military and set the nation on 
the right course for the new century.
  Let me assure the military, help has arrived.
  Finally, continuing on the area of missile defense, this is a very 
important challenge faced by President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld in 
protecting the United States. Over the last several years, I have been 
involved in so many debates on the floor, so many discussions. I know 
the Senator from Oklahoma has as well. We are trying to save a national 
missile defense program only to have it put off with some wordsmithing 
or delay. I salute President Bush's commitment to deploying a robust 
missile defense for this Nation. It is immoral not to do it.
  I also salute, because it was his birthday a few days ago, President 
Reagan on his 90th birthday for being the visionary he was on this 
issue. It was Ronald Reagan who really convinced Gorbachev that we 
could have built that thing 20 years ago when, in fact, we couldn't. 
Because he convinced Gorbachev that we could and that it might be a 
threat to him, the Soviet Union essentially folded as the threat that 
it was to the world in the cold war for so long. Ronald Reagan knew 
this could be done. He was laughed at, still is to some extent on that 
issue. But 10, 15, 20 years from now, when we have this thing up and 
going and it is protecting our troops in the field, protecting our 
allies and protecting our own homeland, Ronald Reagan will get the 
credit he deserves so richly for coming up with that visionary promise 
of a missile defense system.
  Russia has deployed various missile defenses around Moscow and other 
sites which have been ignored by the ABM Treaty proponents. These 
missiles could carry weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical, 
and biological, that could wreak havoc on a U.S. city, and we have 
basically ignored it. We have a constitutional responsibility to defend 
America.
  I can remember seeing little tapes of so-called focus groups where 
they would ask 15 or 20 people in a room what would happen if another 
nation, such as China or Iran or Iraq, fired a missile at the United 
States of America. All of them answered: We would shoot it down. All of 
them were wrong. We do not have the capability to shoot down such a 
missile, but we need that capability. We need the capability to shoot 
it down over the aggressor's homeland, not over ourselves. So that is 
where this missile defense system is so important.
  I hear the criticisms: It won't work; it is too expensive; we don't 
need it.
  The bottom line is, if we can defend America from any missile attack, 
whether it be accidental or deliberate

[[Page S1324]]

or whatever, we need to do it. That is our obligation. We have a 
constitutional responsibility to defend America. Homeland defense from 
missile attack is the moral thing to do. With such a threat hanging 
over our leader's head, it is impossible to contemplate engaging 
globally in the best interests of the United States. No President 
should risk a U.S. city to come to the aid of an ally.
  And worst yet, China, North Korea, and other nations continue to 
proliferate missile technology. There is some really shocking 
documentation, both public as well as classified, that will tell us 
that this is a serious matter. I am pleased the President and Secretary 
of Defense and his Cabinet have been so proactive in explaining this 
important issue to our allies. I understand that Secretary Rumsfeld 
went to Europe, was very forceful to our allies, saying: You are free 
nations. You have the right to your views, but our view is we need to 
protect ourselves and to defend this system and build this system, and 
we are going to do it.
  In closing, I will just say I look forward to working with President 
Bush, working with my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee to 
improve our readiness, to improve pay for our military and benefits, to 
cut all of the excessive operations throughout the world that are not 
really related to defense and get our military morale back. It is going 
to be exciting, and I look forward to being a part of it.
  I ask unanimous consent to print the text of the legislation in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered printed in the Record, 
as follows:

                                 S. 305

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Military Retirees Survivor 
     Benefits Protection Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. REPEAL OF REDUCTION IN SBP ANNUITIES AT AGE 62.

       (a) Computation of Annuity for a Spouse, Former Spouse, or 
     Child.--Subsection (a) of section 1451 of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``shall be determined as 
     follows:'' and all that follows and inserting the following: 
     ``shall be the amount equal to 55 percent of the base 
     amount.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``shall be determined as 
     follows:'' and all that follows and inserting the following: 
     ``shall be the amount equal to a percentage of the base 
     amount that is less than 55 percent and is determined under 
     subsection (f).''.
       (b) Annuities for Survivors of Certain Persons Dying During 
     a Period of Special Eligibility for SBP.--Subsection (c)(1) 
     of such section is amended by striking ``shall be determined 
     as follows:'' and all that follows and inserting the 
     following: ``shall be the amount equal to 55 percent of the 
     retired pay to which the member or former member would have 
     been entitled if the member or former member had been 
     entitled to that pay based upon his years of active service 
     when he died.''.
       (c) Repeal of Requirement for Reduction.--Such section is 
     further amended by striking subsection (d).
       (d) Repeal of Unnecessary Supplemental SBP.--(1) Subchapter 
     III of chapter 73 of title 10, United States Code, is 
     repealed.
       (2) The table of contents at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by striking the item relating to subchapter III.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by section 2 shall take 
     effect on October 1, 2001, and shall apply with respect to 
     months beginning on or after that date.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for 
his comments about the need for deployment of a national missile 
defense. I spoke to that subject this morning, when I talked about 
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's remarks in Munich that were very 
well received by our allies. They had some concerns about the 
deployment of a national missile defense by the United States. But 
after his comments to them, they were very much reassured. While there 
still isn't the degree of support that we need and that we would like 
to have among our allies, I believe the consultations now occurring, 
and those that will occur in the future, primarily led by the Secretary 
of Defense, will bring our allies to the same conclusions that we have 
reached; namely, that we need to get on with it and that they can 
participate in this kind of assistance to the extent they want to as 
well. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from New Hampshire. I 
spoke to that issue this morning.
                                 ______