[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 97 (Wednesday, July 14, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8107-S8109]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        COST ESTIMATE FOR S. 976

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Congressional Budget Office cost estimate for S. 976, the Jamestown 
400th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                    Washington, DC, June 25, 2004.
     Hon. Richard C. Shelby,
     Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
     prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 976, the Jamestown 
     400th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act of 2003.
       If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
     pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew 
     Pickford.
           Sincerely,
                                               Elizabeth Robinson,
                              (For Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director).
       Enclosure.
     S. 976--Jamestown 400th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act of 
         2003
       Summary: S. 976 would direct the U.S. Mint to produce a $5 
     gold coin and a $1 silver coin in calendar year 2007 to 
     commemorate the 400th anniversary of the founding of 
     Jamestown, Virginia. The bill would specify a surcharge on 
     the sales price of $35 for the gold coin and $10 for the 
     silver coin and would designate the Jamestown-Yorktown 
     Foundation (an educational institution of the Commonwealth of 
     Virginia), the National Park Service, and the Association for 
     the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities (a private nonprofit 
     association), as recipients of the income from those 
     surcharges.
       CBO estimates that enacting S. 976 would have no 
     significant net impact on direct spending over the 2004-2009 
     period. S. 976 contains no intergovernmental or private-
     sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
     Act (UMRA), and would benefit the Commonwealth of Virginia.
       Estimated cost to the Federal Government: S. 976 could 
     raise as much as $8.5 million in surcharges if the Mint sells 
     the maximum number of authorized coins. Recent commemorative 
     coin sales by the Mint suggest, however, that receipts would 
     be about $3 million. The legislation would require the Mint 
     to produce the $1 silver coin from silver available in the 
     National Defense Stockpile. Based on information provided by 
     the Defense Logistics Agency and the Mint, no silver is 
     available in the stockpile. Hence, CBO estimates that 
     receipts from only the $5 gold coin would be about $1.25 
     million.
       Under current law, only two commemorative coins may be 
     minted and issued in any calendar year and the Mint must 
     ensure that it will not lose money on a commemorative coin 
     program before transferring any surcharges to a designated 
     recipient organization. CBO expects that the Mint would 
     collect most of those surcharges in fiscal year 2007 and 
     would transfer collections to the designated recipients in 
     fiscal year 2008.
       In addition, CBO expects that the Mint would use gold 
     obtained from the reserves held at the Treasury to produce 
     the gold coin. Because the budget treats the sale of gold as 
     a means of financing governmental operations--that is, the 
     Treasury's receipts from such sales do not affect the size of 
     the deficit--CBO has not included such receipts in this 
     estimate. CBO estimates that S. 976 would provide the federal 
     government with about $3.5 million in additional cash (in 
     exchange for gold) for financing the federal deficit in 
     fiscal year 2007.
       Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 976 
     contains no intergovernmental

[[Page S8108]]

     or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA, and would 
     benefit the Commonwealth of Virginia.
       Previous CBO estimate: On March 22, 2004, CBO transmitted a 
     cost estimate for H.R. 1914, the Jamestown 400th Anniversary 
     Commemorative Coin Act of 2003, as ordered reported by the 
     House Committee on Financial Services on March 17, 2004. The 
     two pieces of legislation are similar and our cost estimates 
     are the same; however, H.R. 1914 would not require the Mint 
     to use silver from the National Defense Stockpile to produce 
     the $1 silver coin.
       Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Matthew Pickford; 
     Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Sarah Puro; 
     and Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach.
       Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
     Director for Budget Analysis.

        National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I supported passage of this year's 
defense authorization bill because it contains many provisions that our 
brave men and women in uniform need and deserve. But before I go into 
the details of why I support this legislation, I must first thank the 
members of the United States Armed Forces for their service to our 
country. They are performing admirably under difficult circumstances 
all over the world. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, along 
with their families, are making great sacrifices in service to our 
country. I am voting for this legislation to support these people who 
are serving the country with such courage.
  I strongly support the 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise for 
military personnel that this bill provides. We must make sure that our 
professional military is paid a fair wage. This bill also makes 
permanent the increase in family separation allowance and imminent 
danger pay, another important policy for our men and women in uniform. 
Once again, I was proud to support the expansion of full-time TRICARE 
health insurance for our National Guard and Reserve. The reserve 
component is being used more than at any other time since World War II. 
Forty percent of our troops in Iraq are reserve component troops. These 
citizen soldiers face additional burdens when they transition in and 
out of their civilian life and providing them and their families with 
TRICARE is one way we can ease those burdens.
  Another aspect of this bill that I strongly support is the increased 
funding for force protection equipment. Last year, concerned 
Wisconsinites contacted my office telling me that they or their 
deployed loved ones were fighting for their country in Iraq without the 
equipment they needed. This situation is unconscionable. I have 
repeatedly pressed the Pentagon to fix this situation and I and my 
colleagues went a long way in addressing these shortages in the 
supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. The $925 million 
for additional up-armored HUMVEES and other ballistic protection as 
well as the $600 million in force protection gear and combat clothing 
in this bill above what was in the President's proposed budget further 
ensures that our troops have the equipment they need to perform their 
duties on the ground.
  I am pleased that the Senate approved my amendment to ensure that the 
Inspector General for the Coalition Provisional Authority will continue 
to oversee U.S. reconstruction efforts in Iraq after June 30 of this 
year as the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. The 
American taxpayers have been asked to shoulder a tremendous burden in 
Iraq, and we must ensure that their dollars are spent wisely and 
efficiently. Today, the CPA is phasing out, but the reconstruction 
effort has only just begun. As of mid-May, only $4.2 billion of the 
$18.4 billion that Congress appropriated for reconstruction in November 
had even been obligated. With multiple agencies involved and a budget 
that exceeds the entire foreign operations appropriation for this 
fiscal year, U.S. taxpayer-funded reconstruction efforts should have a 
focused oversight effort. My amendment will ensure that the Inspector 
General's office can continue its important work even after June 30, 
rather than being compelled to start wrapping up and shutting down 
while so much remains to be done. This is good news for the 
reconstruction effort, and good news for American taxpayers.

  I also want to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Armed 
Services Committee for working with me to accept the amendment that I 
offered with the Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe, which represents a 
first step toward enhancing and strengthening transition services that 
are provided to our military personnel. This amendment will require the 
General Accounting Office, GAO, to undertake a comprehensive analysis 
of existing transition services for our military personnel that are 
administered by the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Labor 
and to make recommendations to Congress on how these programs can be 
improved. This study will focus on two issues: how to achieve the 
uniform provision of appropriate transition services to all military 
personnel, and the role of post-deployment and pre-discharge health 
assessments as part of the larger transition program. I very much look 
forward to reviewing the results of this study.
  The Senate version of the defense authorization bill also includes a 
provision finally fulfilling a goal for which I have been fighting for 
years--making sure that every state and territory has at least one 
Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Team, WMD-CST. I was 
delighted earlier this year when Wisconsin was chosen as one of 12 
States to receive a WMD-CST authorized and appropriated for in FY2004 
but I was also disappointed that the President's proposed budget for 
FY2005 included funding for only 4 of the 11 outstanding teams. I along 
with 28 of my colleagues, wrote the Senate Armed Services Committee 
chairman and ranking member asking them to fully fund all 11 remaining 
teams. The chairman and ranking member have been very supportive of my 
efforts in this area over the years and I thank them again this year 
for funding all 11 remaining WMD-CSTs.
  This authorization bill addresses the grave threat our nation faces 
from unsecured nuclear materials. It includes $409 million for the 
Cooperative Threat Reduction program and $1.3 billion for the 
Department of Energy nonproliferation programs. I was also proud to 
cosponsor the amendment offered by Senator Domenici and Senator 
Feinstein that authorizes the Department of Energy to secure the tons 
of fissile material scattered around the world. This bipartisan 
initiative aims to dramatically accelerate current efforts to secure 
this dangerous material so that it cannot fall into the hands of those 
who aim to harm us. Time is of the essence and I was pleased to hear 
that the administration is fully supportive of this effort through the 
Global Threat Reduction Initiative.

  I also voted for an amendment offered by Senator Reed that boosts the 
Army's end strength by 20,000. Mr. President I did so because it has 
become clear that the Army is currently overstretched, and I believe 
that we need to ensure readiness to handle threats in the future. A 
recent Brookings Institution report says that the military is being 
stretched so thin that if we don't expand its size, it could break the 
back of our all-volunteer Army. One does not have to support all of the 
deployment decisions that brought us to this point today to see that we 
need to have the capacity to handle multiple crises with sufficient 
manpower and strength. I do not take lightly the decision to lock in a 
significant increase in spending. The need is great, however, and the 
deliberative defense authorization process, not the emergency 
supplemental process, is the place to do it.
  I must note that, unfortunately, this bill has many of the same 
problems that I've been fighting to fix for years. Once again, we are 
spending billions upon billions of dollars for weapons systems more 
suited for the Cold War than the fight against terrorism. I was very 
disappointed that the Senate did not agree to Senator Levin's amendment 
that would have used a small percentage of the over $10 billion 
authorized for missile defense for critical unfunded homeland defense 
needs. This amendment, which I cosponsored, would have used $515.5 
million now slated for additional untested interceptors and spent it 
instead on the top unfunded Department of Defense homeland defense 
priorities, research and development programs, radiation detection 
equipment at seaports, and other important defenses against terrorism. 
Budgeting is about setting priorities and I am sad to say that when

[[Page S8109]]

the Senate failed to adopt Senator Levin's amendment, it missed a 
golden opportunity to adjust its priorities in order to face our 
country's most pressing threat--the threat of terrorism.
  I was disappointed that the Senate failed to reduce the retirement 
age for those in the National Guard and Reserve from 60 to 55. Our 
country has placed unprecedented demands upon the Guard and Reserve 
since September 11, 2001, and will continue to do so for the 
foreseeable future. Considering the demands we are placing on them, it 
is time that we lower the Guard and Reserve's retirement age to the 
same level as civilian federal employees.
  Although my support for reducing the reserve component retirement age 
has been unwavering, because of the significant budgetary impact of 
this measure I had hoped that Congress would first receive reviews of 
reserve compensation providing all of the information that we need to 
address this issue responsibly. I patiently waited for several studies 
on the issue, including by the Defense Department, but when the studies 
came out they called for further study. This matter cannot continue to 
languish unaddressed indefinitely. As retired U.S. Air Force Colonel 
Steve Strobridge, government relations director for the Military 
Officers Association of America, MOAA, put it, ``It is time to fish or 
cut bait.'' I agree with MOAA's analysis that, ``Further delay on this 
important practical and emotional issue poses significant risks to 
long-term (Guard and Reserve) retention'' and I was proud to vote for 
the amendment offered by the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Corzine.

  I also believe that the Senate missed an opportunity to provide a 
small but needed measure of relief to military families when it failed 
to adopt my Military Family Leave Act amendment. This amendment would 
have allowed a spouse, child, or parent who already qualifies for 
Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, benefits--unpaid leave--to use 
those existing benefits for issues directly arising from the deployment 
of a family member. The Senate adopted a similar amendment by unanimous 
consent when I offered it to the Iraq supplemental spending bill. This 
amendment has the support of the Military Officers Association of 
America, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United 
States, the Reserve Officers Association, the National Guard 
Association of the United States, the National Military Family 
Association, and the National Partnership for Women and Families.
  I regret that a harmful second degree amendment was offered to my 
amendment and that I was not given the opportunity to have a straight 
up or down vote. Rather than taking up the Senate's time in a 
protracted debate about the second degree amendment, I withdrew my 
amendment so that this important defense authorization bill could move 
forward. However, the need addressed by my amendment remains and I will 
continue to fight to bring some relief to military families that 
sacrifice so much for all of us.
  I want to bring attention to another element of the Defense 
Authorization bill that raises concerns for me. The Defense 
Authorization bill includes language that raises troop caps in Colombia 
from 400 to 800 military personnel and from 400 civilian contractors to 
600. I am disappointed that Senator Byrd's amendment was not approved 
by the Senate, which would have limited the increases in these caps to 
500 military personnel and 500 civilian contractors. I have serious 
concerns about the increase in these caps to the levels established by 
the bill. Most importantly, I worry about placing more Americans in 
harm's way in Colombia. Further deployments bring greater risks to an 
already overstretched military. We do not want to risk being drawn 
further into Colombia's civil war--certainly not without a thorough 
debate that the American people can follow. In addition, many of my 
constituents and I remain concerned that by raising these caps, the 
U.S. devotes greater resources to the military side of the equation in 
Colombia without balancing our approach through greater support for 
democratic institutions, increasing economic development, and 
supporting human rights.

  There are other provisions in this bill with which I disagree and the 
Senate rejected a number of amendments that would have made this bill 
better. However, on balance this legislation contains many good 
provisions for our men and women in uniform and their families and that 
is why I will vote for it.

                          ____________________