[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2973-3024]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 SOLDIERS', SAILORS', AIRMEN'S AND MARINES' BILL OF RIGHTS ACT OF 1999

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have not spoken on the bill pending before 
us, so if I need to have time yielded, I would like to speak on this 
issue.
  Mr. President, S. 4, the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's and Marines' 
Bill of Rights Act of 1999 is a much needed first step in fixing the 
problems of a military that I fear has been in a death spiral, quite 
frankly, after continued years of underfunding by the two previous 
administrations, both this one and the previous one. It started some 10 
years ago, slowly, in the aftermath of the wall coming down and the 
Soviet Union being broken apart. But it has been a continuing slow 
process that has really started having a profound impact.

[[Page 2974]]

  Now, I must say we finally got the title correct--Soldiers', 
Sailors', Airmen's and Marines' Bill of Rights, because I referred to 
it early on as the Soldiers' Bill of Rights, and I quickly heard from 
the marines and the airmen and the others that it is for all of our 
military personnel. I think this is a very important bill. It addresses 
key areas that really have negative effects on our military and on 
retention.
  And so right up front I congratulate the chairman of the committee, 
Senator Warner, from the great Commonwealth of Virginia, for his 
leadership. This is a perfect example of one bill that, while we were 
involved in the impeachment process, we had committees at work having 
hearings, developing legislation and, yes, in fact reporting bills. 
This bill was actually reported, I think, about 3 weeks ago, and a lot 
of thought has been given to it. I know it has bipartisan support. I 
know that there are Senators, such as the Senator from Georgia, who 
have had input in this legislation. Senator Allard, the chairman of the 
subcommittee has been involved; Senator Roberts has been very 
supportive of this concept, so I want to commend them all.
  Mr. WARNER. Senator McCain.
  Mr. LOTT. Senator McCain obviously has been involved, and Senator 
Thurmond. All of the Armed Services Committee members, and members that 
are not on the Armed Services Committee, have been following this very 
closely.
  I know there are some who say, well, maybe we should have had more 
hearings or perhaps in some areas it goes too far. I just have to say I 
don't agree with that.
  Budget considerations are important, always important. Finally, we 
have gotten to a balanced budget, perhaps to the point where we will 
have some surplus, and we want to keep it that way. We want to keep 
moving in that direction. We want to have enough of a surplus that we 
can return some of the overtax back to the people who earned that 
money, but we must keep our military strong. If we do not raise the pay 
for our military men and women, they will not come to the military. 
They will not volunteer. If we don't fix their pension problems, they 
will not stay; they will leave. The pilots will leave, but even more 
dangerously the chiefs will leave and the sergeant majors and the 
master sergeants, the people who really make the military do its job, 
not to diminish the administration and the generals or the newly 
enlisted. But those people who have been in there 10, 15 years, they 
are going to look at this pension system as it now stands, and they are 
going to say, It is not worth it; I can't do it to my family, and they 
will get on out.
  This needs to be done. In my opinion, it is overdue. And at a time 
when we are asking more and more of our military men and women with 
less and less to do the job, it would be folly--in fact, it would be 
insanity--for us not to do this bill and do it now. We can work on some 
of the budget problems as we go along, but there is one thing that 
takes even a higher priority, in my opinion, than budgets, and that is 
the defense of our country. If we don't have good military men and 
women, good equipment, if they can't train properly, they are not going 
to be able to fulfill these missions that we have sent them off on 
around the world--the Persian Gulf, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and then, 
of course, we may be faced with difficult situations involving Iran and 
North Korea, Kosovo. Who knows. And so this bill will begin doing some 
of the things that should be done.
  It authorizes a 4.8-percent military pay raise. That seems to me to 
be the minimum we should do for them. It starts closing the 13.5-
percent gap between military pay and the private sector wages. It 
reforms the military pay tables effective July 1, 2000, by targeting 
midcareer commissioned and noncommissioned officers, skilled 
specialists considering a move from the military ranks and civilian 
life after years of training and investment by this country into the 
military.
  Very importantly, I think it revises the military retirement system 
providing the option upon reaching 15 years of service of reverting to 
the pre-1986 plan which provided a 50-percent base multiplier and no 
cost-of-living allowance, COLA caps, or receiving a one-time $30,000 
bonus and remaining under the REDUX plan.
  Perhaps you think a 50-percent base multiplier is too high. I don't. 
I don't. What is our own retirement percentage here in the Congress? 
And so I think this is a solution that will be very important and will 
be welcomed by our military men and women.
  It authorizes active duty military personnel to participate in the 
Thrift Savings Plan. Once again, we do. Why shouldn't they be able to 
do that? It encourages savings so that when they do get out, if they 
don't have enough from their pension, at least they will have this 
little Thrift Savings that they have benefited from.
  It has a special subsistence allowance for service members of the 
grade E-5, the ones I was referring to a while ago, and below who 
demonstrate the need for food stamps to support their families. People 
in America don't believe this. When I go around and I talk to 
constituents in my own State and tell them that once again we have the 
situation where we have E-5s and below in the military who are now 
having to go to food stamps, they don't believe it. They don't want to 
believe it. They want us to do something about that.
  This allowance would provide $180 a month and remove thousands of 
enlisted families from the food stamp rolls. It revises benefits under 
the G.V. ``Sonny'' Montgomery GI bill, eliminating the $1,200 
contribution required of members who participate in this program, and 
other benefits. And we will have to look carefully at the cost and how 
that is going to be handled. But I think the GI bill, when we got it 
back in place, meant an awful lot to our military men and women. And 
when we look at the past half century in this country, talk to the 
people who really turned this country into the strength or the power 
that it is, it was so many of those World War II veterans who came out, 
such as the distinguished Senator here from the Commonwealth of 
Virginia----
  Mr. WARNER. The GI bill.
  Mr. LOTT. The GI bill--went to college, got an education and went out 
and built America. That is a great investment. Any time you encourage 
people, young people, or military retirees to go get an education, you 
get your money back manyfold over.
  This bill requires an annual report on the impact of these programs 
on recruitment and retention. We don't want to just do it for the sake 
of doing it. We have a purpose here. We want to help these military men 
and women. We want to keep them in the military.
  I wrote a letter last summer expressing my great concern about the 
situation and how dangerous I thought the military readiness was 
becoming. I wrote that letter to the President. And yet we have 
continued to have increased deployments with undermanned units, spare 
parts shortages, recruiting shortfalls, rising accident rates, and a 
mass exodus of pilots in particular.
  So, I was expressing that concern, and hopefully it looks like it has 
had some impact. Because, while it really does not amount to very much, 
the administration has indicated they are willing to go along with some 
improvements, and I hope and believe the President will sign this bill 
when it gets to his desk.
  Also, a hearing that was held last fall, on September 29, before the 
Armed Services Committee. The distinguished chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee, Senator Thurmond at that time, had those hearings. 
The Chiefs came in and they acknowledged it. They gave the stories that 
really exist. They talked about the readiness shortfalls, about us 
having to beg and borrow for spare parts, and recruitment problems. So 
they signaled clearly that we had to do something.
  I am not going to give the statistics about what is happening for the 
Army. They are not meeting their recruiting goals. In my own State we 
have one of the proudest National Guard activities anywhere in the 
country, I am sure, yet now the Mississippi National Guard is having to 
advertise in order to get the recruits into the Mississippi National 
Guard.

[[Page 2975]]

  We have pilot shortages. We have ships steaming out--I believe it was 
the George Washington that steamed out to the Persian Gulf last May 
almost 1,000 sailors short of the 6,000 crew and air group personnel 
that are normally on board. We cannot allow these types of situations 
to continue.
  In a letter to Senator Thurmond, as chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, I also expressed these concerns. A series of hearings on 
military readiness were undertaken and quickly uncovered the range of 
problems that the military struggled to contain in an environment of 
austere budgets. On September 29, we witnessed an unprecedented baring 
of the collective defense soul, in which every member of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff detailed alarming anecdotes about readiness shortfalls, 
about having to take from readiness and modernization accounts to fund 
an expanding operational role, the difficulties of recruiting in the 
present environment, and about the disillusionment and exodus of 
servicemembers after years of perceived nonsupport.
  In an all-volunteer force, if people don't want the job, you have a 
problem. This country cannot attract, and retain, the people we need to 
man our military today. Specifically:
  The Army reduced fiscal last year's recruiting goal by 12,000, and 
was still short of its new goal continuing an under manning condition 
that has existed since 1993. Not only is quantity suffering, but 
quality also--the Army is well below its 84 percent High School 
graduate benchmark.
  As I said, the Navy was thousands short of its recruiting target, and 
the aircraft carrier George Washington deployed to the Persian Gulf 
last May was ``almost 1,000 sailors short of the nearly 6,000 crew and 
air group personnel that it normally has.''
  Retention problems also are occurring in our Officer corps. The Air 
Force is suffering what some call a ``hemorrhaging'' of its pilot 
corps. Air Force pilot shortages will grow to 2341 by fiscal year 2002. 
Army pilot inventory is approximately 15 percent short of total 
requirements. Navy Surface Warfare Officer Department Head tours have 
been extended from 36 to 44 months due to retention shortfalls.
  While many would attribute the current manning problems to the robust 
economy, I believe the situation is much more complex. We have had 3 
different reviews of our national security strategy since the end of 
the cold war, and the end result of all these reviews has been to 
reduce the size of the force to where it is now--at its lowest level 
since before the Korean war. These reductions have not been carried out 
with a similar reduction in the number of missions and deployments. All 
of the missions performed during the cold war, be they the stationing 
of forces in Europe or Asia, or routine deployments at sea, are still 
being performed while we have had a significant growth in contingency 
operations.
  While personnel tempo has increased significantly the pay and 
benefits to our men and women in uniform have decreased. The pay 
differential between the private sector and our military has continued 
to grow--now at 13.5 percent; there are three different retirement 
systems currently in place with each one providing less than the 
previous one; and the medical system does not provide medical benefits 
to all that have earned them.
  Mr. President, the U.S. military is out of balance. We need to get 
the missions, manning, equipping, pay and benefits synchronized to 
enable us to continue with a quality force into the 21st century.
  Today we have a very bright, talented all-volunteer force, yet we 
cannot attract the number of individuals required to adequately support 
our Armed Forces. Why? We are out of balance. Too few people are being 
asked to do more, and spend longer periods of time away from their 
families.
  We also are mortgaging our future modernization efforts to keep 
readiness up. For example: ten years ago we talked about a 600-ship 
Navy. Today we are building only 6 to 7 ships per year or enough to 
keep 150 ships alive. Flying hours, steaming hours, maintenance, and 
spare parts are all under continued stress because of continued 
deployments.
  It all boils down to the fact that both the personnel and equipment 
are in a downward spiral. Our quality people are leaving and they are 
not being replaced. Similarly, the un-replaced worn out equipment is 
just becoming more worn out. The longer this spiral continues, the 
worse it becomes.
  The problem can be fixed, but the solutions will not be easy and 
without pain.
  First, it requires more discipline on part of the administration and 
the Congress--this country cannot continue sending our military men and 
women around the world on every humanitarian/peacekeeping mission--just 
because someone in the administration thinks it is a good idea. We have 
to change our approach to using the military as the world's police 
force. This is a philosophical problem.
  Remember, the reason we have a military is to defend our interests 
around the world--by force of arms, if necessary. Right now, we are 
sending our military to the four corners of the globe for noble--but 
wrong--reasons. Passing out food and blankets is fine and good. But 
what if it costs us the ability to fight and defend our interests in 
places where it really counts?
  In addition to being more disciplined, we need to add money to the 
defense top line for pay, training, operations, and equipment. In other 
words, we need a better balance between the missions, the manpower, the 
equipment and the defense budget than what we have today.
  Congress has done--and continues to do--what we can to help solve the 
problem. The United States is the leader of the world--freedom-wise, 
economically, and militarily. Our military underwrites all the rest. My 
concern is that we are underestimating the need for our Armed Forces in 
today's world and that we are not preparing to deter in tomorrow's 
world. The answer: increase defense spending, balance short-term needs 
with long-term investment, and tune today's spending to the needs of 
the deploying forces. It is essential that we maintain our preeminent 
military, however, I see it threatened by the current downward spiral 
in morale, personnel, and equipment that I have described.
  When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, their highest 
priority was the federal government's role in maintaining a strong 
national defense. They did not put a price tag on America's national 
security. They knew there was no way to predict future threats and 
national trends to our country's security.
  If you look back at the history of our country, we have drastically 
reduced the size and strength of our military following a conflict. 
Each time we cut our defense, another trouble spot emerged and we had 
to build up to meet the challenge. Unfortunately, we are repeating the 
past, but this time it is happening on our watch.
  So today, I am asking my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, and 
the administration, to join me in passing S. 4 quickly. Lets joint 
together and send our men and women in uniform a message that we care 
about them. Lets joint together and have S. 4 ready for the President's 
signature on Memorial Day.
  This bill represents substantive efforts to increase military 
benefits to help the recruitment, retention, and ultimately readiness 
problems faced by the military. I commend Senator Warner, the new 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, for holding his first hearing 
on this very important subject. The ongoing efforts by Senators Roberts 
and McCain reflect much of the foundation of this bill. And Senator 
Allard, the newly named chairman of the Armed Services Personnel 
Subcommittee, has shown his commitment to our uniformed servicemembers 
through his strong support. Senator Cleland of Georgia also has 
provided substantive changes to this bill to make it better.
  I've said it earlier and the Joint Chiefs have said it at the 
Readiness hearings--People form the backbone of the military. We must 
take care of them first. The Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and 
Marines' Bill of Rights Act

[[Page 2976]]

of 1999 is the first step that the 106th Congress can take to achieving 
this goal.
  So, I just wanted to come to the floor and take advantage of this 
opportunity to express my concern, to express my support for this 
legislation. I think this is the right way to begin this year as we 
look to the issues we want to address, to start off by making sure we 
are going to have adequate pay for our military men and women, and an 
adequate pension system, and begin to reduce the readiness shortfall. I 
think this is the proper thing to do.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  Mr. LOTT. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Before the distinguished leader leaves the floor, I ask 
unanimous consent that letter to which he referred be appended to the 
portion that the Senator is putting into the Record. That was the 
engine that is taking this train over the mountain. It was way back 
last summer I expressed to him on behalf of the committee, and indeed 
the Senate, thanks for the leadership the Senator has given from day 
one on this issue.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, June 26, 1998.
     Hon. William Jefferson Clinton,
     The White House, Office of the President, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: I am very concerned about the growing 
     inability of our country to man the uniformed services. Not 
     only is there difficulty in recruiting, but also in our 
     ability to retain key personnel. The Army has reduced this 
     year's recruiting mission by 12,000, which will continue an 
     undermanning condition that has existed since 1993; the Navy 
     has recently announced that it will fall 7,200 short of their 
     recruiting target, and on a recent deployment the aircraft 
     carrier George Washington was short over 1,000 sailors; and 
     the Air Force is suffering what some called a 
     ``hemorrhaging'' of its pilot corps.
       While many would attribute the current manning problems to 
     the robust economy, I believe the situation is much more 
     complex. We have had three different reviews of our national 
     strategy since the end of the Cold War, and the end result of 
     all these reviews has been to reduce the size of the force to 
     where it is now, its lowest level since before the Korean 
     War. These reductions have not been balanced out with a 
     similar reduction in the number of missions and deployments. 
     All of the missions performed during the Cold War, be they 
     the stationing of forces in Europe or Asia, or routine 
     deployments at sea, are still being performed while we have 
     had a significant growth in Contingency Operations.
       While Personnel Tempo has increased significantly, the pay 
     and benefits to our men and women in uniform have decreased. 
     The pay differential between the private sector and our 
     military has continued to grow, there are three different 
     retirement systems currently in place with each one providing 
     less than the previous one, and the medical system does not 
     provide medical benefits to all that have earned them.
       Mr. President, while I believe that more money needs to be 
     allocated to our National Defense, it needs to be done 
     prudently. We need to get the missions, manning, equipping, 
     and pay and benefits synchronized to enable us to continue 
     with a quality force into the 21st century. I urge you to 
     make this a high priority of your fiscal year 2000 budget 
     request.
       With kind regards and best wishes, I remain
           Sincerely yours,
                                                       Trent Lott.

  Mr. LOTT. I thank the chairman very much.
  Mr. WARNER. I think, with the concurrence of the distinguished 
ranking member, we can represent to the majority leader and Democratic 
leader we will have final passage here within a matter of a few hours, 
I hope.
  Mr. LOTT. That is good news.
  I might conclude by saying I had a good discussion late yesterday 
afternoon with the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, and he joined me 
in expressing the feeling this is going to have very broad bipartisan 
support. I am glad to hear that and I hope we can get it quickly 
through the other body and to the President for his signature. Thank 
you for your leadership, Senator Warner, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the leader.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to have this 
opportunity with my colleagues, Senators Warner, Levin, Allard, and 
others--to support S. 4, The Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and 
Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999. I strongly agree that this bill 
represents an excellent step toward providing the men and women of the 
military a clear signal that we the people of the United States and we 
the members of the Congress of the United States value their 
contributions, understand their needs and concerns, and understand our 
obligations to provide for those who have answered the calling to 
defend our Nation.
  The signal that we send to the people in the military and to the 
people of the United States should be one of hope and opportunity, and 
one that understands the critical needs of military members and their 
families. Twenty-five years ago Americans opted to end the draft and to 
establish an all-volunteer military force to provide for our national 
security. That policy carried with it a requirement that we invest the 
needed resources to bring into existence a competent and professional 
military. Currently, all services are having various but alarming 
difficulties in attracting and retaining qualified individuals. 
Seasoned, well-qualified personnel are leaving in disturbing numbers. 
Specifically, the Navy is not making its recruiting goals. The Army 
cites pay and retirement, and overall quality of life as three of the 
top four reasons soldiers are leaving. For the first time the Air Force 
is not expecting to make its re-enlistment goals, and the Air Force is 
currently 850 pilots short. The Marine Corps is hampered by inadequate 
funding of the pay and retirement and quality of life accounts in 
meeting its readiness and modernizing needs. All services, including 
the Guard and Reserve Components, are experiencing similar recruiting 
and retention problems. These shortfalls must be addressed if our 
Nation is to continue to have a highly capable, cutting edge military 
force.
  In fact, if we do not address these critical needs correctly, we may 
well have missed our chance to properly provide for our National 
Defense in the 21st Century.
  In light of our recent successful operations around the world, in the 
Persian Gulf and elsewhere, we must redouble our efforts to ensure that 
we continue to recruit, train and retain the best of America to serve 
in our armed forces, which is the goal of this legislation. Equally 
important, this bill, for the first time in a long time, addresses the 
immediate family members of our brave Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and 
Marines. The Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights 
Act of 1999 addresses the concerns of Secretary of Defense Cohen, the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff and Congress regarding recruiting a strong, 
viable military force for the 21st Century. It also significantly 
assists in retaining the right military personnel for the 21st Century. 
If we fail today to address these key issues, now when we have the 
combination of a strong economy, a relatively positive budget outlook, 
and a world which is largely at peace, we may well have missed a key 
window of opportunity. The bill we are introducing today goes a long 
way toward eliminating the deficiencies that we all have recently heard 
so much about from the Chiefs and a myriad of experts who are greatly 
concerned about the readiness of our military force, especially as we 
look a few years ahead.
  Military experts, defense journalists, former Secretaries of Defense, 
former Service Chiefs, former theater Commanders in Chief, research and 
development specialists and even civilian industry leaders agree: the 
number one factor undergirding our superpower military status is the 
people of our Armed Forces. This critical ingredient means something 
different today than it did on the beaches of Normandy, in the jungles 
of Vietnam, or in fact even on the deserts of Kuwait. Today, the people 
of our military are as dedicated, as committed, as patriotic as any 
force we have ever fielded. They are, in fact, smarter, better trained, 
and more technically adept than any who we have ever counted upon to 
defend our Nation. Operation Desert Fox proved this fact. This 
flawless, but dangerous and stressful, operations involved 40,000 
troops from bases virtually around the world. Over 40 ships performed 
around the clock strikes and support. Six hundred aircraft sorties were 
flown in four

[[Page 2977]]

days, and over 300 of these were night strike operations. This massive 
efforts was carried out without a single loss of American or British 
life. And, this is but one operation that our military (active and 
reserve) are successfully conducting worldwide.
  In contrast to this and other post-Vietnam successes, consider the 
problems which face the people in uniform. New global security threats 
and our strong economy each exert enormous pressures on the people in 
the military and their families. By some measures the pay for our 
military personnel lags 13 percent behind the civilian pay raises over 
the last 20 years. Yet, we ask our military to train on highly 
technical equipment, to commit themselves in harm's way, to leave their 
families, and to execute flawless operations. Sometimes these 
operations are new and different from any past military operations, but 
they can be just as dangerous. Meanwhile, some of our service members 
qualify for food stamps, do not have the same educational opportunities 
as their civilian counterparts, must deal with confusing and changing 
health benefits and/or can not find affordable housing. Something is 
badly wrong with this picture, and the Congress and the administration 
must work together to set things right.
  Specifically, we need to recruit good people, continue to train them, 
and retain them in the military. This is difficult at best with the 
changes in our society, the rapidly changing threats to our security, 
and a prosperous economy. As I heard a service member say during a 
hearing I held at Fort Gordon, GA, last year, we recruit an individual, 
but we retain a family.
  Some of the recruiting and retention problems of today's United 
States military are well documented. Others need to be more thoroughly 
explored. They all need to be addressed. The Soldiers', Sailors', 
Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999 is but the first 
step. It is the beginning. I caution my colleagues that today's 
servicemen and women, and their families, are intelligent and are quick 
to recognize duplicity in the words and actions of our civilian and 
military leadership. Our military's most important assets--its people--
are leaving the military, and many of America's best are not even 
considering joining the military. We must proceed expeditiously, with 
firm purpose and unified non-partisanship if we are to reverse these 
dangerous trends.
  We must act now, but we must consider the time proven process of the 
United States Senate. We need to make sure that we have the proper 
hearings and discussions within the proper framework before we over-
react to the critical needs facing our military Services.
  This bill responds to current data which provide some insight into 
how we can more effectively respond to today's youth and their service 
in the military. This 106th Congress has a tremendous opportunity to 
respond to today's military personnel problems. We must keep our focus 
on current and future personnel issues, including recognizing and 
responding to the need to retain a family. This legislation is only a 
start.
  Mr. President, the bill includes all three parts of the Department of 
Defense's proposed pay and retirement package. It incorporates some of 
the recommendations made by the congressionally mandated Principi 
Commission, and it provides some additional innovative ideas for 
addressing these key personnel issues, now and into the future.
  First, the bill provides a 4.8 percent pay raise across the board for 
all military members, effective January 1, 2000, and carries out the 
stated objective of Secretary Cohen and the Joint Chiefs of Staff of 
bringing military pay more in line with private sector wages. This 
increase raises military pay in FY2000 by one-half a percentage point 
above the annual increase in the Employment Cost Index (ECI), and 
represents the largest increase in military pay since 1982. This plan 
would provide for future annual increase in military pay of one-half 
percent above the annual increase in the ECI. Although I believe we 
should support the Department of Defense on this issue, of providing 
one-half percent above annual increase in the ECI for FY2000 to FY2005, 
our chairman and others have chose to provide more.
  Another of the Joint Chiefs' recommendations included in our 
legislation is the targeted pay raise for mid-grade officers and 
enlisted personnel, and also for key promotion points. These raises, 
amounting to between 4.8 percent and 10.3 percent, which includes the 
January 1, 2000, pay raise and would be effective July 1, 2000. This is 
a powerful retention tool for our Service Secretaries.
  The third part of our legislation is a revision in the Military 
Retirement Reform Act of 1986, which would provide an option at 15 
years of service for a service member to return to the pre-Redux 
retirement system (50 percent basic pay benefit for military members 
who retire at 20 years of service) or to elect to receive $30,000 bonus 
and remain in the Redux retirement.
  I am proud to say that in addition to the pay and retirement benefits 
package proposed by Secretary Cohen and the Joint Chiefs, our 
legislation includes several key recommendations from the recent report 
of the Congressional Commission on Service Members and Veterans 
Transition Assistance, also known as the Principi Commission. These 
provisions are specifically designed to assist the military services in 
their recruiting and retention efforts.
  Information and data that we are seeing indicate that education 
benefits are an essential component in attracting young people to enter 
the armed services. This may be the single most important step this 
Congress can take in assisting recruitment. Improvements in the 
Montgomery GI Bill are needed, and our bill represents a vital move in 
that direction.
  In keeping with the Principi Commission, our legislation would 
increase the basic GI Bill benefit from $528 to $600 per month and 
eliminate the current requirement for entering service members to 
contribute $1,200 of their own money in order to participate in the 
program. These changes should dramatically increase the attractiveness 
of the GI Bill to potential recruits, and give our Service Secretaries 
a powerful recruiting incentive.
  This legislation also adopts the Principi Commission recommendations 
to allow service members to transfer their earned GI Bill benefits to 
one or more immediate family members. Mr. President, this idea is 
innovative, it is powerful and it sends the right message to both those 
young people we are trying to attract into the military and those we 
are trying to retain. CBO estimates that in the long run over 500,000 
children of members or former members would use the educational 
assistance each year but that level would not be reached until about 
2013. It is important that we continue to act on this piece of 
legislation. History tells us that these chances come only once, and 
this Nation changed drastically under the original GI Bill, and now we 
have the chance to address future issues with this education piece of 
this legislation.
  This legislation includes a provision that would allow military 
members to participate in the current Thrift Savings Plan available to 
Federal civil servants. Under this proposal, which adopts another 
recommendation of the Congressional Commission on Service Members and 
Veterans Transition Assistance, military members would be permitted to 
contribute up to 5 percent of their basic pay, and all or any part of 
any enlistment or reenlistment bonus, to the Thrift Savings Plan.
  Mr. President, based on our initial estimates, it is my understanding 
that the provisions contained in this legislation will not require us 
to increase the funding for national defense above the levels in the 
President's FY2000-2006 Future Years Defense Plan. However, more 
precise costing will have to be done by the Congressional Budget Office 
over the next several weeks.
  I know that all Members of the United States Senate are committed to 
the well-being of our service men and women and their families. They 
are doing their duty with honor and dignity. They are serving our 
country

[[Page 2978]]

around the globe. They, along with their families, deserve our 
commitment. The bill we are introducing today is fair and will ensure 
that we continue to attract and retain high quality people to serve in 
our armed forces. It represents the beginning of a process to provide 
hope and opportunity to those who wear the uniform of our Services. The 
President has announced a very good plan, as has the distinguished 
majority leader. We must move forward, together, in addressing these 
important personnel and readiness issues.
  In closing, I want to recognize the leadership of Senator Warner, and 
Senator Levin, and the other members of the Armed Services Committee 
who are cosponsoring this legislation. We are all absolutely committed 
to the welfare of our service men and women and their families. They 
provide for us, and it is time for us to provide our obligation to 
them. I look forward to working with Senator Levin, Chairman Warner, 
and all of our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee in the months 
ahead so that we can honor those who have honored us.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.


                            Amendment No. 26

 (Purpose: To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to require 
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services to carry out a demonstration project to provide the Department 
  of Veterans Affairs with medicare reimbursement for medicare health-
     care services provided to certain medicare-eligible veterans)

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask the pending amendment, which I 
believe is No. 26, which is at the desk, be taken up for immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] proposes 
     an amendment numbered 26.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer this amendment, 
which the Senate passed overwhelmingly last year. Senator Jeffords and 
I offered it, and, with the full concurrence of the Senate, we passed 
this amendment which I now offer to this very excellent bill, S. 4.
  The amendment would authorize a pilot project. One of the criticisms 
of people from my side of the aisle is we try to do everything full 
scale. I happen to believe if you have something which you think is a 
good idea but which is not yet necessarily fully tested, that it is a 
good idea to test it. Therefore, I think the idea of demonstration 
sites is a very good idea.
  My amendment would authorize a pilot project to allow the Veterans 
Administration to do something which boards and advisory commissions 
have been advising for years and which many of us have been supporting 
for years and which the veterans groups all support. That is to allow 
the Veterans Administration to bill Medicare for health care services 
provided to certain dual beneficiaries--people who qualify for both.
  Senator Specter and I are together offering, as chairman and ranking 
member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, an amendment. What we 
basically do in this amendment is authorize a pilot project, as I 
indicated before, to allow the VA, for the first time, to bill Medicare 
for health services provided to certain dual beneficiaries.
  It is known as the VA Medicare subvention amendment or concept. And 
it has been around for a very long time, as I indicated. Our services 
organizations have been for it. Virtually every advisory body that has 
ever taken a look at the Veterans Administration and its health care 
has suggested that this has to happen.
  In the past, many VA hospitals and clinics have been forced to turn 
away middle-income Medicare-eligible veterans who sought VA care. Last 
year we made VA open to everybody. On the other hand, people who have 
Medicare, if they wanted to go to a VA hospital, they would have to pay 
out-of-pocket costs because Medicare would not pay for it. So Medicare 
is paying for them at one place but they are not paying for them at a 
veterans hospital where they might prefer to go, either for 
professional reasons, medical reasons, geographic reasons, or whatever.
  So these VA hospitals simply did not have the resources to care for 
them. Now, due to changes in the law, all enrolled veterans will have 
access to a uniform, comprehensive benefit package. Yet, resources for 
veterans' health care have not increased and, in fact, in the budget 
have remained absolutely flat. That is another subject which I will not 
get into today.
  For veterans, approval of this veterans subvention amendment would 
mean the infusion of new revenue to their health care system--not more 
cost--because remember that the Medicare which they are now getting is 
already being paid out. It is being paid out to wherever they are 
going. But if they choose to go to the VA hospital, it will actually be 
Medicare, but, as I will explain in a moment, less. It will be Medicare 
minus about 5 percent. So the cost factor is very favorable.
  For the Health Care Financing Administration, HCFA, a VA subvention 
demonstration project would provide the opportunity to assess the 
effects of coordination on improving efficiency, access, and quality of 
care for dual-eligible beneficiaries in a selected number of sites--
let's say, 8, 9, 10, 6, whatever it might be.
  Congress would receive the results of this test study, this 
demonstration project. You do it in various States or parts of States, 
and then you would know, how do veterans react? Do they want to keep 
their Medicare at the hospital they are going to already, which is not 
a VA hospital, or now, if we pass this amendment as was passed in the 
reconciliation bill last year, will they decide, no, we want to go to 
the veterans hospital because it is closer to our home, we feel more 
comfortable there, we are among our colleagues there? And Medicare 
would pay for it. In either event, Medicare is paying. But if they go 
to the VA hospital, under our demonstration, Medicare would pay 5 
percent less in fact.
  So Congress would then get the results of this test study, Mr. 
President. And then, once and for all, it would give us the really 
necessary data, the experiential data, the medical data, to make 
rational policy decisions in the future about Medicare and VA's 
involvement: Are they going to cross fertilize in a useful way or are 
they not?
  In my own State of West Virginia, there are four centers of the 
Veterans Administration. They spent nearly $5 million caring for 
middle-income, Medicare-eligible veterans last year. Although this is 
useful information, I cannot provide my colleagues with the really 
interesting piece of the story; and that is, the number of these 
Medicare-eligible veterans who are out there. Remember, there are 27 
million of them. And except for about 3.3 million of them, all of them, 
if they now go to a VA hospital, will have to pay out of pocket; they 
cannot use Medicare.
  That is what this amendment is about. So what we want to find out is, 
how many veterans are there, who are out there now in this test area, 
who cannot bring their Medicare coverage with them to the VA hospital 
because it does not do them any good and therefore they have to pay out 
of pocket? This demonstration project would encourage, hopefully, these 
eligible veterans who have not previously received care at VA hospitals 
to be able to make the decision whether or not that is what they want: 
Do they want to go to Beckley or Martinsburg or Clarksburg or 
Huntington to get their health care, or do they want to stay with their 
present health care situation?
  As in years past, this amendment is designed to be budget neutral. To 
that end, the Veterans Administration will

[[Page 2979]]

be required to maintain its current level of services to Medicare-
eligible veterans already being served and would be effectively limited 
to reimbursement for additional health care provided to entirely new 
users.
  Payments from Medicare would be, as I said, at a reduced rate--about 
5 percent less than their ordinary rate. Disproportionate share 
hospital adjustments would be excluded from all of this. Graduate 
medical education payments would be excluded from this, not a part of 
it. A large percentage of capital-related costs would be excluded from 
all of this.
  So, in effect, the Veterans Administration would be providing health 
care to Medicare-eligible veterans at a deeply discounted rate. It is a 
pretty good deal. It is a pretty good deal. The Department of Health 
and Human Services and the Veterans Administration would have the 
ability to adjust payment rates, and, frankly, they would have the 
ability to shrink or in fact to terminate the program if they did not 
like the direction that Medicare costs were going.
  In the event that all of these safeguards included in the proposed 
amendment fail, an event which the VA does not anticipate will happen, 
then Senator Specter and I, specifically in our amendment, propose caps 
to all Medicare payments to the VA at $50 million for an entire year.
  A HCFA representative testified before the last Congress and stated 
that the proposal will provide quality service to certain dual-eligible 
beneficiaries and ``at the same time, preserve and protect the Medicare 
Trust Fund for all Americans.''
  In 20 minutes I am going to the President's Commission on Medicare. 
We are very closely looking at all of these kinds of things, although 
Medicare subvention I do not think is going to be brought up. The VA 
subvention proposal is a very small effort compared to other recent 
changes made to the Medicare Program and changes yet to come which may 
come from the President's Commission. We will see. But it is enormously 
important for our veterans, Mr. President, and the health care system 
that they depend upon. Regardless of any policy changes resulting from 
the President's Commission, an excellent opportunity will remain for VA 
to test the idea of Medicare subvention.
  I want to remind my colleagues that during the first session of the 
105th Congress, Senator Jeffords and I successfully pushed a similar, 
precisely similar proposal, virtually similar proposal, through the 
Senate Finance Committee and the full Senate. Over the last couple of 
years, I have tried a variety of ways to enact this proposal. We have 
constantly met resistance. Others who favor the subvention concept have 
tried to turn this, the narrow concept of Medicare subvention, into 
some sweeping policy changes for the delivery of VA health care. That 
is not my goal. My goal is simply to get Medicare subvention without 
any extraneous amendments and additions.
  Again, it is a very easy concept. Let's say there are 24 million 
veterans out there now who are eligible for Medicare, and they are in 
effect eligible also to go to a VA hospital but in effect they are 
really not, because if they go to the VA hospital they are going to 
have to pay for their health care out of pocket. So they do not go.
  So if you want to find out how veterans feel about the hospital that 
they are at or the VA hospital and the health care that they are 
receiving, the stimulus that this would cause to happen for all 
involved--competition in the marketplace is one way of looking at it--
Medicare subvention makes an enormous amount of sense to the American 
taxpayer and an enormous amount of sense to veterans.
  This VA proposal is a way to provide quality health care to veterans 
who are also eligible for Medicare while at the same time, as I say--
and I am very aware of this because I am very closely connected to it--
protecting the Medicare trust fund.
  So let's not delay this any longer. The veterans have wanted this a 
long time, as I say. No group that has studied this has not suggested 
this as an easy, obvious solution. It is extremely low budget. It is 
capped and has all kinds of audits built into it. As I say, Medicare is 
only going to be reimbursing the VA hospitals at 95 percent of what 
they would ordinarily reimburse for similar services. I think it is an 
enormously important proposal. And at the proper time I will ask for 
the yeas and the nays.
  Mr. WARNER. Would the Senator consider asking for the yeas and nays 
now?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I commend my distinguished colleague from 
West Virginia for this legislation. I support it enthusiastically. I 
also commend our colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, for the work 
which he has done in this field, as referred to by the Senator from 
West Virginia.
  This amendment would constitute a win-win-win situation. We 
frequently hear about win-win, but not too often do we hear about win-
win-win. It is a three-time winner: First, for the veteran who would 
have an opportunity to have care at the veterans hospital of his choice 
when reimbursement is made by the Medicare funds; it would be a win for 
the Veterans Administration, which is very short of money; and it would 
be a win for Medicare, because Medicare would get a reduced payment of 
95 percent.
  Senator Rockefeller is ranking member on the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee, which I chair. We are enormously concerned about the low 
level of funding which has been proposed. We have a $17.3 billion 
budget which is totally insufficient. That has led us to look to other 
sources of funds.
  For example, the insurance premium payments, where a veteran has 
insurance which we are trying to get paid to the Veterans 
Administration and to the hospital where he is treated: Here you have 
the anomalous situation where veterans are entitled to Medicare but 
they are not getting it, and they cannot go to a veterans hospital 
without paying for at least a portion of the medical care themselves in 
many cases. This will give them the opportunity to go to the Veterans 
Administration hospital of their choice, to be paid for by Medicare.
  On a personal note, my father was a veteran of World War I and 
received medical treatment at the veterans hospital in Wichita, KS. I 
remember as a youngster riding my bicycle to visit my father when I was 
7 years old. One of the added attractions was that they had a pinball 
machine. It cost 5 cents in the drugstore, at a penny arcade in Wichita 
it was less expensive, but there was a free pinball machine at the 
veterans hospital. But I always went there to see my father. That was a 
long bicycle ride. Now Wichita has extended on the east end all the way 
to the veterans hospital.
  My father in World War II served in the Argonne Forest. He was an 
immigrant. He walked across Europe with barely a ruble in his pocket, 
from a small village in Ukraine. The family lived in a one-room dirt-
floor house in a village called Batchkurina. My wife Joan and I visited 
it in 1982. He had a steerage ticket to the United States. He did not 
know that he had a round-trip ticket to France--not to Paris and the 
Folies Bergeres, but to the Argonne Forest. He was a doughboy. He rose 
to the rank of buck private. Next to his family, his greatest pride was 
serving in the U.S. Army. I have his plaque, which was the equivalent 
of the Purple Heart in World War I for wounded veterans. I thought it 
was the Statue of Liberty knighting my father, but I later learned it 
was a plaque given to the 100,000 veterans who were wounded.
  My father was in an accident in 1937 when he was riding in a brand 
new automobile and the spindle bolt broke. The car rolled over and 
rolled on to his arm. He was able to receive medical care at the 
veterans hospital. Had he not had that care, I don't know what would 
have happened to him because 1937 was a very tough year for Americans 
generally, but an especially tough year for my immigrant parents who

[[Page 2980]]

had four young children to support. That experience at the veterans 
hospital in Wichita has stayed with me as sort of a hallmark of medical 
care for America's veterans.
  I think it is generally recognized that we do not do enough for our 
veterans. After recognizing it, we don't do very much about it. It is a 
constant budget struggle. Last year, billions of dollars were taken 
from the Veterans Administration for the highway fund. Now we are 
looking at a very, very tight budget.
  I have the attention of the distinguished chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee who may be coming to the Department of Defense for a 
small loan here for veterans. This Medicare subvention would give the 
Veterans Administration more money. It makes a lot of sense. They now 
have it for the Department of Defense. Retirees can go to DOD hospitals 
and have it paid for by Medicare.
  I hope we do not get into a jurisdictional battle with the Finance 
Committee. The Finance Committee passed this measure in the 105th 
Congress. It was dropped in conference, for reasons which we think are 
now solved, with the House of Representatives. The DOD Medicare 
subvention passed and has become law. We need to get this matter done 
now on this bill which is, as we express it in the Senate, a vehicle 
which is moving. We need to have this funding so that when we plan our 
financing in the Veterans' Committee we know the kind of money we have 
and the kind of money we may expect for the future.
  It is my hope that this matter will move forward with alacrity. We 
will get it done, provide this funding for the Veterans Administration 
which is sorely in need of funds, help out the veterans by giving them 
the choice of where they may get their care, and assist Medicare by 
having this 5 percent discount.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter from 12 members of the 
Veterans' Committee, with the lead signators being Senator Rockefeller 
and myself, be printed in the Congressional Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                               Committee on Veterans' Affairs,

                                Washington, DC, February 17, 1998.
     Hon. William V. Roth, Jr.,
     Hon. Daniel Patrick Moynihan,
     Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Bill and Pat: We write to urge the Committee's renewed 
     consideration of a measure that the Committees on Finance and 
     Veterans' Affairs supported last year as part of the Senate's 
     initial consideration of the Balanced Budget Act, S. 947.
       For more than five years, Medicare-eligible veterans have 
     called for legislation that would allow them to take 
     advantage of their Medicare eligibility in the VA setting. As 
     you will recall, the Committee on Finance voted to include 
     the VA subvention demonstration measure in its initial BBA 
     package; however, the provision died in conference. The final 
     measure, Public Law 105-33, was silent on this VA provision 
     but did authorize Medicare subvention for military retirees 
     to receive care in Defense health facilities. In discussion 
     with our House colleagues and officials of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs, we have learned that the reasons for House 
     opposition to the program have been addressed. We understand 
     that the House may be prepared to approve this legislation 
     later this year.
       Medicare subvention in VA health care will provide an 
     opportunity to assess the effects of coordination on 
     improving efficiency, access, and quality of care for dual-
     eligible veterans. Also, the Senate's proposal is budget 
     neutral. To that end, VA would be required to maintain a 
     current level of services to its present patients (including 
     those who are Medicare-eligible) and would be effectively 
     limited to receiving reimbursement for care provided to 
     additional, new Medicare eligibles. Payments from Medicare 
     would be at a reduced rate and would exclude 
     ``disproportionate share'' adjustments, graduate medical 
     education payments, and a large percentage of capital-related 
     costs. In effect, VA would provide health care to Medicare-
     eligible veterans at a substantial discount.
       We urge that the Committee on Finance act on and report 
     this legislation to the floor at an early date. We look 
     forward to working with you and other Members to achieve this 
     major initiative that will help America's Medicare-eligible 
     veterans receive the care that they have earned.
           Sincerely,
         Arlen Specter, Chairman; John D. Rockefeller IV, Ranking 
           Member; Strom Thurmond; Frank H. Murkowski; Jim 
           Jeffords; Ben Nighthorse Campbell; Tim Hutchinson; 
           Larry E. Craig; Patty Murray; Paul D. Wellstone; Bob 
           Graham; Daniel K. Akaka.

  Mr. SPECTER. I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, one of the great rewards in the Senate is 
hearing stories from your fellow colleagues like we just heard about 
your distinguished father. I say with great pride that my father also 
served in France in World War I in the Army as a doctor. He was in the 
battle of the Argonne Forest.
  I am always moved when I hear those stories, and how proud both of us 
are with what our fathers achieved. How lucky we are.
  Mr. SPECTER. If the distinguished Senator will yield for a moment, my 
father has prevailed to support his family and was in the junk 
business. Many call it the scrap iron business, but it was the junk 
business.
  Senator Rockefeller and I had our paths cross a bit a few months ago 
when we were in the Steel Caucus. A man from Texas came in from the 
scrap business--and they have been very badly hurt by imports of steel, 
which I will not go into at this moment. It gave me occasion to reflect 
for less than a minute on my experience cutting down derricks.
  The wind would blow through the oil fields in Kansas. We lived in 
Russell, a small town noted for being the home of Senator Dole. My 
brother-in-law Arthur Morgenstern and I would go out and cut down the 
derricks. We would sell the straight pieces of angled iron for two and 
three quarter cents a pound--price control--and the balance of the junk 
we loaded on the truck and we would take it over to the railroad and 
the boxcar and ship it.
  When I finished telling the tale of woe--it was a good incentive to 
become a lawyer--Senator Rockefeller chimed in and said, ``I have had a 
similar experience to Arlen Specter. My family also was in oil and 
railroads. We owned the oil companies and we owned the railroads.''
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator. I was waiting to see if they had a 
junk business on the side. I expect not. I was privileged to know the 
distinguished father of our colleague from West Virginia.
  Mr. President, a little note of history and then I will yield the 
floor. The Armed Services Committee, when we tried to pass a subvention 
provision for the DOD, we had it twice, but each time the Finance 
Committee came in and blocked that language in the Armed Services 
Committee bill and eventually, of course, the Finance Committee did 
take it and got it passed for the DOD.
  Mr. President, I ask the Chair to recognize the distinguished 
colleague from West Virginia such that he might make some additional 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee and the Presiding Officer.
  Just three comments: No. 1, I think it is really important to 
remember that the Department of Defense now has Medicare subvention. 
DOD has Medicare subvention. And they have it on a test basis. The VA 
is asking for Medicare subvention on a test basis.
  I ask my colleagues, is it really fair in that this is basically a 
no-cost item and perhaps a cost savings for the DOD people to have it 
and for VA not to have it when ultimately this is an enormously 
important test for the future of veterans' health care policy and where 
they are going to get it.
  Second, the point has been made--not on this floor by the people here 
but referring to others--that this has not gone through the regular 
process. This has been through the regular process. Senator Jeffords 
and I introduced this yesterday. And it was introduced last year. It 
passed through the Finance Committee and the Budget Committee last 
year, and it went through the reconciliation process last year. This 
has been through the process. It was dropped in conference. It has been 
through the process. That needs to be made.

[[Page 2981]]

  Third, that a veteran ought to have the right to decide where he or 
she wants to get their health care service with their Medicare 
dollars--and it is a superb way to find out, in fact, what veterans 
think of VA and/or their present health care service systems. It has to 
happen. It is good policy. And it is probably a cost saving policy. 
When the time comes for the vote, I hope that my colleagues will vote 
``no'' on the motion to table.
  We do a lot of talk about supporting veterans, and we do the best we 
can. But this is a very important basically no-cost health care way to 
give veterans something they desperately need and deserve.
  I thank the Chair. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, may I ask my colleague from Virginia--I 
wasn't clear; he was about to table the Rockefeller amendment.
  I ask my colleagues whether I could have 2 minutes in support.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we want to accommodate all of our 
colleagues. I know the Senator from Florida is waiting.
  In response to the Senator from West Virginia, he is right on target 
on all three points. I agree with him. He will have this Senator's 
support when the time comes. But I must honor the request of the 
chairman of the committee, on which the Senator from Minnesota serves, 
the Finance Committee.
  Does the Senator from Minnesota wish to speak to this amendment by 
the Senator from West Virginia?
  I make that request in his behalf.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Virginia 
for his graciousness, and also Senator Graham from Florida.
  Let me just say to Senator Rockefeller that I think the time is right 
for his amendment to authorize a Medicare Subvention pilot project. We 
have been through this year after year after year. We have a veterans' 
health care system that is really struggling with a flat-line budget.
  My colleague from West Virginia has shown a lot of leadership on a 
lot of issues that affect the veterans community. Look, we need to at 
least have this Medicare Subvention on a pilot project basis. We need 
to think about a stable source of funding for veterans' health care. 
Give veterans the choice whether to go to VA for their health care. It 
should be their choice.
  We have such a demonstration project within DOD right now. We ought 
to be able to do this within the Veterans Administration. Veterans 
organizations feel strongly about this. This is the time to support the 
Rockefeller amendment because the whole question of recruitment, and 
whether or not young women and men want to serve in our armed services 
is directly related to how they feel they are going to be treated when 
they are no longer in the armed services, when they are veterans. Will 
there or will there not be support for the veterans' health care 
system? This Rockefeller amendment is a terribly important step in the 
direction of making sure we have good veterans health care. And I would 
like to include my name as an original cosponsor, if that is all right 
with my colleague.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I would also ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Wellstone's name be included, as well as Senator Kennedy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROTH. May I ask the distinguished Senator from Virginia, is it 
appropriate to make some remarks on the amendment on the veterans 
Medicare subvention amendment?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, of course it is appropriate, and I so 
desire that be done.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Virginia for his comments.
  I must say, I rise in opposition to the amendment. As the 
distinguished Senator from Virginia well knows, the Balanced Budget Act 
of 1997 requires the Health and Human Services Administration and 
Veterans Affairs to submit to Congress a detailed implementation plan 
for a veterans subvention demonstration. This report has not yet been 
submitted to Congress and is due at the end of this year.
  Frankly, a veterans subvention demonstration at this time would be 
premature. The Department of Defense Medicare subvention demonstration 
enacted in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 was carefully crafted in a 
bipartisan fashion between the committees of jurisdiction in the House 
and Senate, as well as the administering Secretary to address complex 
budgetary and design issues.
  It is very, very important, Mr. President, that the veterans 
subvention demonstration should undergo the same process in order to 
ensure a successful demonstration for all Medicare-eligible veterans.
  Finally, as you are aware, the Medicare Part A trust fund is facing 
an insolvency date of 2008. This is a most serious, critical matter, 
and the Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare is meeting this 
afternoon to continue to address the current solvency issue.
  I cannot overemphasize how important, in light of this problem of 
solvency, is careful consideration of the budgetary implication 
associated with the veterans subvention demonstration in order to 
prevent the solvency of the trust fund from being further jeopardized.
  I will be happy to assure the parties supporting and author of this 
legislation that we will be glad to work with them in the future in 
trying to work out legislation that seems appropriate under the 
circumstances.
  As I said, it is critically important that it be carefully crafted 
because the Medicare legislation is in deep trouble. As I said, it 
faces insolvency by 2008. We have set up a special commission headed by 
Senator Breaux to try to find a solution to assuring the continued 
solvency of this program. And to add to the difficulty, the complexity 
of that problem, by including now a new proposal on veterans Medicare 
subvention makes little or no sense. For that reason, I strongly 
support the motion to table suggested by the chairman of the defense 
committee.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I do have an 
amendment I want to bring to the floor in a moment, if that is the 
direction we are going.
  Let me just say to my colleague from Delaware, the argument that we 
ought to wait until we see what happens with this pilot project within 
DOD is an apples-and-oranges proposition. First of all, it is going to 
be another year before we know what happens with the DOD pilot, and, 
second of all, these are two different health care systems. These are 
two different health care systems.
  The point is, we say it is fine to go ahead with DOD and do a 
Medicare subvention pilot project, but when it comes to our veterans--
our veterans--that's another story. I say to my colleagues again, 
whether or not men and women want to serve in the armed services is 
directly correlated to how they are going to be treated when they are 
veterans. When it comes to veterans, we should have done this a year 
ago.
  It just doesn't cut it to say, ``Well, we have to wait for another 
year to see how the pilot works out with DOD.'' That is a very 
different health care system. A year ago we should have had this 
Medicare subvention demonstration model within the Veterans 
Administration, and we are able to do it now. We want to do it. That is 
why we bring this to the floor.
  Finally, let me point out, on the whole budget problem--Senator 
Rockefeller said it--this amendment is budget neutral. These are new 
users of the VA system. Everybody who has talked about Medicare 
subvention has made it crystal clear that there are no negative 
financial implications for the Medicare trust fund.
  I am sorry, these arguments don't cut it. If colleagues want to vote

[[Page 2982]]

against this, they can vote against it. I will just tell you, I think a 
vote to table the Rockefeller amendment, the amendment that Senator 
Jeffords has worked on, the amendment that I am very proud to support--
I have to say it this way, and I am not playing politics--it really is 
a vote against veterans.
  In Minnesota, I don't find any topic to be more a topic of discussion 
among the veterans community than health care. I don't find any greater 
concern than the concern as to whether or not we are going to have a 
stable source of funding for veterans' health care. This is just a 
pilot project that takes us in this direction. I cannot believe my 
colleagues are going to come out on the floor of the Senate and table 
this. I hope we get a vote against the tabling motion.
  Other than that, Mr. President, I don't feel strongly about it.
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, yesterday I introduced legislation, 
which is, basically, now pending, to allow certain Medicare-eligible 
veterans to go to Veterans Administration facilities for their care and 
to allow the Veterans Administration to bill Medicare for those 
services, just as a private provider would do. Seventeen of my 
colleagues joined Senator Rockefeller, Senator Specter, and myself in 
introducing the Veterans Equal Access to Medicare Act, S. 445. It is 
this legislation that Senator Rockefeller now offers as an amendment to 
this bill, and I support him.
  America's veterans and the Veterans Health Administration are eager 
to launch this demonstration project which establishes up to 10 
demonstration sites around the country where this policy would be 
tested. The Department of Defense is currently running a very similar 
demonstration project for military retirees, and the Veterans 
Administration is anxious to do the same for veterans.
  Allowing veterans to take their Medicare eligibility to a Veterans 
Administration building gives them greater flexibility in choosing 
their care provider. This is good for veterans. It makes good sense, 
and it would allow the Veterans Administration to get reimbursed for 
the care it would provide above and beyond those veterans it is 
currently treating.
  This legislation is budget neutral and is limited in scope, capping 
Medicare trust fund payments to the Veterans Administration at $50 
million per year for 3 years, payments that would otherwise go to 
private-sector providers.
  Mr. President, veterans want the option of getting their Medicare-
covered care at the VA.
  The VA wants the option. And we ought to move expeditiously to get 
this demonstration project underway. I hope my colleagues will support 
this amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I have a unanimous consent request.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. LEVIN. On behalf of Senator Dorgan, I ask unanimous consent that 
Anthony Blaylock, a defense fellow serving in his office, be given 
floor privileges during the debate on S. 4.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I would defer to my colleague. I actually rise for the 
purpose of offering an amendment, but if my colleague wants to respond 
to the Rockefeller amendment, I would defer to him.
  Mr. ROTH. I just want to say to the distinguished Senator from 
Minnesota that we are all sympathetic to trying to do something to help 
the veterans hospitals. We are all interested in assuring that the 
veterans have the best care possible. But he misunderstood what I said. 
The fact is, the study that is about to come out, which is to be 
performed by the Secretaries of Health and Human Services and Veterans 
Affairs, is to submit a detailed implementation plan for a veterans 
subvention demonstration. The purpose of it is not to await the results 
of a defense program and see how it works out. The fact is that there 
are two different systems, and what may work for defense will not 
necessarily be efficient or effective as far as the veterans are 
concerned.
  All I was saying is that the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 does require 
the Secretaries of Health and Human Services and Veterans Affairs to 
submit a plan, and that we should not act and move forward until we 
have that report. When we get that report, then we should be in a 
position to create a demonstration program that meets the necessities, 
the peculiarities, and the problems that are inherent in the current 
veterans plan.
  So I just wanted to make clear we are not awaiting the results of the 
Department of Defense intervention program.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will go forward with this other amendment because I 
know my colleagues are anxious to move along.
  Let me just say to my colleague from Delaware, I have here a 
memorandum of agreement between the Department of Veterans Affairs and 
Health and Human Services to go forward with this subvention project. 
We already have the memorandum of agreement. They are ready to go. All 
they need is for the U.S. Senate to go on record saying we support it.
  One more time, I will just say to my colleagues, sometimes the debate 
is all civil, but sometimes it is with some strong feeling. I think the 
veterans community is becoming very impatient with us, and for very 
good reasons. They have every reason in the world to wonder about VA 
health care as they look forward to the future. And this amendment is 
but one small step toward trying to figure out one piece of stable 
funding. I think it is a terrible mistake to come out here and to move 
to table this amendment. And the point I made earlier I think still 
stands.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commit to my two colleagues and friends 
here the support of the Senator from Virginia, but I have been asked by 
the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth--on his behalf I 
move to table, with his commitment to try to move it in that committee.
  I move to table.
  Mr. NICKLES. Would the Senator withhold?
  Mr. WARNER. It all depends on how long that will be.
  Mr. NICKLES. I will speak for 5 minutes on the bill, not on the 
amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. We are not going to have a vote right now. I thank the 
Senator. I move to table the amendment and I ask unanimous consent that 
the amendment be laid aside. Eventually we will get to the vote. We 
will stack them after consultation with the leadership.
  Is that agreeable?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I know my colleague, the Senator from 
Florida, has an amendment. I want to make a few comments on the bill if 
that accommodates his schedule. I won't be very long.
  Mr. President, I wish to compliment my friend and colleague, Senator 
Warner, for his stewardship of this bill, for his chairmanship of the 
Armed Services Committee, and for his dedication to improving our 
national defense. He has a proven record in national defense, both as a 
Secretary of the Navy and his service in the Senate. I understand the 
support that this bill has by colleagues, and certainly I feel 
supportive of our military and national defense as well. I have always 
believed that for the Federal Government our

[[Page 2983]]

No. 1 priority should be the protection of our people, protection of 
our country, and the protection of our freedom. This bill will help do 
this in some ways. So I support those efforts.
  I support a lot of what is in this bill, but I don't support 
everything in this bill. I think it would be less than forthcoming if I 
didn't express my displeasure with at least two provisions in this 
bill. Maybe by expressing that displeasure we can remedy that before 
this bill becomes law. I say that in all sincerity. I want a lot of 
this bill to become law.
  Frankly, when my staff asked me earlier, ``Do you want to sponsor 
S.4, one of our first bills? It improves national defense, increases 
pay.'' Well, I have 35,000 to 40,000 troops in my State, and I 
definitely want to increase their pay. So I support that provision of 
the bill. When I started reading the summaries of it--and I have a copy 
of a summary and cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office, 
dated February 12, 1999.
  I ask unanimous consent that this CBO summary be printed at the 
conclusion of my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I became concerned about the cost not 
just of the pay increases, which are handled by appropriation 
committees every year--in other words, this bill can authorize pay 
increases of whatever percent, but the appropriators have to come up 
with the money to do it. They will do that within the budget cycle, and 
we are going to pass a budget this year. So I am optimistic that will 
be funded. It will be within the budget and it will be responsible. So, 
again, I don't have a problem with that portion of the bill, the pay 
raise. That portion of the bill, I might mention, is $26 billion over 
the next 10 years. It is about half of this bill. The total cost of 
this bill is about $55 billion over the next 10 years. So I don't have 
a problem with the pay raise provision.
  I do have a problem with two of the entitlement increases in this 
bill. I think, with all due respect, they are mistakes. I think 
increasing the military retirement percentage from 40 to 50 percent is 
a mistake. Some colleagues say don't raise that. I was in the Congress 
when we reduced it from 50 to 40. We did that with an overwhelming vote 
of 92-1. In 1986, we reduced the military retirement schedule from 50 
to 40 percent as part of an overall package for entitlement reform in 
the military. It was overwhelming, 92-1.
  Now we are getting ready to do the opposite, increasing it probably 
from 40 percent to 50 percent. That means that an individual can join 
at age 18 or 20, serve 20 years, receive retirement pay beginning at 
age 40 for life, and receive cost-of-living adjustments. That is very 
expensive. Also, when they are 41 years old, they can seek other 
employment; I expect that they would do that in most cases. So they 
would have other employment in addition to the military retirement. It 
is a very expensive provision. In 1986, changes were made with a lot of 
work; I think it was work that was well thought out.
  I might note that there is a letter from the Concord Coalition, 
signed by our former colleagues, Senator Rudman and Senator Nunn, which 
urges us not to do this, saying they worked hard and they were with 
many of us in the Senate at that time. I will read part of it:

       We understand that it has been tentatively decided to 
     include in the year-end omnibus spending bill a provision 
     substantially repealing the 1986 military pension reforms. We 
     urge you in the strongest possible terms to reject this 
     unwise, expensive, and untimely provision.

  They also said:

       Several commissions reported that the old pension system 
     was so generous to personnel in their early 40s with 20 years 
     of service that the pensions worked as incentives to highly 
     skilled personnel to leave the military. One of the 
     objectives of this bill is to get people to stay in the 
     military.

  They also say:

       Rolling back the 1986 reforms means returning to a system 
     that encourages military personnel to retire prematurely from 
     the service in their early 40s at half pay, augmented by full 
     COLAs.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this entire letter 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                        The Concord Coalition,

                                 Washington, DC, October 14, 1998.

              Say No to Repealing Military Pension Reforms

       Dear Colleague: We understand that it has been tentatively 
     decided to include in the year-end omnibus spending bill a 
     provision substantially repealing the 1986 military pension 
     reforms. We urge you in the strongest possible terms to 
     reject this unwise, expensive, and untimely provision.
       Both of us believe unequivocally in a strong defense and a 
     responsible fiscal policy. Repealing the 1986 military 
     pension reforms will produce neither: it will weaken 
     readiness by taking funds away from more critical defense 
     needs, and it will also create serious budget problems.
       This provision is terrible fiscal policy both near term and 
     long term. In the near term, the provision requires 
     appropriating $7.3 billion over the coming decade to pay the 
     ``employers' share'' (the accrual cost) of increasing 
     military pensions down the road. This $7.3 billion will have 
     to be squeezed out of the very tight level of appropriations 
     allowed under he 1997 discretionary caps. Remember, these 
     caps are already set to tighten spending by about 10 percent 
     in real terms between now and 2002, so finding $7.3 billion 
     will mean stinting on other priorities.
       In the long term, by rolling back the 1986 reforms, the 
     provisions eventually would expand the stream of future 
     entitlements by about $8 billion a year. It would affect only 
     service personnel who joined the military after 1986, so its 
     full impact on pension payments would not be felt for several 
     decades.
       The 1986 reforms were designed and approved on a bipartisan 
     basis after several years of study and hearings. They reined 
     in excessive costs and overhauled outdated aspects of the 
     pension system. They should not be lightly tossed aside in a 
     last minute omnibus spending bill. If changes of this 
     magnitude are to be made, they should be done only after full 
     consideration by the appropriate committees and full and 
     informed debate by the House and Senate.
       Prior to passage of these reforms many experts, including 
     the Pentagon's own Quadrennial Review of Military 
     Compensation, called for change. Former Defense Secretary Les 
     Aspin noted that under the old system most military pension 
     benefits went to people were still working outside the 
     military and were not ``retired'' in the conventional sense.
       Several commissions reported that the old pension system 
     was so generous to personnel in their early 40s with 20 years 
     of service that the pensions worked as incentives to highly 
     skilled personnel to leave the military. With the current 
     need for critical skills in the military, it is absurd to 
     encourage unskilled personnel to retire in their early 40s. 
     Returning to the old system would reduce--not strengthen--the 
     willingness of personnel to remain in the service and 
     therefore, in our opinion, it would reduce retention rates 
     and military readiness. Indeed, there are far better ways the 
     same appropriations dollars could be used that would improve 
     readiness and retention rates.
       This provision in no way affects former military personnel 
     who are retired today, or even active duty personnel who 
     joined the service before August, 1986.
       Only those who were inducted after July 31, 1986 will be 
     affected. But changing the ground rules mid-stream for them 
     calls into question whether any prospective changes in Social 
     Security or other entitlement programs can ever be credible. 
     Prospective changes are purposely adopted in order to soften 
     the adjustment and give individuals time to plan ahead. But 
     if such significant changes as the 1986 military retirement 
     reforms are rolled back before they even have an impact, why 
     should citizens believe that other prospective entitlement 
     reforms actually will come to pass and make their plans 
     accordingly?
       Rolling back the 1986 reforms means returning to a system 
     that encourages military personnel to retire prematurely from 
     the service in their early 40s at half pay, augmented by full 
     COLAs. Why not also roll back the 1984 reforms of the Civil 
     Service pension plan? Is this fair to DoD civilian personnel 
     or other government employees?
       At a time when our nation is preparing for the fiscal 
     challenges of an aging population by debating the tough 
     choices involved in Social Security and Medicare reform we 
     can ill afford to undo one of the few tough choices about 
     long-term spending that already has been made.
       The 1986 reforms made sense then and still make sense 
     today. But if Congress wishes to reexamine the issue, or to 
     direct appropriations in a way that would change military 
     compensation or increase readiness, it should do so with 
     proper debate and consideration, not through an ill-conceived 
     provision slipped into a mammoth year-end spending bill with 
     little consideration by the House or Senate.

[[Page 2984]]

       Additional information and background on this issue is 
     available in the entitlement reform section of the Concord 
     Coalition web site at ``http://www.concordcoalition.org''.
           Sincerely,
     Warren B. Rudman,
       Co-Chair.
     Sam Nunn,
       Co-Chair.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I think the pension change--which, I 
might mention, is an entitlement change--is not paid for in this bill 
and it costs $14 billion over the next 10 years. So it is not an 
insignificant provision. There are also provisions in here dealing with 
a thrift savings plan. I am in favor of that. I don't have a problem 
with that. We should encourage that for military personnel. Most 
provisions in here I agree with and some I disagree with. I think 
changing the retirement percentage is a mistake.
  There is another provision in the bill that Senator Cleland, I think, 
was talking about. I compliment him. He was able to get this in the 
bill in the markup. I don't believe they had cost estimates and 
actually knew how much it would cost during the markup, but it was a 
provision dealing with the GI bill, providing benefits, educational 
benefits for GIs. He expanded the benefit to say it could be 
transferred to spouses and children. What does this mean? The bill 
itself increases the GI benefit from $528 a month to $600 a month, a 
nice, generous increase. That means a GI that is in the regular service 
with a commitment for 3 years can sign up and receive educational 
benefits totaling $600 per month--a pretty nice benefit. That is $7,200 
per year.
  This bill is used by a significant number of GIs. This bill 
eliminates the coshare. They have to pay, right now, $100 a month, or 
for the first year $1,200. This bill eliminates that. I am not arguing 
about that as much as I am about the transferability provision in this 
bill that allows the GI benefits to be transferred to spouses, and also 
to the kids.
  I am all in favor of increasing support for our military, but I 
question the wisdom of this provision, which is enormously expensive. 
Enormously. The cost of this provision over the next 10 years--just the 
transfer of the GI entitlement--is $9.8 billion. Also, I might mention 
that in the CBO study, the last part of the page, they talk about the 
transfer of entitlement, and they said:

       CBO estimates that the provision would raise costs by about 
     $110 billion in 2000 and by $2.2 billion over the first 5 
     years, and $9.8 billion over the 2000 to 2009 period. In the 
     long run, costs will rise to about $3 billion per year.

  This is just in the transfer of an entitlement. So this is the 
creation of a new entitlement, transferring this entitlement to spouses 
and the kids. This $600, which I believe is indexed for inflation, can 
get very expensive. So we are talking about a $7,200 benefit being 
transferred to spouses and kids, and 10 years from now how much will 
that be? Well, the Congressional Budget Office says it is going to cost 
about $3 billion a year. I know that cost wasn't known--or at least I 
don't think it was --when this bill was marked up. We know what the 
cost is now. I think we have to look at it long and hard.
  Is this the right thing to do? Some people have said this doesn't 
come out of the defense budget, this is not part of the defense bill, 
this is really part of Veterans Affairs budget. It comes out of the 
taxpayer bill. I want to take care of veterans, too, but I don't think 
we have an obligation to veterans' children, to be providing for their 
education to the tune of $7,200. I think we have to be very cautious 
when we go about expanding entitlements. Maybe I am alone in this, but 
these entitlement increases aren't paid for. So there is a real 
conflict.
  Most of us say we believe in a balanced budget. We run back to our 
States and say we have balanced the budget and we have done a great 
job. Yet, increasing entitlements to the tune of increasing the 
percentage from 40 to 50 percent for military retirement, and then also 
making the GI bill benefits apply not only for GIs, but also for GIs' 
spouses and for children.
  I think that is enormously expensive--very expensive. The cost of 
this bill over the first 5 years is $17.9 billion. The cost over 10 
years is $54.9 billion--almost $55 billion over 10 years. About half of 
that is pay raise. I don't have a problem with the pay raise provision, 
with one exception. The pay raise provision that is put in says not 
only a 4.8 pay raise, which is the most generous that we have done in a 
long time, and it is probably overdue, but it also says for the 
foreseeable future we are going to add another half point over whatever 
the cost-of-living index will be for the military over everybody else. 
I am not sure we should be making that decision for 10 years from now, 
or for 8 years from now. The next Congress can decide that. Maybe we 
should say, ``Well, for the next 4 years we will give a half point 
incremental increase on top of the CPI.'' I don't think we should say 
for every military person you will get half a percent more than 
everybody else. And then we are going to have pressure coming from the 
civil service, and from all governmental employees saying we want just 
as much, although we have had some studies done that say they are not 
making as much as those in the private sector.
  I think that provision can be very expensive, or certainly should be 
sunset or limited. So I encourage the managers of this bill to look at 
putting the sunset on the incremental cost-of-living increase that is 
now provided. I urge them to take another look at raising the 
retirement percentage from 40 to 50 percent. I urge in the strongest 
language possible to be very, very cautious about expanding the GI bill 
of rights to spouses and to their children.
  If we are going to pass entitlement programs that cost $3 billion a 
year, we should know it. We should recognize the cost. We should also 
be thinking about what the spending is going to squeeze out--what area 
of the military is going to take a hit, or what area of Veterans 
Affairs. Are we not going to be able to fund veterans' health care as 
well because that particular provision is in there?
  So I think we need to think about it long and hard. I am confident 
that our colleagues, who will be managing this bill in conference, will 
look at these issues. I am very hopeful they will be addressed before 
we see a bill brought back to the Senate floor as a conference bill.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1


               congressional budget office cost estimate

     S. 4--Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of 
         Rights Act of 1999
       Summary: S. 4 would increase various elements of 
     compensation for current and former members of the armed 
     forces. Specifically, it would increase pay for military 
     personnel, provide a special allowance for low-income 
     members, increase retirement benefits for certain members, 
     increase educational benefits, and allow members on active 
     duty to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan.
       Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, enactment 
     of the bill would raise discretionary spending by about $1.1 
     billion in 2000 and $13.8 billion over the 2000-2004 period. 
     In 2009, those costs would total about $6.5 billion. Because 
     the increase in retirement benefits would apply only to 
     members who entered the service after July 1986, annual costs 
     would continue to rise for a few years after 2009. Additional 
     benefits earned under the proposal between August 1, 1986, 
     and the effective date would add about $4.5 billion to the 
     unfunded liability of the military retirement trust fund.
       Because the bill would affect direct spending and revenues, 
     pay-as-you-go procedures would apply. Increased educational 
     benefits and higher annuities for certain military retirees 
     would increase direct spending by about $765 million a year 
     over the 2000-2004 period. In 2009 direct spending costs 
     would total about $2.6 billion. The annual direct spending 
     costs for military retirement would eventually be about 11 
     percent higher than spending under current law. Greater use 
     of education benefits under the bill would raise long-run 
     costs by about $3 billion a year. By allowing servicemembers 
     to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan, the bill would 
     lower revenues by $311 over the 2000-2004 period and about 
     $141 million by 2009. Section 4 of the Unfunded Mandates 
     Reform Act excludes from the application of that act any 
     legislative provisions that are necessary for the national 
     security. That exclusion might apply to the provisions of 
     this bill. In any case, the bill contains no 
     intergovernmental or private-sector mandates.
       Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
     budgetary impact of S. 4 is shown in Table 1, assuming that 
     the bill


[[Page 2985]]

     will be enacted by October 1, 1999. Spending from the bill 
     would fall, under budget functions 700 (veteran's benefits 
     and services), 050 (national defense), and 600 (income 
     security).

                                TABLE 1.--ESTIMATED COSTS OF S. 4, AS REPORTED BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                                                        [By fiscal years, in millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        2000      2001      2002      2003      2004      2005      2006      2007      2008      2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              DIRECT SPENDING AND REVENUES
 
Proposed Changes:
    Estimated Budget Authority......................       537       599       870       887       927     1,108     1,435     1,940     2,270     2,633
    Estimated Outlays...............................       537       599       870       887       927     1,108     1,435     1,940     2,270     2,633
    Revenues........................................       -10       -44       -67       -86      -103      -113      -120      -127      -134      -141
 
                                                           SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONS
 
Proposed Changes:
    Estimated Authorization Level...................     1,089     2,196     3,118     3,505     3,980     4,373     4,852     5,422     5,952     6,548
    Estimated Outlays...............................     1,075     2,164     3,103     3,487     3,963     4,354     4,832     5,400     5,928     6,520
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Basis of estimate: The budgetary impact of the bill would 
     stem from three sets of provisions: those affecting military 
     retirement programs, pay of current members, and veterans' 
     education. Table 2 shows the costs of provisions affecting 
     military pay and retirement benefits that would raise direct 
     spending, lower revenues, and raise discretionary costs to 
     the Department of Defense (DoD). Table 3 shows the increases 
     in direct spending that would result from provisions raising 
     veterans' education benefits.

          TABLE 2.--ESTIMATED COSTS OF PROVISIONS AFFECTING MILITARY COMPENSATION IN S. 4, AS REPORTED BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ARMED FORCES
                                                    [Outlays by fiscal years, in millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Category                     1999      2000      2001      2002      2003      2004      2005      2006      2007      2008      2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
 
Spending Under Current Law for Military       70,367    73,005    68,472    70,590    70,633    70,633    73,033    70,633    68,233    70,633    70,633
 Personnel \1\............................
                                           =============================================================================================================
Proposed Changes:
    Retirement Benefits...................         0       674       862     1,437     1,453     1,541     1,550     1,597     1,709     1,760     1,767
    Retention Initiative..................         0         2         7        15        23        28        31        33        35        37        39
    Pay Increases.........................         0       386     1,269     1,625     1,985     2,368     2,773     3,202     3,656     4,131     4,714
    Subsistence Allowance.................         0        13        26        26        26        26         0         0         0         0         0
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................         0     1,075     2,164     3,103     3,487     3,963     4,354     4,832     5,400     5,928     6,520
                                           =============================================================================================================
Spending Under S. 4 for Military Personnel    70,367    74,080    70,636    73,693    74,120    74,596    77,387    75,465    73,633    76,561    77,153
 \1\......................................
 
                                                                     DIRECT SPENDING
 
                                                                  Retirement Annuities
 
Spending Under Current Law................    31,935    32,884    33,887    34,871    35,956    37,026    38,125    39,233    40,360    41,500    42,657
Proposed Changes..........................         0         1         1         2         2         3         3         5        25        66       125
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spending Under S. 4.......................    31,935    32,885    33,888    34,873    35,958    37,029    38,128    39,238    40,385    41,566    42,782
 
                                                                       Food Stamps
 
Spending Under Current Law................    20,730    21,399    22,431    23,251    23,913    24,629    25,303    26,005    26,715    27,426    28,152
Proposed Changes..........................         0        -3        -5        -5        -5        -5         0         0         0         0         0
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spending Under S. 4.......................    20,730    21,396    22,426    23,246    23,908    24,624    25,303    26,005    26,715    27,426    28,152
 
                                                                        REVENUES
 
Thrift Savings Plan.......................         0       -10       -44       -67       -86      -103      -113      -120      -127      -134     -141
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1999 level is the estimated spending from amounts appropriated for 1999 and prior years. The current law amounts for 2000-2009 assume that
  appropriations remain at the 1999 level. If they are adjusted for inflation, the base amounts would rise by about $2,500 million per year, but the
  estimated changes would remain as shown.
 
Sources: Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation.

     Retirement benefits
       S. 4 contains provisions that would allow current members 
     to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan and increase 
     retirement benefits for members who entered the service after 
     July 31, 1986, and are covered under the system known as 
     REDUX.
       Background. The Military Retirement Reform Act of 1986 
     (REDUX) governs the retirement of military personnel who 
     initially entered the armed forces after July 31, 1986. Under 
     REDUX a retiree's initial annuity ranges from 40 percent to 
     75 percent of the individual's highest three years of basic 
     pay. Retirees with 20 years of service will receive 40 
     percent, and the fraction will grow with each additional year 
     of service and reach the maximum at 30 years of service. When 
     the retiree is 62 years old, the annuity is raised in most 
     cases to equal 2.5 percent of the average of the highest 36 
     months of basic pay for each year of service up to a maximum 
     of 75 percent. Also, under REDUX cost-of-living adjustments 
     (COLAs) equal the change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) 
     less 1 percentage point. However, when the retiree reaches 
     age 62 the annuity is raised to reflect all of the CPI growth 
     until that point, but thereafter annual COLAs continue to 
     equal the CPI less one percentage point.
       Current law provides two different formulas for other 
     individuals who become eligible for a nondisability 
     retirement benefit but are not covered by REDUX. Military 
     personnel who first became members of the armed forces before 
     September 8, 1980, receive retired pay equal to a multiple of 
     their highest amount of basic pay; the multiple is 2.5 
     percent for every year of service up to 75 percent. Retirees 
     who first became members of the armed forces between 
     September 8, 1980, and July 31, 1986, receive retired pay 
     based on the average of the highest 36 months of basic pay 
     and the multiplier of 2.5 percent for each year of service. 
     Annuities for both of these groups are fully adjusted for 
     changes in the CPI.
       Repeal of REDUX/Optional Lump-Sum Bonus. Under section 201, 
     members who under current law would retire under REDUX would 
     face a choice upon reaching 15 years of service. They could 
     elect to receive a lump-sum bonus of $30,000 and retire under 
     the REDUX plan or they could forgo that payment and upon 
     retirement receive annuities under the plan in effect for 
     retirees who first became members of the armed forces between 
     September 8, 1980, and July 31, 1986. CBO estimates that 
     total costs to DoD under the provision would total about $674 
     million in 2000 and average about $1.4 billion a year through 
     2009.
       Accrual Costs. Prior to 2009 the primary budgetary impact 
     would stem from the payments that DoD would make to the 
     military retirement trust fund. The military retirement 
     system is financed in part by payments from appropriated 
     funds to the military retirement trust fund based on an 
     estimate of the system's accruing liabilities. Repealing 
     REDUX would increase payments from the military personnel 
     accounts to the military retirement fund (a DoD outlay in 
     budget function 050) to finance the increased liability to 
     the fund resulting from additional years of service under a 
     more generous system.
       CBO estimates that the resulting increase in discretionary 
     spending from the accrual payments would average about $0.8 
     billion by 2004 and about $1.0 billion over the next 10 
     years. The costs to DoD would increase each year because not 
     all military personnel are covered by REDUX. Under current 
     law the percentage of the force covered by REDUX will grow 
     until everyone in the force will have entered military 
     service after July 31, 1986.
       Accrual costs depend on many factors, including 
     endstrengths, projected years of service at the time of 
     retirement, grade structure or salary history, and projected 
     rates of military pay raises, inflation, and

[[Page 2986]]

     interest rates. CBO's assumptions are consistent with the 
     ones used recently by DoD's actuaries. The estimates also 
     assume that in the long run annual pay raises are 4.0 
     percent, changes in the CPI are 3.5 percent a year, and 
     interest rates for the trust fund's holdings of Treasury 
     securities are 6.5 percent annually. CBO's assumptions about 
     how many individuals would choose lump-sum payments instead 
     of a higher retirement annuity are explained in the following 
     paragraph.
       Lump-sum Payments. In addition, CBO estimates that DoD 
     would spend about $500 million a year for the lump-sum 
     payments, assuming that 50 percent of enlisted personnel and 
     about 40 percent of officers would elect to receive the lower 
     annuity in retirement. That estimate is based on DoD's 
     experience under two buy-out programs in recent years. The 
     Voluntary Separation Incentive (VSI) and the Special 
     Separation Benefit (SSB) were two programs that DoD used 
     extensively during the 1992-1996 period. VSI was a payment 
     over a period of years, and SSB was a lump sum payment that 
     had a lower present value than VSI. About 86 percent of 
     enlisted personnel selected SSB, and about half of the 
     officers did. Because the present value of forgoing the 
     annuity reduction under REDUX is significantly greater than 
     $30,000 and because that difference tends to be greater than 
     the difference between VSI and SSB, CBO assumes that smaller 
     fractions of officers and enlisted personnel would opt for 
     the lump-sum payment than chose SSB. The members who would be 
     affected by this provision entered service in 1986; thus, 
     they would not be eligible for the lump-sum payment until 
     2001.
       Direct Spending Under Section 201. Section 201 would also 
     increase direct spending from the military retirement trust 
     fund by $1 million in 2000 and by about $233 million over the 
     2000-2009 period. The outlay impact before 2006 is primarily 
     due to higher cost-of-living allowances for individuals who 
     receive a disability annuity. Starting in 2006 the impact is 
     almost all due to regular retirements. In the long run, 
     direct spending for military retirement would be about 11 
     percent higher than under current law.
       Thrift Savings Plan. Section 202 would allow members of the 
     uniformed services on active duty for a period of more than 
     30 days to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). 
     Contributions would be capped at 5.0 percent of basic pay 
     plus any part of special or incentive pay that a member 
     receives. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the 
     revenue loss caused by deferred income tax payment would 
     total $10 million in 2000, $103 million in 2004, and about 
     $141 million by 2009.
       Special Retention Initiative. Under section 203, the 
     Secretary of Defense could make additional contributions to 
     TSP for military personnel in designated occupational 
     specialties or as part of an agreement for an extended term 
     of service. CBO estimates that the discretionary costs from 
     the resulting agency contributions to TSP would total $2 
     million in 2000 and would increase to $28 million by 2004, 
     based on DoD's use of similar authority to award bonuses for 
     enlistment or reenlistment.
     Compensation of military personnel
       S. 4 contains two sets of provisions that would affect 
     compensation for those currently serving in the military. One 
     would increase annual pay raises and change the table 
     governing pay according to grade and years of service. The 
     other would increase compensation to members who would 
     otherwise be eligible for food stamps.
       Pay Increases. Section 101 and 102 contain provisions that 
     would provide across-the-board and targeted pay raises. 
     Across-the-board pay raises would be a total of 4.8 percent 
     in 2000 and 0.5 percent above the Employment Cost Index (ECI) 
     in future years. Because those raises would be 0.5 percent 
     above the full ECI raise called for in current law, CBO 
     estimates that incremental cost would be about $197 million 
     in 2000 and average about $1.7 billion over the 200-2009 
     period. The estimate is based on current projections of 
     military strength levels and its distribution by pay grade.
       Additional pay raises would be targeted at personnel in 
     specific grades and with certain years of service. The 
     changes to the military pay table would increase basic pay by 
     about $189 million in 2000 and an average of about $860 
     million annually over the 2000-2009 period, based on the pay 
     schedule and pay raises specified in the bill as well as 
     current projections of military strength levels and its 
     distribution by pay grade.
       Special Subsistence Allowance. Section 103 would create a 
     new allowance through 2004 for military personnel who qualify 
     for food stamps. Eligibility for the allowance would 
     terminate if the member no longer qualified for food stamps 
     due to promotions, pay increases, or transfer to a different 
     duty station. In addition, a member would not be eligible for 
     the allowance after receiving it for 12 consecutive months, 
     although they would be able to reapply. CBO estimates that 
     the allowance would increase personnel costs by roughly $13 
     million in 2000 and $26 million annually through 2004, based 
     on information from DoD on the number of military personnel 
     who currently receive food stamps.
       CBO estimates that most of the 11,000 personnel in grades 
     E-5 or below will remain on food stamps and apply for the 
     special subsistence allowance. However, the additional $180 
     of monthly income would reduce the average household's 
     monthly food stamp benefit by $54, resulting in savings of 
     about $7 million each year in the Food Stamp program over the 
     2001-2004 period. The special subsistence allowance might 
     also serve as an incentive for eligible but nonparticipating 
     military personnel to apply for food stamps. CBO estimated 
     that 1,500 additional service members would participate in 
     the Food Stamp program in an average month at an annual cost 
     of $2 million. Thus, this provision is estimated to result in 
     a net savings to the Food Stamp program of $3 million in 2000 
     and $5 million each year over the 2001-2004 period.
     Veterans' readjustment benefits
       As shown in Table 3, the bill contains four provisions that 
     would raise direct spending for veterans' readjustment 
     benefits, specifically the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB).
       Rates of Assistance. Section 301 would raise the rate of 
     educational assistance to certain veterans with service on 
     active duty. Participating veterans who served at least three 
     years on active duty would receive as much as $600 a month 
     instead of $528 a month as under current law. Similar 
     veterans with at least two years of active duty would be 
     eligible for a maximum benefit of $488 a month, an increase 
     of $59 dollars a month. Under section 301, the cost-of-living 
     allowance scheduled for 2000 would not occur. CBO estimates 
     that this provision would increase direct spending by over 
     $100 million a year over the next 10 years, based on current 
     rates of participation in this program.
       Termination of Member Contributions. Section 302 would 
     eliminate the contribution that MGIB participants pay under 
     current law. Unless members elect not to participate in the 
     MGIB, current law requires a contribution of $1,200 toward 
     the program. Based on current rates of participation, which 
     is nearly universal, CBO estimates that this provision would 
     result in forgone receipts of about $195 million a year.
       Accelerated Payments. Section 303 would permit veterans to 
     receive a lump-sum payment for benefits they would receive 
     monthly over the term of their training, for example, a 
     semester in college or the period of a course's instruction 
     for other forms of training. CBO estimates that this 
     provision would increase direct spending in 2000 by about 
     $134 million and by about $27 million in 2001. Increased 
     costs would occur initially as payments from one fiscal year 
     are made in the preceding year. There would be no net effect 
     in subsequent years because in a given year payments shifted 
     to the preceding year would be offset by payments shifted 
     from the following year. CBO estimates that about 50 percent 
     of MGIB beneficiaries would elect to receive an accelerated 
     payment in 2000 and that a total of 60 percent would make 
     that election in 2001 and later years. The estimate is also 
     based on current rates of participation in this program.

    TABLE 3.--ESTIMATED COSTS OF PROVISIONS AFFECTING VETERANS' READJUSTMENT BENEFITS IN S. 4, AS REPORTED BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                                                    [Outlays by fiscal years, in millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Category                     1999      2000      2001      2002      2003      2004      2005      2006      2007      2008      2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     DIRECT SPENDING
 
Spending Under Current Law for Veterans'       1,374     1,366     1,372     1,385     1,397     1,400     1,405     1,411     1,424     1,446     1,472
 Readjustment Benefits....................
                                           =============================================================================================================
Proposed Changes:
    Rates of Assistance...................         0        98       100       101       103       104       105       106       108       110       113
    Member Contributions..................         0       197       195       195       195       195       195       195       195       195       195
    Accelerated payments..................         0       134        27         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0
    Transfer of Entitlement...............         0       110       281       577       592       630       805     1,129     1,612     1,899     2,200
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal--Proposed Changes............         0       539       603       873       890       929     1,105     1,430     1,915     2,204     2,508
                                           =============================================================================================================
Spending Under S. 4 for Veterans'              1,374     1,905     1,975     2,258     2,287     2,329     2,510     2,841     3,339     3,650     3,980
 Readjustment Benefits....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 2987]]

       Transfer of Entitlement. Section 304 would provide DoD with 
     the authority to allow military personnel to transfer their 
     entitlement to MGIB benefits to any combination of spouse and 
     children. CBO expects that DoD would use the authority in 
     2000 to enhance recruiting and retention and that the benefit 
     would be limited to current members of the armed forces and 
     those who might join for the first time. Over the first five 
     years almost all of the estimated costs would stem from 
     transfers to spouses, who would tend to train on a part-time 
     basis. Transfers to members' children are estimated to begin 
     in 2004, and spending for children's education would account 
     for more than half of the program's cost beginning in 2006. 
     CBO estimates that the provision would raise costs by about 
     $110 million in 2000, about $2.2 billion over the first five 
     years, and about $9.8 billion over the 2000-2009 period. In 
     the long run, costs would rise to about $3 billion a year. If 
     the benefit were awarded to current veterans, CBO estimates 
     that the costs would be a couple of billion dollars higher 
     over the 2000-2009 period.
       CBO assumes that about 35 percent of all MGIB participants 
     would transfer their entitlement to their spouses and 
     children. Currently, about half of all MGIB participants do 
     not use their benefits, thus about 70 percent of the 
     remaining half are expected to transfer it. CBO estimates 
     that about a third of the transfers would be to spouses and 
     that eventually about 200,000 spouses each year would receive 
     a benefit for part-time training, averaging about $2,700 in 
     fiscal year 2000. CBO estimates that in the long run over 
     500,000 children of members or former members would use the 
     educational assistance each year but that level would not be 
     reached until about 2013. Full-time students would receive 
     about $5,400 in 2000 under the bill.
       Pay-as-you-go considerations: Section 252 of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 sets up pay-
     as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct 
     spending or receipts. The net changes in outlays and 
     governmental receipts that are subject to pay-as-you-go 
     procedures are shown in the following table. For the purposes 
     of enforcing pay-as-you-go procedures, only the effects in 
     the current year, the budget year, and the succeeding four 
     years are counted.

 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              By fiscal years, in millions of dollars--
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              1999      2000      2001      2002      2003      2004      2005      2006      2007      2008      2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in outlays........................         0       537       599       870       887       927     1,108     1,435     1,940     2,270     2,633
Changes in receipts.......................         0       -10       -44       -67       -86      -103      -113      -120      -127      -134      -141
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: Section 4 of 
     the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes from the 
     application of that act any legislative provisions that are 
     necessary for the national security. That exclusion might 
     apply to the provisions of this bill. In any case, the bill 
     contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates.
       Previous CBO estimate: On September 28, 1998, CBO prepared 
     a cost estimate for a proposal to repeal the Military 
     Retirement Reform Act of 1986 (REDUX). This estimate relies 
     on many of the same actuarial assumptions, models, and 
     estimates from the Office of the Actuary at DoD that CBO used 
     in the earlier estimate. However, this estimate also reflects 
     the provisions of S. 4 that would offer certain members an 
     option to stay under the REDUX system and that would raise 
     the pay base applicable to computing the costs of military 
     retirement.
       Estimate prepared by: Federal Cost: The estimates for 
     defense programs were prepared by Jeannette Deshong (military 
     and civilian personnel) and Dawn Sauter (military retirement 
     and veterans' benefits). Valerie Baxter prepared the 
     estimates for food stamps. Impact on State, Local, and Tribal 
     Governments: Leo Lex. Impact on the Private Sector: R. 
     William Thomas.
       Estimate approved by: Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant 
     Director for Budget Analysis.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the cost 
estimate table printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                                 COST ESTIMATE FOR S. 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  2000      2001      2002      2003      2004      2005      2006      2007      2008      2009    2000-2004  2000-2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spending subject to
 appropriation:
    Pay increases.............       386     1,269     1,625     1,985     2,368     2,773     3,202     3,656     4,131     4,714      7,633     26,109
    Retirement benefits.......       674       862     1,437     1,453     1,541     1,550     1,597     1,709     1,760     1,767      5,967     14,350
    Other.....................        15        33        41        49        54        31        33        35        37        39        192        367
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total...................     1,075     2,164     3,103     3,487     3,963     4,354     4,832     5,400     5,928     6,520     13,792     40,826
                               =========================================================================================================================
Mandatory spending & reduced
 revenues:
    Transfer of GI Bill              110       281       577       592       630       805     1,129     1,612     1,899     2,200      2,190      9,835
     entitlement..............
    Eliminate GI Bill benefits       197       195       195       195       195       195       195       195       195       195        977      1,952
    Increase GI Bill benefits.        98       100       101       103       104       105       106       108       110       113        506      1,048
    TSP revenue reduction.....        10        44        67        86       103       113       120       127       134       141        310        945
    Other.....................       132        23       (3)       (3)       (2)         3         5        25        66       125        147        371
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total...................       547       643       937       973     1,030     1,221     1,555     2,067     2,404     2,774      4,130     14,151
                               =========================================================================================================================
      Total new spending           1,622     2,807     4,040     4,460     4,993     5,575     6,387     7,467     8,332     9,294     17,922     54,977
       Authorization..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CBO.

  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my colleague has acquainted me with his 
concerns from the very inception about this piece of legislation. In 
all fairness, he has spoken to us privately, and I think it is 
appropriate that his constructive criticism be shared with all 
Senators.
  I simply say that this bill is in reaction to two hearings with the 
chairman of the committee and meetings with the members of the Joint 
Chiefs. We are trying to do our best.
  Also, I think it is important from the historical standpoint to put 
in a letter from former Secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger, dated 
15 November 1985, which addresses a number of the issues that my 
distinguished colleague covered.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                     The Secretary of Defense,

                                Washington, DC, November 15, 1985.
     Hon. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: The enclosed report complies with the 
     requirements of section 667 of the Defense Authorization Act 
     for fiscal year 1986.
       Included in the report are drafts of the two pieces of 
     legislation that would change the military non-disability 
     retirement system. Each would result in a reduction in 
     military retirement accrual funding of $2.9 billion in fiscal 
     year 1986 as mandated by the Congress. This is a 16 percent 
     reduction in military retired pay from the current system and 
     is in addition to the 13 percent reduction that was imposed 
     by the Congress in the high-three-year averaging adjustment 
     in 1980.
       Although the Department of Defense has prepared the draft 
     legislation as required by the Congress, I want to make it 
     absolutely clear that such action is not to be construed as 
     support for either of the options for change. To the 
     contrary, the Department of Defense is steadfastly opposed to 
     the significant degradation in future combat readiness that 
     would result from the changes required to achieve the 
     mandated reduction. I am particularly concerned about the 
     potential loss

[[Page 2988]]

     of mid-level officers, NCOs and Petty Officers who provide 
     the first-line leadership and technical know-how so vital to 
     the defense mission. Unless offsetting compensation is 
     provided, our models conservatively indicate that our future 
     manning levels in the 10 to 30 year portion of the force 
     would drop below the dismal levels of the late 1970s when 
     aviator shortages and shortfalls in Army NCO and Navy Petty 
     Officer leadership seriously degraded our national security 
     posture.
       While the changes we have been required to submit 
     technically affect only future entrants, we expect an 
     insidious and immediate effect on the morale of the current 
     force. No matter how the reduction is packaged, it 
     communicates the same message, i.e., the perception that 
     there is an erosion in support from the American people for 
     the Service men and women whom we call upon to ensure our 
     safety. It says in absolute terms that the unique, dangerous 
     and vital sacrifices they routinely make are not worth the 
     taxpayers' dollars they receive, which is not overly 
     generous. I do not believe the majority of the American 
     people support this view and ask that you consider this in 
     your deliberations on this very crucial issue to our national 
     security.
           Sincerely,
                                                Caspar Weinberger.

  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, before the Senator from Oklahoma leaves, 
let me commend him for his remarks. I have many of the same concerns 
that he has expressed. I have tried to figure out the best way to 
address those concerns. I did not see support for addressing those 
concerns on the Senate floor, frankly, and, therefore have not 
attempted to address some of the ones that he mentioned. I hope they 
can be addressed in conference. I will be speaking to that later on 
this afternoon and tomorrow, because, in fact, budget points of order 
lie to many of the matters which have been raised by the Senator from 
Oklahoma. Yet, we don't have the Budget Committee here raising those 
points of order that lie. We will be again exploring that in some depth 
later on this afternoon, and indicating that if this comes back from 
conference with the same unpaid-for benefits, then points of order 
would still lie. I hope if it happens that the Budget Committee folks 
would see fit to raise points of order to lie under the Budget Act 
against the benefits that are not paid for; and that, if not, I will 
surely consider raising a point of order. What the Senator from 
Oklahoma said--I think I might be joining in that kind of an effort.
  I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I have some remarks to make on the bill itself, and I 
would like to join in commending my good friend, Senator Warner, for 
the leadership that he has already provided to raise America's 
attention to the status of our military, to the demands that are being 
placed upon it around the world, and the need to be able to recruit and 
retain the best quality American men and women in order to sustain 
those missions.
  I am pleased that Senator Warner and his committee, as well as the 
President, have sent forward proposals to assist us in dealing with 
this issue. I stand ready to support serious and responsible proposals. 
Also, I must, however, join in many of the comments that have just been 
made by our colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles, about specific 
components of this proposal which are troubling. But it is to a 
different set of issues that I want to direct my attention, and that is 
the issue of fiscal discipline in this legislation because I fear that 
this bill ignores the budgetary rules and principles of fiscal 
responsibility which we have relied upon to guide us to this first 
balanced budget that we have had in over 30 years.
  I am concerned that as we take the action that is called for in this 
bill we would be reverting to a path of history which got this country 
into very serious trouble. It was in the early 1980s, Mr. President, 
that we had then a Republican in the White House and we had Democrats 
in control of the House of Representatives. Both parties decided that 
they wanted to support a tax cut for the American people. It was very 
popular. The result was that the Republican President and the 
Democratic House of Representatives got into a frenzy to see who could 
one-up the other in terms of the larger tax cut. And the consequence 
was that we had a tax cut which went beyond what either side had 
initially thought was prudent and which some 15 years later resulted in 
the United States having almost a $6 trillion deficit--a $6 trillion 
national debt.
  I hear echoes of that 1980s debate here today as we have the 
President offering one set of proposals for significant enhancement in 
military compensation and pension and retirement, and now we have a 
Congress of another party outbidding the President in those same areas 
of compensation and pension and retirement. The echoes I hear today are 
not just from the early 1980s. They are from as recent as last October.
  We will recall we adjourned, for all practical purposes, but still 
with a major piece of undone business in October of 1998, and that 
undone business was a substantial number of the appropriations bills 
which had not passed through the normal process of consideration in the 
two Houses, conference committees, and final vote and signature into 
law by the President. And so during the days of October when most of us 
were back in our home States, we had this gigantic, what Senator Byrd 
has referred to as a monstrosity of an appropriations bill, and 
inserted into that monstrosity was the most monstrous, in my opinion, 
of its provisions which was an emergency spending provision.
  Emergency spending under the Budget Act has always been given special 
consideration because we are dealing with a narrow set of unexpected 
events that had traumatic adverse consequences on some of our people. 
It might be a flood or a hurricane or an earthquake or other type of 
disaster. The special provision of that emergency appropriation is 
unlike all other spending in the Federal Government; it didn't have to 
meet the rules of fiscal discipline. You didn't have to find an offset, 
another source of spending to reduce or a tax to increase to pay for 
emergency spending.
  But we have been fairly disciplined in the use of that emergency 
appropriation provision, and it had served the Nation well until 
October of 1998 when out of this monstrous appropriations bill comes an 
emergency spending provision of almost $22 billion--$22 billion of 
emergency spending, a third to a half of it in items that had never 
been of the type that had warranted emergency spending designation. But 
when we came back here for a 1-day session in mid-October we were faced 
with the prospect of voting up or down on this monstrosity, including 
the emergency spending, or throwing the Government into fiscal chaos. 
And so reluctantly many of us, including myself, voted for that 
provision. We did a very serious error to our Nation's commitment to 
fiscal responsibility through that legislation and particularly through 
the emergency appropriation.
  What concerns me, Mr. President, is that was the last act of the 
105th Congress. Now what is about to be the first act after having 
completed our role as triers in an impeachment trial, what is our first 
legislative act of the 106th Congress? It is going to be to pass 
legislation that is even to a greater degree than that emergency 
appropriation an unfunded expenditure of the Federal Government. We are 
proposing to pass a bill which at the time it was introduced had 
slightly over $14 billion of unfunded direct outlays or reductions in 
receipts and which now by virtue of amendments adopted in the committee 
and on the floor has added another $2.5 billion of unfunded costs.
  Mr. President, I would read from the report issued by the 
Congressional Budget Office to Chairman John W. Warner on February 12, 
1999, on page 9 of the report, which I understand has been printed in 
the Record, the section called ``Pay-As-You-Go Considerations.'' I 
quote:

       Section 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 sets up pay-as-you-go procedures for 
     legislation affecting direct spending or receipts. The net 
     changes in outlays and governmental receipts that are subject 
     to pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in the following 
     tables. For the purposes of enforcing pay as you go

[[Page 2989]]

     procedures, only the effects in the current year, the budget 
     year, and the succeeding four years are counted.

  Mr. President, in that chart it indicates that as the bill was first 
considered in committee, there was $14.051 billion unfunded outlays or 
reductions in Federal receipts.
  So we have legislation here which carries with it serious historical 
baggage, and we know exactly where that baggage took us in the 1980s. 
Frankly, Mr. President, we don't want to go back there again.
  There is another consequence, and that is who is going to pay for 
this baggage in this legislation. It is said, well, we have a surplus 
now. Let's pay it out of the surplus. Well, the fact is the only 
surplus we have is the surplus which has been generated by the Social 
Security trust fund, a trust fund which is generating more in receipts 
than in outflows.
  So, when we talk about paying for this through the surplus, let us 
understand that we are paying for this by a direct raid against the 
Social Security system, since it is only through Social Security that 
any surplus exists.
  Mr. President, this is a terrible idea. To pass this legislation 
without paying for it is irresponsible. It is unfunded spending. It is 
a raid on Social Security. It is a clear path back to the out-of-
control deficits and constant growth in our national debt that we have 
experienced for the last 20 to 30 years.
  This bill is a test at the very beginning of the 106th Congress. Can 
we be trusted to save Social Security? Can we be trusted to manage, 
with discipline, the surplus that we have? Are we going to spend every 
cent that we can get our hands on, and do it in a way that risks the 
future of Social Security?
  This bill violates the very principles of fiscal responsibility that 
were created to achieve the balanced budget at which we have now so 
late arrived. Where is the fiscal discipline? Why are we violating the 
pay-as-you-go principle, which the Congressional Budget Office has so 
clearly indicated we are--this principle that has kept us in line and 
allowed us to achieve a balanced budget? Why are we spending the Social 
Security surplus before we save Social Security first?
  The mantra of 1998 was ``Save Social Security First,'' and we 
understood that what that meant was that we were committed to secure 
the Social Security system for three generations, so that some of the 
young people who have just joined us in the gallery, when they get 
ready to retire, they would have a Social Security system. Why have we 
so quickly moved away from the principle of a secure Social Security 
system to the year 2075 before we spend any of the Social Security 
surplus? Why did we violate that principle in October of 1998? Why are 
we about to violate that principle again in February of 1999?
  We have heard some things about the surplus. We have heard that over 
the next 15 years we are going to have a surplus of approximately $4.7 
trillion, and we have heard that surplus is roughly 62 percent made up 
of Social Security surpluses, 38 percent made up of general revenue.
  Let me tell you a couple of things about those numbers that maybe we 
have not fully appreciated. First, the $4.7 trillion depends upon a 
whole set of economic assumptions holding up for 15 years. I would like 
you to test your confidence in that by going back to the year 1984, and 
seeing what the projections were to the year 1999 and then test how 
accurate those projections were.
  We have some considerable confidence in the general range of the 
Social Security surpluses because they are based on a percentage of 
payroll tax; they are based on outlays to a fairly known and 
predictable group of American beneficiaries of Social Security. It is 
the non-Social Security side of the surplus that is the question mark. 
What we are doing, by spending the Social Security-generated surplus 
now, is asking every current and future Social Security beneficiary to 
be willing to take the risk that those estimates of what the general 
revenue surplus will be 10, 12, 15 years from now will prove out to be 
accurate. That is a risk that I am not prepared to ask current and 
future Social Security beneficiaries to assume.
  There is a second aspect about those numbers. There is an assumption 
that this division of 62 percent/38 percent is a fairly consistent 
allocation. Wrong. If we divide the 15-year period over which this 
projection has been made into three 5-year components, here is what we 
find out: In the first 5 years, from 1999 to the year 2003, depending 
on whether you are using CBO numbers or Treasury estimates, between 90 
and 97 percent of that surplus is Social Security--90 to 97 percent in 
the next 5 years is going to come exclusively from Social Security.
  In the next 5 years, from 2004 to 2008, approximately two-thirds of 
the surplus will be from Social Security. It is only when you get in 
the years past the year 2009 that Social Security becomes less than 
half of the source of the surplus. And that occurs largely because, in 
the year 2013, Social Security goes negative; that is, annual receipts 
will be less than the annual outlays.
  What we are proposing now is, in the very first year, when more than 
100 percent of the surplus is Social Security--and that is because we 
are still running a deficit in our general revenue accounts--we are 
going to start drawing this surplus down. Just as we did in October of 
1998 to pay for nonemergency emergencies, we are now going to be doing 
it to pay for this unfunded compensation package.
  Mr. President, I think there is a responsible thing to do, and that 
responsible thing to do is to pay for it. If this is an important 
national issue, if the security of our country is at risk because of 
deficient compensation, we should recognize that fact. We should not 
ask our grandparents to pay for it by reducing Social Security; we 
should all be prepared to pay for it.
  Mr. President, it is my intent to offer an amendment which will cover 
the original unfunded amount of this legislation and the unfunded 
components that have been added by amendment in committee, and now on 
the floor. I believe those numbers come to approximately $16.5 billion. 
I have asked the staff to confirm that those numbers are correct. If 
they are correct, I will offer an amendment which has three 
provisions--two of them are extensions of excise taxes which have now 
lapsed. They are primarily in the Superfund area. And the third is a 
tax provision which was offered and adopted by Senator Coverdell, as 
part of other legislation during the 105th Congress, and relates to the 
taxation of foreign source income.
  Those three provisions would produce the amount of revenue necessary 
to cover the $16.5 billion over the next 10 years of the unfunded 
component of this legislation. Once I have verified the correctness of 
the numbers, I will submit that amendment.
  Mr. President, this will give us an opportunity to be responsible in 
two ways. We would be responsible to our national security by providing 
the kind of compensation program that would attract and retain the 
quality Americans that we need in order to defend our Nation and 
advance our national interests around the world. We would be 
responsible to this and future generations of Americans by saying we 
will pay for these costs, not ask that they be added to the already 
enormous credit card debt that our grandchildren are eventually going 
to have to be paying as a result of the previous absence of discipline.
  So, we have an opportunity to redeem ourselves, and as the first act 
of the 106th Congress, not to set an example of wasteful lack of 
discipline, but, rather, of fiscal maturity, of fiscal responsibility, 
which I believe will be very well received by all of our fellow 
Americans.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to allow Mr. Erik Lieberman 
and Ms. Rebecca Schwalbach to have the privilege of the floor during 
the pendency of this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Has the distinguished 
Senator from Florida sent his amendment to the desk?

[[Page 2990]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has not sent an amendment to the 
desk.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, if I may?
  Mr. Chairman, it is my intention, as soon as we verify the additional 
unfunded amendments which we have in committee and on the floor, and 
therefore have a total of the extent of unfunded outlays under S. 4, to 
then offer an amendment which will be sufficient to cover the full 
extent of those unfunded items. I have not yet sent up that amendment.
  Mr. ROTH. My understanding is you have not yet sent the amendment to 
the desk.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I have not yet sent up that amendment.


                            Amendment No. 27

(Purpose: To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand the list of 
  diseases presumed to be service-connected with respect to radiation-
                           exposed veterans)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would like to speak about an 
amendment that I will offer soon. I do so for purposes of moving our 
deliberations forward in the U.S. Senate. This amendment is identical--
although I may make some changes if we are able to reach a compromise--
but in its present form, it is identical to S. 1385, the Justice for 
Atomic Veterans Act, which I introduced in the 105th Congress. An 
amended version of this bill was reported out of the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee on July 28, 1998.
  This amendment would remove some of the frustrating and infuriating 
obstacles that have too often kept veterans who were exposed to 
radiation during military service from getting the disability 
compensation they deserve. My amendment clears the way for these 
veterans by adding some radiogenic diseases--we are now negotiating 
which ones--to the list of diseases that are presumed service-
connected. This is, colleagues, the only solution. It is the only way 
of ensuring that ``atomic veterans'' have any realistic chance of 
proving their disability claims. And our treatment of atomic veterans 
is, Mr. President, a long and sad and shameful history in our country.
  Why am I offering this amendment now? The rationale for S. 4 is to 
recruit young people for service in the military, and retain them by 
enhancing pay, retirement, and educational benefits.
  I hope my colleagues will agree that potential recruits may be 
influenced by more than just the pay and the benefits. Senator 
Cleland's committee amendment certainly recognizes that one important 
factor in recruitment and retention is the way we treat our veterans 
after they leave the service.
  I very much agree that the way we treat our veterans does send an 
important message to young people considering service in the military. 
When veterans of the Persian Gulf war do not get the kind of treatment 
they deserve, when the VA budget, year after year, does not give 
veterans a stable source of funding for VA health care, when veterans' 
benefits claims take years and years to resolve--so people are waiting 
3 years for compensation--the message that we are sending to 
prospective recruits is not a very encouraging one.
  Making sure we treat veterans right, is in fact, the philosophy 
behind the Rockefeller amendment. How can we attract and retain young 
people in the service when our Government fails to honor its obligation 
to provide just compensation and health care for those injured during 
service?
  One of the most outrageous examples of our Government's failure to 
honor its obligation to veterans involves the atomic veterans, 
patriotic Americans who were exposed to radiation at Hiroshima and 
Nagasaki and at atmospheric nuclear tests.
  I want to say this to my colleagues. Before you consider tabling the 
amendment--and I hope you do not--and before you consider your vote, 
please examine this history with me. For more than 50 years, many of 
these atomic veterans have been denied compensation for diseases that 
the VA recognizes as being linked to their exposure to radiation--
diseases known as radiogenic diseases. Many of these diseases are 
lethal forms of cancer.
  I received my first introduction to the plight of atomic veterans--
and there is no issue I feel more strongly about as a Senator--from 
some first-rate mentors, the members of the Forgotten 216th. The 
Forgotten 216th was the 216th Chemical Service Company of the U.S. Army 
which participated in Operation Tumbler Snapper. Operation Tumbler 
Snapper was a series of eight atmospheric nuclear weapons tests in the 
Nevada desert in 1952.
  About half of the members of the Forgotten 216th were Minnesotans. 
What have I learned from them and from other atomic veterans? What have 
I learned from their survivors? And how has this shaped my views as a 
U.S. Senator?
  Five years ago, the Forgotten 216th contacted me after then-Secretary 
of Energy Hazel O'Leary announced that the U.S. Government had 
conducted radiation experiments on its own citizens. And for the first 
time in public, these veterans revealed what happened to them in Nevada 
during the tests and the tragedies and the traumas that they, their 
families, and their former buddies have experienced since then.
  Because their experiences and problems typify those of atomic 
veterans nationwide, I would like to tell my colleagues a little more 
about the Forgotten 216th. In fact, I am proud to talk about them on 
the floor of the U.S. Senate. I am pleased to take up some time talking 
about these atomic veterans. When you hear their story, I think you 
will agree that the Forgotten 216th and other veterans like them must 
never be forgotten again.
  Members of the 216th were sent to measure fallout at or near ground 
zero immediately after nuclear blasts in Nevada. They were exposed to 
so much radiation that their Geiger counters went off the scale while 
they inhaled and ingested radioactive particles. They were given 
minimal or no protection by the Government. They frequently had no film 
badges to measure radiation exposure. They were given no information on 
the perils they faced. And now, 50 years later, we say we don't have 
the money to provide them compensation.
  After all this, they were sworn to secrecy about their participation 
in the nuclear tests. They were often denied access to their own 
service medical records and they were provided no medical follow-up.
  For decades, atomic veterans have been America's most neglected 
veterans. They have been deceived and treated shabbily by the 
Government they so selflessly and unquestioningly served.
  If the U.S. Government can't be counted on to honor its obligation to 
these deserving veterans, and that is what this amendment is about, how 
can young people interested in military service have any confidence the 
Government will do any better by them? If we don't finally provide 
compensation to these veterans, what does that tell young people who 
are thinking about serving in the armed services?
  Mr. President, I believe that the neglect of the atomic veterans 
should stop here and now. Our Government has a long overdue debt to 
these patriotic Americans, a debt that we in the Senate can help to 
repay. And we can repay it now. I urge my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to help repay this debt by supporting this amendment.
  This legislation and this amendment have enjoyed the strong support 
of veterans service organizations. Both the American Legion and the 
Disabled American Veterans, DAV, provided strong letters of support to 
the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee for its April 1998 hearing. They 
have also written letters of support for this legislation.
  Recently, the Independent Budget for fiscal year 2000, which is the 
budget recommendation issued by AMVETS, DAV, PVA, and the Veterans of 
Foreign Wars, endorsed adding these radiogenic diseases to the VA's 
presumptive service-connected list. I ask unanimous consent that at the 
conclusion of my statement, the American Legion and the DAV letters of 
support and the relevant excerpt from the fiscal year 2000 Independent 
Budget be printed in the Record.

[[Page 2991]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Let me briefly describe the problem that my amendment 
is intended to address. When atomic veterans try to claim VA 
compensation for their illness--this is the problem--the VA almost 
invariably denies their claims. VA tells these veterans that the 
radiation doses were too low--below 5 rems. But the fact is, we don't 
really know that, and even if we did, that is no excuse for denying 
these claims.
  The result of this unrealistic standard is that it is almost 
impossible for these atomic veterans to prove their case. The only 
solution is to add the conditions in my amendment to the VA presumptive 
service-connected list. That is what my amendment does. It covers a 
whole range of cancers that should be a part of these diseases. They 
should get compensation.
  First of all, trying to go back and determine the precise dosage each 
of these veterans was exposed to is a futile undertaking. Scientists 
agree that the dose reconstruction performed by the VA is notoriously 
unreliable.
  The General Accounting Office itself has noted the inherent 
uncertainties of dose reconstruction. Even the VA scientific personnel 
have conceded its unreliability. And in a memo to VA Secretary Togo 
West, VA Under Secretary for Health Ken Kizer--and I thank Dr. Kizer 
for his courage--has recommended that the VA reconsider its opposition 
to S. 1385, in part based upon the unreliability of dose 
reconstruction.
  Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the text of Dr. Kizer's 
memo be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 2.)
  Mr. WELLSTONE. In addition, none of the scientific experts who 
testified at the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee on S. 1385 on April 
21, 1998, supported the use of dose reconstruction to determine 
eligibility for VA benefits.
  Let me tell you why dose reconstruction is so difficult. Dr. Marty 
Gensler on my staff has researched this issue for over 5 years. This is 
what he has found.
  Many atomic veterans were sent to ground zero immediately after a 
nuclear test with no protection, no information on the known dangers 
they faced, no badges or other monitoring equipment, and no medical 
follow up.
  As early as 1946, ranking military and civilian personnel responsible 
for nuclear testing anticipated claims for service-connected disability 
and sought to ensure that--quote--no successful suits could be brought 
on account of radiological hazards. Unquote.
  That quotation comes from documents declassified by the President's 
Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments.
  The VA, during this period, maintained classified records--quote--
essential--unquote--to evaluating atomic veterans' claims, but these 
records were unavailable to veterans themselves.
  Atomic veterans were sworn to secrecy and were denied access to their 
own service and medical records for many years, effectively barring 
pursuit of compensation claims.
  It's partly as a result of these missing or incomplete records that 
so many people have doubts about the validity of dose reconstructions 
for atomic veterans, some of which are performed more than fifty years 
after exposure.
  Even if these veteran's exposure was less than 5 rems, which is the 
standard used by VA, this standard is not based on uncontested science. 
In 1994, for example, GAO stated: ``A low level dose has been estimated 
to be somewhere below 10 rems [but] it is not known for certain whether 
doses below this level are detrimental to public health.''
  Despite persistent doubts about VA's and DoD's dose reconstruction, 
and despite doubts about the science on which VA's 5 rem standard is 
based, these dose reconstructions are used to bar veterans from 
compensation for disabling radiogenic conditions.
  The effects of this standard have been devastating. A little over two 
years ago the VA estimated that less than 50 claims for non-presumptive 
diseases had been approved out of over 18,000 radiation claims filed.
  Atomic veterans might as well not even bother. Their chances of 
obtaining compensation are negligible.
  It is impossible for many atomic veterans and their survivors to be 
given ``the benefit of the doubt'' by the VA while their claims hinges 
on the dubious accuracy and reliability of dose reconstruction and the 
health effect of exposure to low-level ionizing radiation remain 
uncertain.
  This problem can be fixed. The reason atomic veterans have to go 
through this reconstruction at all is that the 10 diseases listed in my 
amendment are not presumed to be service-connected. That's the real 
problem.
  VA already has a list of service-connected diseases that are presumed 
service-connected, but these 10 are not on it.
  This makes no sense. Scientists agree that there is at least as 
strong a link between radiation exposure and these 10 diseases as there 
is to the other diseases on that VA list.
  The President's Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments 
agreed in 1995 that VA's current list should be expanded. The Committee 
cited concerns that ``the listing of diseases for which relief is 
automatically provided--the presumptive diseases provided for by the 
1988 law--is incomplete and inadequate'' and that ``the standard of 
proof for those without presumptive disease is impossible to meet and, 
give the questionable condition of the exposure records retained by the 
government, inappropriate.'' The President's Advisory Committee urged 
Congress to address the concerns of atomic veterans and their families 
``promptly.''
  The unfair treatment of atomic veterans becomes especially clear when 
compared to both Agent Orange and Persian Gulf veterans. In 
recommending that the Administration support S. 1385, Under Secretary 
for Health Kenneth Kizer cited the indefensibility of denying 
presumptive service connection for atomic veterans in light of the 
presumption for Persian Gulf War veterans and Agent Orange veterans.
  In 1993, the VA decided to make lung cancer presumptively service-
connected for Agent Orange veterans. That decision was based on a 
National Academy of Sciences study that had found a link only where 
Agent Orange exposures were ``high and prolonged,'' but pointed out 
there was only a ``limited'' capability to determine individual 
exposures.
  For atomic veterans, however, lung cancer continues to be non-
presumptive. In short, the issue of exposure levels poses an almost 
insurmountable obstacle to approval of claim by atomic veterans, while 
the same problem is ignored for Agent Orange veterans.
  Persian Gulf War veterans can receive compensation for symptoms, or 
illnesses that may be linked to their service in the Persian Gulf, at 
least until scientists reach definitive conclusions about the etiology 
of their health problems. Unfortunately, atomic veterans aren't given 
the same consideration or benefit of the doubt.
  Mr. President, I believe this state of affairs is outrageous and 
unjust. The struggle of atomic veterans for justice has been long, 
hard, and frustrating. But these patriotic, dedicated and deserving 
veterans have persevered. My amendment would finally provide them the 
justice that they so much deserve.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to 
join me in helping atomic veterans win their struggle by supporting my 
amendment.

                               Exhibit 1


                                          The American Legion,

                                    Washington, DC, June 25, 1998.
       Dear Senator: The American Legion encourages you to 
     cosponsor S. 1385, the Justice for Atomic Veterans Act of 
     1997, introduced by Senator Paul Wellstone.
       The American Legion fully supports S. 1385. It grants the 
     benefit of the doubt to sick and dying veterans of the cold 
     war, and it rights the wrong of our government ignoring these 
     veterans for so many decades.
       The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the United 
     States General Accounting

[[Page 2992]]

     Office both admit that the radiation dose that veterans were 
     exposed to when assigned to atomic weapon's tests is 
     impossible to determine. Yet VA has granted only 80 
     disability compensation claims out of over 18,000 filed for 
     service connected illnesses caused by radiation exposure. S. 
     1385 would reverse this trend.
       Senator Wellstone's bill is short and simple. It adds to 
     the list of diseases presumed to be service connected for 
     radiation-exposed veterans. Under this bill, specific cancers 
     and other diseases known to be caused by radiation exposure 
     would become service connected for veterans exposed to 
     radiation.
       Thank you for your continued support of America's veterans 
     and their families. Please support and cosponsor S. 1385, the 
     Justice for Atomic Veterans Act of 1997.
           Sincerely,
                                              John F. Sommer, Jr.,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                   Disabled American Veterans,

                                Washington, DC, February 22, 1999.
     Hon. Paul David Wellstone,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Wellstone: I write you today regarding a 
     matter of utmost importance to the more than one million 
     members of the Disabled American Veterans (DAV), the 
     expansion of the list of presumptive service-connected 
     disabilities for atomic veterans. Last Congress, you 
     introduced S. 1385, the ``Justice for Atomic Veterans Act,'' 
     to expand the list of presumptive disabilities for atomic 
     veterans. The DAV strongly supported the passage of this 
     legislation.
       It is our understanding that you intend to introduce an 
     amendment on the Senate floor on February 23, 1999, to add 
     ten radiogenic disabilities to the presumptive list, as 
     originally contained in S. 1385. Again, the DAV strongly 
     supports your efforts.
       The DAV has a long-standing resolution calling for 
     legislation to provide presumptive service connection to 
     atomic veterans for all recognized radiogenic diseases. I 
     have enclosed a copy of Resolution No. 006, passed by the 
     delegates at our National Convention in Las Vegas, Nevada, 
     August 23-27, 1998.
       Your amendment would provide for a measure of fairness, 
     equity and justice too long withheld from atomic veterans, 
     their dependents and survivors. It is shameful that our 
     Government has failed to adequately address the needs of 
     atomic veterans, their families and survivors. Your amendment 
     would correct that oversight.
       We hope that your colleagues in the Senate will support 
     this long overdue legislation. Thank you for your efforts on 
     behalf of sick and disabled veterans.
           Sincerely,
                                                Andrew A. Kistler,
     National Commander.
                                  ____

       Enclosure.

  Resolution No. 006--To Support Legislation Authorizing Presumptive 
             Service Connection For All Radiogenic Diseases

       Whereas, members of the United States Armed Services have 
     participated in test detonation of nuclear devices and served 
     in Hiroshima or Nagasaki, Japan following the detonation of 
     nuclear bombs; and
       Whereas, the United States government knew or should have 
     known of the potential harm to the health and well-being of 
     these military members; and
       Whereas, atomic veterans served their country with honor, 
     courage, and devotion to duty; and
       Whereas, remedial legislation passed by Congress in 1984 
     has not been effective in providing compensation to those 
     atomic veterans suffering from radiogenic diseases; and
       Whereas, by the VA's own admission, approximately no more 
     than 50 claimants have obtained disability compensation or 
     dependency indemnity compensation pursuant to Public Law 98-
     542; and
       Whereas, the government has spent tens of millions of 
     dollars to provide dose reconstruction estimates which do not 
     accurately reflect actual radiation dose exposure; Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Disabled American Veterans in National 
     Convention assembled in Las Vegas, Nevada, August 23-27, 
     1998, supports legislation to provide presumptive service 
     connection to atomic veterans for all recognized radiogenic 
     diseases.
                                  ____


  Presumption of Service Connection for Radiation-Related Disabilities

       Despite scientific recognition that the diseases named 
     under 38 C.F.R. Sec. 3.311 (1998) may be induced by ionizing 
     radiation, VA almost invariably denies veterans' claims for 
     service connection of such diseases, and legislation is 
     therefore needed to create a statutory presumption of service 
     connection for these ``radiogenic'' diseases.
       In 1984, Congress enacted the Veterans' Dioxin and 
     Radiation Exposure Compensation Standards Act, Pub. L. No. 
     98-542, out of concern that deserving veterans were not 
     receiving compensation for disabilities related to dioxin and 
     radiation exposure. In accordance with that law, VA issued a 
     regulation to govern the standards for determination of 
     service connection for radiation-related disabilities. That 
     regulation, what is now Sec. 3.311, includes special 
     procedures for determining service connection for diseases 
     recognized as radiogenic. Out of thousands of claims 
     considered under these procedures, only a negligible number 
     have been allowed.
       The available records on levels of radiation exposure 
     incredibly suggest that almost no members of the Armed Forces 
     who participated in nuclear weapons testing or the occupation 
     of Nagasaki or Hiroshima were exposed to levels of radiation 
     sufficient to cause disease. These records are controversial 
     and subject to widespread suspicion regarding their accuracy. 
     Congress has partially remedied this unfair situation by 
     enacting a statutory presumption of service connection for 
     certain of these disabilities.
       Under the presumption, these dubious exposure records and 
     dose estimates for test participants and members of the 
     occupation forces are not an impediment to service connection 
     because Congress excluded the level of radiation exposure 
     from consideration. Veterans with the same exposures, but 
     whose radiogenic diseases are not included in the presumption 
     statute, are still virtually certain to be denied 
     compensation, however, on the basis that the level of 
     radiation to which they were exposed was too low to be 
     responsible for their disease.
       The presumption statute, 38 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1112(c) (West 
     1991 & Supp. 1998), does not include the following diseases, 
     although they are recognized as radiogenic: lung cancer; bone 
     cancer; skin cancer; colon cancer; posterior subcapsular 
     cataracts; nonmalignant thyroid nodular disease; ovarian 
     cancer; parathyroid adenoma; tumors of the brain and central 
     nervous system; and rectal cancer.
       Accordingly, these radiogenic diseases should be included 
     under Sec. 1112(c).


                             recommendation

       Congress should enact legislation to include in the 
     statutory presumption for service connection of radiation-
     related disabilities lung cancer, bone cancer, skin cancer, 
     colon cancer, posterior subcapsular cataracts, nonmalignant 
     thyroid nodular disease, ovarian cancer, parathyroid adenoma, 
     tumors of the brain and central nervous system, and rectal 
     cancer.

                               Exhibit 2


                               Department of Veterans Affairs,

                                   Washington, DC, April 21, 1998.


                               memorandum

     From: Under Secretary for Health (10).
     Subject: Request for reconsideration of the department's 
         position on S. 1385 (Wellstone).
     To: Secretary (00).

       1. I request that you reconsider the Department's position 
     on S. 1385 (Wellstone), which would add a number of 
     conditions as presumptive service-connected conditions for 
     atomic veterans to those already prescribed by law. I only 
     learned that the Department was opposing this measure last 
     night on reading the Department's prepare testimony for 
     today's hearing; I had no input into that testimony. Indeed, 
     my views on this bill have not been obtained. I would 
     strongly support this bill as a matter of equity and 
     fairness.
       2. I do not think the Department's current opposition to S. 
     1385 is defensible in view of the Administration's position 
     on presumed service-connection for Gulf War veterans, as well 
     as its position on Agent Orange and Vietnam veterans.
       3. While the scientific methodology that is the basis for 
     adjudicating radiation exposure cases may be sound, the 
     problem is that the exposure cannot be reliably determined 
     for many individuals, and it never will be able to be 
     determined in my judgment. Thus, no matter how good the 
     method is, if the input is not valid then the determination 
     will be suspect.
       4. I ask that we formally reconsider and change the 
     Department's position on S. 1385. I feel the proper and 
     prudent position for the Department is to support S. 1385.

                                    Kenneth W. Kizer, M.D., M.P.H.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Does my colleague from Virginia have a question?
  Mr. WARNER. I think we are ready to clear the Senator's amendment if 
we can move along. We are anxious to get a unanimous consent so we can 
complete this bill. I don't want to cut the Senator off. He has my 
support.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will tell you, I have been in the 
U.S. Senate now for 8 years, and I love to speak when it is an issue 
that is so important to me and so important to veterans. But if my 
colleagues are supporting my amendment, I thank them for their support.
  Mr. WARNER. Would the Senator send that amendment to the desk so we 
can examine the final form? I have been involved in these issues for 
some years myself, and I am delighted to see he is helping these 
veterans.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 27.


[[Page 2993]]

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  Mr. WARNER. We need to know, Mr. President, what is in the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will continue reading.
  The bill clerk continued with the reading, as follows:

       On page 46, after line 16, add the following:

                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 501. EXPANSION OF LIST OF DISEASES PRESUMED TO BE 
                   SERVICE-CONNECTED FOR RADIATION-EXPOSED 
                   VETERANS.

       Section 1112(c)(2) of title 38, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(P) Lung cancer.
       ``(Q) Bone cancer.
       ``(R) Skin cancer.
       ``(S) Colon cancer.
       ``(T) Posterior subcapsular cataracts.
       ``(U) Non-malignant thyroid nodular disease.
       ``(V) Ovarian cancer.
       ``(W) Parathyroid adenoma.
       ``(X) Tumors of the brain and central nervous system.
       ``(Y) Rectal cancer.''.


                     Amendment No. 27, as Modified

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I see the confusion. I have the other 
amendment based upon what I think is in negotiation that we have had. 
Let's listen to that amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Does the Senator wish to substitute this amendment for 
the one that is at the desk?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I do. I thought I would see whether my colleagues were 
alert.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment will be 
modified with the new amendment which has just been submitted to the 
desk.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the new amendment.
  The bill clerk read the amendment (No. 27), as modified, as follows:

       On page 46, after line 16, add the following:

                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 501. EXPANSION OF LIST OF DISEASES PRESUMED TO BE 
                   SERVICE-CONNECTED FOR RADIATION-EXPOSED 
                   VETERANS.

       Section 1112(c)(2) of title 38, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(P) Lung cancer.
       ``(Q) Colon cancer.
       ``(R) Tumors of the brain and central nervous system.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that amendment will be acceptable on both 
sides.
  Mr. LEVIN. I want to commend the Senator from Minnesota for his 
tenacity in this and I congratulate him for the effort.
  Mr. WARNER. I join my colleague, Senator Levin, likewise.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator.
  Please help me get this done.
  Mr. WARNER. Senator, we are going to make it happen.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 27), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Frist be added as a 
cosponsor to S. 4.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Amendment No. 28

   (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that members of the 
   uniformed services who are on duty outside the United States and 
privileged to an automatic 2-month extension of the deadline for filing 
tax returns should not be penalized by the Internal Revenue Service for 
                         using such extension)

  Mr. WARNER. On behalf of Senator Coverdell, I send an amendment to 
the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Coverdell, 
     for himself and Mr. McCain, proposes an amendment numbered 
     28.

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

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

     SEC. 104. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING USE OF EXTENSION OF 
                   TIME TO FILE TAX RETURNS FOR MEMBERS OF 
                   UNIFORMED SERVICES ON DUTY ABROAD.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the Internal Revenue Service provides a 2-month 
     extension of the deadline for filing tax returns for members 
     of the uniformed services who are in an area outside the 
     United States or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico for a tour 
     of duty which includes the date for filing tax returns;
       (2) any taxpayer using this 2-month extension who owes 
     additional tax must pay the tax on or before the regular 
     filing deadline;
       (3) those who use the 2-month extension and wait to pay the 
     additional tax at the time of filing are charged interest 
     from the regular filing deadline, and may also be required to 
     pay a penalty; and
       (4) it is fundamentally unfair to members of the uniformed 
     services who make use of this extension to require them to 
     pay penalties and interest on the additional tax owed.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the 2-month extension of the deadline for filing tax 
     returns for certain members of the uniformed services 
     provided in Internal Revenue Service regulations should be 
     codified; and
       (2) eligible members of the uniformed services should be 
     able to make use of the extension without accumulating 
     interest or penalties.

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, American soldiers in the modern 
military operate under a great deal of strain. Forced to work harder 
with fewer resources, our men and women in uniform bear a heavy burden 
defending our nation. This is especially true for those deployed 
overseas. Not only must these troops defend American interests, but 
they also live under constant threat of attack and must spend months 
away from their homes and their families.
  In addition to their duty to protect our nation's security, American 
servicemen and women still must fulfill obligations back home, such as 
paying their taxes. However, in an incredible cart-before-the-horse 
scheme that could only be found in our nation's tax code, the federal 
government extends for our troops abroad the deadline for filing income 
tax forms by two months, but requires that servicemen and women still 
pay interest and penalties during the extension period. In other words, 
they must pay their tax bill before they are required to file their tax 
bill. Mr. President, this is unconscionable.
  This sense of the Senate on uniformed services filing fairness, which 
I propose today with Senator McCain, is simple. It puts the Senate on 
record calling for the codification of the current two-month extension 
period available to our uniformed personnel and for the elimination of 
the interest and penalties that would otherwise be charged. The Joint 
Committee on Taxation estimates the cost of this common-sense 
correction at just $4 million over ten years. Mr. President, how can we 
not afford to move forward on this matter?
  We must show our nation's soldiers that we support them through 
concrete action. The amendment I introduce puts the Senate on the path 
toward making the lives of soldiers stationed overseas a little easier. 
I hope my colleagues will join me in this simple, inexpensive 
correction of an unfair tax law.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator 
Coverdell's sense-of-the-Senate amendment to S. 4, the Soldiers', 
Sailors', Airmen's and Marines' Bill of Rights expressing support for 
legislation to provide a two-month interest- and penalty-free extension 
to file Federal taxes for U.S. military personnel who are on duty 
abroad.
  I recently supported this concept as an original cosponsor of S. 308, 
the Uniformed Services Filing Fairness Act, which provided a two-month 
interest- and penalty-free extension to file Federal taxes for U.S. 
military personnel who are on duty abroad. This simple fix to an 
isolated section of our overly

[[Page 2994]]

complex tax code is very straightforward and would only cost $2 million 
over 5 years.
  Current Treasury regulations allow military personnel to file Federal 
tax forms on June 15 rather than April 15. However, filers who elect to 
use this exception are still subject to interest and penalties during 
that two-month grace period.
  S. 308 codifies the existing Treasury regulations and adds a waiver 
of the interest and penalties that could be charged during the two-
month grace period against military personnel who elect to take the 
filing exception.
  Military personnel serving their country overseas are often isolated 
from the resources necessary to prepare their tax returns. The Internal 
Revenue Service and the Department of the Treasury recognized this 
reality and provided our Nation's military personnel with a much-needed 
two-month grace period to file their taxes.
  However, it is inconsistent to grant a grace period for filers, and 
then penalize those who take it. These brave men and women have not 
committed any wrongdoing; all they are doing is serving their country.
  Travel to remove regions is inherent to military service. In 1998 
alone, the United States had approximately 37,000 men and women 
deployed to the Persian Gulf region, preparing to go into combat, if so 
ordered. There were also 8,000 American troops deployed in Bosnia, and 
another 70,000 U.S. military personnel deployed in support of other 
commitments worldwide. That is a total of 108,000 women and men 
deployed outside of the United States, away from their primary home, 
protecting and furthering the freedoms we Americans hold so dear.
  We cannot afford to discourage military service by penalizing 
military personnel with interest and penalties merely because the 
unique characteristics of their job makes it difficult to file their 
taxes on time. Military service entails sacrifice, such as long periods 
of time away from friends and family and the constant threat of 
mobilization into hostile territory. We must not use the tax code to 
heap additional burdens upon our women and men in uniform.
  S. 308 will restore equity and consistency to this tax provision, 
and, at the same time, provide a small measure of tax relief to our men 
and women in the military.
  I urge my colleagues to join Senator Coverdell, and myself to support 
this much-needed sense of the Senate amendment to S. 4, and to work to 
enact S. 308.
  Mr. WARNER. It is my understanding that this is cleared on the other 
side.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on this 
side. I think there is broad support for this amendment. What it would 
do is to permit people who are overseas in contingencies to file late 
income tax returns. I think that is the only fair way to do it.
  It is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. I am proud to cosponsor this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 28) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. 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.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, 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. WELLSTONE. 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. LEAHY. Mr. President, every Senator supports our men and women in 
uniform, and we all have heard the troubling retention and recruiting 
reports coming from the military. The Administration and Congress need 
to address these problems. Many items in this bill build on the 
President's initiative to improve compensation for our military 
personnel. The Armed Services Committee has added other provisions that 
will enhance our Nation's ability to attract and retain high-quality 
personnel.
  However, it should concern us, just as it should concern our 
personnel in uniform, that this bill has not yet been provided for in 
the budget. The plain fact is that this bill is being considered at the 
wrong time. We should have waited until the Senate completed its annual 
work on a comprehensive budget framework. Social Security, Medicare, 
retirement of the national debt, discretionary spending and tax cuts 
are all issues that need to be considered at the time that we decide to 
commit billions to defense or any other spending program. This bill 
should have been considered in conjunction with the rest of the defense 
authorization bill, because under the currently structured budget caps, 
the new spending in this bill will have to be offset by other cuts in 
defense to pay for it, and this is an enormously expensive bill.
  Much of this bill is warranted. I will vote for it because the 
effectiveness of our military depends on the quality of its personnel. 
This bill will improve the quality of our military, but with little 
regard for fiscal concerns. I hope that this does not become a trend in 
the 106th Congress and I expect the final concerns to be addressed in 
conference.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Soldiers', 
Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999.
  The Joint Chiefs of Staff and many members of this body have 
expressed concern over the state of our military forces. One of the 
most serious problems identified by the Joint Chiefs is the recruitment 
and retention of dedicated and highly trained personnel. This 
legislation begins the process of rectifying that situation. Our Armed 
Forces must not only be able to fight and win on the battlefield, they 
must be able to compete for high quality personnel against robust 
private sector employers. I am proud to say that this bill gives our 
military a much more equitable chance to recruit and retain the best 
persons this country has to offer.
  This legislation authorizes a significant and long overdue military 
pay raise. It enhances two long time staples of recruitment and 
retention; the military retirement system and the Montgomery G.I. bill. 
It authorizes a subsistence allowance for enlisted personnel so that no 
military member will be forced to live on food stamps. Finally, I am 
very pleased that this bill includes an authorization for military 
personnel to participate in a Thrift Savings Plan similar to the plans 
afforded other non-uniformed Federal employees.
  Mr. President, the bill which I stand in support of today should be 
considered as a beginning. Congress has an explicit constitutional duty 
to see that the Armed Forces are equipped and maintained. Their unique 
task is daunting and at times life threatening. The Congress and this 
administration should not treat military service as just another job. 
This bill represents the Senate's view that the personnel of America's 
Armed Forces are worth a significant investment. I urge my colleagues 
to support this legislation.
  To every member of our Armed Forces, whether afloat, ashore or 
airborne, wherever they are in the world, I say thank you and well 
done!
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President: I am proud to support the Soldiers', 
Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights. This legislation 
fulfills the promises made to the men and women of our armed forces.
  Our men and women in uniform stand for everything that is good about 
our country--patriotism, courage, loyalty, duty and honor. They deserve 
our full support--not just with words but with actions.
  I am alarmed about the problems of recruitment and retention facing 
our military. Improved pay and benefits are essential to recruiting and 
retaining the best people to serve our country. We are all concerned 
about the problems the services are having in meeting their recruitment 
goals. We're also troubled that so many of the highest skilled military 
choose to retire early.

[[Page 2995]]

  This legislation will address these problems. By providing a 4.8 
percent pay increase, we will help to close the gap between military 
and civilian pay. We will provide special incentives to those serving 
in critical specialties. We will also improve educational benefits and 
health care for our active military and retirees.
  I am pleased that the Senate has amended this bill to improve 
benefits for the National Guard and Reserves. They are our nation's 
911--always ready in time of emergency at home or abroad. They deserve 
recognition for their important role.
  This bill also includes the Sarbanes/Warner/Mikulski amendment that 
puts the Senate on record on behalf of our federal employees. Our 
civilian workforce is essential--whether they work at our defense 
bases, at the National Institutes of Health or at any other federal 
facility. They have the same patriotism, honor and dedication as our 
military--and they can't be left behind on pay or benefits.
  I share my colleagues concerns about the cost of this legislation. It 
will require tough choices and it may require some changes in 
conference. I hope that these issues will be considered in the context 
of our entire defense budget.
  Mr. President, if we are to maintain the world's best military, we 
need to invest more in our most important national security resource--
the men and women of our armed forces. This legislation will show that 
we support our American military--both with our words and our actions.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to 
speak about S. 4, the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill 
of Rights Act of 1999.
  For too long, Idahoans have been contacting me to express their 
concerns about quality-of-life issues for service members. I am pleased 
that this bill is a step to address some of the most urgent quality-of-
life needs of the men and women in uniform, and their families. It 
contains a much needed pay raise, and reforms the current military pay 
tables. It also provides more options for retirement benefits, and 
increases educational benefits through changes to the Montgomery G.I. 
Bill. These quality-of-life improvements will help to ensure that we 
are able to recruit and retain the best personnel.
  However, despite my support for this bill, it is important to keep in 
mind that this bill will do nothing to change one of the factors 
driving so many of the best and the brightest away from service. This 
legislation will not decrease the operational tempo of our troops.
  In the last five years the President has sent U.S. forces abroad in 
major engagements some 50 times in comparison to 18 times during the 
Reagan Administration and 14 times during the Bush Administration. To 
exacerbate the problem, the number of men and women in uniform has been 
significantly reduced over the last decade. Simultaneously, the number 
of deployed missions has nearly quadrupled. Not only are U.S. soldiers 
forced to work longer and harder than ever before, they are also sent 
on deployment for a longer period of time than before.
  We continue to enforce the so-called ``peace'' in Bosnia, maintain a 
presence in Haiti, and in recent days President Clinton has virtually 
promised to deploy, on a moments notice, 4,000 soldiers again to make 
peace in Kosovo.
  Frankly, I find the Administration's eagerness to engage in non-
traditional military missions such as humanitarian and peacekeeping 
endeavors not only a dangerous foreign policy proposition, but 
extremely detrimental to doing the very thing S. 4 is trying to 
accomplish--ensuring real quality-of-life for service men and women. I 
would be willing to bet that a number of soldiers might consider 
foregoing a pay raise if it meant that he or she wouldn't miss another 
Thanksgiving or Christmas away from home and loved-ones.
  Let me close by saying, I am pleased that the Senate has made this 
important legislation the first item of business in the new session of 
Congress. I certainly believe that the young men and women of Idaho's 
366th Wing at the Mountain Home Air Force Base deserve a raise, better 
retirement benefits, and better options for educational opportunities 
through the Montgomery GI Bill. However, the President must also 
carefully consider the impact of the current operational tempo on our 
troops, and work to better this tremendous impediment to true quality-
of-life.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I strongly support the goals of this 
legislation, to improve recruitment and retention rates. Those rates 
have sagged in the last year to 18 months, and we need to do something 
about that. After all, our nation's security depends on ensuring that 
the military is able to recruit and retain high quality personnel.
  President Clinton agrees with that. He's proposing to increase the 
defense budget by $112 billion over 6 years, and he's allocated $35 
billion to meet the challenges of recruitment and retirement. The 
President's budget provides an across-the-board pay raise of 4.4 
percent, reforms the pay table to reward personnel for high 
performance, and modifies the current retirement system.
  President Clinton is proposing these initiatives within a 
comprehensive and balanced plan that enhances troop readiness and 
increases the pace of our force's modernization. He also does it as 
part of a budget that reserves the surplus to shore up Social Security 
and Medicare, pays down the debt, and provides tax relief to average 
Americans.
  S. 4, on the other hand, provides a more generous pay raise, more 
aggressively changes the military retirement system, creates a Thrift 
Savings Plan for military personnel, and increases GI bill benefits. 
Based on data from CBO staff, this bill will cost $7.5 billion more 
than the President's initiatives over the next 6 years, and $19 billion 
more over the next 10 years.
  Mr. President, given my support for the underlying goals of this 
legislation, I'm reluctant to oppose it. But I do have real concerns 
about the way we're proceeding.
  First, the Armed Services Committee hasn't held a single hearing to 
analyze the causes of the current recruitment and retention problems, 
or to evaluate remedies. Many argue that increasing pay and retirement 
benefits won't really solve the problem. GAO, CBO, and Rand are all 
conducting studies on these issues and are due to issue reports in the 
next few months.
  In addition, the committee has failed to say where the additional 
funding will come from. If it comes out of other defense programs, 
Secretary Cohen fears we could end up compromising our troops' 
readiness and DOD's modernization program. If it comes out of other 
programs, what will that mean for programs like Social Security and 
Medicare?
  Unfortunately, we're considering this legislation before the Budget 
Committee has even begun consideration of a budget resolution. And 
that's a mistake. In my view, before we approve any bill that commits 
ourselves to significant new spending, we need to reach agreement on a 
broader fiscal framework. We need to figure out how to save Social 
Security, strengthen Medicare, provide tax relief for ordinary 
Americans, and make needed commitments to education and other needs.
  Mr. President, I understand that this legislation is not likely to 
move in the House of Representatives any time soon. And so it probably 
won't be sent to the President until after the broader budget debate is 
concluded. With that understanding, I am not inclined to oppose the 
legislation, which will send a needed signal that Congress is serious 
about dealing with military recruitment and retention.
  Still, Mr. President, we need to put a lot more thought into this 
before sending it to the President. We need to be sure we're promoting 
recruitment and retention in a cost-effective way. And, more 
importantly, we need to figure out how we're going to pay for this.
  As it is, Mr. President, we're putting the cart before the horse. And 
that, in my view, is a poor way to legislate.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, let me begin by commending the work of

[[Page 2996]]

Secretary Cohen, General Shelton, and the rest of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff for recognizing the serious issues of recruitment and retention 
that S. 4 is written to address. Let me also thank Chairman Warner, 
Ranking Member Levin, Personnel Subcommittee Chairman Allard and his 
Ranking Member Cleland, as well as the other members of the Armed 
Services Committee. This legislation is a tremendous effort to address 
one of the most critical issues currently facing our men and women in 
uniform.
  While I support much of the content of S. 4, I have some real 
problems with the process we are pursuing to meet the requirements of 
our armed forces. Specifically, why are we considering this legislation 
now before a budget resolution has been passed? Are we not tying the 
hands of both the Budget Committee as well as the Appropriations 
Committee with this legislation? Why did we take the pay and pension 
provisions out of the defense authorization bill? Passing this 
legislation would commit the Senate to spending an additional $55 
billion between fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2009. Is this a step 
we are ready to take? Let me point out that these concerns are not 
limited to this legislation alone. I will apply the same scrutiny to 
any bill, no matter how well-intentioned, in the future as well.
  Which leads me to my second main concern about S. 4--its cost. $55 
billion is a significant amount of money, even in Washington, D.C. 
Nevertheless, we have taken the opportunity during the course of debate 
on this bill to add a number of costly amendments. While I have 
supported some of these efforts, they have been added to this 
legislation in an ad hoc manner without any discipline. I understand 
that this is often the nature of debate in this body, but I have a 
great fear we are forgetting our commitments to the budget caps, paying 
down the national debt and general fiscal responsibility.
  The $55 billion cost for the base text of the bill, plus the costs of 
all the adopted amendments, must come from somewhere which begs the 
question--from where? The answer I have been getting from my colleagues 
supporting this bill is that the money will come from somewhere and the 
details will be worked out. I am not willing to accept that explanation 
at this point--I need to know details, the framework for moving ahead 
with this kind of spending before I would be ready to support it. Do we 
plan on increasing the allocation in the budget resolution for military 
spending? Further, once an allocation level has been established, will 
this effort force us to put other readiness and modernization efforts 
aside? These questions have not been answered. I understand that 
Secretary Cohen has echoed these concerns. They should and must be 
addressed before I can support this measure.
  Let me be clear. I strongly support the intent of this bill and would 
like to support its content in a different package down the road. 
However, now is not the time to make these type of spending decisions. 
Regrettably, I will join several of my colleagues in voting against S. 
4 for budgetary reasons.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the men and women in the Army, Navy, Air 
Force, and Marine Corps continue to perform their duties superbly in 
the defense of our nation. Today, as our nation prepares for the 
possibility of sending 4,000 marines and Army troops as part of a 
peacekeeping force for Kosovo, we must do all we can to support all our 
forces who sacrifice so much to serve and protect this country.
  Our service men and women deserve a pay raise, and they deserve fair 
retirement benefits. If we don't make significant improvements in these 
two areas, we will continue to fail to recruit and retain the forces 
needed to maintain our nation's military readiness and protect our 
national security.
  I voted to report S. 4 out of the Armed Services Committee, and I 
support this legislation. I remain concerned, however, that we are 
moving too quickly, without adequately considering the budget impact or 
the best means to recruit and retain our talented service men and 
women. Clearly, action by Congress is needed to meet the needs of our 
soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, but we have not yet adequately 
considered the full impact, including the long-term impact of these 
policy changes on our troops and our defense budget.
  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Chiefs, 
themselves, have testified about the need for reforms in military 
retirement plans, and they have expressed their support for a 
significant and much-needed pay raise. But, we have not held any 
hearings at all on the specifics of this bill.
  Secretary Cohen expressed his concerns about the overall impact of 
this legislation in a letter to Senator Levin last Friday. The 
Secretary said he appreciated the Senate's attention to this critical 
issue, but he also emphasized his concern about the high cost of this 
legislation and about the lack of hearings to discuss the bill's impact 
on our service men and women.
  Our Armed Forces are facing complex challenges. Military recruiting 
has tremendous difficulties. In the last few months, the Army and Navy 
have announced they must reduce their recruiting standards in order to 
meet their recruiting goals. The Air Force, facing an unusual drop-off 
in new recruits, announced that for the first time it will use national 
television advertising in its recruiting.
  Our Armed Forces are having increasing difficulty retaining highly-
skilled personnel. Retention of mid-level officers and enlisted 
personnel is the lowest it has been in many years. These mid-grade 
personnel are the backbone of our Armed Forces. They lead and train new 
service members. They provide critical continuity between high-level 
commanders and individual soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. We 
cannot afford to lose these irreplaceable leaders.
  Recruiting and retention are in critical condition. Our margin for 
error is gone, and we must ensure that the policies we enact are the 
best ones. That is why many of us have serious reservations about how 
we are proceeding. We have too little information about whether these 
proposals are cost-effective or will do enough to boost morale, 
increase retention, or improve recruiting.
  We are all concerned about the readiness of our Armed Forces. But 
further consideration of these far-reaching proposals is essential. 
Before this bill reaches the President's desk, we need a far better 
understanding of this bill's impact on our service men and women and on 
the overall budget.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to address an issue crucial to the 
well-being of our troops, and crucial to the defense of our nation. For 
too long, this administration has ignored the needs of the brave men 
and women who defend our interests and our shores. This is unfair, and 
in my view it is unwise.
  It is unfair that, as our colleague Senator McCain has found, 11,000 
military families are currently forced to rely on food stamps to make 
ends meet. When people put themselves in harm's way for their country, 
they should not have to go on public assistance to feed their families.
  It is unwise because it ignores the well-being of our troops. Well-
trained, properly motivated troops are the single most important factor 
in maintaining our national security. Without them we will not be able 
to achieve and maintain military readiness. We will not be able, as a 
nation, to fight and win.
  Under current conditions, Mr. President, we cannot expect to maintain 
the levels of re-enlistment, expertise and morale we need to maintain 
an effective military force. Military pay is simply too low. It is not 
competitive with civilian pay. And this military-civilian pay gap is 
driving away the people we need to defend our nation.
  For example, we lost 626 trained pilots in 1997 alone. Overall re-
enlistments have been dropping fast. In 1997 fewer than half our troops 
completing their first tour of duty chose to re-enlist.
  Mr. President, we cannot fly planes without pilots, just as we cannot 
deploy ships or tanks or any other military hardware without the 
soldiers and sailors who make them work. And if we

[[Page 2997]]

cannot keep well-trained pilots, soldiers and sailors, we will face 
increased danger to our troops, or weaponry and our interests in any 
conflict.
  Mr. President, our men and women in uniform have a history of making 
do, but we soon will not have enough of them to do the job of defending 
our nation and our interests in a dangerous world.
  It is time to give our troops a raise. President Clinton has made a 
modest proposal on this issue but frankly it is too modest. It is, as 
they say, a day late and a dollar short.
  That is why I was happy to join with Senator Warner and 23 other 
Republicans in introducing the ``Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and 
Marines' Bill Of Rights'' (S. 4). This measure is key to re-
establishing the morale, experience and re-enlistment figures we need 
in our armed forces.
  This legislation will increase FY 2000 pay by 4.8%. It will further 
increase pay in those grades where retention is critical. And it will 
provide a monthly allowance of $180 to all members of the uniformed 
services eligible for food stamps, eliminating their need to go on 
public assistance.
  This legislation also will restore traditional military retirement 
pay and set up civilian-style thrift savings plans to encourage more 
men and women to make the military their career.
  Finally, this legislation will address the increasing trouble our 
troops face in taking advantage of their GI Bill education benefits. 
The cost of higher education has skyrocketed, Mr. President, and GI 
Bill benefits have not kept pace. Thus a growing number of veterans are 
not making use of their education benefit, even though they have paid 
$1,200 to get it.
  To address this situation, S.4 will eliminate the $1,200 contribution 
requirement. It also will increase the monthly GI Bill benefit from 
$528 to $600 for members who serve at least 3 years, and from $429 to 
$488 for those serving less than 3 years.
  We still have the greatest military in the world, Mr. President. I 
believe that it is time to pay a decent wage and provide decent 
benefits to the people who keep it that way.
  This legislation includes a requirement that the Defense Department 
report annually on the impact of these programs on recruiting and 
retention, assuring that we can keep track of the needs of our troops. 
In doing so I am sure they in turn will be better able to see to the 
needs of their families and of their country.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, S. 4 is a worthy attempt to address the 
growing problem the military is encountering in attracting and 
retaining the right men and women in the right numbers. As the 
challenges facing us demonstrate, the effectiveness of our military, 
and its readiness to act immediately to protect our national interests, 
must always be a priority concern of Congress. The outstanding 
performance of our forces in Desert Fox shows that the American 
military remains more than equal to any task and may in fact be the 
best force the United States has ever fielded. Even at the height of 
the cold war, with the largest military budgets ever, it is difficult 
to imagine those units routinely coping with the range of complex 
military operations accomplished by our military today.
  Nonetheless, our military faces readiness problems including falling 
recruitment and retention in critical skill areas; aging equipment that 
costs more to keep operating at acceptable levels of reliability; a 
need for more support services for a force with a high percentage of 
married personnel; and frequent deployments. The Department of Defense 
deserves credit for highlighting these problems, the administration 
deserves credit for increasing the budget to address them and, our 
colleagues, who have crafted this bill, deserve credit for bringing 
these issues into clear focus.
  This legislation is commendable in its attempt to increase resources 
to address and solve the myriad problems facing today's military 
forces, specifically pay and benefits. However, we should not do 
something in a hurry that we will have cause to regret at leisure. The 
many detailed provisions in this proposed legislation have not been 
fully vetted by the services, the Joint Staff, the Secretary of Defense 
or this body. What we spend money on, is as important, as how much 
money we spend. We must have a plan to spend available funds wisely.
  I believe this legislation is premature, and I will vote against it 
at this time for three reasons. First, there is no doubt that 
adequately compensating our most valuable resource, our service men and 
women, is the wisest use of our defense dollars. But we must also 
ensure we have a sensible and executable procurement strategy for today 
and tomorrow. We must find the right balance given finite resources. 
Therefore, I believe more analysis is needed on the most favorable, 
most cost efficient way to compensate today's force. This bill would 
add more money, but I am not yet convinced we have a good idea of where 
more money will work best. A case in point, historically, pilot 
retention has been difficult, and the numbers of pilots for our future 
force is projected to be considerably less than required. This problem 
was highlighted specifically in the recent readiness hearings. However, 
even as we prepare to redo the pay scale and improve the retirement 
pay, the take rate for pilot bonuses is reportedly increasing. So, 
where is the best place for additional funds--redux, improved pay 
scale, further bonuses, better quality of life advancements--what makes 
the most sense? Furthermore, we need to discuss and examine the impact 
of this proposed legislation on other government workers. What about 
the recruitment and retention of our dedicated civilian force?
  Next, as we prepare to spend money to ensure our force is compensated 
and ready, we must ask: ``ready for what?'' Which men and women do we 
most need to recruit and retain, and are we ready for them now? If we 
spend more than we must for people and less than we should for the 
tools they need, we will create new problems. For instance, we need 
more pilots, but we do not yet have an adequate number of aircraft to 
train them. Should we recruit them and then keep them ``grounded'' 
because we haven't funded the equipment to allow them to fly. Readiness 
in 1999 will not necessarily be readiness in the future. We must ensure 
our forces are ready to address challenges in the near term as well to 
challenges that emerge over the longer term.
  Finally, besides deciding how best to spend the available funds, we 
must find the available funds. We do not know what this bill will 
actually cost. Before we act, we should know more clearly what the cost 
will be, and where the funds will come from. Many of the provisions 
offered in this legislation differ from the Pentagon's request, adding 
costs that must be absorbed from other programs. As the Administration, 
and Secretary Cohen have pointed out, the money projected to be added 
to the defense budget, or any foreseeable increase, will not be enough 
to completely cover current readiness increases and meet the 
modernization requirements of all the services. With the proposed pay 
raises, higher cost-of-living adjustments and other miscellaneous items 
it is estimated that S. 4 will cost an additional $7 billion in 
discretionary funding through FY 2005, and absent an increase in the 
topline for Defense, these items will only displace other key elements 
of the Defense program.
  Furthermore, while searching for the appropriate amount of money, we 
must demand 100% cost effectiveness, and the elimination of waste and 
redundancy. We must do the appropriate analysis and make the tough 
choices, to include examining the possibility of closing down military 
facilities that don't make military-economic sense any more. The 
Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs must be allowed to evaluate 
this legislation, its cost and, then ask where they would choose to 
take the risk if it comes to that.
  Major studies on military pay and pension issues by the Congressional 
Budget Office, the Government Accounting Organization, and the Defense

[[Page 2998]]

Department are nearing completion, with all reports expected to be 
released by late spring. Upon release and examination of these reports, 
we will be better able to judge the needs in these areas and how best 
to respond to them. I urge that instead of deciding on this legislation 
today, we expeditiously arrange appropriate hearings to analyze these 
ideas in the context of the entire defense authorization bill. This 
bill is a great point of departure, it is not a final product. We have 
not yet done the critical analysis to know where the priority should go 
within the broad category of pay and allowances to most effectively 
attract and retain the right people. We do not know how a separate bill 
of this type will impact the authorization process for other programs, 
ultimately affecting the hard questions of long-term readiness.
  So, though I strongly favor increases in pay and benefits for our 
military, this bill is premature and therefore I will reluctantly vote 
against it.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr President, over the course of the last year, we have 
heard more and more evidence that the readiness of our nation's 
military force is slipping. It became a key issue when our military 
leadership began to warn of shortages of personnel in key specialties, 
gaps in weapons maintenance, disparities between military and civilian 
pay, and a high pace of military operations. These and other similar 
issues have a serious effect on our ability to respond quickly and 
effectively to military conflicts. In my view, the time has come to 
restore our nation's military readiness, starting with the morale of 
our troops.
  When the military talks about readiness, it is referring in part to 
the weapons, equipment, bases and support infrastructure needed to 
carry out its missions. A declining defense budget since 1989 is the 
prime source of today's problem; it forces our military commanders to 
make some tough choices. For example, underfunding of real property 
maintenance and facility operations has often led commanders to 
reallocate funds meant for training to meet urgent repair needs. 
Weapons maintenance requirements have also been underestimated on a 
regular basis. Finally, our continued presence in the Persian Gulf, 
Bosnia, and potential new responsibilities in Kosovo, to name just a 
few, have stretched our military forces and our military budget even 
further.
  But readiness isn't just about hardware and property. It's about 
manpower and morale. The men and women who make up our armed forces 
represent the best fighting force ever assembled in human history. But 
shortfalls in personnel recruitment and retention have made it 
increasingly difficult to ensure full manning of deployed units. 
Reversing these negative trends in military pay, retirement benefits, 
and recruitment must be a top priority in the 106th Congress.
  Fortunately, the U.S. Senate is off to a good start. One of the first 
bills we will pass this year is S. 4, the Soldiers', Sailors', 
Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights Act which was offered by my 
friend and colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner, the Chairman of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this 
bill.
  The purpose of S. 4 is simple: to improve the readiness and morale of 
the troops who so selflessly defend our country. The first, and most 
needed, reform included in this bill is a pay raise of 4.8% beginning 
January 1st, 2000. The bill also would institute an annual pay raise 
equal to the Employment Cost Index plus 0.5%. This will help close a 
military to civilian pay gap of over 13 percent.
  Amazingly, there are members of our military whose paycheck is so low 
they qualify for food stamps. For them, S. 4 would provide a monthly 
``special subsistence allowance'' of $180. This initiative is designed 
to dramatically improve the ``quality of life'' for the youngest and 
most economically vulnerable military families.
  Mr. President, when I visit Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, I often 
hear concerns about ``eroding benefits,'' especially concerning 
retirement pay. Currently, our military personnel fall under several 
separate retirement plans depending upon the date they initially 
entered active service. The original military retirement plan called 
for retirement pay, after 20 years of service, of 50 percent of their 
basic pay per month. This percentage would then increase by 2.5 percent 
for each additional year of service up to a maximum of 75 percent of 
basic pay at 30 years of service.
  However, in 1986, a new retirement plan was adopted that was intended 
to increase the incentive for our troops to remain longer on active 
duty. This plan, commonly called ``Redux'', lowered the percentage from 
50 percent after 20 years to 40 percent, but increased the yearly 
increases for years of service above 20 years, from 2.5 percent to 3.5 
percent per year up to a maximum of 75 percent after 30 years of 
service.
  The ``Redux'' retirement plan is very unpopular among our military 
personnel. S. 4 would try another approach. It would give military 
personnel on ``Redux'' the opportunity of accepting a one-time bonus of 
$30,000 to remain on the ``Redux'' retirement plan, or to elect to 
revert to the original retirement system.
  Finally, S. 4 would create a Thrift Savings Plan. This plan allows 
for a ``before tax'' contribution of up to 5 percent of the member's 
basic pay. The member can also elect to add any part of any special or 
incentive pay to their Thrift Saving Plan. In addition, the Service 
Secretaries would be authorized to make contributions to a member's 
Thrift Savings Plan if that member serves in a specialty designated as 
critical to the service. These contributions require the member to 
remain on active service for an additional six years.
  Mr. President, since the end of the Cold War, our military forces 
have been stretched to the limit, having to manage their resources and 
mission with an ever tightening budget. Our single most important 
resource always has been our troops, and like any resource, we have to 
continue to invest in them. I would like to commend the Chairman of the 
Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, for bringing S. 4 before the 
Senate. It is bipartisan legislation. It is legislation that literally 
puts people first; in this case I'm referring to the men and women in 
our military. The Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of 
Rights Act represents a much-needed, long-overdue investment in the 
people who are asked to do so much for our country and make such 
dramatic sacrifices while defending our country. I plan to see that 
Congress makes good on this vital readiness investment in 1999 by 
working to ensure enactment of this important legislation.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I support the Soldiers', Sailors', 
Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999. Like many of my 
colleagues, I am very aware of the strains on America's military 
personnel. I have only to look at the pace of operations at Dover Air 
Force Base, in my home state of Delaware. Dover's strategic airlift and 
air cargo terminal support every single on-going operation and new 
troop and equipment movement to Europe, Southwest Asia, and Africa. A 
quick look around the world today shows that Dover personnel are 
working hard, alongside their colleagues throughout the force, and need 
to be recognized with adequate pay and benefits. America's military is 
doing an exceptional job defending vital American interests in Bosnia, 
Iraq, and South Korea. Our troops are also using their incredible 
logistics skills to assist our Central American neighbors who have been 
devastated by hurricane damage. These are just a few examples among 
many of the United States' military working every day to create a more 
stable and safe world for all of us. In today's dynamic world, the 
military's task is a demanding one.
  With this bill, we make it clear that we understand those demands and 
that we will continually strive to take better care of our troops. I 
have long been concerned that we have not always adequately addressed 
the compensation needs of our military, nor have we always provided for 
pay equity. For that reason, last year I amended the Defense 
authorization bill to include an

[[Page 2999]]

increase in hazardous duty incentive pay for mid- and senior level 
enlisted aircrews. I am pleased that this year we have a comprehensive 
bill addressing the critical issue of compensation and equity. I have 
said it before and I will say it again, the patriotic men and women who 
serve in our military do not do so to become rich, but that does not 
change the very real needs they and their families have for adequate 
recompense.
  The bill enhances the President's request for a pay raise, pay table 
reform, and changes to the military retirement system. The Joint Chiefs 
have said repeatedly that these three steps are their top priority this 
year. The 4.8 percent basic pay raise and the decision to increase 
future year raises by 0.5 percent more than the civilian raise index is 
an important step toward closing the pay gap between military and 
civilian employees. The pay table reform, which is identical to that 
suggested by the President, will make the pay structure more equitable 
and focused on performance.
  Another important equity issue for the past thirteen years has been 
the military retirement system. The changes made in the summer of 1986 
created an inequity in the retirement benefits for members of the armed 
services who chose to retire after 20 years. The end result was that 
experienced service members decided that the reward was too small to 
stay in the service for 20 years, compared to the benefits offered in 
the private sector and the needs of their families. This bill corrects 
that inequity by allowing personnel to revert back to the pre-1986 
system of receiving 50 percent of their base pay. It also provides an 
option to stay with the post-1986 system of receiving 40 percent of 
base pay along with a $30,000 bonus. This sends an important message to 
our troops that their service and experience today are just as valuable 
and important as they were before 1986.
  I want to compliment the committee, and the leadership of Senator 
Cleland, for including enhancements to the Montgomery G.I. bill. The 
original bill was written in World War II and needed to be adapted to 
the challenges that face members of today's military. Increasing the 
actual benefits and providing more flexibility in how they are used 
makes it easier for service members to attain their educational goals 
for themselves and their immediate family. In an era where education is 
increasingly vital and expensive, these changes are long overdue.
  I am also pleased that this bill was amended to include important 
reforms of TRICARE, the military health care benefits system. The bill 
will help the Department of Defense provide better services, reduce the 
bureaucratic hassle of obtaining those services, and make sure benefits 
are tranportable to different TRICARE regions. It also provides the 
necessary authority to increase the amount TRICARE reimburses providers 
in areas where such increases are needed to keep an adequate number of 
qualified health care providers available. Military health care systems 
must be able to compete with private health care systems for the 
services of quality providers. In addition, the bill will help the 
military better utilize its facilities by allowing TRICARE facilities 
to be reimbursed by other insurance agencies. It is my hope that this 
legislation will make it easier for American servicemen and women to 
get the quality health care they and their families deserve.
  Finally, Mr. President, I share with my colleagues a concern that we 
need to be careful in our allocation of limited resources before we 
have adopted a budget. It is imperative that this bill actually help 
our troops and not create new resource problems in other areas. For 
that reason, I am also very pleased to see the requirement for the 
Secretary of Defense provide an annual report on how this bill impacts 
recruiting and retention. This requirement will allow us to measure the 
effectiveness of the bill and make sure that we have chosen the right 
mix of incentives for the brave men and women who work so hard in 
defense of all of us.
  Overall, I believe this bill is an important step in support of our 
troops. It improves pay equity and overall compensation levels. It also 
addresses inequities in the retirement system and it enhances the 
benefit system, including military health care benefits. I support the 
bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I welcome a discussion in the Senate about 
military pay and retirement benefits. Review of these and other quality 
of life issues in today's military is long overdue. The defense debate 
in recent years has centered on equipment procurement, readiness 
issues, and the wisdom of our nation's troop deployments and foreign 
policy. This year we should turn to consider the men and women who 
dedicate their lives to keeping our nation safe.
  Military service requires valor and sacrifice. It attracts a certain 
type of individual, a person with the character to lead, the resolve to 
complete a task however difficult and demanding, and the willingness to 
sacrifice his or her life for fellow soldiers and country. For those 
reasons, the decision to join the military has always been unlike the 
decision to join any other profession.
  The unparalleled strength of our economy in recent years, and the 
growth of new technologies and industries, further complicate the 
decision to serve in the military. Just as our society has entered a 
new age of technological change, the United States Military has also 
entered a new era of digital warfare, where the machinery of battle is 
more reliant upon silicon chips than hard steel. To keep these 
processors and equipment running, our military needs to attract and 
retain highly skilled, intelligent men and women.
  Today, our Defense Department must also compete for recruits with 
Microsoft and Price Waterhouse Coopers as well as companies in more 
traditional industries. The Defense Department cannot do that by 
offering a second-tier pay scale which lags significantly behind the 
private sector. If we want the best and the brightest, we have to be 
willing to pay them accordingly.
  I welcome the Administration's decisions to increase military pay by 
4.4% and to renew the retirement program that offers benefits of fifty 
percent military pay for twenty years service. These policies seek to 
restore equity in compensation for military personnel, and properly 
reward those who have committed twenty years of their lives to protect 
our nation. Yet, I do not believe the Administration's military pay 
proposal goes far enough to resolve the inequity. Therefore, I support 
S. 4, the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights 
Act of 1999, because this legislation does more to provide financial 
security to our uniformed men and women.
  My colleagues understand that the nature of pay and benefits in the 
United States military is unlike pay considerations within our private 
sector and compensation practices in other nations' militaries. Within 
our private sector, the issue of compensation is the primary focus for 
the vast majority of Americans when deciding between competing job 
offers. In other nations that lack strong democratic principles and a 
tradition of rule of law, foreign leaders use relatively high pay for 
soldiers to assure military support for their government.
  But in the United States, pay is not the primary reason people join 
the military. Some join for the experience of military service, for the 
mental and physical challenges that our Army, Navy, Air Force, and 
Marines place upon young men and women, and the sense of accomplishment 
that comes from meeting those challenges. Some join as a means to an 
education, to partake of the G.I. Bill and other post-service education 
benefits. Yet, while not always the primary motivating factor, the men 
and women who serve our country always do so out of a sense of 
patriotism. They choose to commit the time and effort of their youth, 
join organizations with unique cultures distinct from contemporary 
institutions, forego at least temporarily the chance for greater 
wealth, and risk physical harm and possibly death, to repay our nation 
for the freedoms and opportunities they as citizens enjoy.

[[Page 3000]]

  Money never has been and never will be the primary deciding factor 
for people seeking to join, or deciding whether to stay, in the U.S. 
military. But, on the margin--the always important margin--the size of 
a military paycheck does make a difference. S. 4 may not fully correct 
the deficiency in military pay, but it is at least a significant step 
along the way.
  I understand the concerns raised by many of my colleagues about the 
budgetary ramifications of this bill. S. 4 provides a rise in pay of 
4.8% for fiscal year 2000, a substantial increase from the 
Administration's proposed 4.4% pay raise. Either of these increases 
will have ramifications on military procurement, on research and 
development, on operations and maintenance accounts that support 
readiness, and other areas of the defense budget as well. Similarly, S. 
4 provides a pay raise for fiscal year 2001 and beyond of one percent 
above the level of the Employment Cost Index. This is a statutory 
commitment whose cost we cannot today determine with any suitable 
degree of accuracy. While we may decide to accept these increases, the 
consequences of these policies need to be reviewed and resolved within 
the context of the entire defense budget.
  Also, there are currently three studies underway examining military 
pay and pension issues, conducted by the Congressional Budget Office, 
the General Accounting Office, and the Department of Defense. These 
studies are examining how factors other than pay such as high 
operations tempo, lack of essential material and equipment, declining 
state of readiness, concern over military health care services, job 
dissatisfaction, and a booming civilian economy may affect the decision 
to join and remain in the military. Once we receive the conclusions and 
recommendations of these studies, we should again revisit the issues 
surrounding military retention and recruitment.
  Already, as a consequence of amendments which have been attached to 
this bill, the Senate has accepted an unfunded liability of 
approximately $16.5 billion. Currently, there are no offsets in the 
legislation to address this liability. It is my sincere desire that 
this issue is addressed and offsets are determined when the bill goes 
into conference with the House. If these costs remain outstanding when 
the bill returns to the Senate, I will have strong reservations about 
voting for unfunded liabilities a second time. The tight caps and 
fiscal discipline I have supported throughout this decade do not start 
creating real on-budget surpluses until FY2001. This year's surplus is 
created entirely by excess payroll taxes and interest on the Social 
Security Trust Funds. So I am concerned that the Senate is considering 
legislation that may bust the cap so early in the legislative season. I 
encourage my colleagues to maintain our recent tradition of fiscal 
discipline and seek ways to pay for this bill within the current budget 
caps.
  Nevertheless, our military is only as secure as the people that 
operate the guns, ships, planes, and terminals that help keep our 
nation safe. The men and women in our Army, Navy, Air Force, and 
Marines are the strength of our military, not the equipment which they 
utilize. If providing some level of monetary security to our military 
personnel means we must forsake some weapons or postpone some research, 
I believe this tradeoff will actually enhance our national security far 
more than the alternative.
  S. 4 goes a long way towards putting our military pay scale on the 
same footing as private sector wages. It improves the retirement and 
educational benefits available to our military personnel. For those 
reasons, I support the passage of this legislation.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of S. 4, 
The Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' (SSAM) Bill of Rights 
Act of 1999. This bill addresses critical personnel and retention 
issues in our nation's armed forces and hopefully will arrest the 
accelerating decline in military readiness. I commend the distinguished 
chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, and 
the Committee as a whole for reporting this legislation.
  I have been concerned for quite some time with declining defense 
budgets and increased deployments overseas. Those who defend the United 
States often are the first casualties of budget cuts here at home, even 
as they have been deployed overseas more frequently than ever before. 
Declining morale in our armed forces and diminished military readiness 
are national security legacies this Administration is leaving, legacies 
I hope the Senate will begin reversing with the passage of S. 4.
  Our military is hemorrhaging due to poor morale, plentiful private 
sector opportunities in a robust economy, and burdensome deployment 
schedules. The pay and benefit provisions in S. 4 will be critical to 
arrest declining morale and diminished readiness. As General Hugh 
Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, stated before the Senate Armed 
Services Committee last September, ``. . . we must act soon to send a 
clear signal to the backbone of our military, our mid-grade 
commissioned and noncommissioned officers, that their leadership and 
this Congress recognize the value of their service and their sacrifices 
and that we have not lost sight of our commitment to the success of the 
all-volunteer force.''
  Mr. President, the Administration has taken too long to address the 
morale and retention problems undermining the readiness of our armed 
forces. Senior Pentagon officials downplayed evidence of growing 
personnel and readiness problems for months, but finally began 
addressing these issues squarely before the Senate Armed Services 
Committee last September. General Shelton stated that ``. . . our 
forces are showing increasing signs of serious wear. Anecdotal 
initially, and now measurable, evidence indicates that our readiness is 
fraying and that the long-term health of the total force is in 
jeopardy.''
  A cursory survey of declining defense budgets and increased 
operations around the world certainly provides the factual background 
to support General Shelton's statement. For many leaving the forces 
today, military compensation and benefits simply do not justify 
extended deployments away from home.
  Our military is doing more with less. Defense spending has declined 
in real terms by 27 percent since 1990. Military procurement spending 
has declined by a staggering 54 percent during that same time period. 
In the midst of this dramatic downsizing, the pace of operations abroad 
has risen dramatically. In the 1990s, operational missions increased 
300 percent while the force structure for the Army and Air Force was 
reduced by 45 percent each, the Navy by approximately 40 percent, and 
the Marines by over 10 percent. President Reagan deployed U.S. forces 
17 times during his eight year term. During his four-year term, 
President Bush deployed U.S. forces 14 times. During the six year 
tenure of President Clinton, however, the U.S. armed forces have been 
deployed over 46 times. Contingency operations during this 
Administration have exacted a heavy cost (in real terms): $8.1 billion 
in Bosnia; $1.1 billion in Haiti; $6.1 billion in Iraq.
  Diminished resources, inadequate benefits, and increased deployments 
are taking a serious toll on the health of our armed forces. Our Air 
Force pilots defeat Iraq's forces soundly on the battlefield, but 
Saddam is winning a war of attrition when it comes to pilot retention. 
The Air Force has experienced a 14 percent decline in readiness since 
1996 and ended 1998 with a 700 pilot shortfall that could grow to 2,000 
pilots by 2002. Air Force second-term reenlistment rates have dropped 
13% in the last 5 years.
  The Navy was 7,000 recruits short in 1998 and reports diminished 
deployed readiness due to personnel shortages, such as a 9% shortfall 
in junior Surface Warfare Officers. The non-deployed readiness of 
carrier air wings is at its lowest level in a decade.
  Retention rates for critical personnel in all services is suffering. 
Declines in retention of critical personnel since 1995 are very 
troubling: Air Force enlisted aircrew with 7 years service declined 
from 83 to 55 percent; Air Force

[[Page 3001]]

AWAC personnel with 5-8 years service declined from 56 to 35 percent; 
Army aircraft armament personnel with 8 years service declined from 72 
to 47 percent; Army chemical operations specialists with 5-8 years 
service declined from 69 to 51 percent; Marine aircraft avionics 
technicians with 9-12 years service declined from 76 to 63 percent; and 
Navy electronic technicians with 9-12 years service declined from 77 to 
63 percent.
  The Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' (SSAM) Bill of Rights 
Act of 1999 addresses these problems on several fronts. The legislation 
contains important provisions to address immediate needs and 
establishes longer-term mechanisms to improve retention of military 
personnel. The bill provides for an across the board pay increase of 
4.8 percent. The pay table is reformed to benefit critical mid-career 
personnel the most. Retirement system reform gives military personnel 
with 15 years of service the option of remaining in the Redux 
retirement plan and taking a $30,000 cash bonus or returning to a pre-
Redux system with retirement at 50 percent of base pay and no COLA 
caps.
  Retirement opportunities also are enhanced by allowing military 
personnel to contribute 5 percent of their base pay tax-free to a 
Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). A special retention initiative is also 
provided where the Secretary of Defense can choose to offer 5 percent 
matching TSP contributions to critical personnel for six years in 
return for a six year commitment. Finally, there is a special 
subsistence allowance to address the intolerable condition of 12,000 
military personnel on food stamps. In the U.S. military, the finest 
fighting force in the world, there should never be families who are so 
poorly provided for as to need food stamps. The monthly subsistence 
allowance in this legislation, in addition to other pay reforms, will 
help end this disgraceful treatment of thousands of military personnel.
  The need for this legislation cannot be more obvious. Our troops 
maintain a constant presence in the Persian Gulf, East Asia, and 
Europe. Now in Bosnia two years past the original deadline, American 
soldiers could face yet another prolonged nation-building exercise in 
Kosovo if this Administration has its way. These troops have been asked 
to achieve more missions with fewer resources and less manpower, and 
the signs of fraying readiness and declining morale are mounting.
  In addressing current readiness and funding problems, Administration 
officials repeatedly have said personnel issues were their first 
priority. General Shelton testified last September: ``. . . if I had to 
choose the area of greatest concern to me, I would say that we need to 
put additional dollars into taking care of our most important resource, 
the uniformed members of the armed forces.''
  General Shelton is right to place the highest priority on our 
military personnel. The defense of this country, in the final analysis, 
is essentially a personnel issue. Admiral Chester Nimitz stated in 
1950: ``Our armaments must be adequate to the needs, but our faith is 
not primarily in these machines of defense but in ourselves.'' General 
Shelton seems to concur with that statement when he says: ``The best 
tanks, the best planes, the best ships in the world are not what makes 
our military the superb force that it is today . . . Advanced 
technology and modern weapons are important . . . But even the finest 
high-tech equipment will never be the determining factor on the 
battlefield. The most critical factor for both current and future 
readiness are our men and women . . . in uniform today.''
  Our military personnel are our greatest resource, and our failure to 
take care of them our greatest oversight. No soldier should have to 
worry about feeding his family as he defends his country. No military 
family should be repeatedly divided by constant deployments.
  We entrust our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines with the 
responsibility given to our nation as a whole: the defense of liberty. 
How we provide for those men and women in uniform reflects on how 
seriously we take that mission, on how seriously we safeguard the 
blessings of liberty. I urge passage of this legislation to improve 
much-needed benefits for those who defend the United States and the 
cause of freedom abroad.
  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;

[[Page 3002]]

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 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.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, there is no question that America's armed 
forces are the best in the world. The men and women who serve in our 
military demonstrate their courage and dedication every day, from the 
fighter pilots who are making life-threatening raids into Iraq to 
contain the deadly forces of Saddam Hussein, to the soldiers who are 
maintaining peace in the war-weary towns of Bosnia, to the countless 
sailors, soldiers, and airmen on lonely patrol throughout the world, 
enduring hardship and homesickness to protect their fellow Americans. 
It is vital to our national security that we maintain the level of 
excellence that these troops represent.
  Of the many factors that contribute to the robustness of our 
military, none is more basic than the ability to recruit and retain 
qualified, talented individuals. Without enough people to operate them, 
our mightiest weapons are worthless. Without enough people to execute 
them, our best planned strategies are useless. Without enough people in 
uniform to defend it, our nation is at risk.
  We ask much of the men and women who serve in our military, and of 
their families as well. Yet, as we have learned from the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff, pay and benefit levels for members of the armed services have 
been slipping behind those of their civilian counterparts. Today, we 
are facing a personnel shortfall of alarming proportions. The need for 
the legislation before us is acute. According to recent published 
reports, the Army fell 2,300 short of its recruiting goal--
approximately a 20 percent deficit--in the first quarter of fiscal year 
1999. The Navy missed its recruitment target by almost 7,000 last year. 
The Air Force, which has suffered a hemorrhage of pilots over the past 
several years, fell 400 short of its first quarter goal.
  Many factors are contributing to the current recruitment and 
retention problems of the services, but military leaders across the 
services and up and down the chain of command have identified pay and 
benefits as major culprits. We need to come to grips with this problem. 
In my state of West Virginia, approximately 9,000 men and women serve 
around the world in the active and reserve armed forces. They are 
subject to being called away at a moment's notice to some of the most 
dangerous trouble spots on earth. The least we can do for them in 
return is to make sure that their families will be able to make ends 
meet while they are deployed away from home. The least we can do is 
strive to ensure that the monthly paychecks we issue to our men and 
women in uniform are comparable to that of their civilian counterparts.
  Improving the pay and benefits of the men and women who serve in our 
military is an obvious first step to help reverse the downward spiral 
in recruitment and retention, and I applaud the Chairman of the Senate 
Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, for moving quickly to address 
this situation. Likewise, I applaud Senator Levin, the Ranking Member 
of the Committee, for insisting that the benchmarks of prudence and 
careful consideration be met in the bill before us. This legislation is 
not the place for grandstanding or political one-upmanship. I am 
hopeful that as we debate this bill over the coming days, we will work 
for the common good of our military and our nation, and come up with a 
balanced, commonsense bill.
  I hope, also, that we will be mindful, as we consider this bill, that 
monetary compensation is only one factor affecting recruiting and 
retention levels in the military. Plainly put, we cannot buy the finest 
military in the world. To rise to the level of excellence that the 
United States military has achieved requires an uncommon degree of 
dedication, self-sacrifice, and patriotism--qualities that can be 
inspired and nurtured but not bought. By all means, let us work 
together to improve the compensation of our men and women in uniform. 
But let us also work together to preserve and enhance the intangible 
compensations of military service--the honor, respect, and sense of 
accomplishment--that form the true foundation of military service.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I believe we must significantly boost 
compensation for the men and women of our armed forces who serve this 
nation so tirelessly and effectively. The end of the Cold War has meant 
that the numbers and types of overseas missions we ask these people to 
perform has grown. The rising number of military operations abroad 
coupled with an extremely vibrant U.S. economy has meant the military 
services are having a harder time attracting and keeping highly skilled 
personnel.

[[Page 3003]]

  The Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs recognized this 
troubling development last year in testimony before the Congress and 
began making the case for addressing the military's recruitment and 
retention problems. The examples they cited were troubling. The Air 
Force is experiencing serious shortfalls in retaining its pilots. The 
Navy is having difficulty manning its ships. The Army finds itself 
coming up short in filling out its units. Only the Marine Corps appears 
to be faring well at the moment.
  The President listened to our senior military officials, and he 
responded. The President proposed a $23 billion personnel initiative in 
his FY2000 budget to improve the military's pay and retirement 
benefits. The President's budget would provide the men and women of our 
armed services with the largest pay raise since 1982. In addition, it 
would reform military pay tables to reward performance, increase 
specialty pay and bonuses to address retention issues, and restore 
retirement benefits. Just as important as this list of benefits is the 
fact that the President made these proposals while remaining faithful 
to his pledge to Save Social Security First. The President was able to 
accommodate these proposed increases without spending any of the 
surplus in FY2000. In short, the President's proposal is fully paid 
for.
  Like numerous members of Congress from both political parties, I have 
gone on record in the last several months in support of the Defense 
Department's argument that military pay and retirement benefits need to 
be enhanced if we are to continue to field a well-trained, highly 
capable military. That is why, along with Senator Levin, Senator 
Cleland, and many other Democratic Senators, I introduced the Military 
Recruiting and Retention Improvement Act of 1999--a bill to increase 
pay and retirement benefits for members of the Armed Services. I am 
pleased that many provisions of this legislation were included in S. 4. 
Although the initial Democratic and Republican proposals were slightly 
different, I think we can all agree that people are the military's most 
important asset.
  To see why, you need look no further than my home state of South 
Dakota and the more than 3,000 active-duty personnel stationed at 
Ellsworth Air Force Base. Like their counterparts at military 
installations around the county and throughout the world, the men and 
women at Ellsworth Air Force Base serve their country with pride and 
distinction every day. Most recently, crews flying and maintaining B-1B 
bombers from Ellsworth participated in Operation Desert Fox. This was 
the first time that B-1Bs were used in combat, and the fact that B-1B 
crews from Ellsworth were so successful in hitting their targets is a 
credit to their enormous commitment and dedication.
  With dedicated people like those we see at Ellsworth and other 
military installations around the world, it is easy to see why all of 
us--President Clinton, Defense Secretary Cohen, Joint Chiefs Chairman 
Shelton, Democrats, and Republicans--agree that something must be done. 
Therefore, a key issue before the Senate today is how best to 
accomplish this end, how best to ensure that some of this nation's best 
and brightest continue to pursue a career in the military?
  However, it is not the only issue. Those who are concerned about 
having a well balanced, fiscally responsible defense plan must also ask 
another question. What is the best way to provide military personnel 
with the pay and retirement benefits they so richly deserve while 
remaining true to our other defense and domestic priorities and staying 
within the tight fiscal constraints we find ourselves operating under? 
Indeed, this may be the most important question we face today: how do 
we do right by our military personnel, our other defense and domestic 
priorities, and our obligation to be fiscally responsible?
  The bill before us today provides only a partial answer to this 
critical question, as it spends $12 billion beyond the President's 
proposal without providing offsets for the additional spending. As I 
said earlier, I wholeheartedly support providing additional benefits to 
our troops, and I will vote for this bill today. What troubles me about 
S. 4, however, is that its authors have chosen to stay strangely silent 
on how they will pay for the additional $12 billion in benefits.
  Mr. President, I believe that when it comes to something as important 
as the pay and retirement benefits of our military, Congress should 
leave no questions unanswered. Fortunately, the action we take today in 
the Senate on S. 4 is the first step in a multi-step process. The House 
must develop its version of this bill, and differences between the 
House and Senate versions must be resolved in a conference. I urge the 
House and Senate members who participate in this process to fill in the 
blanks contained in S. 4. Our troops deserve additional pay and 
benefits. We owe it to both the troops and the American people to show 
how we will pay for them. I will be working hard with my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to provide this answer and produce a military 
pay and retirement bill of which we can all be proud.


                            Amendment No. 26

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, on the Rockefeller amendment, I ask 
unanimous consent that Senator Grams of Minnesota and Senator Ashcroft 
be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, 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. WARNER. 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. WARNER. Mr. President, with my colleague from Michigan, and with 
the consent of the leadership of the Senate, we would like to place 
before the Senate at this time a unanimous consent request, which I 
will not make--I repeat, place--in the hopes that we can bring this 
bill to a conclusion.
  In the future, I will ask unanimous consent that at the hour of 5 
o'clock today there be 10 minutes of debate with respect to the 
Rockefeller-Specter amendment No. 26, with 5 minutes under the control 
of Senator Rockefeller and 5 minutes under the control of the Senator 
from Virginia. I will further ask consent that following that debate, 
the Senate proceed to a vote on a motion to table the Rockefeller 
amendment, to be followed by a vote on or in relation to the Harkin 
amendment No. 23, to be followed by a vote on or in relation to the 
Graham amendment, which again would be a tabling amendment by the 
Senator from Virginia. That amendment, as yet, has not been sent to the 
desk.
  I will further ask that there be 5 minutes for explanation between 
each vote, to be equally divided in the usual form.
  Further, I will ask unanimous consent that my distinguished 
colleague, the Senator from Michigan, the ranking member of this 
committee, be recognized for up to 15 minutes for general debate on the 
bill.
  Finally, I will ask that following the votes listed above, the Senate 
proceed to third reading and final passage, all to occur without any 
intervening action or debate.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, 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. WARNER. 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. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, hopefully, we will soon be voting on final 
passage of S. 4, the military pay and benefits bill. This bill would 
significantly improve the pay and benefits available to our troops and 
help address the military recruitment and retention problems identified 
by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

[[Page 3004]]

  The bill includes an across-the-board increase in military salaries, 
targeted pay raises to reward performance, enhanced military retirement 
benefits for service members who entered after 1986, enhanced education 
benefits for service members under the GI bill, and numerous other 
benefits. These changes should help provide fairer compensation to our 
men and women in uniform, and I think we would all like to see them 
enacted into law.
  As I pointed out previously, this is an extremely expensive bill, and 
it has not been paid for. This bill has not been paid for. When the 
bill came to the floor, it included provisions that would cost roughly 
$35 billion more than current law over the 6-year course of the future 
year defense plan, the so-called FYDP. These costs include close to $24 
billion in pay and benefits enhancements that were funded in the 
administration budget but almost $12 billion more in enhancements that 
were added by the Armed Services Committee.
  Since the bill has been in the Chamber, it has become even more 
expensive, with the addition of many amendments increasing the benefits 
for our men and women in uniform. These include provisions eliminating 
the prohibition on dual compensation, authorizing participation in the 
Thrift Savings Plan by members of the National Guard and Reserves, 
extending enhanced GI bill benefits to members of the National Guard 
and Reserves, expanding the use of GI bill benefits to cover 
preparation for college and graduate school entrance exams, and 
expanding the number of soldiers eligible for the $180 per month 
special subsistence allowance.
  Moreover, we have adopted an amendment offered by the Senators from 
Maryland and Virginia expressing the sense of the Congress that we 
should extend the pay increases provided in this bill for members of 
the armed services to the Federal civilian employees as well. If we 
were to act in accordance with just that one provision, we would add an 
additional $3 billion in defense spending and an additional $7 billion 
in nondefense spending, for a total of almost $10 billion of 
Governmentwide spending over the next 6 years.
  Now, these are worthwhile provisions which would provide real 
benefits to the men and women who so loyally serve our country every 
day, but they have real costs attached to them, some in the hundreds of 
millions of dollars every year. Yet we have not said how we intend to 
pay for them.
  Do we intend to revise the budget agreement to pay for the bill 
before us? If the defense budget is not substantially increased, for 
instance, we would then be faced with making deep cuts in the readiness 
and modernization accounts to pay for the changes proposed in this 
bill. Such cuts are coming at a time when our senior military 
leadership has already expressed concerns that our readiness could have 
a serious impact on our national security. For this reason, the 
Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
stated that they would support the increased benefits contained in this 
bill only if the additional money does not come out of other defense 
programs.
  For this reason, the Secretary of Defense wrote the Armed Services 
Committee last week to express strong concerns about the cost of this 
bill and how it would be paid for. Secretary Cohen wrote:

       S. 4 proposes even larger pay raises, higher cost-of-living 
     adjustments, and other items which are not in the budget I 
     submitted . . . 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, [he wrote] these 
     items will only displace other key elements of our program. 
     It could be counterproductive and completely contrary to our 
     mutual desire not to undercut our modernization effort and 
     other readiness priorities. For these reasons, it is 
     imperative to proceed within the regular authorization 
     process and after we have agreement on a budget topline.

  Secretary Cohen's letter went on to say the following:

       I appreciate the Committee's intent to address the 
     legitimate needs of servicemembers regarding pay and 
     retirement. However, I am concerned that S. 4 could have the 
     opposite effect by raising hopes that cannot be fulfilled 
     until the final budget number is set. Resolving these 
     questions within the normal authorization and budget 
     processes is by far the most desirable approach.

  Similarly, when Secretary Cohen and General Shelton testified before 
the Armed Services Committee on February 3, the Secretary stated that 
any further increases to military pay and benefits should be considered 
in conjunction with the defense authorization bill. This is what the 
Secretary said:

       [W]e do have to propose this as a package, because if we 
     raise expectations unrealistically and we cannot fulfill 
     them, we have done a disservice to our troops. Secondly, if 
     we are going to take it out of the readiness accounts and 
     procurement, we have also done a disservice. So the package 
     that we have put together we think makes sense and we hope 
     that any variation will be paid for, period.

  Now, the package that they put together is in this bill and is paid 
for. But the bill goes way beyond the package that is paid for and way 
beyond the package which the Defense Department and the administration 
sent to the Congress. The bottom line is that every Member of this body 
would like to support the improved pay and benefits in this bill. At 
least I believe so. But at some point we are going to have to consider 
the question of how to pay for these improvements.
  When this bill was brought to the floor, I noted that a number of 
points of order could be brought against it under the Budget Act, based 
on many provisions of the bill which would either exceed mandatory 
spending allocations or reduce revenues or increase the deficit. Since 
that time, we have added even more provisions which would violate the 
Budget Act, providing the basis for even more points of order.
  At this time I would like to make some parliamentary inquiries of the 
Presiding Officer. My first parliamentary inquiry is as follows:
  Is it correct that the bill that we are debating now, S. 4, is 
subject to a point of order under the Budget Act because the bill 
exceeds the Armed Services Committee's allocation for direct spending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. Is it correct, Mr. President, that S. 4 is subject to a 
point of order under the Budget Act because the bill reduces revenues 
by decreasing income tax revenues in fiscal year 2000?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. Is it correct, Mr. President, that S. 4 is subject to a 
budget point of order because it increases the deficit in the first 5 
years of the current budget resolution and in the 5 years that follow, 
and therefore violates the pay-as-you-go, or PAYGO rule, by increasing 
direct spending and reducing revenues without offsets?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. And is it correct that the amendment that we adopted 
yesterday repealing the reduction in military retired pay for civilian 
employees of the Federal Government was subject to a budget point of 
order because it increases the deficit and violates the pay-as-you-go 
rule by increasing spending without an offset?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. And is it correct, Mr. President, that the amendment that 
we adopted earlier today to allow members of the Reserve components to 
participate in the Thrift Savings Plan was subject to a budget point of 
order because it would decrease income tax revenues in fiscal year 
2000?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. And is it correct, Mr. President, that the amendment we 
adopted earlier today to extend the window of availability of GI bill 
benefits for the National Guard and Reserve was subject to a budget 
point of order because it would increase direct spending without 
providing offsets?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. And finally, Mr. President, is it accurate that all of 
these budget points of order, if made, could only be waived by a so-
called supermajority of the Senate; that is, by a vote of 60 Senators?

[[Page 3005]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair for the responses to those inquiries.
  The fact that this bill violates the Budget Act in so many different 
ways helps to demonstrate the stark fact that there could be serious 
consequences from taking up this bill as we have, outside of the normal 
legislative cycle. Now, Mr. President, I share the desire of, I hope, 
all of our colleagues to do what we can to provide fairer compensation 
to our men and women in uniform, and to address the serious recruiting 
and retention problems which are faced by the services. However, if the 
House acts on this measure and it is brought back to the Senate floor 
following a conference without paying for the benefits in this bill, 
many of the same points of order under the Budget Act would still 
apply. And so, if the Budget Committee members at that point fail to 
raise points of order which would be available to such a conference 
report if it comes back to the floor without being paid for, I would 
reserve the right at that time to raise those points of order.
  I think it is very important that before this bill comes back to 
either House in the form of a conference report, that any benefits in 
this bill be paid for. No matter how much we want to enact these 
important provisions into law, at some point we are going to have to 
pay for them. That time needs to come before final passage of any 
conference report on this bill. So I want to alert my good friend from 
Virginia that although the points of order were not raised here--the 
Budget Committee members determined, apparently, not to raise such 
points of order even though the Budget Act is, in the first instance at 
least, theirs to enforce--any of us can enforce it.
  Any member of the Budget Committee, I would think, would have a 
special responsibility to make sure that we comply with the Budget Act. 
Each one of us has our own reasons for not raising a point of order. 
Each one of us could do so at this time.
  I am willing to vote to permit this bill to take its next step 
without raising a point of order. However, if this bill is passed by 
the House, goes to conference, and comes back with benefits not being 
paid for, it would then be my intention at that time to consider 
raising points of order, and hopefully the Budget Committee would 
consider whether or not, in fact, the Budget Act maintenance doesn't 
require such points of order to be made before this bill actually is 
sent to the President.
  I thank the Chair for his rulings and for his cooperation in response 
to my question. Again, I thank my good friend from Virginia for all of 
his effort on this bill. Even though we do have some problems with 
having a bill with such a large amount of money in it that is not paid 
for, nonetheless, I, as one Senator and ranking member, am willing to 
have it proceed to the House with the caveat I have just shared with my 
colleagues.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my 
distinguished ranking member. I am going to take it to heart, and I am 
confident this bill can be worked, hopefully, to your satisfaction.
  Mr. President, I note the presence on the floor of the distinguished 
Senator from Florida who earlier addressed an amendment. I yield the 
floor for such purpose.
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                            Amendment No. 29

            (Purpose: To provide various revenue provisions)

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, earlier this afternoon I made some remarks 
consistent with those that have just been made by the Senator from 
Michigan concerning the fact that we were, as the first legislative 
action of the 106th Congress, about to pass a bill that was 
substantially unfunded, therefore creating not only the risk to the 
surplus, which today is a 100-percent Social Security surplus, but also 
establishing a dangerous precedent for future actions. Having so 
recently arrived at a balanced budget, we should not fritter that away 
the first opportunity that we have in this Congress.
  There are a number of ways we can pay for this. We can pay for it by 
an amendment that would take funding from some other sources of the 
Federal Government, reduce those in the amount equivalent to balance 
the expenditure in this proposal. There has been no such amendment 
offered.
  Another way is to raise taxes to a level sufficient to offset the 
additional spending. Mr. President, I indicated that it was my 
intention to offer such an amendment. I now send that amendment to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 29.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, 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:

       At the end add the following:

                           TITLE V--REVENUES

     SEC. 501. EXTENSION OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND TAXES.

       (a) Extension of Taxes.--
       (1) Environmental tax.--Section 59A(e) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(e) Application of Tax.--The tax imposed by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1986, and before January 1, 1996, and to taxable years 
     beginning after June 30, 1999.''
       (2) Excise taxes.--Section 4611(e) of such Code is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(e) Application of Hazardous Substance Superfund 
     Financing Rate.--The Hazardous Substance Superfund financing 
     rate under this section shall apply after December 31, 1986, 
     and before January 1, 1996, and after June 30, 1999.''
       (b) Effective Dates.--
       (1) Income tax.--The amendment made by subsection (a)(1) 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after June 30, 1999.
       (2) Excise tax.--The amendment made by subsection (a)(2) 
     shall take effect on July 1, 1999.

     SEC. 502. MODIFICATION TO FOREIGN TAX CREDIT CARRYBACK AND 
                   CARRYOVER PERIODS.

       (a) In General.--Section 904(c) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to limitation on credit) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``in the second preceding taxable year,'', 
     and
       (2) by striking ``or fifth'' and inserting ``fifth, sixth, 
     or seventh''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to credits arising in taxable years beginning 
     after December 31, 1998.

     SEC. 503. EXTENSION OF OIL SPILL LIABILITY TAXES.

       (a) In General.--Section 4611(f)(1) (relating to 
     application of oil spill liability trust fund financing rate) 
     is amended by striking ``after December 31, 1989, and before 
     January 1, 1995'' and inserting ``after the date of the 
     enactment of the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' 
     Bill of Rights Act of 1999 and before October 1, 2008''.
       (b) Increase in Unobligated Balance Which Ends Tax.--
     Section 4611(f)(2) (relating to no tax if unobligated balance 
     in fund exceeds $1,000,000,000) is amended by striking 
     ``$1,000,000,000'' each place it appears in the text and 
     heading thereof and inserting ``$5,000,000,000''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the reason for the delay is an attempt to 
get as close a verification as possible as to just what is the unfunded 
amount in this legislation.
  The best number available to us through the staffs of the majority 
and minority of the committee is $16.5 billion over the next 10 years. 
The amendment I am offering will raise $17.9 billion over that period. 
It consists of four items.
  The first is a reinstatement of the environmental tax imposed on 
corporate taxable income and deposited in the hazardous substance 
Superfund. This was a tax that was in effect up until 3 years ago, when 
it lapsed. There have been proposals to reestablish this tax as part of 
a Superfund reform bill.
  The controversy has been more on what the nature of that reform bill 
will be than the extension of the tax itself. So I am proposing that we 
extend this tax and, frankly, hope that before this Congress is over 
the committee upon which the Presiding Officer and the chairman of the 
Armed Services Committee sit will in fact produce a reformed Superfund 
bill.
  The second item is a reinstatement of the excise taxes which also 
lapsed

[[Page 3006]]

and which would, but for that, have been deposited in the hazardous 
substance Superfund bill. Both of those would be reinstated as of June 
30, 1999.
  The third item is a modification of the foreign tax credit carry-
over. This was the provision the Senate adopted last year in 
legislation that was offered by Senator Coverdell of Georgia. It did 
not become law.
  Under the current law, if a corporation has a tax credit based on 
payment of taxes in a third country, the company can get a 3-year 
carry-back--that is, can apply that foreign tax credit for 3 past 
corporate tax years--or can carry it forward for 5 years. This would 
adjust that by providing there would only be a 1-year carry-back but 
would give a 7-year carry-forward.
  The third is a reinstatement of the oil spill liability trust fund 
excise tax with an increase in the trust fund ceiling to $5 billion. 
This would be through September 30 of the year 2009.
  Those four measures, as I indicated, over the 10-year period from 
1999 through 2008, would raise a total of $17.979 billion and would 
fully cover the projected cost of this legislation.
  I urge the adoption of this amendment so that we can achieve the dual 
purpose of seeing that we provide the compensation for our service 
personnel while at the same time maintain the fiscal discipline which 
we are so proud and pleased has brought us to the first balanced budget 
in 30 years, an objective that we do not want to frivolously lose.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a table reflecting the estimated revenue effects of possible revenue 
offsets for this bill.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                ESTIMATED REVENUE EFFECTS OF POSSIBLE REVENUE OFFSETS FOR S. 4. THE ``SOLDIERS' BILL OF RIGHTS''
                                                                         [Fiscal years 1999-2008 in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Provision                                Effective                 1999     2000     2001     2002     2003     2004     2005     2006     2007     2008   1999-2003  1999-2008
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Reinstate environmental tax imposed on    tyba 6/30/99                              61      424      559      571      584      602      631      663      690      716      2,199      5,501
 corporate taxable income and deposited in
 the Hazardous Substance Superfund.
2. Reinstate excise taxes deposited in the   tyba 6/30/99                             173      703      709      716      721      724      731      739      749      754      3,022      6,718
 Hazardous Substance Superfund.
3. Modify foreign tax credit carryover.....  (\1\)                                     84      546      487      454      424      394      271      267      263      259      1,995      3,449
4. Reinstate Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund  DOE                                        9      247      249      252      254      255      257      260      263      265      1,011      2,311
 excise tax and increase trust fund ceiling
 to $5 billion (through 9/30/09).
                                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Net total............................  ...................................      327    1,920    2,004    1,993    1,983    1,975    1,890    1,929    1,965    1,994      8,227     17,979
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Effective for credits arising in taxable years beginning after 12/31/98.
 
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
 
Legend for ``Effective'' column: DOE=date of enactment, tyba=taxable years beginning after.
 
Source: Joint Committee on Taxation.

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment 
being offered by my friend from Florida. I appreciate my colleague's 
commitment to the fiscal responsibility that we have worked so hard to 
instill in Congress. This is only my second month serving in the United 
States Senate, but I certainly hope that the process we have followed 
in considering this legislation does not set a precedent for future 
debates. I am dis-

appointed that this bill and the amendments have not been considered in 
hearings before the Armed Services Committee. And I am disappointed 
that we are circumventing the appropriations process by considering 
this legislation now.
  Certainly I believe that the pay increase and other benefits for the 
men and women who are serving our country are warranted, but I think 
we're going about this all wrong. I spent four years in the House of 
Representatives where I made tough decisions to reign in our federal 
deficit because I believe that we ought to run our country like most 
people with common sense run their families. I thought--and still 
think--that we should not spend money that we do not have. Have we 
already forgotten the lessons that we learned when the debt soared past 
$4 trillion? Do we really want to take credit for helping our veterans 
and the people who continue to serve our country without making the 
tough, but responsible choices on how to pay for these programs?
  When I first came to Congress in 1992, our country faced a $300 
billion annual operating deficit. We have worked hard and made 
difficult decisions to balance the budget and today we are blessed with 
a surplus. If today's process is any indication of our future actions, 
we seem poised to squander away the surplus without taking the time to 
make responsible choices. If we were following the rules we wouldn't be 
in this situation. The PAYGO provision enacted in 1990 set the 
framework to discipline Congress when we wanted to spend money without 
deciding where to get it. And now it appears that we are going to 
violate that provision because we won't make tough choices.
  While I am very proud of the men and women who serve our country in 
the armed forces and while I am pleased to vote in favor of programs to 
support them adequately, I am disappointed in this body for failing to 
follow procedures we have set for ourselves.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I may add, I would like to ask for the 
yeas and nays on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York has been recognized.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise briefly to state my support for 
the amendment offered by my distinguished friend and fellow member of 
the Committee on Finance and simply to inform the Senate that the 
figures he gave amounting to $17.9 billion over a 10-year period have 
been formally provided to the Committee on Finance by the Joint 
Committee on Taxation. These are the final arbiters of our calculations 
in tax matters. So we are talking about real revenue which we can get 
simply by passing legislation, which we have already passed, and all of 
which has been proposed by the President's budget at one point or 
another.
  Characteristically, Senator Graham has had the good sense to advance 
an elemental but important proposition: this bill ought to be paid for. 
As Senator Graham argued a short while ago, it would be a shame if the 
first bill passed by the Senate in the 106th Congress were to commence 
a reversal of the fiscal discipline that produced the first Federal 
budget surplus in three decades.
  Perhaps memory is beginning to fail us. Thankfully, this Senator can 
still recall standing on this floor in 1993, during debate on the 
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of that year. It was not easy getting 
that great deficit reduction measure enacted, but it was the right 
thing to do. Its cumulative deficit reduction effect was some $1.2 
trillion over five years--twice what we expected when it was enacted.
  We did the right thing then, and the right thing to do today is what 
the Senator from Florida has proposed. The offsets in his amendment are 
straightforward and ought to be non-controversial. The first would 
extend Superfund taxes; the second would reduce the carryback period 
for the foreign tax credit (a measure that passed

[[Page 3007]]

the Senate in 1997 and again in 1998), and the third would reinstate 
the oil spill excise tax--which wants to be done in any event. All told 
these offsets total about $17 billion, enough to fully offset the costs 
of the bill.
  We grant that adoption of this amendment would create procedural 
difficulties, but surely these can be overcome on a piece of 
legislation that enjoys such broad support. In any event what is 
important here is the principle. I thank the Senator from Florida for 
pointing it out to us.
  I thank the Chair, my friend, and the managers for allowing this 
intervention.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, earlier today the distinguished chairman 
of the Finance Committee, of which my good friend and colleague from 
New York is the ranking member, came to the floor and asked that I 
interpose a motion to table on behalf of Chairman Roth. Therefore, Mr. 
President, I now move to table the amendment. Mr. President, I ask that 
the vote be stacked in accordance with, I hope, what will be a UC 
request which I will pose as soon as I can get some clearance from my 
colleagues.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me first thank the Senator from Florida 
for the determination which he has always shown to pay our bills, not 
to create additional burdens, debt burdens on our children and 
grandchildren, to protect the Social Security surplus, and to do what 
is right in terms of fiscal responsibility.
  His amendment is an important amendment. It would make this bill much 
sounder in terms of paying for the benefits that we have in this bill. 
I commend him for that vision and for his determination. I hope that 
his amendment is not tabled. But I just want to commend him for 
putting, in very specific amendment form, a way in which we can pay for 
these benefits now instead of just expressing the hope that they will 
be paid for later.
  If we follow that course, of course, the points of order which were 
referred to before would not be in order, which would be just fine with 
me. It also would guarantee that the benefits which we now say we want 
to provide to the men and women in service--in fact, are not 
guaranteed, but make it more likely to guarantee that those benefits 
would, in fact, flow down the road. And it is because of that 
additional assurance which would be given the men and women through the 
passage of that amendment that I strongly support the amendment of the 
Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, if the plan is to stack this and other 
amendments, could we have a period of 3 or 4 minutes prior to the vote 
on those stacked amendments to review them with our colleagues before 
they vote?
  Mr. WARNER. I advise my colleague that there is provision for that in 
the order which is before the Senate at the moment but not yet agreed 
to. It will be in there.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                     Amendment No. 23, As Modified

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send to the desk, on behalf of Senator 
Harkin, a modification to the amendment which he previously sent to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       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.
       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.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to propound a unanimous consent 
request. I ask unanimous consent that at the hour of 5:15 today there 
be 10 minutes of debate with respect to the Rockefeller-Specter 
amendment No. 26, with 5 minutes under the control of Senator 
Rockefeller, 5 minutes under the control of the Senator from Virginia. 
I further ask consent that following the debate, the Senate proceed to 
a vote on the motion to table the Rockefeller-Specter amendment, 
followed by a vote on or in relation to the Harkin amendment No. 23, to 
be followed by a vote on or in relation to the motion by the Senator 
from Virginia to table the Graham amendment No. 29. I further ask 
consent that there be 5 minutes for explanation between each vote, to 
be equally divided in the usual form. Finally, I ask consent that 
following the votes listed above, the Senate proceed to third reading, 
and final passage occur, all without any intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. 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. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                            Amendment No. 26

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, would the Chair address the Senate with 
regard to the order placed.

[[Page 3008]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now going to be 10 minutes of debate, 
equally divided, on amendment No. 26 by the Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I see my distinguished colleague who has 5 minutes to 
present his case.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I understand there are 5 minutes 
equally divided. I just came from the Medicare commission. What I would 
prefer to do, in that I am offering the amendment and I was not here 
when the chairman gave his comments about it, is to be able to respond 
to the 5 minutes and therefore be the closing speaker.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have under my control some time. But I 
say to my good friend and colleague that, acting on behalf of the 
chairman of the Finance Committee, who did address the Senate, I yield 
back my time. Does he want to take a few minutes and examine the Record 
as to what he said? I would hate to delay this vote.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. There is no reason to do that. Let me make a few 
comments and maybe the Senator can expedite the business of the Senate 
and we can go to the vote.
  I want to bring up one matter, Mr. President. The Senator from West 
Virginia wishes to bring up one matter which was, in fact, not 
discussed, but which is of some aggravation to me since it comes from 
the Congressional Budget Office, and it was addressed to me, but I 
never got it. I had to go to the Finance Committee staff to get it. In 
that, they sort of attacked the whole idea of what this was going to 
cost and all the rest of it. I want to respond to that.
  This is the cost estimate that Senator Roth was able to get from CBO 
just 1 hour ago. In fairly strong terms, I want to say that CBO ought 
to be embarrassed by their efforts, they ought to be ashamed, and I 
want to tell you why.
  First, my amendment is not based on a more costly House bill, as the 
CBO estimate claims.
  It is based on the DOD subvention bill that Congress enacted and that 
DOD beneficiaries are already enjoying. So it is already out there. It 
is also based on a subvention proposal which moved through the Finance 
Committee, moved through the Senate, and then was killed in conference 
by presumably the House, dropped in conference by the House.
  Second, the Congressional Budget Office claims that my amendment does 
not attempt to limit the erosion of what VA is paying now. That is not 
true. They cannot be allowed to get away with that. The VA currently 
carries a substantial burden for caring for medical-eligible veterans. 
There are substantial provisions in my amendment with Senator Specter, 
Senator Kennedy and others that they will continue to do so. Every 
possible safeguard is littered throughout our amendment--for example, 
to protect the Medicare trust fund; to be selected as a pilot site. 
That is what I am suggesting in this amendment--only a pilot program, 
not full scale; just a pilot.
  If the veterans who have Medicare took it to the VA system right now 
for health care, they would have to pay out of pocket because they 
can't get reimbursed under Medicare law. What I am trying to do is let 
them make the decision if they want to stay where they are or if they 
want to go to the VA hospital; let them make the decision. It is budget 
neutral.
  But to get back, to be selected as a pilot site--I am not talking 
about the whole program; just a pilot site.
  VA hospitals must receive certification that they have reliable cost-
accounting systems in place to ensure that the VA will know that their 
current level of effort to provide health care to Medicare-eligible 
veterans is good. HHS can come in and squash it.
  We also have exactly the same data-match requirement in my amendment 
that is in the DOD bill, which is in effect. Maybe the Congressional 
Budget Office didn't read this.
  Also, just as a final backup position, in case in some way I am 
wrong, we have specifically in this amendment that Medicare payments to 
the VA are capped at $50 million a year. Medicare spent $207 billion a 
year last year. It will spend $470 billion 10 years from now, if we 
don't do something in the commission, which I just had to leave. But 
they are wrong to suggest what they do. That has to go on the Record.
  I will simply conclude. I also say to the distinguished ranking 
member and the chairman that this has been through the process. This is 
a very, very good amendment, which everybody in my 15 years of 
experience in this body, all the Medicare commissions, all the VA 
commissions, all the future health commissions that are replete--that 
have looked at this problem have all suggested we do Medicare 
subvention to give the veterans the choice of where they want to take 
their health care. Since they are already getting paid Medicare anyway 
at a private hospital, if perchance they were to go to a veterans 
hospital, that would be fine, because it might be geographically or 
more collegially helpful. Medicare would be paying 5 percent less to 
that VA hospital than they would be to wherever they are going now.
  You tell me how we lose on that in the Medicare trust fund. We do 
nothing but win in terms of veterans. We have been discussing this for 
years. We discussed it in the past before the chairman of the committee 
corrected me on the year. He is quite right. I was quite wrong. But it 
was 2 years ago--not last year. DOD is doing this. I would simply ask 
that my colleagues vote against the amendment to table, because I think 
this is a truly significant amendment.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has 4 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WARNER. Thank you, Mr. President.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  First, I ask unanimous consent that John Bradley, a detailee to the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs be granted floor privileges for the 
duration of the Senate's consideration of S. 4.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I find myself in a very awkward position 
in that I am going to support that--not today but eventually if this 
motion of the Senator from Virginia prevails. Then the committee of 
jurisdiction, the Finance Committee, presumably will take up this 
subject, and hopefully enact legislation, if not identical to those of 
the Senator from West Virginia, certainly to achieve the same goals.
  What the Senator from Virginia is doing is very simple at this 
moment. That is, the Senate conducts business in a certain way. We 
respect the jurisdiction of our several committees. We respect the 
chairman of those committees to ask a fellow chairman such as myself to 
protect the jurisdiction of that committee and to allow the Finance 
Committee in this instance to do the legislation. That is the sole 
purpose of my motion to table, because someday the Senator from 
Virginia will cast a vote to achieve the goals that the Senator from 
West Virginia, I think, has very properly raised today as a matter of 
great need to our veterans.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield 
to me for a moment?
  Mr. WARNER. Indeed.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I understand what the distinguished 
chairman is saying. I would only counter that in the veterans committee 
we are rather accustomed to having our jurisdiction violated. And 
although, it has caused me to lose some sleep at night, I tend to make 
that a little less important as to what is happening to the veteran, in 
which case I think this is enormous consideration. I further point out 
that in this DOD bill already the VA and the veterans committee are 
already substantially compromised. I am not objecting to that, because 
there are substantial VA things in it. I think this is a powerfully 
important piece of legislation.
  I appreciate the Senator's forbearance.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for those comments, my

[[Page 3009]]

good friend and colleague. It is just that, indeed, Chairman Specter, 
and the Senator from West Virginia as ranking members have come over to 
address the issue. You made the decision. Chairman Roth, likewise, 
examined this amendment, came over, and took a different position as 
chairman. Therefore, out of respect to him and the way that we try to 
accord jurisdiction to the committees, I continue to adhere to the 
motion to table, and ask Senators to support that motion.
  I yield the time, and, Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on 
the motion to table.
  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 motion of 
the Senator from Virginia to lay on the table the amendment of the 
Senator from West Virginia. On this question, the yeas and nays have 
been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 0, nays 100, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 24 Leg.]

                               NAYS--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 motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 26) was rejected.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, may we have order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order. The Senate will 
please come to order.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 
yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 26) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 23, as modified

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is the understanding of the Senator 
from Virginia that we are now to have a vote on the Harkin amendment 
No. 23, and there is 5 minutes reserved for the proponent and opponent, 
equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is correct. There is 
5 minutes for debate, equally divided. The Senate is not in order, so I 
ask the Senator from Iowa to please withhold until the Senate comes to 
order.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, in the bill there is an important provision that 
allows for $180 to be given to help the enlisted personnel who are on 
food stamps. We have people in uniform today who are eligible for food 
stamps. There is a $180 special allowance for military personnel in the 
bill, if they are eligible for food stamps.
  All my amendment does is the following. I allows military personnel 
stationed overseas to receive the same $180 special allowance as those 
living in the United States. The bill only gives the allowance to 
people stationed here in the United States. It also streamlines the 
application process. Right now, if a soldier is eligible for food 
stamps, they have to go to the food stamp office and get a 
certification, come back to the military personnel office and then go 
back to the food stamp office. My amendment allows for a one-step 
process. With my amendment, all they have to do is go to the military 
to get certified.
  Secondly, my amendment allows service people living off base to have 
the same $180 special allowance eligibility as those living on base, in 
other words, it disregards the housing allowance when determining 
eligibility.
  Next, it allows eligible military families to receive the WIC Program 
if they are overseas. Right now they can get the WIC Program only if 
they are stationed in the United States.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, could we have order in the Chamber.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). Order in the Chamber.
  The Senator from Iowa may proceed.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I heard some people say I am harming the 
WIC Program. I disagree. You tell me how fair it is for young soldiers 
here under the current rules. Military families living in the United 
States are eligible for WIC, and their wives are pregnant, they have 
kids, and they are getting the WIC Program, and all of a sudden they 
are sent overseas. Once they get overseas, they are no longer eligible 
for the WIC Program. Is that fair? They still have the same needs. All 
my amendment says is if they are eligible for the WIC Program here in 
America, they are eligible if they are shipped overseas. The DOD 
estimates maybe $10 or $20 million more per year in costs.
  So that is all my amendment does, these modest but important 
improvements to the underlying bill. It says that if you are a member 
of the armed forces eligible for a $180 special allowance while 
stationed in America, you are eligible overseas. That is all it says. 
If you are eligible for WIC here, you are eligible overseas. It also 
makes the process streamlined so you do not have to go down to the food 
stamp office, back to the military, and back to the food stamp office 
just to qualify for the special allowance. And it treats military 
housing allowances, as far as eligibility, in a more fair manner. Under 
the current bill, if you are living on the base you would be eligible 
for the special subsistence allowance, but if you live off base you may 
not be eligible because you have the housing allowance. But you use 
that all up for rent, anyway. This is simply not fair.
  I think this amendment, again, is one that tries to help people in 
the military in a fair way. I think it is embarrassing that we have 
people in the military who have to get food stamps. What this amendment 
does is end that once and for all, for all military personnel, who 
should be eligible for some special benefits.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator from Virginia intends to 
support the amendment. If there is any Senator desiring to use the time 
that I have remaining, which is 2 minutes, I would be happy to yield to 
that Senator.
  Hearing no Senator, I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The question is on the amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. LEVIN. He does not need a rollcall.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, may I inquire of the proponents? Do you 
desire a rollcall or not? You told me earlier you did.
  Mr. HARKIN. No.
  Mr. WARNER. Voice vote. Mr. President, proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment, 
as modified.
  The amendment (No. 23), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.

[[Page 3010]]


  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, may we have order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will please be in order.


                            Amendment No. 29

  Mr. WARNER. The next vote is on or in relation to the Graham 
amendment, Mr. President. I do ask for the yeas and nays on this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator requesting yeas and nays on the 
motion to table?
  Mr. WARNER. That is correct, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second on this motion?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that this be a 10-minute vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield my time to the distinguished 
chairman of the Finance Committee, Mr. Roth.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized for 
2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I reluctantly rise to oppose the amendment 
offered by Senator Graham. I say reluctantly because I strongly agree 
with the premise that it is important to pay for this important bill, 
the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 
1999.
  However, Senator Graham's amendment is not the way to do it. This is 
an authorization bill. It is not a tax bill. And if we adopt Senator 
Graham's amendment, we turn the bill into a revenue bill. Neither 
Senator Graham's amendment nor any other potential amendments will have 
come through the Finance Committee, which is the appropriate committee 
to review all tax legislation in the Senate.
  But most importantly, adoption of the amendment would subject the 
entire bill to a blue slip from the House of Representatives, 
effectively dooming the important policies embodied in S. 4. So I say 
to those of you who support this important piece of legislation--and I 
do--I think it is important that we kill this amendment; otherwise, as 
I say, it becomes a tax bill and will be blue-slipped on the House 
side.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WARNER. I yield such time as I have remaining to the 
distinguished Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has 45 seconds.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I assume that there is going to be a vote 
on this amendment. Having listened to the Senator from Delaware, and 
recognizing that the Constitution says all revenue bills shall 
originate in the House, I make a constitutional point of order against 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order will have to wait until the 
Senator from Florida has used or yielded back all of his time.
  Mr. GRAMM. All right. Fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At which time the said point of order can be 
made.
  Mr. GRAMM. OK.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized for 2 
minutes 30 seconds.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, we are about to take our first legislative 
action of the 106th Congress. Many of us who ran for election or 
reelection last November said that one of our greatest sources of pride 
was that after 30 years of deficits and a Federal debt which had 
reached close to $6 trillion, that we had finally exercised the fiscal 
discipline to achieve a balanced Federal budget.
  What are we about to do with the first vote of this 106th Congress? 
We are about to pass a bill which will have an unfunded liability of 
$16.5 billion. That is $16.5 billion not subject to appropriations. 
That is $16.5 billion of direct authorized spending in this legislation 
plus revenue reductions that are incident to this legislation.
  Mr. President, that is not the message that we want to send to the 
American people--that we are going to add a further indebtedness to the 
Federal Government, that we are going to start down the slippery slope 
to more deficits and more additions to our national debt.
  We do not want to tell our service men and women that we have given 
them these benefits, which we need to do, but that we were unwilling to 
pay for them, so that for every dollar we give them, 34 cents is 
unfunded. That is not fair either to the taxpayers or to the service 
men and women who we are trying to convince that we are going to 
substantially improve their service conditions so that they will join 
up and stay and serve the Nation.
  Mr. President, what I have proposed is a simple proposition. If we 
are going to make this offer to our service personnel, let's pay for 
it. I have proposed a payment of four items. Three are tax measures 
which have been passed by this Congress and which have lapsed. This 
would renew those measures. Two of them relate to the Superfund 
Program, one of them to the oilspill liability, the fourth is a measure 
which was included in a bill that Senator Coverdell brought to us last 
year, which passed the Senate, which makes a change in the carry-over 
provision for foreign tax credit.
  Those four items together will raise the funds necessary to convert 
this blank check into a fully funded check, be responsible to the 
American taxpayers, to the service men and women and, particularly, be 
responsible to the American people who are looking to us to see if we 
can maintain the fiscal discipline that we so recently acquired. This 
is a test of this Congress.
  Mr. WARNER. I yield to the Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, the amendment before us contains several 
major changes to the Tax Code, changes that affect the competitiveness 
of America in the world market, changes that represent fundamental 
modifications to the Tax Code.
  I realize that we have taken a holiday from reality here in spending 
billions and billions of dollars, but to come to the floor of the 
Senate in violation of the Constitution and to start rewriting the Tax 
Code when the Constitution says that tax bills shall originate in the 
House is taking this whole process too far.


                     Constitutional Point of Order

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I make a constitutional point of order 
against this amendment in that it violates the Constitution, and I ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the Senate's precedents, a 
constitutional point of order must be submitted to the Senate. The 
question is, Is the point of order well taken?
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 80, nays 20, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 25 Leg.]

                                YEAS--80

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reid
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--20

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Bryan
     Daschle
     Feingold
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl

[[Page 3011]]


     Levin
     Lincoln
     Moynihan
     Reed
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 80, the nays are 
20. The constitutional point of order is well-taken; therefore, the 
amendment falls.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his inquiry.
  Mr. GRAHAM. The specific nature of a constitutional point of order 
was that the amendment that I had offered would have effected taxation 
and therefore required that this measure be originated in the House of 
Representatives, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senator from Texas care to clarify 
his point of order?
  Mr. GRAMM. The point of order was a constitutional point of order 
made under the provisions of article I, which require that revenue 
bills originate in the House. The Senator's amendment changed three 
provisions of the Tax Code and therefore violated the Constitution. As 
the Chair ruled, under precedent, the Chair does not rule as to whether 
order stands. Therefore, we voted 80-20 to sustain that point of order.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, further inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Would that indicate that if there were in the underlying 
bill that is now before the Senate also measures which effected 
revenues that the bill would similarly be subject to a constitutional 
point of order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is just against the 
amendment and not against the entire bill. That is why the amendment 
fails. It doesn't apply to the rest of the bill. The order was raised 
against the amendment.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the question I asked was, would a 
constitutional point of order be available against the bill because of 
provisions which effected revenue?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to be heard on that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I addressed that question to the chairman 
of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth. He assured me that it did not 
have any provision in there that would be subject to that question.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
  Mr. GRAHAM. The letter from the Congressional Budget Office, 
submitted to Chairman Warner on February 12, 1999, on page 9, indicates 
that there has been an effect in the change of receipts as a result of 
provisions which are in the underlying bill. The question is, would 
that make the underlying bill subject to the same constitutional point 
of order as effecting revenue?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I am advised by the Parliamentarian that, 
under the previous order, we are at the point of third reading and 
passage of the bill without intervening action at this point in time, 
which would bar a point of order being raised at this point in time.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Point of order, Mr. President. There was also, I believe, 
no provision in the unanimous-consent agreement we accepted that would 
have sanctioned the constitutional point of order against the 
amendment.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, 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. WARNER. 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. WARNER. Mr. President, the question has been placed to the Chair, 
and I understand the Chair is ready to rule.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. Under the previous agreement that was in 
existence, the point of order was allowed for and was not barred 
against the amendments. The previous order provided that there would 
not be intervening action between the vote on the final amendment and 
final passage. Therefore, the point of order at this point in time will 
not be allowed, and it was in order for the prior time during the 
amendment.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. Would a 
motion asking unanimous consent that a constitutional point of order be 
available be in order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator wishes to ask unanimous consent 
for such a point of order, it would be in order.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to raise a constitutional point of order.
  Mr. WARNER. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. GRAMM. Regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on passage of the bill, as 
amended.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  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 passage of the bill, as 
amended. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The Clerk will call the 
roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
York (Mr. Moynihan) would vote ``aye.''
  The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 8, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 26 Leg.]

                                YEAS--91

     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
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--8

     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Graham
     Gregg
     Lieberman
     Nickles
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Moynihan
       
  The bill (S. 4), as amended, was passed, as follows:

                                  S. 4

       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 ``Soldiers', Sailors', 
     Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999''.

                      TITLE I--PAY AND ALLOWANCES

     SEC. 101. FISCAL YEAR 2000 INCREASE AND RESTRUCTURING OF 
                   BASIC PAY.

       (a) Waiver of Section 1009 Adjustment.--Any adjustment 
     required by section 1009 of title 37, United States Code, in 
     the rates of monthly basic pay authorized members of the 
     uniformed services by section 203(a) of such title to become 
     effective during fiscal year 2000 shall not be made.
       (b) January 1, 2000, Increase in Basic Pay.--Effective on 
     January 1, 2000, the rates

[[Page 3012]]

     of monthly basic pay for members of the uniformed services 
     shall be increased by 4.8 percent.
       (c) Basic Pay Reform.--Effective on July 1, 2000, the rates 
     of monthly basic pay for members of the uniformed services 
     within each pay grade are as follows:

                        COMMISSIONED OFFICERS \1\
 Years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States
                                  Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pay Grade     2 or less    Over 2     Over 3     Over 4     Over 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O-10 \2\........      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00       $0.00
O-9.............       0.00       0.00       0.00       0.00        0.00
O-8.............   6,594.30   6,810.30   6,953.10   6,993.30    7,171.80
O-7.............   5,479.50   5,851.80   5,851.50   5,894.40    6,114.60
O-6.............   4,061.10   4,461.60   4,754.40   4,754.40    4,772.40
O-5.............   3,248.40   3,813.90   4,077.90   4,127.70    4,291.80
O-4.............   2,737.80   3,333.90   3,556.20   3,606.04    3,812.40
O-3 \3\.........   2,544.00   2,884.20   3,112.80   3,364.80    3,525.90
O-2 \3\.........   2,218.80   2,527.20   2,910.90   3,000.00    3,071.10
O-1 \3\.........   1,926.30   2,004.90   2,423.10   2,423.10    2,423.10
                 -------------------------------------------------------
                    Over 8    Over 10    Over 12    Over 14     Over 16
                 -------------------------------------------------------
O-10 \2\........      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00       $0.00
O-9.............       0.00       0.00       0.00       0.00        0.00
O-8.............   7,471.50   7,540.80   7,824.60   7,906.20    8,150.10
O-7.............   6,282.00   6,475.80   6,669.00   6,863.10    7,471.50
O-6.............   4,976.70   5,004.00   5,004.00   5,169.30    5,791.20
O-5.............   4,291.80   4,420.80   4,659.30   4,971.90    5,286.00
O-4.............   3,980.40   4,251.50   4,464.00   4,611.00    4,758.90
O-3 \3\.........   3,702.60   3,850.20   4,040.40   4,139.10    4,139.10
O-2 \3\.........   3,071.10   3,071.10   3,071.10   3,071.10    3,071.10
O-1 \3\.........   2,423.10   2,423.10   2,423.10   2,423.10    2,423.10
                 -------------------------------------------------------
                   Over 18    Over 20    Over 22    Over 24     Over 26
                 -------------------------------------------------------
O-10 \2\........      $0.00  $10,655.1  $10,707.6  $10,930.2  $11,318.40
                                     0          0          0
O-9.............       0.00   9,319.50   9,453.60   9,647.70    9,986.40
O-8.............   8,503.80   8,830.20   9,048.00   9,048.00    9,048.00
O-7.............   7,985.40   7,985.40   7,985.40   7,985.40    8,025.60
O-6.............   6,086.10   6,381.30   6,549.00   6,719.10    7,049.10
O-5.............   5,436.00   5,583.60   5,751.90   5,751.90    5,751.90
O-4.............   4,808.70   4,808.70   4,808.70   4,808.70    4,808.70
O-3 \3\.........   4,139.10   4,139.10   4,139.10   4,139.10    4,139.10
O-2 \3\.........   3,071.10   3,071.10   3,071.10   3,071.10    3,071.10
O-1 \3\.........   2,423.10   2,423.10   2,423.10   2,423.10   2,423.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Basic pay for these officers is limited to the rate of basic pay for
  level V of the Executive Schedule.
\2\ While serving as Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
  Staff, Chief of Staff of the Army, Chief of Naval Operations, Chief of
  Staff of the Air Force, Commandant of the Marine Corps, or Commandant
  of the Coast Guard, basic pay for this grade is calculated to be
  $12,441.00, regardless of cumulative years of service computed under
  section 205 of title 37, United States Code. Nevertheless, basic pay
  for these officers is limited to the rate of basic pay for level V of
  the Executive Schedule.
\3\ Does not apply to commissioned officers who have been credited with
  over 4 years of active duty service as an enlisted member or warrant
  officer.


  COMMISSIONED OFFICERS WITH OVER 4 YEARS OF ACTIVE DUTY SERVICE AS AN
                   ENLISTED MEMBER OR WARRANT OFFICER
 Years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States
                                  Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pay Grade     2 or less    Over 2     Over 3     Over 4     Over 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O-3E............      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00  $3,364.80   $3,525.90
O-2E............       0.00       0.00       0.00   3,009.00    3,071.10
O-1E............       0.00       0.00       0.00   2,423.10    2,588.40
                 -------------------------------------------------------
                    Over 8    Over 10    Over 12    Over 14     Over 16
                 -------------------------------------------------------
O-3E............  $3,702.60  $3,850.20  $4,040.40  $4,200.30   $4,291.80
O-2E............   3,168.60   3,333.90   3,461.40   3,556.20    3,556.20
O-1E............   2,683.80   2,781.30   2,877.60   3,009.00    3,009.00
                 -------------------------------------------------------
                   Over 18    Over 20    Over 22    Over 24     Over 26
                 -------------------------------------------------------
O-3E............  $4,416.90  $4,416.90  $4,416.90  $4,416.90   $4,416.90
O-2E............   3,556.20   3,556.20   3,556.20   3,556.20    3,556.20
O-1E............   3,009.00   3,009.00   3,009.00   3,009.00    3,009.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------



                            WARRANT OFFICERS
 Years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States
                                  Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pay Grade     2 or less    Over 2     Over 3     Over 4     Over 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
W-5.............      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00       $0.00
W-4.............   2,592.00   2,788.50   2,868.60   2,947.50    3,083.40
W-3.............   2,355.90   2,555.40   2,555.40   2,588.40    2,694.30
W-2.............   2,063.40   2,232.60   2,232.60   2,305.80    2,423.10
W-1.............   1,719.00   1,971.00   1,971.00   2,135.70    2,232.60
                 -------------------------------------------------------
                    Over 8    Over 10    Over 12    Over 14     Over 16
                 -------------------------------------------------------
W-5.............      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00       $0.00
W-4.............   3,217.20   3,352.80   3,485.10   3,622.20    3,753.60
W-3.............   2,814.90   2,974.20   3,071.10   3,177.00    3,298.20
W-2.............   2,555.40   2,852.60   2,749.80   2,844.30    2,949.00
W-1.............   2,332.80   2,433.30   2,533.20   2,634.00    2,734.80
                 -------------------------------------------------------
                   Over 18    Over 20    Over 22    Over 24     Over 26
                 -------------------------------------------------------
W-5.............      $0.00  $4,475.10  $4,628.70  $4,782.90   $4,937.40
W-4.............   3,888.00   4,019.00   4,155.60   4,289.70    4,427.10
W-3.............   3,418.50   3,539.10   3,659.40   3,780.00    3,900.90

[[Page 3013]]

 
W-2.............   3,058.40   3,163.80   3,270.90   3,378.30    3,378.30
W-1.............   2,835.00   2,910.90   2,910.90   2,910.90    2,910.90
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                            ENLISTED MEMBERS
 Years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States
                                  Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pay Grade     2 or less    Over 2     Over 3     Over 4     Over 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-9 \4\.........      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00       $0.00
E-8.............       0.00       0.00       0.00       0.00        0.00
E-7.............   1,765.80   1,927.80   2,001.00   2,073.00    2,147.70
E-6.............   1,518.90   1,678.20   1,752.60   1,824.30    1,899.30
E-5.............   1,332.60   1,494.00   1,566.00   1,640.40    1,714.50
E-4.............   1,242.90   1,373.10   1,447.20   1,520.10    1,593.90
E-3.............   1,171.50   1,260.60   1,334.10   1,335.90    1,335.90
E-2.............   1,127.40   1,127.40   1,127.40   1,127.40    1,127.40
E-1.............  \5\ 1,005   1,005.60   1,005.60   1,005.60    1,005.60
                        .60
                 -------------------------------------------------------
                    Over 8    Over 10    Over 12    Over 14     Over 16
                 -------------------------------------------------------
E-9 \4\.........      $0.00  $3,015.30  $3,083.40  $3,169.80   $3,271.50
E-8.............   2,528.40   2,601.60   2,669.70   2,751.60    2,840.10
E-7.............   2,220.90   2,294.10   2,367.30   2,439.30    2,514.00
E-6.............   1,973.10   2,047.20   2,118.60   2,191.50    2,244.60
E-5.............   1,789.50   1,861.50   1,936.20   1,936.20    1,936.20
E-4.............   1,593.90   1,593.90   1,593.90   1,593.90    1,593.90
E-3.............   1,335.90   1,335.90   1,335.90   1,335.90    1,335.90
E-2.............   1,127.40   1,127.40   1,127.40   1,127.40    1,127.40
E-1.............   1,005.60   1,005.60   1,005.60   1,005.60    1,005.60
                 -------------------------------------------------------
                   Over 18    Over 20    Over 22    Over 24     Over 26
                 -------------------------------------------------------
E-9 \4\.........  $3,373.20  $3,473.40  $3,609.30  $3,744.00   $3,915.80
E-8.............   2,932.50   3,026.10   3,161.10   3,295.50    3,483.60
E-7.............   2,588.10   2,660.40   2,787.60   2,926.20    3,134.40
E-6.............   2,283.30   2,283.30   2,285.70   2,285.70    2,285.70
E-5.............   1,936.20   1,936.20   1,936.20   1,936.20    1,936.20
E-4.............   1,593.90   1,593.90   1,593.90   1,593.90    1,593.90
E-3.............   1,335.90   1,335.90   1,335.90   1,335.90    1,335.90
E-2.............   1,127.40   1,127.40   1,127.40   1,123.20    1,127.40
E-1.............   1,005.60   1,005.60   1,005.60   1,005.60   1,005.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ While serving as Sergeant Major of the Army, Master Chief Petty
  Officer of the Navy, Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force, Sergeant
  Major of the Marine Corps, or Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast
  Guard, basic pay for this grade is $4,701.00, regardless of cumulative
  years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States
  Code.
\5\ In the case of members in the grade E-1 who have served less than 4
  months on active duty, basic pay is $930.30.

     SEC. 102. PAY INCREASES FOR FISCAL YEARS AFTER FISCAL YEAR 
                   2000.

       (a) ECI+0.5 Percent Increase for All Members.--Section 
     1009(c) of title 37, United States Code, is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(c) ECI+0.5 Percent Increase for All Members.--Subject to 
     subsection (d), an adjustment taking effect under this 
     section during a fiscal year shall provide all eligible 
     members with an increase in the monthly basic pay by the 
     percentage equal to the sum of one percent plus the 
     percentage calculated as provided under section 5303(a) of 
     title 5 (without regard to whether rates of pay under the 
     statutory pay systems are actually increased during such 
     fiscal year under that section by the percentage so 
     calculated).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2000.

     SEC. 103. SPECIAL SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE.

       (a) Allowance.--(1) Chapter 7 of title 37, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 402 the following 
     new section:

     ``Sec. 402a. Special subsistence allowance

       ``(a) Entitlement.--Upon the application of an eligible 
     member of a uniformed service described in subsection (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.
       ``(c) Termination of Entitlement.--The entitlement of a 
     member to receive payment of a special subsistence allowance 
     terminates upon the occurrence of any of the following 
     events:
       ``(1) Termination of eligibility for food stamp assistance.
       ``(2) Payment of the special subsistence allowance for 12 
     consecutive months.
       ``(3) Promotion of the member to a higher grade.
       ``(4) Transfer of the member in a permanent change of 
     station.
       ``(d) Reestablished Entitlement.--(1) After a termination 
     of a member's entitlement to the special subsistence 
     allowance under subsection (c), the Secretary concerned shall 
     resume payment of the special subsistence allowance to the 
     member if the Secretary determines, upon further application 
     of the member, that the member is eligible to receive food 
     stamps.
       ``(2) Payments resumed under this subsection shall 
     terminate under subsection (c) upon the occurrence of an 
     event described in that subsection after the resumption of 
     the payments.
       ``(3) The number of times that payments are resumed under 
     this subsection is unlimited.
       ``(e) Documentation of Eligibility.--A member of the 
     uniformed services applying for the special subsistence 
     allowance under this section shall furnish the Secretary 
     concerned with such evidence of the member's eligibility for 
     food stamp assistance as the Secretary may require in 
     connection with the application.
       ``(f) Amount of Allowance.--The monthly amount of the 
     special subsistence allowance under this section is $180.
       ``(g) Relationship to Basic Allowance for Subsistence.--The 
     special subsistence allowance under this section is in 
     addition to the basic allowance for subsistence under section 
     402 of this title.
       ``(h) Food Stamp Assistance Defined.--In this section, the 
     term `food stamp assistance' means assistance under the Food 
     Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.).
       ``(i) Termination of Authority.--No special subsistence 
     allowance may be made under this section for any month 
     beginning after September 30, 2004.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
     402 the following:

``402a. Special subsistence allowance.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--Section 402a of title 37, United 
     States Code, shall take effect on the first day of the first 
     month that begins not less than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Annual Report.--(1) Not later than March 1 of each year 
     after 1999, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress 
     a report setting forth the number of members of the uniformed 
     services who are eligible for

[[Page 3014]]

     assistance under the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et 
     seq.).
       (2) In preparing the report, the Secretary shall consult 
     with the Secretary of Transportation (with respect to the 
     Coast Guard), who shall provide the Secretary of Defense with 
     any information that the Secretary determines necessary to 
     prepare the report.
       (3) No report is required under this section after March 1, 
     2004.

     SEC. 104. INCREASED TUITION ASSISTANCE FOR MEMBERS OF THE 
                   ARMED FORCES DEPLOYED IN SUPPORT OF A 
                   CONTINGENCY OPERATION OR SIMILAR OPERATION.

       (a) Inapplicability of Limitation on Amount.--Section 
     2007(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) in the case of a member deployed outside the United 
     States in support of a contingency operation or similar 
     operation, all of the charges may be paid while the member is 
     so deployed.''.
       (b) Increased Authority Subject to Appropriations.--The 
     authority to pay additional tuition assistance under 
     paragraph (4) of section 2007(a) of title 10, United States 
     Code, as added by subsection (a), may be exercised only to 
     the extent provided for in appropriations Acts.

     SEC. 105. INCREASE IN RATE OF DIVING DUTY SPECIAL PAY.

       (a) Increase.--Section 304(b) of title 37, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$200'' and inserting ``$240''; and
       (2) by striking ``$300'' and inserting ``$340''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 1999, and shall apply with 
     respect to special pay paid under section 304 of title 37, 
     United States Code, for months beginning on or after that 
     date.

     SEC. 106. INCREASE IN MAXIMUM AMOUNT AUTHORIZED FOR 
                   REENLISTMENT BONUS FOR ACTIVE MEMBERS.

       (a) Increase in Maximum Amount.--Section 308(a)(2)(B) of 
     title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``$45,000'' and inserting ``$60,000''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 1999, and shall apply with 
     respect to reenlistments and extensions of enlistments taking 
     effect on or after that date.

     SEC. 107. INCREASE IN ENLISTMENT BONUS FOR MEMBERS WITH 
                   CRITICAL SKILLS.

       (a) Increase.--Section 308a(a) of title 37, United States 
     Code, is amended in the first sentence by striking 
     ``$12,000'' and inserting ``$20,000''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 1999, and shall apply with 
     respect enlistments and extensions of enlistments taking 
     effect on or after that date.

     SEC. 108. INCREASE IN SPECIAL PAY AND BONUSES FOR NUCLEAR-
                   QUALIFIED OFFICERS.

       (a) Special Pay for Nuclear-Qualified Officers Extending 
     Period of Active Service.--Section 312(a) of title 37, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``$15,000'' and inserting 
     ``$25,000''.
       (b) Nuclear Career Accession Bonus.--Section 312b(a)(1) of 
     title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``$10,000'' and inserting ``$20,000''.
       (c) Nuclear Career Annual Incentive Bonuses.--Section 312c 
     of title 37, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``$12,000'' and 
     inserting ``$22,000''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``$5,500'' and 
     inserting ``$10,000''.
       (d) Effective Date.--(1) The amendments made by this 
     section shall take effect on October 1, 1999.
       (2) The amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) shall 
     apply with respect to agreements accepted under section 
     312(a) and 312b(a), respectively, of title 37, United States 
     Code, on or after October 1, 1999.
       (3) The amendments made by subsection (c) shall apply with 
     respect to nuclear service years beginning on or after 
     October 1, 1999.

     SEC. 109. INCREASE IN MAXIMUM MONTHLY RATE AUTHORIZED FOR 
                   FOREIGN LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY PAY.

       (a) Increase in Maximum Monthly Rate.--Section 316(b) of 
     title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking ``$100'' 
     and inserting ``$300''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 1999, and shall apply with 
     respect to foreign language proficiency pay paid under 
     section 316 of title 37, United States Code, for months 
     beginning on or after that date.

     SEC. 110. CAREER ENLISTED FLYER INCENTIVE PAY.

       (a) Incentive Pay Authorized.--(1) Chapter 5 of title 37, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 
     301e the following new section 301f:

     ``Sec. 301f. Incentive pay: career enlisted flyers

       ``(a) Pay Authorized.--An enlisted member described in 
     subsection (b) may be paid career enlisted flyer incentive 
     pay as provided in this section.
       ``(b) Eligible Members.--An enlisted member referred to in 
     subsection (a) is an enlisted member of the armed forces 
     who--
       ``(1) is entitled to basic pay under section 204 of this 
     title or is entitled to compensation under paragraph (1) or 
     (2) of section 206(a) of this title;
       ``(2) holds a military occupational specialty or military 
     rating designated as a career enlisted flyer specialty or 
     rating by the Secretary concerned in regulations prescribed 
     under subsection (f) and continues to be proficient in the 
     skills required for that specialty or rating, or is in 
     training leading to the award of such a specialty or rating; 
     and
       ``(3) is qualified for aviation service.
       ``(c) Monthly Payment.--(1) Career enlisted flyer incentive 
     pay may be paid a member referred to in subsection (b) for 
     each month in which the member performs aviation service that 
     involves frequent and regular performance of operational 
     flying duty by the member.
       ``(2)(A) Career enlisted flyer incentive pay may be paid a 
     member referred to in subsection (b) for each month in which 
     the member performs service, without regard to whether or the 
     extent to which the member performs operational flying duty 
     during the month, as follows:
       ``(i) In the case of a member who has performed at least 6, 
     and not more than 15, years of aviation service, the member 
     may be so paid after the member has frequently and regularly 
     performed operational flying duty in each of 72 months if the 
     member so performed in at least that number of months before 
     completing the member's first 10 years of performance of 
     aviation service.
       ``(ii) In the case of a member who has performed more than 
     15, and not more than 20, years of aviation service, the 
     member may be so paid after the member has frequently and 
     regularly performed operational flying duty in each of 108 
     months if the member so performed in at least that number of 
     months before completing the member's first 15 years of 
     performance of aviation service.
       ``(iii) In the case of a member who has performed more than 
     20, and not more than 25, years of aviation service, the 
     member may be so paid after the member has frequently and 
     regularly performed operational flying duty in each of 168 
     months if the member so performed in at least that number of 
     months before completing the member's first 20 years of 
     performance of aviation service.
       ``(B) The Secretary concerned, or a designee of the 
     Secretary concerned not below the level of personnel chief of 
     the armed force concerned, may reduce the minimum number of 
     months of frequent and regular performance of operational 
     flying duty applicable in the case of a particular member 
     under--
       ``(i) subparagraph (A)(i) to 60 months;
       ``(ii) subparagraph (A)(ii) to 96 months; or
       ``(iii) subparagraph (A)(iii) to 144 months.
       ``(C) A member may not be paid career enlisted flyer 
     incentive pay in the manner provided under subparagraph (A) 
     after the member has completed 25 years of aviation service.
       ``(d) Monthly Rates.--(1) The monthly rate of any career 
     enlisted flyer incentive pay paid under this section to a 
     member on active duty shall be prescribed by the Secretary 
     concerned, but may not exceed the following:

``Years of aviation service                                Monthly rate
  4 or less...................................................$150 ....

  Over 4......................................................$225 ....

  Over 8......................................................$350 ....

  Over 14.....................................................$400.....

       ``(2) The monthly rate of any career enlisted flyer 
     incentive pay paid under this section to a member of a 
     reserve component for each period of inactive-duty training 
     during which aviation service is performed shall be equal to 
     \1/30\ of the monthly rate of career enlisted flyer incentive 
     pay provided under paragraph (1) for a member on active duty 
     with the same number of years of aviation service.
       ``(e) Nonapplicability to Members Receiving Hazardous Duty 
     Incentive Pay or Special Pay for Diving Duty.--A member 
     receiving incentive pay under section 301(a) of this title or 
     special pay under section 304 of this title may not be paid 
     special pay under this section for the same period of 
     service.
       ``(f) Regulations.--The Secretary concerned shall prescribe 
     regulations for the administration of this section. The 
     regulations shall include the following:
       ``(1) Definitions of the terms `aviation service' and 
     `frequently and regularly performed operational flying duty' 
     for purposes of this section.
       ``(2) The military occupational specialties or military 
     rating, as the case may be, that are designated as career 
     enlisted flyer specialties or ratings, respectively, for 
     purposes of this section.
       ``(g) Definition.--In this section, the term `operational 
     flying duty' means--
       ``(1) flying performed under competent orders while serving 
     in assignments in which basic flying skills normally are 
     maintained in the performance of assigned duties as 
     determined by the Secretary concerned; and
       ``(2) flying performed by members in training that leads to 
     the award of a military occupational specialty or rating 
     referred to in subsection (b)(2).''.

[[Page 3015]]

       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 5 of 
     title 37, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
     the item relating to section 301e the following new item:

``301f. Incentive pay; career enlisted flyers.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 1999.
       (c) Save Pay Provision.--In the case of an enlisted member 
     of a uniformed service who is a designated career enlisted 
     flyer entitled to receive hazardous duty incentive pay under 
     section 301(b) or 301(c)(2)(A) of title 37, United States 
     Code, as of October 1, 1999, the member shall be entitled 
     from that date to payment of incentive pay at the monthly 
     rate that is the higher of--
       (1) the monthly rate of incentive pay authorized by such 
     section 301(b) or 301(c)(2)(A) as of September 30, 1999; or
       (2) the monthly rate of incentive pay authorized by section 
     301f of title 37, United States Code, as added by subsection 
     (a).

     SEC. 111. RETENTION BONUS FOR SPECIAL WARFARE OFFICERS 
                   EXTENDING PERIODS OF ACTIVE DUTY.

       (a) Bonus Authorized.--(1) Chapter 5 of title 37, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting after section 301f, as 
     added by section 110(a) of this Act, the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 301g. Special pay: special warfare officers extending 
       period of active duty

       ``(a) Bonus Authorized.--A special warfare officer 
     described in subsection (b) who executes a written agreement 
     to remain on active duty in special warfare service for at 
     least one year may, upon the acceptance of the agreement by 
     the Secretary concerned, be paid a retention bonus as 
     provided in this section.
       ``(b) Covered Officers.--A special warfare officer referred 
     to in subsection (a) is an officer of a uniformed service 
     who--
       ``(1) is qualified for a military occupational specialty or 
     designator identified by the Secretary concerned as a special 
     warfare military occupational specialty or designator and is 
     serving in a position for which that specialty or designator 
     is authorized;
       ``(2) is in pay grade O-3, or is in pay grade O-4 and is 
     not on a list of officers recommended for promotion, at the 
     time the officer applies for an agreement under this section;
       ``(3) has completed at least 6, but not more than 14, years 
     of active commissioned service; and
       ``(4) has completed any service commitment incurred to be 
     commissioned as an officer.
       ``(c) Amount of Bonus.--The amount of a retention bonus 
     paid under this section may not be more than $15,000 for each 
     year covered by the written agreement.
       ``(d) Proration.--The term of an agreement under subsection 
     (a) and the amount of the bonus payable under subsection (c) 
     may be prorated as long as such agreement does not extend 
     beyond the date on which the officer making such agreement 
     would complete 14 years of active commissioned service.
       ``(e) Payment.--Upon acceptance of a written agreement 
     under subsection (a) by the Secretary concerned, the total 
     amount payable pursuant to the agreement becomes fixed and 
     may be paid--
       ``(1) in a lump sum equal to the amount of half the total 
     amount payable under the agreement at the time the agreement 
     is accepted by the Secretary concerned followed by payments 
     of equal annual installments on the anniversary of the 
     acceptance of the agreement until the payment in full of the 
     balance of the amount that remains payable under the 
     agreement after the payment of the lump sum amount under this 
     paragraph; or
       ``(2) in graduated annual payments under regulations 
     prescribed by the Secretary concerned with the first payment 
     being payable at the time the agreement is accepted by the 
     Secretary concerned and subsequent payments being payable on 
     the anniversaries of the acceptance of the agreement.
       ``(f) Additional Pay.--A retention bonus paid under this 
     section is in addition to any other pay and allowances to 
     which an officer is entitled.
       ``(g) Repayment.--(1) If an officer who has entered into a 
     written agreement under subsection (a) and has received all 
     or part of a retention bonus under this section fails to 
     complete the total period of active duty in special warfare 
     service as specified in the agreement, the Secretary 
     concerned may require the officer to repay the United States, 
     on a pro rata basis and to the extent that the Secretary 
     determines conditions and circumstances warrant, all sums 
     paid the officer under this section.
       ``(2) An obligation to repay the United States imposed 
     under paragraph (1) is for all purposes a debt owed to the 
     United States.
       ``(3) A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11 that is 
     entered less than five years after the termination of a 
     written agreement entered into under subsection (a) does not 
     discharge the officer signing the agreement from a debt 
     arising under such agreement or under paragraph (1).
       ``(h) Regulations.--The Secretaries concerned shall 
     prescribe regulations to carry out this section, including 
     the definition of the term `special warfare service' for 
     purposes of this section. Regulations prescribed by the 
     Secretary of a military department under this section shall 
     be subject to the approval of the Secretary of Defense.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 5 of 
     title 37, United States Code, as amended by section 110(a) of 
     this Act, is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 301f the following new item:

``301g. Special pay: special warfare officers extending period of 
              active duty.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 1999.

     SEC. 112. RETENTION BONUS FOR SURFACE WARFARE OFFICERS 
                   EXTENDING PERIODS OF ACTIVE DUTY.

       (a) Bonus Authorized.--(1) Chapter 5 of title 37, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting after section 301g, as 
     added by section 111(a) of this Act, the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 301h. Special pay: surface warfare officers extending 
       period of active duty

       ``(a) Special Pay Authorized.--(1) A surface warfare 
     officer described in subsection (b) who executes a written 
     agreement described in paragraph (2) may, upon the acceptance 
     of the agreement by the Secretary of the Navy, be paid a 
     retention bonus as provided in this section.
       ``(2) An agreement referred to in paragraph (1) is an 
     agreement in which the officer concerned agrees--
       ``(A) to remain on active duty for at least two years and 
     through the tenth year of active commissioned service; and
       ``(B) to complete tours of duty to which the officer may be 
     ordered during the period covered by subparagraph (A) as a 
     department head afloat.
       ``(b) Covered Officers.--A surface warfare officer referred 
     to in subsection (a) is an officer of the Regular Navy or 
     Naval Reserve on active duty who--
       ``(1) is designated and serving as a surface warfare 
     officer;
       ``(2) is in pay grade O-3 at the time the officer applies 
     for an agreement under this section;
       ``(3) has been selected for assignment as a department head 
     on a surface ship;
       ``(4) has completed at least four, but not more than eight, 
     years of active commissioned service; and
       ``(5) has completed any service commitment incurred to be 
     commissioned as an officer.
       ``(c) Amount of Bonus.--The amount of a retention bonus 
     paid under this section may not be more than $15,000 for each 
     year covered by the written agreement.
       ``(d) Proration.--The term of an agreement under subsection 
     (a) and the amount of the bonus payable under subsection (c) 
     may be prorated as long as such agreement does not extend 
     beyond the date on which the officer making such agreement 
     would complete 10 years of active commissioned service.
       ``(e) Payment.--Upon acceptance of a written agreement 
     under subsection (a) by the Secretary of the Navy, the total 
     amount payable pursuant to the agreement becomes fixed and 
     may be paid--
       ``(1) in a lump sum equal to the amount of half the total 
     amount payable under the agreement at the time the agreement 
     is accepted by the Secretary followed by payments of equal 
     annual installments on the anniversary of the acceptance of 
     the agreement until the payment in full of the balance of the 
     amount that remains payable under the agreement after the 
     payment of the lump sum amount under this paragraph; or
       ``(2) in equal annual payments with the first payment being 
     payable at the time the agreement is accepted by the 
     Secretary and subsequent payments being payable on the 
     anniversaries of the acceptance of the agreement.
       ``(f) Additional Pay.--A retention bonus paid under this 
     section is in addition to any other pay and allowances to 
     which an officer is entitled.
       ``(g) Repayment.--(1) If an officer who has entered into a 
     written agreement under subsection (a) and has received all 
     or part of a retention bonus under this section fails to 
     complete the total period of active duty specified in the 
     agreement, the Secretary of the Navy may require the officer 
     to repay the United States, on a pro rata basis and to the 
     extent that the Secretary determines conditions and 
     circumstances warrant, all sums paid under this section.
       ``(2) An obligation to repay the United States imposed 
     under paragraph (1) is for all purposes a debt owned to the 
     United States.
       ``(3) A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11 that is 
     entered less than five years after the termination of a 
     written agreement entered into under subsection (a) does not 
     discharge the officer signing the agreement from a debt 
     arising under such agreement or under paragraph (1).
       ``(h) Regulations.--The Secretary of the Navy shall 
     prescribe regulations to carry out this section.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 5 of 
     title 37, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
     the item relating to section 301g, as added by section 111(a) 
     of this Act, the following new item:


[[Page 3016]]


``301h. Special pay: surface warfare officers extending period of 
              active duty.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 1999.

     SEC. 113. AVIATION CAREER OFFICER SPECIAL PAY.

       (a) Period of Authority.--Subsection (a) of section 301b of 
     title 37, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``Authorized.--'';
       (2) by striking ``during the period beginning on January 1, 
     1989, and ending on December 31, 1999,'' and inserting 
     ``during the period described in paragraph (2),''; and
       (3) adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) applies with respect to agreements 
     executed during the period beginning on the first day of the 
     first month that begins on or after the date of the enactment 
     of the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of 
     Rights Act of 1999 and ending on December 31, 2004.''.
       (b) Repeal of Limitation to Certain Years of Career 
     Aviation Service.--Subsection (b) of such section is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (5);
       (2) by inserting ``and'' at the end of paragraph (4); and
       (3) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (5).
       (c) Repeal of Lower Alternative Amount for Agreement To 
     Serve for 3 or Fewer Years.--Subsection (c) of such section 
     is amended by striking ``than--'' and all that follows and 
     inserting ``than $25,000 for each year covered by the written 
     agreement to remain on active duty.''.
       (d) Proration Authority for Coverage of Increased Period of 
     Eligibility.--Subsection (d) of such section is amended by 
     striking ``14 years of commissioned service'' and inserting 
     ``25 years of aviation service''.
       (e) Terminology.--Such section is further amended--
       (1) in subsection (f), by striking ``A retention bonus'' 
     and inserting ``Any amount''; and
       (2) in subsection (i)(1), by striking ``retention bonuses'' 
     in the first sentence and inserting ``special pay under this 
     section''.
       (f) Repeal of Content Requirements for Annual Report.--
     Subsection (i)(1) of such section is further amended by 
     striking the second sentence.
       (g) Technical Amendment.--Subsection (g)(3) of such section 
     if amended by striking the second sentence.
       (h) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made 
     by this section shall take effect on the first day of the 
     first month that begins on or after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 114. THREE-YEAR EXTENSION OF AUTHORITIES RELATING TO 
                   PAYMENT OF CERTAIN BONUSES AND SPECIAL PAYS.

       (a) Aviation Officer Retention Bonus.--Section 301b(a) of 
     title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``December 31, 1999,'' and inserting ``December 31, 2002,''.
       (b) Reenlistment Bonus for Active Members.--Section 308(g) 
     of title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``December 31, 2002''.
       (c) Enlistment Bonuses for Members With Critical Skills.--
     Sections 308a(c) and 308f(c) of title 37, United States Code, 
     are each amended by striking ``December 31, 1999'' and 
     inserting ``December 31, 2002''.
       (d) Special Pay for Nuclear-Qualified Officers Extending 
     Period of Active Service.--Section 312(e) of title 37, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``December 31, 1999'' and 
     inserting ``December 31, 2002''.
       (e) Nuclear Career Accession Bonus.--Section 312b(c) of 
     title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``December 31, 2002''.
       (f) Nuclear Career Annual Incentive Bonus.--Section 312c(d) 
     of title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking ``any 
     fiscal year beginning before October 1, 1998, and the 15-
     month period beginning on that date and ending on December 
     31, 1999'' and inserting ``the 15-month period beginning on 
     October 1, 1998, and ending on December 31, 1999, and any 
     year beginning after December 31, 1999, and ending before 
     January 1, 2003''.

     SEC. 115. THREE-YEAR EXTENSION OF CERTAIN BONUSES AND SPECIAL 
                   PAY AUTHORITIES FOR RESERVE FORCES.

       (a) Special Pay for Health Professionals in Critically 
     Short Wartime Specialties.--Section 302g(f) of title 37, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``December 31, 
     1999'' and inserting ``December 31, 2002''.
       (b) Selected Reserve Reenlistment Bonus.--Section 308b(f) 
     of title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``December 31, 2002''.
       (c) Selected Reserve Enlistment Bonus.--Section 308c(e) of 
     title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``December 31, 2002''.
       (d) Special Pay for Enlisted Members Assigned to Certain 
     High Priority Units.--Section 308d(c) of title 37, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``December 31, 1999'' and 
     inserting ``December 31, 2002''.
       (e) Selected Reserve Affiliation Bonus.--Section 308e(e) of 
     title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``December 31, 2002''.
       (f) Ready Reserve Enlistment and Reenlistment Bonus.--
     Section 308h(g) of title 37, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``December 
     31, 2002''.
       (g) Prior Service Enlistment Bonus.--Section 308i(f) of 
     title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``December 31, 2002''.
       (h) Repayment of Education Loans for Certain Health 
     Professionals Who Serve in the Selected Reserve.--Section 
     16302(d) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``January 1, 2000'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``January 1, 2003''.

     SEC. 116. THREE-YEAR EXTENSION OF CERTAIN BONUSES AND SPECIAL 
                   PAY AUTHORITIES FOR NURSE OFFICER CANDIDATES, 
                   REGISTERED NURSES, AND NURSE ANESTHETISTS.

       (a) Nurse Officer Candidate Accession Program.--Section 
     2130a(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``December 31, 
     2002''.
       (b) Accession Bonus for Registered Nurses.--Section 
     302d(a)(1) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``December 31, 
     2002''.
       (c) Incentive Special Pay for Nurse Anesthetists.--Section 
     302e(a)(1) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``December 31, 2002''.

     SEC. 117. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING PARITY BETWEEN 
                   ADJUSTMENTS IN MILITARY AND CIVIL SERVICE PAY.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Members of the uniformed services of the United States 
     and civilian employees of the United States make significant 
     contributions to the general welfare of the United States.
       (2) Increases in the levels of pay of members of the 
     uniformed services and of civilian employees of the United 
     States have not kept pace with increases in the overall 
     levels of pay of workers in the private sector so that there 
     is now up to a 30 percent gap between the compensation levels 
     of Federal civilian employees and the compensation levels of 
     private sector workers and a 9 to 14 percent gap between the 
     compensation levels of members of the uniformed services and 
     the compensation levels of private sector workers.
       (3) In almost every year of the past two decades, there 
     have been equal adjustments in the compensation of members of 
     the uniformed services and the compensation of civilian 
     employees of the United States.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is 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.

     SEC. 118. 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.

     SEC. 119. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING USE OF EXTENSION OF 
                   TIME TO FILE TAX RETURNS FOR MEMBERS OF 
                   UNIFORMED SERVICES ON DUTY ABROAD.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the Internal Revenue Service provides a 2-month 
     extension of the deadline for filing tax returns for members 
     of the uniformed services who are in an area outside the 
     United States or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico for a tour 
     of duty which includes the date for filing tax returns;
       (2) any taxpayer using this 2-month extension who owes 
     additional tax must pay the tax on or before the regular 
     filing deadline;
       (3) those who use the 2-month extension and wait to pay the 
     additional tax at the time of filing are charged interest 
     from the regular filing deadline, and may also be required to 
     pay a penalty; and
       (4) it is fundamentally unfair to members of the uniformed 
     services who make use of this extension to require them to 
     pay penalties and interest on the additional tax owed.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the 2-month extension of the deadline for filing tax 
     returns for certain members of the uniformed services 
     provided in Internal Revenue Service regulations should be 
     codified; and
       (2) eligible members of the uniformed services should be 
     able to make use of the extension without accumulating 
     interest or penalties.

[[Page 3017]]



     SEC. 120. 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.

                     TITLE II--RETIREMENT BENEFITS

     SEC. 201. RETIRED PAY OPTIONS FOR PERSONNEL ENTERING 
                   UNIFORMED SERVICES ON OR AFTER AUGUST 1, 1986.

       (a) Reduced Retired Pay Only for Members Electing 15-Year 
     Service Bonus.--(1) Paragraph (2) of section 1409(b) of title 
     10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after ``July 
     31, 1986,'' the following: ``has elected to receive a bonus 
     under section 318 of title 37,''.
       (2)(A) Paragraph (2)(A) of section 1401a(b) of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``The Secretary 
     shall increase the retired pay of each member and former 
     member who first became a member of a uniformed service 
     before August 1, 1986,'' and inserting ``Except as otherwise 
     provided in this subsection, the Secretary shall increase the 
     retired pay of each member and former member''.
       (B) Paragraph (3) of such section 1401a(b) is amended by 
     inserting after ``August 1, 1986,'' the following: ``and has 
     elected to receive a bonus under section 318 of title 37,''.
       (3) Section 1410 of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after ``August 1, 1986,'' the following: 
     ``who has elected to receive a bonus under section 318 of 
     title 37,''.
       (b) Optional Lump-Sum Bonus at 15 Years of Service.--(1) 
     Chapter 5 of title 37, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 318. Special pay: 15-year service bonus elected by 
       members entering on or after August 1, 1986

       ``(a) Payment of Bonus.--The Secretary concerned shall pay 
     a bonus to a member of a uniformed service who is eligible 
     and elects to receive the bonus under this section.
       ``(b) Eligibility for Bonus.--A member of a uniformed 
     service serving on active duty is eligible to receive a bonus 
     under this section if the member--
       ``(1) first became a member of a uniformed service on or 
     after August 1, 1986;
       ``(2) has completed 15 years of active duty in the 
     uniformed services; and
       ``(3) if not already obligated to remain on active duty for 
     a period that would result in at least 20 years of active-
     duty service, executes a written agreement (prescribed by the 
     Secretary concerned) to remain continuously on active duty 
     for five years after the date of the completion of 15 years 
     of active-duty service.
       ``(c) Election.--(1) A member eligible to receive a bonus 
     under this section may elect to receive the bonus. The 
     election shall be made in such form and within such period as 
     the Secretary concerned requires.
       ``(2) An election made under this subsection is 
     irrevocable.
       ``(d) Notification of Eligibility.--The Secretary concerned 
     shall transmit a written notification of the opportunity to 
     elect to receive a bonus under this section to each member 
     who is eligible (or upon execution of an agreement described 
     in subsection (b)(3), would be eligible) to receive the 
     bonus. The Secretary shall complete the notification within 
     180 days after the date on which the member completes 15 
     years of active duty. The notification shall include the 
     procedures for electing to receive the bonus and an 
     explanation of the effects under sections 1401a, 1409, and 
     1410 of title 10 that such an election has on the computation 
     of any retired or retainer pay which the member may become 
     eligible to receive.
       ``(e) Form and Amount of Bonus.--A bonus under this section 
     shall be paid in one lump sum of $30,000.
       ``(f) Time for Payment.--Payment of a bonus to a member 
     electing to receive the bonus under this section shall be 
     made not later than the first month that begins on or after 
     the date that is 60 days after the Secretary concerned 
     receives from the member an election that satisfies the 
     requirements imposed under subsection (c).
       ``(g) Repayment of Bonus.--(1) If a person paid a bonus 
     under this section fails to complete the total period of 
     active duty specified in the agreement entered into under 
     subsection (b)(3), the person shall refund to the United 
     States the amount that bears the same ratio to the amount of 
     the bonus payment as the unserved part of that total period 
     bears to the total period.
       ``(2) Subject to paragraph (3), an obligation to reimburse 
     the United States imposed under paragraph (1) is for all 
     purposes a debt owed to the United States.
       ``(3) The Secretary concerned may waive, in whole or in 
     part, a refund required under paragraph (1) if the Secretary 
     concerned determines that recovery would be against equity 
     and good conscience or would be contrary to the best 
     interests of the United States.
       ``(4) A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11 that is 
     entered less than five years after the termination of an 
     agreement under this section does not discharge the member 
     signing such agreement from a debt arising under the 
     agreement or this subsection.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``318. Special pay: 15-year service bonus elected by members entering 
              on or after August 1, 1986.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments to Survivor Benefit Plan 
     Provisions.--(1) Section 1451(h)(3) of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting ``of certain members'' 
     after ``retirement''.
       (2) Section 1452(i) of such title is amended by striking 
     ``When the retired pay'' and inserting ``Whenever the retired 
     pay''.
       (d) Related Technical Amendments.--(1) Section 1401a(b) of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking the heading for paragraph (1) and inserting 
     ``Increase required.--'';
       (B) by striking the heading for paragraph (2) and inserting 
     ``Percentage increase.--''; and
       (C) by striking the heading for paragraph (3) and inserting 
     ``Reduced percentage for certain post-august 1, 1986 
     members.--''.
       (2) Section 1409(b)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``certain'' after ``Reduction applicable 
     to'' in the paragraph heading.
       (3)(A) The heading of section 1410 of such title is amended 
     by inserting ``certain'' before ``members''.
       (B) The item relating to such section in the table of 
     sections at the beginning of chapter 71 of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting ``certain'' before 
     ``members''.

     SEC. 202. PARTICIPATION IN THRIFT SAVINGS PLAN.

       (a) Participation Authority.--(1)(A) Chapter 3 of title 37, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 211. Participation in Thrift Savings Plan

       ``(a) Authority.--A member of the uniformed services 
     serving on active duty and a member of the Ready Reserve in 
     any pay status may participate in the Thrift Savings Plan in 
     accordance with section 8440e of title 5.
       ``(b) Rule of Construction Regarding Separation.--For the 
     purposes of section 8440e of title 5, the following actions 
     shall be considered separation of a member of the uniformed 
     services from Government employment:
       ``(1) Release of the member from active-duty service (not 
     followed by a resumption of active-duty service within 30 
     days after the effective date of the release).
       ``(2) Transfer of the member by the Secretary concerned to 
     a retired list maintained by the Secretary.''.
       (B) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

``211. Participation in Thrift Savings Plan.''.

[[Page 3018]]

       (2)(A) Subchapter III of chapter 84 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 8440e. Members of the uniformed services: members on 
       active duty; members of the Ready Reserve

       ``(a) Participation Authorized.--(1) A member of the 
     uniformed services authorized to participate in the Thrift 
     Savings Plan under section 211(a) of title 37 may contribute 
     to the Thrift Savings Fund.
       ``(2) An election to contribute to the Thrift Savings Fund 
     under paragraph (1) may be made only during a period provided 
     under section 8432(b) for individuals subject to this 
     chapter.
       ``(b) Applicability of Thrift Savings Plan Provisions.--
     Except as otherwise provided in this section, the provisions 
     of this subchapter and subchapter VII of this chapter shall 
     apply with respect to members of the uniformed services 
     making contributions to the Thrift Savings Fund as if such 
     members were employees within the meaning of section 
     8401(11).
       ``(c) Maximum Contribution.--(1) The amount contributed by 
     a member of the uniformed services for any pay period out of 
     basic pay may not exceed 5 percent of such member's basic pay 
     for such pay period.
       ``(2)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), the amount 
     contributed by a member of the Ready Reserve for any pay 
     period for any compensation received under section 206 of 
     title 37 may not exceed 5 percent of such member's 
     compensation for such pay period.
       ``(B) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     subchapter, no contribution may be made under this paragraph 
     for a member of the Ready Reserve for any year to the extent 
     that such contribution, when added to prior contributions for 
     such member for such year under this subchapter, exceeds any 
     limitation under section 415 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986.
       ``(d) Other Member Contributions.--A member of the 
     uniformed services making contributions to the Thrift Savings 
     Fund out of basic pay, or out of compensation under section 
     206 of title 37, may also contribute (by direct transfer to 
     the Fund) any part of any special or incentive pay that the 
     member receives under section 308, 308a through 308h, or 318 
     of title 37. No contribution made under this subsection shall 
     be subject to, or taken into account for purposes of, the 
     first sentence of section 8432(d), relating to the 
     applicability of any limitation under section 415 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(e) Agency Contributions Generally Prohibited.--Except as 
     provided in section 211(c) of title 37, no contribution under 
     section 8432(c) of this title may be made for the benefit of 
     a member of the uniformed services making contributions to 
     the Thrift Savings Fund under subsection (a).
       ``(f) Benefits and Elections of Benefits.--In applying 
     section 8433 to a member of the uniformed services who has an 
     account balance in the Thrift Savings Fund--
       ``(1) any reference in such section to separation from 
     Government employment shall be construed to refer to an 
     action described in section 211(b) of title 37; and
       ``(2) the reference in section 8433(g)(1) to contributions 
     made under section 8432(a) shall be treated as being a 
     reference to contributions made to the Fund by the member, 
     whether made under section 8351, 8432(a), or this section.
       ``(g) Basic Pay Defined.--For purposes of this section, the 
     term `basic pay' means basic pay that is payable under 
     section 204 of title 37.''.
       (B) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 84 of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding after the 
     item relating to section 8440d the following:

``8440e. Members of the uniformed services: members on active duty; 
              members of the Ready Reserve
       (3) Section 8432b(b) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Each employee'' and 
     inserting ``Except as provided in paragraph (4), each 
     employee'';
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new 
     paragraph (4):
       ``(4) No contribution may be made under this section for a 
     period for which an employee made a contribution under 
     section 8440e.''.
       (4) Section 8473 of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``14 members'' and 
     inserting ``15 members''; and
       (B) in subsection (b)--
       (i) by striking ``14 members'' and inserting ``15 
     members'';
       (ii) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (8);
       (iii) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (9) 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (iv) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(10) 1 shall be appointed to represent participants 
     (under section 8440e) who are members of the uniformed 
     services.''.
       (5) Paragraph (11) of section 8351(b) of title 5, United 
     States Code, is redesignated as paragraph (8).
       (b) Applicability.--The authority of members of the 
     uniformed services to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan 
     under section 211 of title 37, United States Code (as added 
     by subsection (a)(1)), shall take effect on July 1, 2000.
       (c) Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Executive Director appointed 
     by the Federal Thrift Retirement Investment Board shall issue 
     regulations to implement section 8440e of title 5, United 
     States Code (as added by subsection (a)(2)) and section 211 
     of title 37, United States Code (as added by subsection 
     (a)(1)).

     SEC. 203. SPECIAL RETENTION INITIATIVE.

       Section 211 of title 37, United States Code, as added by 
     section 202, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Agency Contributions for Retention in Critical 
     Specialties.--(1) The Secretary concerned may enter into an 
     agreement with a member to make contributions to the Thrift 
     Savings Fund for the benefit of the member if the member--
       ``(A) is in a specialty designated by the Secretary as 
     critical to meet requirements (whether such specialty is 
     designated as critical to meet wartime or peacetime 
     requirements); and
       ``(B) commits in such agreement to continue to serve on 
     active duty in that specialty for a period of six years.
       ``(2) Under any agreement entered into with a member under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall make contributions to the 
     Fund for the benefit of the member for each pay period of the 
     6-year period of the agreement for which the member makes a 
     contribution out of basic pay to the Fund under this section. 
     Paragraph (2) of section 8432(c) applies to the Secretary's 
     obligation to make contributions under this paragraph, except 
     that the reference in such paragraph to contributions under 
     paragraph (1) of such section does not apply.''.

     SEC. 204. REPEAL OF REDUCTION IN RETIRED PAY FOR CIVILIAN 
                   EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Repeal.--(1) Section 5532 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is repealed.
       (2) The chapter analysis at the beginning of chapter 55 of 
     such title is amended by striking out the item relating to 
     section 5532.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the first day of the first month that 
     begins after the date of the enactment of this Act.

                 TITLE III--MONTGOMERY GI BILL BENEFITS

     SEC. 301. INCREASE IN RATES OF EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR 
                   FULL-TIME EDUCATION.

       (a) Increase.--Section 3015 of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``$528'' and 
     inserting ``$600''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``$429'' and 
     inserting ``$488''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 1999, and shall apply with 
     respect to educational assistance allowances paid for months 
     after September 1999. However, no adjustment in rates of 
     educational assistance shall be made under subsection (g) of 
     section 3015 of title 38, United States Code, for fiscal year 
     2000.

     SEC. 302. TERMINATION OF REDUCTIONS OF BASIC PAY.

       (a) Repeals.--(1) Section 3011 of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking subsection (b).
       (2) Section 3012 of such title is amended by striking 
     subsection (c).
       (3) The amendments made by paragraphs (1) and (2) shall 
     take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and 
     shall apply to individuals whose initial obligated period of 
     active duty under section 3011 or 3012 of title 38, United 
     States Code, as the case may be, begins on or after such 
     date.
       (b) Termination of Reductions in Progress.--Any reduction 
     in the basic pay of an individual referred to in section 
     3011(b) of title 38, United States Code, by reason of such 
     section 3011(b), or of any individual referred to in section 
     3012(c) of such title by reason of such section 3012(c), as 
     of the date of the enactment of this Act shall cease 
     commencing with the first month beginning after such date, 
     and any obligation of such individual under such section 
     3011(b) or 3012(c), as the case may be, as of the day before 
     such date shall be deemed to be fully satisfied as of such 
     date.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 3034(e)(1) of title 38, 
     United States Code, is amended in the second sentence by 
     striking ``as soon as practicable'' and all that follows 
     through ``such additional times'' and inserting ``at such 
     times''.

     SEC. 303. ACCELERATED PAYMENTS OF EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE.

       Section 3014 of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``The Secretary shall 
     pay''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection (b):
       ``(b)(1) When the Secretary determines that it is 
     appropriate to accelerate payments under the regulations 
     prescribed pursuant to paragraph (6), the Secretary may make 
     payments of basic educational assistance allowance under this 
     subchapter on an accelerated basis.
       ``(2) The Secretary may pay a basic educational assistance 
     allowance on an accelerated basis only to an individual 
     entitled to

[[Page 3019]]

     payment of the allowance under this subchapter who has made a 
     request for payment of the allowance on an accelerated basis.
       ``(3) In the event an adjustment under section 3015(g) of 
     this title in the monthly rate of basic educational 
     assistance will occur during a period for which a payment of 
     an allowance is made on an accelerated basis under this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) pay on an accelerated basis the amount the allowance 
     otherwise payable under this subchapter for the period 
     without regard to the adjustment under that section; 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) The entitlement to a basic educational assistance 
     allowance under this subchapter of an individual who is paid 
     an allowance on an accelerated basis under this subsection 
     shall be charged at a rate equal to one month for each month 
     of the period covered by the accelerated payment of the 
     allowance.
       ``(5) A basic educational assistance allowance shall be 
     paid 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 subchapter 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 request for payment by the 
     individual concerned; and
       ``(ii) in any amount requested by the individual concerned 
     up to the aggregate amount of monthly allowance otherwise 
     payable under this subchapter for the period of the course.
       ``(6) The Secretary shall prescribe regulations for 
     purposes of making payments of basic educational allowance on 
     an accelerated basis under this subsection. Such regulations 
     shall specify the circumstances under which accelerated 
     payments should be made and include requirements relating to 
     the request for, making and delivery of, and receipt and use 
     of such payments.''.

     SEC. 304. TRANSFER OF ENTITLEMENT TO EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Authority To Transfer to Family Member.--Subchapter II 
     of chapter 30 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 3020. Transfer of entitlement to basic educational 
       assistance

       ``(a) The Secretary may, for the purpose of enhancing 
     recruiting and retention, and at the Secretary's sole 
     discretion, permit an individual entitled to educational 
     assistance under this subchapter to elect to transfer such 
     individual's entitlement to such assistance, in whole or in 
     part, to the individuals specified in subsection (b).
       ``(b) An individual's entitlement to educational assistance 
     may be transferred when authorized under subsection (a) as 
     follows:
       ``(1) To the individual's spouse.
       ``(2) To one or more of the individual's children.
       ``(3) To a combination of the individuals referred to in 
     paragraphs (1) and (2).
       ``(c)(1) An individual electing to transfer an entitlement 
     to educational assistance under this section shall--
       ``(A) designate the individual or individuals to whom such 
     entitlement is being transferred and the percentage of such 
     entitlement to be transferred to each such individual; and
       ``(B) specify the period for which the transfer shall be 
     effective for each individual designated under subparagraph 
     (A).
       ``(2) The aggregate amount of the entitlement transferable 
     by an individual under this section may not exceed the 
     aggregate amount of the entitlement of such individual to 
     educational assistance under this subchapter.
       ``(3) An individual electing to transfer an entitlement 
     under this section may elect to modify or revoke the transfer 
     at any time before the use of the transferred entitlement. An 
     individual shall make the election by submitting written 
     notice of such election to the Secretary.
       ``(d)(1) The use of any entitlement transferred under this 
     section shall be charged against the entitlement of the 
     individual making the transfer at the rate of one month for 
     each month of transferred entitlement that is used.
       ``(2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), an individual 
     using entitlement transferred under this section shall be 
     subject to the provisions of this chapter in such use as if 
     such individual were entitled to the educational assistance 
     covered by the transferred entitlement in the individual's 
     own right.
       ``(3) Notwithstanding section 3031 of this title, a child 
     shall complete the use of any entitlement transferred to the 
     child under this section before the child attains the age of 
     26 years.
       ``(e) In the event of an overpayment of educational 
     assistance with respect to an individual to whom entitlement 
     is transferred under this section, such individual and the 
     individual making the transfer under this section shall be 
     jointly and severally liable to the United States for the 
     amount of the overpayment for purposes of section 3685 of 
     this title.
       ``(f) The Secretary shall prescribe regulations for 
     purposes of this section. Such regulations shall specify the 
     manner and effect of an election to modify or revoke a 
     transfer of entitlement under subsection (c)(3).''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to section 3019 the following new item:

``3020. Transfer of entitlement to basic educational assistance.''.

     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.

                  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.''.

     SEC. 402. 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:

[[Page 3020]]

       ``(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.

       (a) Requirement for Report.--On December 1 of each year, 
     the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report 
     that sets forth the Secretary's assessment of the effects 
     that the provisions of this Act and the amendments made by 
     the Act are having on recruitment and retention of personnel 
     for the Armed Forces.
       (b) First Report.--The first report under this section 
     shall be submitted not later than December 1, 2000.

     SEC. 502. REPORT AND REGULATIONS ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                   POLICIES ON PROTECTING THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF 
                   COMMUNICATIONS WITH PROFESSIONALS PROVIDING 
                   THERAPEUTIC OR RELATED SERVICES REGARDING 
                   SEXUAL OR DOMESTIC ABUSE.

       (a) Requirement for Study.--(1) The Comptroller General 
     shall study the policies, procedures, and practices of the 
     military departments for protecting the confidentiality of 
     communications between--
       (A) a dependent of a member of the Armed Forces who--
       (i) is a victim of sexual harassment, sexual assault, or 
     intrafamily abuse; or
       (ii) has engaged in such misconduct; and
       (B) a therapist, counselor, advocate, or other professional 
     from whom the dependent seeks professional services in 
     connection with effects of such misconduct.
       (2) The Comptroller General shall conclude the study and 
     submit to the Secretary of Defense a report on the results of 
     the study within such period as is necessary to enable the 
     Secretary to satisfy the reporting requirement under 
     subsection (d).
       (b) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe 
     in regulations the policies and procedures that the Secretary 
     considers necessary to provide the maximum possible 
     protections for the confidentiality of communications 
     described in subsection (a) relating to misconduct described 
     in that subsection, consistent with--
       (1) the findings of the Comptroller General;
       (2) the standards of confidentiality and ethical standards 
     issued by relevant professional organizations;
       (3) applicable requirements of Federal and State law;
       (4) the best interest of victims of sexual harassment, 
     sexual assault, or intrafamily abuse; and
       (5) such other factors as the Secretary, in consultation 
     with the Attorney General, may consider appropriate.

                        TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 601. IMPROVEMENT OF TRICARE PROGRAM.

       (a) Improvement of TRICARE Program.--(1) Chapter 55 of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
     section 1097a the following new section:

     ``Sec. 1097b. TRICARE: comparability of benefits with 
       benefits under Federal Employees Health Benefits program; 
       other requirements and authorities

       ``(a) Comparability of Benefits.--The Secretary of Defense 
     shall, to the maximum extent practicable, ensure that the 
     health care coverage available through the TRICARE program is 
     substantially similar to the health care coverage available 
     under similar health benefits plans offered under the Federal 
     Employees Health Benefits program established under chapter 
     89 of title 5.
       ``(b) Portability of Benefits.--The Secretary of Defense 
     shall provide that any covered beneficiary enrolled in the 
     TRICARE program may receive benefits under that program at 
     facilities that provide benefits under that program 
     throughout the various regions of that program.
       ``(c) Patient Management.--(1) The Secretary of Defense 
     shall, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize the 
     authorization or certification requirements imposed upon 
     covered beneficiaries under the TRICARE program as a 
     condition of access to benefits under that program.
       ``(2) The Secretary of Defense shall, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, utilize practices for processing claims under 
     the TRICARE program that are similar to the best industry 
     practices for processing claims for health care services in a 
     simplified and expedited manner. To the maximum extent 
     practicable, such practices shall include electronic 
     processing of claims.
       ``(d) Reimbursement of Health Care Providers.--(1) Subject 
     to paragraph (2), the Secretary of Defense may increase the 
     reimbursement provided to health care providers under the 
     TRICARE program above the reimbursement otherwise authorized 
     such providers under that program if the Secretary determines 
     that such increase is necessary in order to ensure the 
     availability of an adequate number of qualified health care 
     providers under that program.
       ``(2) The amount of reimbursement provided under paragraph 
     (1) with respect to a health care service may not exceed the 
     lesser of--
       ``(A) the amount equal to the local usual and customary 
     charge for the service in the service area (as determined by 
     the Secretary) in which the service is provided; or
       ``(B) the amount equal to 115 per cent of the CHAMPUS 
     maximum allowable charge for the service.
       ``(e) Authority for Certain Third-Party Collections.--(1) A 
     medical treatment facility of the uniformed services under 
     the TRICARE program may collect from a third-party payer the 
     reasonable charges for health care services described in 
     paragraph (2) that are incurred by the facility on behalf of 
     a covered beneficiary under that program to the extent that 
     the beneficiary would be eligible to receive reimbursement or 
     indemnification from the third-party payer if the beneficiary 
     were to incur such charges on the beneficiary's own behalf.
       ``(2) The reasonable charges described in this paragraph 
     are reasonable charges for services or care covered by the 
     medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security 
     Act.
       ``(3) The collection of charges, and the utilization of 
     amounts collected, under this subsection shall be subject to 
     the provisions of section 1095 of this title. The term 
     `reasonable costs', as used in that section shall be deemed 
     for purposes of the application of that section to this 
     subsection to refer to the reasonable charges described in 
     paragraph (2).
       ``(f) Consultation.--The Secretary of Defense shall carry 
     out any actions under this section after consultation with 
     the other administering Secretaries.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 55 of 
     such title is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 1097a the following new item:

``1097b. TRICARE: comparability of benefits with benefits under Federal 
              Employees Health Benefits program; other requirements and 
              authorities.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect one year after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (c) Report on Implementation.--(1) Not later than 6 months 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Defense, in consultation with the other administering 
     Secretaries, shall submit to Congress a report assessing the 
     effects of the implementation of the requirements and 
     authorities set forth in section 1097b of title 10, United 
     States Code (as added by subsection (a)).
       (2) The report shall include the following:
       (A) An assessment of the cost of the implementation of such 
     requirements and authorities.
       (B) An assessment whether or not the implementation of any 
     such requirements and authorities will result in the 
     utilization by the TRICARE program of the best industry 
     practices with respect to the matters covered by such 
     requirements and authorities.
       (3) In this subsection, the term ``administering 
     Secretaries'' has the meaning given that term in section 
     1072(3) of title 10, United States Code.
       (d) Inapplicability of Reporting Requirements.--The reports 
     required by section 501 shall not address the amendments made 
     by subsection (a).

     SEC. 602. 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);
       (2) initiate any actions necessary to ensure that the 
     Administration processes claims for such benefits in a manner 
     consistent with such objectives; and
       (3) report to the Congress by June 1, 1999, on measures 
     taken to improve processing time for veterans' claims.

     SEC. 603. EXPANSION OF LIST OF DISEASES PRESUMED TO BE 
                   SERVICE-CONNECTED FOR RADIATION-EXPOSED 
                   VETERANS.

       Section 1112(c)(2) of title 38, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

[[Page 3021]]

       ``(P) Lung cancer.
       ``(Q) Colon cancer.
       ``(R) Tumors of the brain and central nervous system.''.

     SEC. 604. MEDICARE SUBVENTION DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FOR 
                   VETERANS.

       Title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:


        ``MEDICARE SUBVENTION DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FOR VETERANS

       ``Sec. 1897. (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Administering secretaries.--The term `administering 
     Secretaries' means the Secretary and the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs acting jointly.
       ``(2) Demonstration project; project.--The terms 
     `demonstration project' and `project' mean the demonstration 
     project carried out under this section.
       ``(3) Demonstration site.--The term `demonstration site' 
     means a Veterans Affairs medical facility, including a group 
     of Veterans Affairs medical facilities that provide hospital 
     care or medical services as part of a service network or 
     similar organization.
       ``(4) Military retiree.--The term `military retiree' means 
     a member or former member of the Armed Forces who is entitled 
     to retired pay.
       ``(5) Targeted medicare-eligible veteran.--The term 
     `targeted medicare-eligible veteran' means an individual 
     who--
       ``(A) is a veteran (as defined in section 101(2) of title 
     38, United States Code) and is described in section 
     1710(a)(3) of title 38, United States Code;
       ``(B) has attained age 65;
       ``(C) is entitled to benefits under part A of this title; 
     and
       ``(D)(i) is enrolled for benefits under part B of this 
     title; and
       ``(ii) if such individual attained age 65 before the date 
     of enactment of the Veterans' Equal Access to Medicare Act, 
     was so enrolled on such date.
       ``(6) Trust funds.--The term `trust funds' means the 
     Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund established in section 
     1817 and the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust 
     Fund established in section 1841.
       ``(7) Veterans affairs medical facility.--The term 
     `Veterans Affairs medical facility' means a medical facility 
     as defined in section 8101 of title 38, United States Code.
       ``(b) Demonstration Project.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Establishment.--The administering Secretaries are 
     authorized to establish a demonstration project (under an 
     agreement entered into by the administering Secretaries) 
     under which the Secretary shall reimburse the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs, from the trust funds, for medicare health 
     care services furnished to certain targeted medicare-eligible 
     veterans at a demonstration site.
       ``(B) Agreement.--The agreement entered into under 
     subparagraph (A) shall include at a minimum--
       ``(i) a description of the benefits to be provided to the 
     participants in the demonstration project established under 
     this section;
       ``(ii) a description of the eligibility rules for 
     participation in the demonstration project, including any 
     terms and conditions established under subparagraph (C) and 
     any cost-sharing required under subparagraph (D);
       ``(iii) a description of how the demonstration project will 
     satisfy the requirements under this title (including 
     beneficiary protections and quality assurance mechanisms);
       ``(iv) a description of the demonstration sites selected 
     under paragraph (2);
       ``(v) a description of how reimbursement and maintenance of 
     effort requirements under subsection (h) will be implemented 
     in the demonstration project;
       ``(vi) a statement that the Secretary shall have access to 
     all data of the Department of Veterans Affairs that the 
     Secretary determines is necessary to conduct independent 
     estimates and audits of the maintenance of effort 
     requirement, the annual reconciliation, and related matters 
     required under the demonstration project;
       ``(vii) a description of any requirement that the Secretary 
     waives pursuant to subsection (d); and
       ``(viii) a certification, provided after review by the 
     administering Secretaries, that any entity that is receiving 
     payments by reason of the demonstration project has 
     sufficient--

       ``(I) resources and expertise to provide, consistent with 
     payments under subsection (h), the full range of benefits 
     required to be provided to beneficiaries under the project; 
     and
       ``(II) information and billing systems in place to ensure 
     the accurate and timely submission of claims for benefits and 
     to ensure that providers of services, physicians, and other 
     health care professionals are reimbursed by the entity in a 
     timely and accurate manner.

       ``(C) Voluntary participation.--Participation of targeted 
     medicare-eligible veterans in the demonstration project shall 
     be voluntary, subject to the capacity of participating 
     demonstration sites and the funding limitations specified in 
     subsection (h), and shall be subject to such terms and 
     conditions as the administering Secretaries may establish. In 
     the case of a demonstration site described in paragraph 
     (2)(C)(i), targeted medicare-eligible veterans who are 
     military retirees shall be given preference for participating 
     in the project conducted at that site.
       ``(D) Cost-sharing.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may 
     establish cost-sharing requirements for veterans 
     participating in the demonstration project. If such cost-
     sharing requirements are established, those requirements 
     shall be the same as the requirements that apply to targeted 
     medicare-eligible patients at medical centers that are not 
     Veterans Affairs medical facilities.
       ``(E) Data match.--
       ``(i) Establishment of data matching program.--The 
     administering Secretaries shall establish a data matching 
     program under which there is an exchange of information of 
     the Department of Veterans Affairs and of the Department of 
     Health and Human Services as is necessary to identify 
     veterans (as defined in section 101(2) of title 38, United 
     States Code) who are entitled to benefits under part A or 
     enrolled under part B, or both, in order to carry out this 
     section. The provisions of section 552a of title 5, United 
     States Code, shall apply with respect to such matching 
     program only to the extent the administering Secretaries find 
     it feasible and appropriate in carrying out this section in a 
     timely and efficient manner.
       ``(ii) Performance of data match.--The administering 
     Secretaries, using the data matching program established 
     under clause (i), shall perform a comparison in order to 
     identify veterans who are entitled to benefits under part A 
     or enrolled under part B, or both. To the extent such 
     Secretaries deem appropriate to carry out this section, the 
     comparison and identification may distinguish among such 
     veterans by category of veterans, by entitlement to benefits 
     under this title, or by other characteristics.
       ``(iii) Deadline for first data match.--Not later than 
     October 31, 1999, the administering Secretaries shall first 
     perform a comparison under clause (ii).
       ``(iv) Certification by inspector general.--

       ``(I) In general.--The administering Secretaries may not 
     conduct the program unless the Inspector General of the 
     Department of Health and Human Services certifies to Congress 
     that the administering Secretaries have established the data 
     matching program under clause (i) and have performed a 
     comparison under clause (ii).
       ``(II) Deadline for certification.--Not later than December 
     15, 1999, the Inspector General of the Department of Health 
     and Human Services shall submit a report to Congress 
     containing the certification under subclause (I) or the 
     denial of such certification.

       ``(2) Number of demonstration sites.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), 
     and subsection (g)(1)(D)(ii), the administering Secretaries 
     shall establish a plan for the selection of up to 10 
     demonstration sites located in geographically dispersed 
     locations to participate in the project.
       ``(B) Criteria.--The administering Secretaries shall favor 
     selection of those demonstration sites that consideration of 
     the following factors indicate are suited to serve targeted 
     medicare-eligible veterans:
       ``(i) There is a high potential demand by targeted 
     medicare-eligible veterans for the services to be provided at 
     the demonstration site.
       ``(ii) The demonstration site has sufficient capability in 
     billing and accounting to participate in the project.
       ``(iii) The demonstration site can demonstrate favorable 
     indicators of quality of care, including patient 
     satisfaction.
       ``(iv) The demonstration site delivers a range of services 
     required by targeted medicare-eligible veterans.
       ``(v) The demonstration site meets other relevant factors 
     identified in the plan.
       ``(C) Required demonstration sites.--At least 1 of each of 
     the following demonstration sites shall be selected for 
     inclusion in the demonstration project:
       ``(i) Demonstration site near closed base.--A demonstration 
     site that is in the same catchment area as a military 
     treatment facility referred to in section 1074(a) of title 
     10, United States Code, which was closed pursuant to either--

       ``(I) the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 
     (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 
     note); or
       ``(II) title II of the Defense Authorization Amendments and 
     Base Closure and Realignment Act (Public Law 100-526; 10 
     U.S.C. 2687 note).

       ``(ii) Demonstration site in a rural area.--A demonstration 
     site that serves a predominantly rural population.
       ``(3) Restriction.--No new buildings may be built or 
     existing buildings expanded with funds from the demonstration 
     project.
       ``(4) Duration.--The administering Secretaries shall 
     conduct the demonstration project during the 3-year period 
     beginning on January 1, 2000.
       ``(c) Crediting of Payments.--A payment received by the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs under the demonstration project 
     shall be credited to the applicable Department of Veterans 
     Affairs medical appropriation and (within that appropriation) 
     to funds that

[[Page 3022]]

     have been allotted to the demonstration site that furnished 
     the services for which the payment is made. Any such payment 
     received during a fiscal year for services provided during a 
     prior fiscal year may be obligated by the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs during the fiscal year during which the 
     payment is received.
       ``(d) Authority To Waive Certain Medicare Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary may, to the extent necessary to carry out the 
     demonstration project, waive any requirement under this 
     title.
       ``(2) Beneficiary protections for managed care plans.--In 
     the case of a managed care plan established by the Secretary 
     of Veterans Affairs pursuant to subsection (g), such plan 
     shall comply with the requirements of part C of this title 
     that relate to beneficiary protections and other matters, 
     including such requirements relating to the following areas:
       ``(A) Enrollment and disenrollment.
       ``(B) Nondiscrimination.
       ``(C) Information provided to beneficiaries.
       ``(D) Cost-sharing limitations.
       ``(E) Appeal and grievance procedures.
       ``(F) Provider participation.
       ``(G) Access to services.
       ``(H) Quality assurance and external review.
       ``(I) Advance directives.
       ``(J) Other areas of beneficiary protections that the 
     Secretary determines are applicable to such project.
       ``(3) Description of waiver.--If the Secretary waives any 
     requirement pursuant to paragraph (1), the Secretary shall 
     include a description of such waiver in the agreement 
     described in subsection (b)(1)(B).
       ``(e) Inspector General.--Nothing in the agreement entered 
     into under subsection (b) shall limit the Inspector General 
     of the Department of Health and Human Services from 
     investigating any matters regarding the expenditure of funds 
     under this title for the demonstration project, including 
     compliance with the provisions of this title and all other 
     relevant laws.
       ``(f) Report.--At least 60 days prior to the commencement 
     of the demonstration project, the administering Secretaries 
     shall submit a copy of the agreement entered into under 
     subsection (b) to the committees of jurisdiction in Congress.
       ``(g) Managed Health Care.--
       ``(1) Managed health care plans.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may 
     establish and operate managed health care plans at 
     demonstration sites.
       ``(B) Requirements.--Any managed health care plan 
     established in accordance with subparagraph (A) shall be 
     operated by or through a Veterans Affairs medical facility, 
     or a group of Veterans Affairs medical facilities, and may 
     include the provision of health care services by public and 
     private entities under arrangements made between the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs and the other public or 
     private entity concerned. Any such managed health care plan 
     shall be established and operated in conformance with 
     standards prescribed by the administering Secretaries.
       ``(C) Minimum benefits.--The administering Secretaries 
     shall prescribe the minimum health care benefits to be 
     provided under a managed health care plan to veterans 
     enrolled in the plan, which benefits shall include at least 
     all health care services covered under the medicare program 
     under this title.
       ``(D) Inclusion in number of demonstration sites.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), if the Secretary 
     of Veterans Affairs elects to establish a managed health care 
     plan under this section, the establishment of such plan is a 
     selected demonstration site for purposes of applying the 
     numerical limitation under subsection (b)(2).
       ``(ii) Limitation.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
     not establish more than 4 managed health care plans under 
     this section.
       ``(2) Demonstration site requirements.--The Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs may establish a managed health care plan 
     under paragraph (1) using 1 or more demonstration sites and 
     other public or private entities only after the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs submits to Congress a report setting forth a 
     plan for the use of such sites and entities. The plan may not 
     be implemented until the Secretary of Veterans Affairs has 
     received from the Inspector General of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs, and has forwarded to Congress, 
     certification of each of the following:
       ``(A) The cost accounting system of the Veterans Health 
     Administration (currently known as the Decision Support 
     System) is operational and is providing reliable cost 
     information on care delivered on an inpatient and outpatient 
     basis at such sites and entities.
       ``(B) The demonstration sites and entities have developed a 
     credible plan (on the basis of market surveys, data from the 
     Decision Support System, actuarial analysis, or other 
     appropriate methods and taking into account the level of 
     payment under subsection (h) and the costs of providing 
     covered services at the sites and entities) to minimize, to 
     the extent feasible, the risk that appropriated funds 
     allocated to the sites and entities will be required to meet 
     the obligation of the sites and entities to targeted 
     medicare-eligible veterans under the demonstration project.
       ``(C) The demonstration sites and entities collectively 
     have available capacity to provide the contracted benefits 
     package to a sufficient number of targeted medicare-eligible 
     veterans.
       ``(D) The Veterans Affairs medical facility administering 
     the health plan has sufficient systems and safeguards in 
     place to minimize any risk that instituting the managed care 
     model will result in reducing the quality of care delivered 
     to participants in the demonstration project or to other 
     veterans receiving care under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 
     1710(a) of title 38, United States Code.
       ``(3) Reserves.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
     maintain such reserves as may be necessary to ensure against 
     the risk that appropriated funds, allocated to demonstration 
     sites and public or private entities participating in the 
     demonstration project through a managed health care plan 
     under this section, will be required to meet the obligations 
     of those sites and entities to targeted medicare-eligible 
     veterans.
       ``(h) Payments Based on Regular Medicare Payment Rates.--
       ``(1) Payments.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to the succeeding provisions of 
     this subsection, the Secretary shall reimburse the Secretary 
     of Veterans Affairs for services provided under the 
     demonstration project at the following rates:
       ``(i) Noncapitation.--Except as provided in clause (ii) and 
     subject to subparagraphs (B) and (D), at a rate equal to 95 
     percent of the amounts that otherwise would be payable under 
     this title on a noncapitated basis for such services if the 
     demonstration site was not part of this demonstration 
     project, was participating in the medicare program, and 
     imposed charges for such services.
       ``(ii) Capitation.--Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (D), 
     in the case of services provided to an enrollee under a 
     managed health care plan established under subsection (g), at 
     a rate equal to 95 percent of the amount paid to a 
     Medicare+Choice organization under part C with respect to 
     such an enrollee.
       ``(iii) Other cases.--In cases in which a payment amount 
     may not otherwise be readily computed under clauses (i) or 
     (ii), the Secretaries shall establish rules for computing 
     equivalent or comparable payment amounts.
       ``(B) Exclusion of certain amounts.--In computing the 
     amount of payment under subparagraph (A), the following shall 
     be excluded:
       ``(i) Disproportionate share hospital adjustment.--Any 
     amount attributable to an adjustment under section 
     1886(d)(5)(F) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395ww(d)(5)(F)).
       ``(ii) Direct graduate medical education payments.--Any 
     amount attributable to a payment under subsection (h) of such 
     section.
       ``(iii) Percentage of indirect medical education 
     adjustment.--40 percent of any amount attributable to the 
     adjustment under subsection (d)(5)(B) of such section.
       ``(iv) Percentage of capital payments.--67 percent of any 
     amounts attributable to payments for capital-related costs 
     under subsection (g) of such section.
       ``(C) Periodic payments from medicare trust funds.--
     Payments under this subsection shall be made--
       ``(i) on a periodic basis consistent with the periodicity 
     of payments under this title; and
       ``(ii) in appropriate part, as determined by the Secretary, 
     from the trust funds.
       ``(D) Annual limit on medicare payments.--The amount paid 
     to the Department of Veterans Affairs under this subsection 
     for any year for the demonstration project may not exceed 
     $50,000,000.
       ``(2) Reduction in payment for va failure to maintain 
     effort.--
       ``(A) In general.--To avoid shifting onto the medicare 
     program under this title costs previously assumed by the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs for the provision of medicare-
     covered services to targeted medicare-eligible veterans, the 
     payment amount under this subsection for the project for a 
     fiscal year shall be reduced by the amount (if any) by 
     which--
       ``(i) the amount of the VA effort level for targeted 
     veterans (as defined in subparagraph (B)) for the fiscal year 
     ending in such year, is less than
       ``(ii) the amount of the VA effort level for targeted 
     veterans for fiscal year 1998.
       ``(B) VA effort level for targeted veterans defined.--For 
     purposes of subparagraph (A), the term `VA effort level for 
     targeted veterans' means, for a fiscal year, the amount, as 
     estimated by the administering Secretaries, that would have 
     been expended under the medicare program under this title for 
     VA-provided medicare-covered services for targeted veterans 
     (as defined in subparagraph (C)) for that fiscal year if 
     benefits were available under the medicare program for those 
     services. Such amount does not include expenditures 
     attributable to services for which reimbursement is made 
     under the demonstration project.

[[Page 3023]]

       ``(C) VA-provided medicare-covered services for targeted 
     veterans.--For purposes of subparagraph (B), the term `VA-
     provided medicare-covered services for targeted veterans' 
     means, for a fiscal year, items and services--
       ``(i) that are provided during the fiscal year by the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs to targeted medicare-eligible 
     veterans;
       ``(ii) that constitute hospital care and medical services 
     under chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code; and
       ``(iii) for which benefits would be available under the 
     medicare program under this title if they were provided other 
     than by a Federal provider of services that does not charge 
     for those services.
       ``(3) Assuring no increase in cost to medicare program.--
       ``(A) Monitoring effect of demonstration program on costs 
     to medicare program.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretaries, in consultation with 
     the Comptroller General, shall closely monitor the 
     expenditures made under the medicare program for targeted 
     medicare-eligible veterans during the period of the 
     demonstration project compared to the expenditures that would 
     have been made for such veterans during that period if the 
     demonstration project had not been conducted.
       ``(ii) Annual report by the comptroller general.--Not later 
     than December 31 of each year during which the demonstration 
     project is conducted, the Comptroller General shall submit to 
     the Secretaries and the appropriate committees of Congress a 
     report on the extent, if any, to which the costs of the 
     Secretary under the medicare program under this title 
     increased during the preceding fiscal year as a result of the 
     demonstration project.
       ``(B) Required response in case of increase in costs.--
       ``(i) In general.--If the administering Secretaries find, 
     based on subparagraph (A), that the expenditures under the 
     medicare program under this title increased (or are expected 
     to increase) during a fiscal year because of the 
     demonstration project, the administering Secretaries shall 
     take such steps as may be needed--

       ``(I) to recoup for the medicare program the amount of such 
     increase in expenditures; and
       ``(II) to prevent any such increase in the future.

       ``(ii) Steps.--Such steps--

       ``(I) under clause (i)(I), shall include payment of the 
     amount of such increased expenditures by the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs from the current medical care appropriation 
     of the Department of Veterans Affairs to the trust funds; and
       ``(II) under clause (i)(II), shall include suspending or 
     terminating the demonstration project (in whole or in part) 
     or lowering the amount of payment under paragraph (1)(A).

       ``(i) Evaluation and reports.--
       ``(1) Independent evaluation.--
       ``(A) In general.--The administering Secretaries shall 
     arrange for an independent entity with expertise in the 
     evaluation of health care services to conduct an evaluation 
     of the demonstration project.
       ``(B) Contents.--The evaluation conducted under 
     subparagraph (A) shall include an assessment, based on the 
     agreement entered into under subsection (b), of the 
     following:
       ``(i) The cost to the Department of Veterans Affairs of 
     providing care to veterans under the project.
       ``(ii) Compliance of participating demonstration sites with 
     applicable measures of quality of care, compared to such 
     compliance for other medicare-participating medical centers 
     that are not Veterans Affairs medical facilities.
       ``(iii) A comparison of the costs of participation of the 
     demonstration sites in the program with the reimbursements 
     provided for services of such sites.
       ``(iv) Any savings or costs to the medicare program under 
     this title from the project.
       ``(v) Any change in access to care or quality of care for 
     targeted medicare-eligible veterans participating in the 
     project.
       ``(vi) Any effect of the project on the access to care and 
     quality of care for targeted medicare-eligible veterans not 
     participating in the project and other veterans not 
     participating in the project.
       ``(vii) The provision of services under managed health care 
     plans under subsection (g), including the circumstances (if 
     any) under which the Secretary of Veterans Affairs uses 
     reserves described in paragraph (3) of such subsection and 
     the Secretary of Veterans Affairs' response to such 
     circumstances (including the termination of managed health 
     care plans requiring the use of such reserves).
       ``(viii) Any effect that the demonstration project has on 
     the enrollment in Medicare+Choice plans offered by 
     Medicare+Choice organizations under part C of this title in 
     the established site areas.
       ``(ix) Any additional elements that the independent entity 
     determines is appropriate to assess regarding the 
     demonstration project.
       ``(C) Annual reports.--The independent entity conducting 
     the evaluation under subparagraph (A) shall submit reports on 
     such evaluation to the administering Secretaries and to the 
     committees of jurisdiction in the Congress as follows:
       ``(i) Initial report.--The entity shall submit the initial 
     report not later than 12 months after the date on which the 
     demonstration project begins operation.
       ``(ii) Second annual report.--The entity shall submit the 
     second annual report not later than 30 months after the date 
     on which the demonstration project begins operation.
       ``(iii) Final report.--The entity shall submit the final 
     report not later than 3\1/2\ years after the date on which 
     the demonstration project begins operation.
       ``(2) Report on extension and expansion of demonstration 
     project.--Not later than 3\1/2\ years after the date on which 
     the demonstration project begins operation, the administering 
     Secretaries shall submit to Congress a report containing--
       ``(A) their recommendation as to--
       ``(i) whether to extend the demonstration project or make 
     the project permanent;
       ``(ii) whether to expand the project to cover additional 
     demonstration sites and to increase the maximum amount of 
     reimbursement (or the maximum amount of reimbursement 
     permitted for managed health care plans under this section) 
     under the project in any year; and
       ``(iii) whether the terms and conditions of the project 
     should be continued (or modified) if the project is extended 
     or expanded; and
       ``(B) a detailed description of any costs associated with 
     their recommendation made pursuant to clauses (i) and (ii) of 
     subparagraph (A).''.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to express my profound gratitude to 
the staffs of both the majority and minority, and to all Senators for 
their cooperation. I think we learned a lesson in constitutional 
history, thanks to Senator Gramm.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I feel compelled to explain the reasons for 
my vote against this bill in spite of my strong support for the goals 
for which this bill strives. Clearly, our armed forces personnel 
deserve the best pay and benefits that this nation can provide for 
them. I am aware of the recruiting and retention problems being faced 
by the services, and I know that the Armed Services Committee had those 
problems in mind as they drafted this legislation. I do believe, 
however, that we need to look more closely at how we can solve the 
military recruitment and retention problems. That question has not been 
adequately studied. Perhaps a pay raise will stem the tide of personnel 
leaving the military. Maybe people are leaving simply because this 
nation has enjoyed several years of a strong economy. The reduced 
pension could be the reason that people are leaving. The point I make 
is that we are not really sure why the military is having difficulty 
meeting its recruitment and retention goals, and this bill seems to be 
a shotgun approach to solving that problem.
  The President's Fiscal Year 2000 budget makes allowances for the 
problems that the armed services are facing. The proposed budget would 
increase military pay across the board by 4.4%, there would be greater 
increases for mid-career personnel and military pensions would be 
increased from 40% to 50%. These changes are not minor. They will cost 
billions of dollars over the next six years, and I applaud the 
Administration for offering these additions to our military pay and 
benefits programs. The difference between the President's proposal and 
this bill is that the President's proposal is paid for in the budget. 
This bill, on the other hand, is not funded. No one has any idea where 
the funding will come from to pay for this bill's generous provisions.
  I read the Congressional Budget Office's report on this legislation. 
That report has been entered in the Congressional Record, and it 
estimates that enactment of the bill would raise discretionary spending 
by $1.1 billion in 2000 and $13.8 billion from 2000 to 2004. According 
to statements from several Senators on the floor, the amendments that 
were added to this bill would increase the cost by a couple of billion 
more over the next several years. To spend that amount of money when we 
do not have a source of funding is irresponsible. To fund this bill, we 
will have to find offsets in the defense budget, use surplus funds, or 
raid domestic spending. I oppose all of those means.

[[Page 3024]]

  Several of my colleagues have expressed concern about the cost of 
this bill. They assume, I suppose, that this bill will become more 
reasonable in conference. Perhaps they plan to oppose this bill if, 
after conference, there is still no means to fund it. I, however, 
cannot in good conscience vote to send this bill to conference in the 
hope that it will somehow emerge vastly improved and worthy of my 
support.
  Beyond the funding problems inherent in this legislation, there are a 
few other problems I would like to address. First, the Secretary of 
Defense does not support this bill. In a letter to the Armed Services 
Committee, Secretary Cohen stated that this bill ``could raise hopes 
that cannot be fulfilled until the final budget number is set.'' Like 
the Secretary, I would like to support this bill, but it would not be 
right to support this expanded package of pay and benefits for military 
personnel now, and then, later, to decide that we are not willing to 
fund the entire package. This amounts to an authorization bill. The 
check for these funds is not written. Again, no one knows how we are 
going to appropriate money to pay for this.
  Unfortunately, there have been no hearings on this bill. I would 
think that a $16 billion unfunded mandate deserved at least a hearing 
or two. I would have liked to have known what the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
thought of this bill's provisions. I would have liked to have seen the 
studies that show the effect that each of these provisions has on 
recruitment and retention. There was no testimony, and there were no 
studies. There was just a rush to ``do something,'' and what we have 
done here is irresponsible. The first legislation to pass through the 
Senate in the 106th Congress is a $16 billion, budget-busting, unfunded 
mandate.

                          ____________________