[Senate Report 106-1]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                                                        Calendar No. 13

106th Congress                                                   Report
  1st Session                    SENATE                           106-1

=======================================================================



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

                                _______
                                

                February 2, 1999.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______


    Mr. Warner, from the Committee on Armed Services, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                          [To accompany S. 4]

    The Committee on Armed Services, to which was referred the 
bill (S. 4) having considered the same, reports favorably 
thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.

                          Purpose of the Bill

    S. 4 would authorize a 4.8 percent military pay raise, 
effective January 1, 2000, reform the military pay tables, 
revise the military retirement system, authorize active duty 
military personnel to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan, 
revise benefits under the Montgomery G.I. Bill, authorize a 
special subsistence allowance for junior enlisted military 
personnel who demonstrate eligibility for food stamps, and 
require an annual report on the impact of these programs on 
recruiting and retention.

                 Committee Overview and Recommendations

    The Committee on Armed Services held a series of two 
hearings in which the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified to the 
state of military readiness and recommended several legislative 
proposals that, according to their testimony, would provide 
remedies for the causative factors the services identified as 
the reasons military personnel were leaving the service and 
potential recruits were reluctant to enlist.
    The first of these hearings was held on September 29, 1998 
and the second was held January 5, 1999. During these hearings 
the Joint Chiefs testified that, among their recommendations, 
their highest priority was to repeal the ``Redux'' retirement 
plan. The Military Retirement Reform Act of 1986, also known as 
the ``Redux'' retirement plan, was enacted in July 1986. The 
provisions of this Act changed the existing military retirement 
program by reducing the multiplier used to calculate military 
retired pay. Prior to this act, military retired pay was 
calculated by multiplying two and one-half percent of the 
average of the highest three years of basic pay by the number 
of years of service. This formula resulted in service members 
who served for 20 years receiving 50 percent of their average 
of the highest three years of basic pay. The retired pay under 
the pre-1986 retirement program is indexed to adjustment by the 
full amount of the Consumer Price Index. Under the Military 
Retirement Reform Act of 1986, military retired pay is 
calculated by multiplying two and one-half percent of the 
average of the highest three years of basic pay by the number 
of years of service, less one percent for each year less than 
30 years of service. This formula resulted in service members 
who served for 20 years receiving 40 percent of their average 
of the highest three years of basic pay until they reach age 
62, at which time they receive 50 percent of their average of 
the highest three years of basic pay. Annual cost-of-living 
adjustments are limited to the Consumer Price Index less one 
percent until the recipient reaches age 62. At age 62 retired 
pay is adjusted with a one-time adjustment to restore the 
purchasing power of the annuity. Annual cost-of-living 
adjustments continue to be limited to the Consumer Price Index 
less one percent.
    The House report accompanying H.R. 4420, the Military 
Retirement Reform Act of 1986 (H. Rept. 99-513), states that 
the changes to the military retirement system were intended to 
provide an incentive for service members who complete 20 years 
of service to remain on active duty. In the statement of 
managers accompanying the Military Retirement Reform Act of 
1986 (Public Law 99-348), the conferees acknowledge that 
changing one aspect of an integrated personnel and compensation 
system could well engender need for adjustments in other 
aspects of the system. The conferees stated:

          As future career force needs develop, the management 
        tools for recruiting and retaining a career force may 
        require adjustment. The Conferees are confident that 
        the Department of Defense and the military services 
        will monitor this situation closely and provide the 
        Committees on Armed Service of the Senate and the House 
        of Representatives annually in posture statements their 
        assessments of the state of the career force, together 
        with recommendations for legislative action that may be 
        necessary to prudent management of the career force.

    The testimony of the Joint Chiefs in September 1998 and 
January 1999 fulfilled the expectations described by the 
conferees in 1986. The Joint Chiefs made it clear that, in 
their opinion based on the data available to them, the 
incentive for career personnel to remain on active duty longer 
than 20 years envisioned in the House report (H. Rept. 99-513) 
was not asattractive as originally thought in 1986. The Joint 
Chiefs testified that mid-career military personnel were deciding to 
leave the service well before reaching 20 years of service. In exit 
surveys, these departing personnel reported that dissatisfaction with 
reduced retirement benefits was an important factor in their decision 
to leave the service. The Joint Chiefs testified that, along with 
repeal of the ``Redux'' retirement program, it was essential to close 
the gap between military pay and private sector wages. General Shelton 
testified that:

          One can argue about how large the pay gap is 
        depending on the base selected, but the estimates range 
        from 8.5 percent to 13.5 percent, and very few deny 
        that the gap is real.

    On December 21, 1998, the Secretary of Defense and General 
Shelton announced their proposals for increasing military pay 
and changing the military retirement system. In his statement, 
Secretary Cohen said:

          We must compensate men and women in uniform properly 
        in relation to their peers and in relation to the 
        larger economy. And the compensation system must help 
        the Services recruit and retain the high quality men 
        and women our defense requires. The leadership of the 
        Department of Defense and the military services are 
        deeply committed to providing for the welfare of the 
        men and women who serve the nation so well, and for 
        their families.

The proposal announced by Secretary Cohen and General Shelton, 
while more modest in scale, are similar in construct and design 
to those in this bill.
    On January 19, the Majority Leader, along with the 
Republican Members of the Armed Services Committee and others, 
introduced S. 4, the Soldiers'', Sailors'', Airmen's and 
Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999. Also on January 19, 1999, 
Senator Cleland, along with the Democratic Members of the Armed 
Services Committee and others, introduced S.169, the Military 
Recruiting and Retention Improvement Act of 1999. Both bills 
were referred to the Committee on Armed Services. The bill 
reported by the Committee includes provisions from both of 
these bills.
    The Committee recommends the following specific provisions.

                      TITLE I--PAY AND ALLOWANCES

Section 101--Fiscal year 2000 increase and restructuring of basic pay

    The committee recommends a provision that would waive 
section 1009 of title 37, United States Code, and increase the 
rates of basic pay for members of the uniformed services by 4.8 
percent. This increase would be effective January 1, 2000. The 
recommended provision, effective July 1, 2000, would 
restructure the pay tables for the uniformed services to 
relieve compression between grades by restoring significance to 
promotion pay raises and eliminating inconsistencies in the 
current pay tables. The proposed restructuring of the pay 
tables would shift the emphasis toward promotion while reducing 
and making longevity increases more uniform than those in the 
current pay tables.

Section 102--Pay increases for fiscal years after fiscal year 2000

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1009 of title 37, United States Code, to provide that 
military pay raises after October 1, 2000 shall be equal to the 
Employment Cost Index plus one-half percent. The committee 
intends that future military pay raises exceed the annual 
growth in private sector wages, as indicated by the Employment 
Cost Index, to close the gap between military pay and private 
sector wages. The committee recognizes that this formula may 
require further adjustment in the future once the gap between 
military and private sector wages is eliminated.
    The committee is aware that military and civilian federal 
employees have received similar pay raises for many years. 
While the committee does not have jurisdiction over federal 
civilian pay, it does believe that treating both military and 
federal civilian compensation adjustments with parity has 
served both entities well.

Section 103--Special subsistence allowance

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 
special subsistence allowance of $180 per month payable to 
enlisted personnel in grades E-5 and below who can demonstrate 
eligibility for food stamps. This allowance would be payable 
for a period of twelve months, unless one of the following 
events occurred: the service member is no longer eligible for 
food stamps; the service member is promoted to a higher grade; 
or the service member is transferred in a permanent change of 
station. Once the allowance is terminated, the service member 
may re-apply for the allowance if he or she can demonstrate 
continued eligibility for food stamps. The recommended 
provision would require the Secretary of Defense to submit an 
annual report on the number of military personnel eligible to 
receive food stamps to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives, not later than March 1 
of each year. The special subsistence allowance would be 
effective within 180 days of enactment and would expire after 
five years. The committee believes that the Nation should take 
extraordinary measures to assist the neediest military families 
who now require federal food stamp assistance. This allowance, 
when combined with the 4.8 percent pay raise, restructuring of 
the pay tables and the requirement for future pay raises to be 
based on the Employment Cost Index plus one-half percent, is 
estimated to assist nearly 10,000 military personnel to 
discontinue the use of food stamps.

                     TITLE II--RETIREMENT BENEFITS

Section 201--Retired pay options for personnel entering uniformed 
        services on or after August 1, 1986

    The committee recommends a provision that would afford 
service members who entered the uniformed services on or after 
August 1, 1986 the option to elect to retire under the pre-1986 
military retirement plan or to accept a one-time $30,000 lump 
sum bonus and to remain under the ``Redux'' retirement plan. 
Service members would be permitted to select between the two 
retirement programs within 180 days of completing 15 years of 
service. Service members who elect to accept the lump sum bonus 
would be obligated to serve the remaining five years to become 
retirement eligible. Those who do not complete the required 
service would be required to repay a pro-rated amount based on 
the unserved amount of the obligation. Service members would be 
permitted to elect to have the pre-tax value of the bonus 
deposited directly into a Thrift Savings account. The committee 
believes that affording service members an option fulfills the 
request of the Joint Chiefs by permitting those who find the 
``Redux'' retirement system as a disincentive to serving a full 
career the opportunity to transfer to the pre-1986 retirement 
plan. However, those who would prefer to receive a cash bonus 
or those who seek the benefits of a Thrift Savings Plan may 
elect to remain under the ``Redux'' retirement system. The 
committee believes these options are both cost effective and 
provide the necessary incentives for mid-career personnel to 
remain on active duty.

Section 202--Participation in thrift savings plan

    The committee recommends a provision that would, effective 
July 1, 2000, authorize members of the uniformed services to 
participate in the Thrift Savings Plan now available for 
federal civil service employees. Service members would be 
eligible to deposit up to five percent of their basic pay, 
before tax, each month. The government is not required to match 
the service member's contributions. In addition, service 
members would be permitted to directly deposit special pays for 
enlistment, reenlistment and the lump-sum for electing to 
remain in the ``Redux'' retirement program, pre-tax, into their 
Thrift Savings account. Participating in a Thrift Savings 
account would encourage personal savings and enhance the 
retirement income for service members, who currently do not 
have access to a 401k savings plan. Under current Thrift 
Savings Plan regulations, participants may borrow from their 
accounts for such worthy purposes as college tuition and 
purchasing a home. If enacted, military personnel would be able 
to join other federal workers in a savings program that will 
enhance the value of their retirement system and permit them to 
improve their quality of life. The committee believes this 
provision will be an important incentive for military personnel 
and their families to remain on active duty.

Section 203--Special retention incentive

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
service secretaries to make contributions to the Thrift Savings 
Plan of a service member serving in a speciality designated as 
critical to meet service requirements. The recommended 
provision would be entirely discretionary and would permit the 
service secretary to offer to make monthly contributions, up to 
the maximum amount contributed by the service member, for a 
period of six years in return for a six year service commitment 
on the part of the service member. The Joint Chiefs testified 
as to the difficulty the services are experiencing with mid-
career retention in critical specialities. Pilots, air crewmen, 
special operations personnel, surface warfare officers, and 
other critical military specialities have been identified as 
examples of the hemorrhage of highly trained, experienced 
military personnel. The committee believes this provision would 
provide service secretaries a powerful tool to be used to 
encourage personnel in the most critical specialities to remain 
on active duty.

                TITLE III--MONTGOMERY G.I. BILL BENEFITS

Section 301--Increase in rates of educational assistance for full-time 
        education

    The committee recommends a provision that would increase 
the monthly benefit under the Montgomery G.I. Bill, authorized 
in Title VII of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1985 (Public Law 98-525), from $528 to $600 for 
members who serve at least 3 years, and from $429 to $488 for 
members with two year enlistments. Although Montgomery G.I. 
Bill (MGIB) benefit levels are adjusted annually by the 
increase in the Consumer Price Index, the benefits have not 
kept up with the increase in cost of college education. The 
committee concluded that the adverse ratio between the cost of 
higher education and the benefits available to pay for it may 
be one reason why veterans are not using the benefit that they 
invested $1,200 to obtain. The committee believes that this 
modest increase in the MGIB benefit will make this program a 
more attractive recruiting incentive. This recommendation is 
consistent with the recent recommendation of the Congressional 
Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition 
Assistance.

Section 302--Terminations of reductions of basic pay

    The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate 
the $1,200 contribution required of members who elect to 
participate in the Montgomery G.I. Bill program (MGIB), and to 
absolve any balance of the $1,200 payroll deduction owed by 
active duty members effective the date of enactment. Under the 
current provisions of the MGIB program, recruits are enrolled 
upon entering active duty and are given the option to 
declineenrollment if they so desire. If they remain enrolled, $100 per 
month is deducted from their basic pay for 12 months. Once enrolled, 
members cannot disenroll and the money deducted is non- refundable, 
except in cases of a service-connected death of the service member. The 
committee believes that the elimination of the $1,200 pay reduction 
will enhance the attractiveness of the MGIB as a recruiting incentive. 
This recommendation is consistent with the recent recommendation of the 
Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition 
Assistance.

Section 303--Accelerated payments of educational assistance

    The committee recommends a provision that would permit 
payment of accelerated ``lump sum'' benefits for an entire 
term, semester, or quarter at colleges and for the entire 
course for courses not leading to a college degree. Payment of 
the Montgomery G.I. Bill (MGIB) benefit at a fixed monthly rate 
constrains veterans and service members desiring to enroll in 
certain courses of study. The committee believes that 
permitting accelerated payments will make it easier to use the 
MGIB benefits without increasing the cost of the benefits and 
make the MGIB a more attractive recruiting and retention 
incentive. This recommendation is consistent with the recent 
recommendation of the Congressional Commission on 
Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance.

Section 304--Transfer of entitlement to educational assistance

    The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 
Services with the discretionary authority to permit service 
members to transfer their Montgomery G.I. Bill (MGIB) benefits 
to immediate family members. Many service members reluctantly 
leave the service to take advantage of more lucrative 
opportunities so they can afford a college education for their 
family members. This provision gives them a vehicle to finance 
a college education for family members while remaining in the 
service. The committee believes that the ability to transfer 
MGIB benefits to family members will prove to be a powerful 
retention incentive. This recommendation is consistent with the 
recent recommendation of the Congressional Commission on 
Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance.

                            TITLE IV--REPORT

Section 401--Annual report on effects of initiatives on recruitment and 
        retention

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Department of Defense to report annually on the impact of the 
initiatives contained in this bill on recruiting and retention. 
This will ensure that Congress receives analysis and feedback 
on the effectiveness of these programs on recruiting and 
retention in the Services.

                            Committee Action

    In accordance with the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
1946, as amended by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, 
there is set forth below the committee vote to report the 
Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's and Marines' Bill of Rights Act 
of 1999 (S. 4).
    In favor: Warner, Thurmond, McCain, Smith, Inhofe, 
Santorum, Snowe, Roberts, Allard, Hutchinson, Sessions, 
Kennedy, Bingaman, Byrd, Robb, Cleland, Landrieu and Reed.
    Opposed: None.
    Present: Levin and Lieberman.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    It is not possible to include the Congressional Budget 
Office cost estimate on this legislation because it was not 
available at the time the report was filed. The committee will 
publish in the Congressional Record information on the five-
year cost projections when such information is received from 
the Congressional Budget Office.

                           Regulatory Impact

    Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate requires that a report on the regulatory impact of a 
bill be included in the report on the bill. The committee finds 
that there is no regulatory impact in the case of S. 4.

                        Changes in Existing Law

    Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of 
the Standing Rules of the Senate, the changes in existing law 
made by certain portions of the bill have not been shown in 
this section of the report because, in the opinion of the 
committee, it is necessary to dispense with showing such 
changes in order to expedite the business of the Senate and 
reduce the expenditure of funds.

  ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATORS LEVIN, KENNEDY, BINGAMAN, BYRD, ROBB, 
                 LIEBERMAN, CLELAND, LANDRIEU, AND REED

    All of the Members of this Committee are in agreement that 
we must provide fair compensation to the men and women of our 
armed services for their outstanding performance and dedicated 
service to our nation. We are all keenly conscious of the 
demands that we place on our troops, the circumstances in which 
they must live and work, and the fact that we often pay them 
less, and expect them to do far more, than employers in the 
private sector.
    Secretary Cohen and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have made a 
strong case that military recruitment and retention have begun 
to suffer, in part, because of this pay gap with the private 
sector. For this reason, the Administration has recommended 
that we act to address this problem with an across-the-board 
increase in military salaries, targeted pay raises to better 
reward performance, and a change to the military retirement 
system to place service members who entered after 1986 on a 
footing more comparable to those who entered the service at an 
earlier date. We concur in these three recommendations.
    We also believe that the bill reported by the Committee has 
been enhanced by adding provisions, first proposed by Senator 
Cleland in S. 169 and consistent with the recommendations of 
the Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans 
Transition Assistance, to improve the educational benefits 
provided to service members through the GI bill. These changes 
should provide a substantial incentive to assist the services' 
recruiting and retention, while providing our men and women in 
uniform an educational opportunity in the proudest tradition of 
our country.
    At the same time, we believe that we do a disservice to our 
military and to our nation by failing to give these far-
reaching measures the kind of serious, thoughtful consideration 
that they deserve. Although the Joint Chiefs of Staff have 
testified at two hearings that they want us to change the 
military retirement system, the proposals in S. 4 are very 
different from their proposals. We recommend that the Committee 
ask the Joint Chiefs whether they support the retirement 
proposals in this bill.
    The Armed Services Committee has held two hearings in 
recent months on the state of military readiness, but we have 
not held a hearing on the specific proposals that are included 
in this bill. While it is unlikely that the Department of 
Defense would oppose a bill that does so much for the uniformed 
military, it is not unreasonable to think that they might have 
constructive changes to suggest. At the very least, we should 
afford the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and 
the Deputy Chiefs of Staff for Personnel an opportunity to 
testify before acting on a bill that is likely to shape our 
military force, and our defense budget, for the next 
generation.
    There are any number of questions that should be addressed 
before this bill is taken up for consideration by the 
fullSenate. For example:
     How do the cost and benefits of the retirement 
proposal in S. 4 differ from the cost and benefits of DOD's 
proposal? Do the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the uniformed 
military support the changes to the DOD proposal that we would 
make in this bill, or do they prefer their own proposal?
     What is the monetary difference in the benefits 
available through the two military retirement systems for a 
typical retiree? What was the basis for offering a $30,000 cash 
payment as an alternative to the more generous, pre-1986 
retirement benefits? Which alternative are most retirees likely 
to select and what will the cost impact be?
     How will civilian employees of the federal 
government react to a provision that severs the traditional 
link between military and civilian pay raises and codifies in 
permanent law that the annual increase in military pay would be 
one percent greater than the annual increase currently 
applicable to Federal civilian pay?
     By setting annual cost of living adjustments in 
permanent law, will we commit ourselves to increasing military 
pay faster than the rate of inflation, even after problems with 
military recruiting and retention have been addressed?
     Do the military services support the Thrift 
Savings Plan proposal in the bill, or are they concerned that 
it might undermine confidence in the military retirement 
system?
     Do we know which categories of members are most 
likely to take advantage of the Thrift Savings Plan? How do 
these categories relate to the categories of members that we 
most need to attract and retain? Do we have any basis for 
concluding that this proposal would have a greater impact on 
recruiting and retention than more targeted spending, such as 
increased special pays and bonuses?
     Are members of the National Guard and Reserve 
eligible to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan proposals? 
Should they be?
     Will the special subsistence allowance for those 
who are eligible for food stamps create an inequity between 
military families living on a base in military housing and 
families living off base in private housing, since they receive 
a cash housing allowance which counts as income for the purpose 
of determining food stamp eligibility?
     Will the special subsistence allowance increase 
tensions between married and unmarried service members, since 
it will provide an additional benefit for members with a large 
number of dependents? How will it affect military families 
living overseas, who are not eligible for food stamps?
    We do not yet have a CBO estimate of how much this bill 
will cost, but the Department of Defense has estimated that 
these costs will exceed the cost of the proposal of Secretary 
Cohen and the Joint Chiefs of Staff by more than $7 billion 
over the next five years. The cost to the Department could be 
increased even further, if Congress stands by the historic 
concept of pay equity and provides annual pay increases for 
civilian employees of the federal government equal to those 
proposed in this bill for members of the military services. 
Consideration needs to be given to how Congress would pay for 
those increased benefits.
    At this early point in the legislative cycle, we do not yet 
know how much money will be available for defense, or the full 
extent of the other requirements that will be placed on those 
funds. If the defense budget is not substantially increased, we 
may need to make deep cuts in the readiness and modernization 
accounts to pay for the changes proposed in this bill. Such 
cuts, coming at a time when our senior military leadership have 
already expressed concerns about our readiness, could have a 
serious impact on our national security.
    We continue to believe that the proper way to address this 
issue is to weigh this proposal against other military 
requirements in our normal authorization process. At the very 
least, we should wait until we have a defense budget and give 
DOD an opportunity to testify on the budgetary impact of the 
bill before the bill is brought to the full Senate.
    We support efforts to improve our military pay and 
retirement systems and to address the recruiting and retention 
problems identified by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in a timely 
manner. We must not, however, make promises of this kind to the 
troops without carefully considering how much they will cost 
and where the money will come from.
    We urge the Committee to take additional time to carry out 
its responsibility to the Senate in a thoughtful and deliberate 
manner. We look forward to providing our troops with the pay 
and retirement system they so rightly deserve.

                                   Carl Levin.
                                   Edward M. Kennedy.
                                   Jeff Bingaman.
                                   Robert C. Byrd.
                                   Charles S. Robb.
                                   Joseph I. Lieberman.
                                   Max Cleland.
                                   Mary L. Landrieu.
                                   Jack Reed.

                ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR MAX CLELAND

    I am pleased that two of the most important provisions of 
my bill, S. 169, the Military Recruiting and Retention 
Improvement Act of 1999, are included in the bill the Committee 
has adopted.
    All of us are very concerned about the recruiting and 
retention challenges our Services are facing. We simply have to 
support our troops if we are to maintain the strong, ready 
force our Nation needs. We need programs that will motivate our 
Nation's young men and women to serve, and to stay in the 
Service once they are in.
    I am particularly pleased that my proposal to enhance the 
GI Bill is included in S. 4. When new recruits are asked why 
they enlisted, more say it is to earn money for college than 
any other reason. If education is our greatest attraction, we 
need to enhance that incentive. The enhanced GI Bill benefits 
included in S. 4 will do just that.
    Currently, new recruits have to forfeit $100 a month for 12 
months to enroll in the GI Bill program. That is a lot of 
money, especially for young people, most of whom are just out 
of high school and who have no savings. Eliminating the 
requirement for our lowest paid members to forfeit $100 a month 
will make the GI Bill a much more attractive and effective 
recruiting tool.
    My provision to allow service members to transfer GI Bill 
benefits to members of their immediate family serves a two-fold 
purpose, which will enhance recruiting and retention. First, it 
allows family members to use the benefits while the military 
member is still in the Service, preventing those benefits from 
going unused. Second, allowing military family members to use 
these valuable benefits sends them a strong signal that their 
support and sacrifices are appreciated.
    Finally, the enhancement of the GI Bill basic benefits will 
help to defray spiraling college costs. This will serve to 
enhance both recruiting and retention.
    This combination of modifications to the current GI Bill 
provides a powerful incentive for ambitious young Americans to 
join the Service and to stay there. These changes are just the 
beginning. The Congressional Commission on Service Members and 
Veterans Transition Assistance made additional recommendations 
to improve the GI Bill. All of these recommendations warrant 
serious consideration outside of this bill.
    I am also pleased that the bill reported out by the 
Committee includes the provision of my bill to require DOD to 
report annually on how well these recruiting and retention 
incentives are working. This will give us the ability to make 
mid-course adjustments, if we need to, so that we can assure 
the taxpayers that they are getting the best value for their 
investment. I fully expect these reports will reflect the 
wisdom of the legislation we are advancing.
    Again, I am very enthusiastic about the legislative package 
that we are forwarding to the full Senate for consideration.
                                                       Max Cleland.

                                
