February 24, 1999

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.

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.