Senator Nancy Kassebaum
(R-KS), Presiding Officer
(presiding over the debate)
Senator Howard Baker
(R-TN), Majority Leader
Senator John Tower (R-TX),
Chairman, Committee
on Armed Services
Senator John Glenn (D-OH)1
Senator James Abdnor (R-SD),
Presiding Officer
Senator Bill Cohen (R-ME),
Member, Committee on Armed
Services
Senator Alan Simpson
(R-WY), Chairman,
Committee on
Veterans’ Affairs
Senator Alan Cranston
(D-CA), Ranking Member,
Committee on
Veterans’ Affairs
Senator Spark Matsunaga
(D-CA), Member,
Committee on
Veterans’ Affairs
Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA),
Ranking Member,
Committee on
Armed Services
Senator Bob Kasten (R-WI),
Presiding Officer
Senator Bill Armstrong
(R-CO)
SONNY’S SUMMARY
In this chapter, on June 11, we’ll see the Senate debate extensively the test Citizen-Soldier Education Program, proposed by Senator John Glenn, as an amendment to The Omnibus Defense Authorization Act of 1985 (S. 2723). Also in this chapter, on June 13. in the first of six votes on the Glenn amendment that day, the Senate approves the Glenn Test Citizen-Soldier Education Assistance Program, 96 to 1. The next five substantive and procedural GI Bill votes are debated in Chapters 8 and 9.
Principals in the debate throughout were Senators Glenn (D-OH), John Tower (R-TX), Alan Simpson (R-WY), and Sam Nunn (D-GA), all of whom advocated the proposed test Citizen-Soldier Program. The Glenn group preferred what broadly may be described as a lower-cost, four-year test program in which service members would serve for two years and financially contribute to their GI Bill benefits—legislation the Senate approves in this chapter.
Senators Bill Armstrong (R-CO), Bill Cohen (R-ME), Alan Cranston (D-CA), and Spark Matsunaga (D-HI) advocated the proposed Peacetime Veterans’ Educational Assistance Act. The Armstrong group wanted what broadly may be described as a higher-cost, permanent GI Bill program in which service members would serve generally for four years and not require them to contribute financially to their benefits (as a condition of program participation), legislation that we’ll see voted down in Chapters 8 and 9.
Mr. Montgomery
This chapter—and the next two chapters—contain some of the richest debate of the seven-year legislative history of the Montgomery GI Bill.
By my count, 21 Senators spoke during about nine hours of debate on different amendments proposed principally by Senators Glenn and Armstrong to create new GI Bill-type programs for our all-volunteer military as part of the Fiscal Year 1985 Omnibus Department of Defense (DoD) Authorization Act. The Senate Armed Services Committee had both introduced and marked-up the bill on the same day (May 31, 1984).2
Each year a defense authorization act furnishes authority for hundreds of billions of dollars in funding for the military services to fulfill their missions the following fiscal year.3
How many billions of dollars is the Senate talking about? For example, Senator Dixon of Illinois unsuccessfully moved to send the proposed DoD Authorization Act for FY 1985 back to the Senate Armed Services Committee to mark-up at a figure of $293.7 billion, which would have been 5 percent real growth for FY 1985 for the DoD Authorization bill.4
Students, this is an excellent chapter to use the interactive role-play approach embodied in our text. Just assign a student to play the role of each speaker listed in Sonny’s Cast of Characters at the beginning of this chapter.
I’ve done my best to reflect in our text the Senate debate of June 11 and June 13 that expresses the various viewpoints—and captures the debate’s overall flow—as recorded in the Congressional Record.5
The Congressional Record is the substantive, verbatim account of daily proceedings—especially debate and votes on the House and Senate floor. “At the back of each daily issue is the ‘Daily Digest,’ which summarizes the day’s floor and committee activities.”6
Said another way, I’ve tried my best to show the arguments—both for and against—the Glenn and Armstrong amendments, as Senators stated them. The two amendments had the same underlying objective: achieving a better GI Bill to recruit high-quality individuals into our all-volunteer military and furnishing a quality post-military service education benefit. But the approaches were very different.
I have divided the nine hours of debate over two days according to the debates and six votes:
• The debate (June 11); and
• Glenn amendment passes 96 to 1 on a roll-call vote (June 13).
• Tower motion to table the Armstrong amendment defeated 51 to 46 on a roll-call vote.
• Armstrong motion to waive relevant portions of the Budget Act defeated 48-44 on a roll-call vote (third);
• Glenn motion to make his amendment subject to an annual appropriation, approved by unanimous consent with no roll-call vote (fourth);
• Tower second motion to table the Armstrong amendment passes 47-45 on a roll-call vote (fifth); and
• Glenn amendment, as modified by annual appropriation language, approved by a roll-call vote of 72-20 (sixth).
Students, Chapters 7, 8, and 9 reflect the Senate floor debate closely, so I am involving myself generally only to open and close each of the chapters and offer occasional clarifying comments.
One of you please assume the role of the Senate’s Presiding Officer as well. That’s the Senator who presides over the debate, a sort of parliamentary “referee.” If the majority party in the Senate is the same party as the party occupying the White House, the Vice President sometimes presides over debate to be positioned to cast a tie-breaking vote.
For this chapter, and Chapters 8 and 9, I am not providing endnotes for the italicized words spoken during the debate because the only source is the Congressional Record for that day.
Except to open the floor debate/Senate session, I also do not include Senator’s requests to the Presiding Officer seeking permission to be recognized to speak.
And since the Presiding Officer essentially facilitates the debate, I do not necessarily show his or her picture in the text each time a new presiding officer assumes the chair.
Lastly, the format in this chapter and Chapters 8 and 9 reflects the debate/format as it appears in the Congressional Record.
We start with the debate on June 11, 1984, at page 15, 628 of the Congressional Record. On June 11, the Senate will discuss the pros and cons of Senator Glenn’s amendment but not vote on it. Senator Armstrong is not present that day, although he had a longstanding interest in this issue.7
The U.S. Senate Chamber
Conclusion of morning business:8 Senator Howard Baker addresses the Presiding Officer, Senator Nancy Kassebaum.
Mr. Baker
“Madam President, has the time for morning business expired?”
Presiding Officer
Nancy Kassebaum, Presiding Officer
“Yes, morning business is closed.
“The clerk will state the pending business:” “A bill (S. 2723) to authorize appropriations for the military functions of the Department of Defense and to prescribe personnel levels for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1985, to authorize certain construction at military installations for such fiscal year, to authorize appropriations for the Department of Energy for national security programs for such fiscal year; and for other purposes.”
“Madam President, I note that there are not many amendments currently filed at the desk to the DoD Authorization Act. I hope Senators will file their amendments and be prepared to offer them.9”
John Tower
Purpose: To provide a new GI educational assistance program.
Mr. Glenn
John Glenn
“Madam President, I send an amendment [currently filed] to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.”
Presiding Officer
“The amendment will be stated. On page 54 [of S. 2723], between the lines 14 and 15, insert the following new section:
New GI Educational Assistance Program Chapter 29—Citizen-Soldier Educational Assistance Program.”
Mr. Montgomery
Students, I’ll jump in here just to tell you the legislative language of the amendment continues for two-plus pages in the Congressional Record.11 Note that Chairman Tower amended the Glenn amendment with a “perfecting” amendment to make it a pilot (as in “test”) program; however, we’ll skip that part of the discussion since Senator Glenn didn’t oppose the Tower amendment.
Mr. Glenn
“Mr. President [Senator Abdnor has assumed the Chair],12 this amendment which I have termed the Citizen-Soldier GI Bill,13 will establish a means by which young people who desire to serve their country in the military will have an option to serve for two years at reduced pay and, in return, receive substantial post-secondary education benefits upon their departure from the service.
“I believe an enlistment category of this nature [most enlistments in the mid-1980s were for three, four or six years] would harness the drive of our young people who want to serve their country in a rewarding and significant manner; it would reinforce the concept of societal responsibility and national community by encouraging military service among the widest spectrum of our youth; it would assist the military in achieving recruitment goals with high-quality recruits; and it would enhance educational opportunities by expanding post-service education assistance at a reasonable cost to the federal government….
“There is yet another and overarching concern about the military and its relationship to our society that I know is shared by many. Since the Gates Commission Report of 1970 introduced the All-Volunteer Force, the concept of enlisting in the military as a patriotic and public service has been reduced to it being widely viewed as a mere compensated occupation, as only a job rather than as a service to our country. This has led to a disproportionate share of our military services being manned by disadvantaged segments of our society.
“The better educated, better connected, more affluent young men and women frequently consider military service as something to avoid rather than as a golden opportunity to serve their country directly in partial compensation for all the rights and benefits they enjoy as citizens.
COMMON HERITAGE… SIMILAR ASPIRATIONS
“The maturing process that takes place for our young men and women in the military as they mix on common ground with others of widely different economic, racial, ethnic, and regional backgrounds cannot be achieved comparably in any other process of which I am aware. The reinforcement of their jointly held values as American citizens, sharing a common heritage and often similar aspirations, has a cohesive effect that cannot be matched anywhere else in our society. The whole nation is stronger for it.
“For all of these reasons I feel that the All-Volunteer Force must become more representative of our society as a whole. “Like most Senators, I prefer not to see us go back to a compulsory draft. But neither do I want to see a future in which America’s military consists only of soldiers of misfortune. Instead, we want a military that is truly representative of our society, and I believe that the program I am proposing will help us to achieve it.
“The Citizen-Soldier GI Bill is designed to make short-term service an attractive alternative for highly motivated high school graduates. Young people who choose to join the military for two years under this option would receive lower active duty pay than career soldiers of the same rank, but, upon completing their service, would receive substantial benefits for college or vocational training. “In other words, they contribute while in the service, but receive more than favorable compensation that makes up for that loss once they leave the service.
“The general outline of the bill includes:
• Two years of active duty;
• A reduction of active pay by $250 per month;
• No cash payments for subsistence or quarters, unless specifically authorized by their service;
• Duty in military occupational specialties selected by the military service;
• Post-service education benefits of $500 per month for 36 months (four school years); and
• Benefits can be used for any approved program of post-secondary education, including technical schooling.”
Mr. Tower
“Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Ohio in offering this very thoughtful amendment. Some of us do not feel that now we should go into a full-scale GI Bill program. This program outlined by Senator Glenn14 is a targeted program and, if the [perfecting] amendment offered by Senator Nunn and myself to the amendment of the Senator from Ohio is adopted, it would make this a test program for four years and provide [that] not more than 12,500 personnel may elect to participate in the program… and we will be able to learn if additional educational benefits will have the favorable effect on recruiting as is predicted by the proponents.”
Mr. Cohen
Bill Cohen
“Mr. President, I rise in opposition both to the amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio, Senator Glenn, and the perfecting amendment, as such, offered by the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Tower….
“Mr. President, the reason I rise in opposition is because I think the amendment pending before the Senate this afternoon is not much of an improvement over the program [VEAP] we currently have. In fact, it may even be less attractive, particularly to those enlisted personnel at the lower end of the pay scale.
“I am going to speak principally, not so much in opposition to the proposal of the Senator from Ohio, but rather in favor of a measure that Senator Armstrong, Senator Cranston, Senator Matsunaga, Senator Hollings, and I joined in an effort a year ago on the Senate floor. The approval of our amendment would have called for a return of GI Bill education benefits for those serving in our Armed Forces. We were defeated last year on a procedural motion rather than an up or down vote on the merits of our proposal. But I believe that the argument we made over a year ago would have even greater validity today.
“… There are warning signs on the horizon—warning signs that cannot be ignored. Even the [Senate] Armed Services Committee, which capped pay and froze it for the most junior personnel, took note in its report15 of the increasing challenge facing military recruiters. I would like to quote from the report itself:
… [I]t is not clear how long the military services will be able to sustain the current recruiting momentum. As the economy improves and the unemployment rate drops, the services will face increasing competition for 18- to 21-year-olds. The services also must deal with the demographic reality that the size of the 18- to 21-year-old youth population will decrease by approximately 15 percent between fiscal year 1983 and fiscal year 1992. Earlier this year, General John Wickham, the Army Chief of Staff, testified that the Army had experienced a 22-percent decline in the first quarter of fiscal year 1984 compared to last year in the number of young people coming into Army recruiting stations to take the military entrance exams. General Wickham suggested that this 22-percent reduction ‘may be a harbinger of an upturn in the [private sector] employment opportunities’ for young people….
“The Armed Services Committee, in this paragraph [stated above], has made an excellent case for reinstitution of GI Bill education benefits. The GI Bill, after all, has consistently been named by recruiters as the recurring tool they most like to have.
“There are those in the administration perhaps, who suffer from some accommodating amnesia. I recall when President Reagan was running, he made a commitment to reinstitute the GI Bill. I recall Cap Weinberger coming up to his confirmation hearings to be Secretary of Defense and saying, ‘We have to have a GI Bill.’ Now we are saying, let us postpone it a little bit longer, let us make some sort of makeshift amendment to the VEAP program, which has proved to be disastrous.
“Let me quote what [Army] General Thurman said in answering questions for the record by my distinguished colleague and cosponsor, Senator Matsunaga. He [Thurman] made a powerful case for a New16 GI Bill.
“The general pointed to the Army’s problems in the late 1970s after Congress terminated the [Vietnam-era] GI Bill [on January 1, 1977]. He noted that between 1977 and 1979, the Army failed to meet its recruiting objective. In addition, quality dropped precipitously. The percentage of high school graduates enlisting was [just] 54.3 percent in 1980, and 52 percent non-prior service accessions [first-term enlistees] were in category IV [the next to lowest intelligence category].
“General Thurman attributed this decline in quality accessions to the end of the GI Bill, coupled with erosion of pay comparability, the decline in unemployment, and the reduction in recruiting resources. What is troubling me is that many of the three elements are with me today.
“In its 1983 recruit survey, the Army Research Institute found that over 32 percent of category I and II [the highest intelligence categories] enlistees placed college money as the most important reason for enlisting. Over 23 percent of those people in those categories said they would not have enlisted without money for college. “‘Clearly, these individuals are influenced by education benefits more than by bonuses,’ General Thurman told the Veterans’ Affairs Committee.
‘Clearly, education benefits expand the market by attracting bright young men and women intent on a college education.’
“[Mr. President,] we intend to see to it, to the best of our ability, that we have a chance to vote on a GI Bill and not on an amendment that would deal with a proposed VEAP program—one that would fail to achieve the kind of fundamental reform that is necessary by reinstating the GI Bill.”
Mr. Glenn
“Mr. President, I will respond briefly to the distinguished Senator from Maine… This amendment was not submitted as a modified VEAP program in any way. It is a program that would stand on its own.
“I suppose that my strongest area of contention with the Senator from Maine would be that he places the GI Bill in the forefront as being practically the only reason why we are not getting more intelligent soldiers. I disagree with that as a basic premise.
“A number of things occurred in the past that were societal, that were economic, that tended to make some of our best young people look elsewhere for their livelihood, and they were enticed into the military only when things become tough economically in the country, and we started to get higher-quality recruits. Not that they are not all good and patriotic young people; but with respect to the ones with the higher education level, the percentage of high school graduates, and so forth, the numbers coming into the military were definitely affected by economic conditions, the ability to get jobs on the outside, and so forth. So it was a wholly different situation.
“Mr. President, what we are up against with the present situation is that we do have economic problems in this country. We are running debts and budget deficits beyond any conception of just a few years ago, beyond any possible acceptability into the long-term future. We cannot go on seeing $200-billion-a-year deficits, and going up.
“The figures put out by the Congressional Budget Office regarding the cost of the GI Bill, as the Senator from Maine discussed, go up in rather staggering proportions, to add to that deficit, and eventually, that national debt. The first year, according to the CBO estimates, it is $7 million; the second year, $261 million; the third year, $341 million; and by the tenth year it is $775 million a year—three quarters of $1 billion.
“Much as I would like to agree with the Senator from Maine, I cannot do so…. So it [our amendment] is a compromise, I admit that, going in. But it tries to be very realistic about the situation in which we find ourselves budget-wise now and to address the need for high-quality recruits in the military at the same time.”
Mr. Simpson
Alan Simpson
“Mr. President, as chairman of the Veterans’ Affairs Committee, we have been dealing with the GI Bill for some time. Senator Cranston, Senator Armstrong, and Senator Cohen have a proposal which I have not agreed with…. The GI Bill, of which I was a recipient and beneficiary, enabled me to obtain a law degree at the University of Wyoming and go to law school; it was a marvelous project, but it was an act of gratitude for those who served. It was never intended to be an inducement or recruitment tool, and that is what we have here. And that is why I have a great deal of difficulty with the original proposal of Senator Armstrong.
“The reason that I opposed that and still oppose it is that here we have a new noncontributory GI Bill. We never had that before [in times in which we were not at war]. It is too costly at a time of extraordinary deficits that we have talked about and will continue to talk about here.
“Senator Glenn has always been very thoughtful, and I have watched him with some admiration and awe in my five years here of how thoughtful he is, and Senator Cohen, and Senator Tower, all of them deeply involved, and, of course, Senator Cranston who has followed the issue so ably…”
Mr. Cranston
“Will the Senator yield for a question?”
Alan Cranston
Mr. Simpson
“Yes, I yield.”
A typical Senate chamber desk.
Mr. Cranston
“I would like to ask the distinguished chairman of the committee if it is not true that when the amendment that Senators Armstrong, Cohen, Hollings, Matsunaga, and I will be offering shortly was offered in substantially the same form, although with one difference, one year ago, the distinguished Chairman objected to our considering it on the [Senate] floor because we had not had hearings on it at that time [in the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs].”
Mr. Simpson
“Mr. President, the Senator from California is correct in his review. It was a procedural motion to strike at the heart of the Armstrong-Cranston proposal and that carried by 6-10 votes, as I recall.17 So I was indeed involved in an effort to put aside the Armstrong-Cranston-Cohen GI Bill. That is correct.”
Mr. Cranston
“Part of your reasons for objecting to the consideration at that time, as I recall, were that we had not had a hearing on it in the [Veterans’ Affairs] Committee.”
Mr. Simpson
“And then, Mr. President, we did have hearings [in the Veterans’ Affairs Committee]. I kept that commitment that I made at that time.”
Mr. Cranston
“Indeed, you did, and that was very much appreciated. Have there been hearings on the pending Glenn amendment in the [Veterans’ Affairs] Committee?”
Mr. Simpson
“Mr. President, there have been no hearings before the Veterans’ Affairs Committee on the Glenn proposal. There have been hearings since the point of order was upheld on the Cranston-Cohen-Armstrong proposal, plus the Simpson proposal,18 and we did hold hearings on that, on GI Bill benefits in general. That has been held since that last vote, in line with my commitment to do so.”
Mr. Cranston
“I thank the Chairman.”
Mr. Simpson
“I thank the Senator from California and always enjoy working with him.”
Mr. Cranston
“May I ask the distinguished Chairman of the Armed Services Committee [Mr. Tower], have there been any hearings in the Armed Services Committee on this [Glenn] proposal?”
Mr. Tower
“Mr. President, I say to the distinguished Senator from California, there have not been hearings in the Armed Services Committee on this matter, which is one of the reasons I felt constrained to offer an amendment to make this a test program…. The distinguished ranking member [Mr. Nunn] and I have joined in my committee with making it a test program. We have looked into the matter of the GI Bill quite a bit. It is our view that it is not cost effective at this time.
“But I also have the very pragmatic view that something is likely to pass and I want to minimize the budget impact. I do not believe that a general, comprehensive GI Bill is warranted at this time based on the testimony that has been given in the Veterans’ Affairs Committee and based on all the staff work the various Senators on the Armed Services Committee have done.”
Mr. Cranston
“I thank the Chairman very much….
“Mr. President, I have grave questions about the workability of the pending amendment offered by Senator Glenn with the modification to it proposed by Senator Tower….
“Mr. President, at this time, however, I join with my colleagues—Senators Armstrong, Cohen, Hollings, and Matsunaga, as well as Senators Boschwitz, DeConcini, Hart, Kasten, and Kennedy—in urging the Senate to approve our legislation to establish a new peacetime GI Bill….
“I have long believed very strongly that educational incentives, if properly designed and implemented, can aid significantly in helping to ensure the success of the All-Volunteer Force.
“… I first introduced in December 1980 a measure designed to establish such a program of benefits. That was S. 3263,19 the proposed ‘All-Volunteer Force Educational Assistance Act of 1980,’ in the 96th Congress.20 I reintroduced modified versions of that legislation in the 97th Congress as S. 417 on February 5, 1981, and as S. 8 in this Congress.”
Mr. Montgomery
Folks, allow me to step in here for just a moment to describe in brief the bill Senators Cranston, Armstrong, Cohen, et al., were advocating. Senator Cranston’s very detailed description of his bill appears at pages 15, 640 and 15, 641 of the June, 1984, Congressional Record.
I’d add, too, that with the exception of Administration witnesses [including VA] at the June 19, 1980, Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs hearing, all witnesses expressed support for the New GI Bill.21
The general outline of the Cranston-Armstrong-Cohen et al., peacetime veterans’ educational assistance program legislation includes:
• Permanent program whether America is at peace or at war;
• No pilot test period;
• No service member monthly pay reduction to become eligible;
• Serve at least two years to receive $300 per month in post-service educational benefits for 36 months (four academic years);
• Reservists would be eligible to receive GI Bill benefits for the first time, but in a lesser amount;
• “Kickers” of $300 per month in additional post-service education benefits in specific military occupations; and
• “Supplemental” benefits of $300 per month in additional post-service education benefits for service in the combat arms or other critical specialty areas for those who reenlist for three years.
The bill’s estimated cost was $806 million over 10 years, not indexed for inflation. As you can see, the Cranston bill is very similar to what we marked-up in the House Armed Services Committee on April 19 and which the House passed, as part of the FY 1985 DoD Authorization Act on May 31, 1984—as we learned in Chapter 5.
Folks, now back to the debate before the vote on the Senate floor! We’ll soon conclude this section. We’re picking up at page 15, 641 of the Congressional Record, June 11, 1984:
Mr. Matsunaga
“Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?”
Spark Matsunaga
Mr. Cranston
“I am delighted to yield.”
Mr. Matsunaga
“As a cosponsor of the Armstrong-Cranston-Cohen-Hollings-Matsunaga amendment, we have fully expected that Senator Armstrong would be here to offer the amendment regarding the GI Bill. I am truly disappointed that this matter has come up in the absence of Senator Armstrong. My question to the Senator from California is that since we have not had real time to study the proposal now being considered on the floor, does not the Senator from California feel this matter should be put over until tomorrow when Senator Armstrong will be here with his amendment, of which we are cosponsors, so that the Senate can weigh the differences between our proposal and the proposal now being considered on the floor?”
Mr. Cranston
“I thank my friend from Hawaii for that question. The answer is yes. I believe that we should not proceed to a vote today for two reasons: one, out of fairness to Senator Armstrong who has had no opportunity, nor advance notice that could have caused him to be with us today, to speak to the Glenn amendment or our amendment. Second, many, many Senators are very interested in this issue, and they have had no time to study the proposed 15-page amendment by Senator Glenn and others—in order to analyze its virtues or non-virtues….”
Mr. Nunn
“Mr. President, would the Senator from California yield?”
Mr. Cranston
“Certainly.”
Sam Nunn
“Speaking for myself, I certainly agree that a person such as Senator Armstrong should be present. I certainly have no intention of trying to push for a vote before they have a chance to debate. On the other hand, Senator Tower made a point a little while ago which I concur in. We have been basically on this bill [the Fiscal Year 1985 DoD Authorization Act] for three days waiting for people to come forward with amendments. Senator Glenn was ready and prepared. His amendment was going to come up with some opportunity. We need to get amendments up. I would hope that Senators would cooperate….”22
Mr. Tower
“Will the Senator yield? I am perfectly prepared to ask unanimous consent that this amendment be temporarily set aside if someone else is prepared to offer an amendment. I have no desire to force this to a vote, certainly in the absence of others. They are necessarily absent today. I feel that it is incumbent on me to attempt to have this bill [the Fiscal Year 1985 Omnibus DoD Authorization Act] become law. We have a very short period of time in which to try to pass this bill in the Senate, go to conference, complete a conference report and get it to the President by the time we break for the Fourth of July.
“Otherwise, the appropriations process is going to overtake us….
“Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment of the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn) be laid aside. I further ask unanimous consent that it be made the pending business when the Senate turns to the consideration of the DoD Authorization [Act], S. 2723, on Wednesday [June 13].”
Presiding Officer
James Abdnor, Presiding Officer
“Is there objection?….”
Mr. Nunn
“In fairness to Senator Glenn, he is not here [at this moment], but to protect his interest, he would certainly want a firm understanding of the parties that on this subject, his amendment will be the first one pending on Wednesday morning, and we will not take up any other amendment on this in the interim.”
Mr. Cranston
“The Tower amendment will be the subject on Wednesday.”
Mr. Nunn
“The Tower amendment to the Glenn amendment; that is correct.”
Presiding Officer
“Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.”
Mr. Montgomery
Students, as you can see the vote is postponed until Wednesday, June 13.
Folks, this first vote on the Glenn amendment gets the legislative ball rolling. It will still be rolling about seven hours—and five more votes—from now.
We now are operating from the June 13, 1984 Congressional Record-Senate, at page 16,058. And Senator Bob Kasten is the Presiding Officer.
Presiding Officer
“The clerk will report the pending business: ‘A bill (S. 2723) to authorize appropriations for the military functions of the Department of Defense and to prescribe personnel levels for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1985….’”
Bob Kasten, Presiding Officer
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill. Pending:
(1) Glenn amendment No. 3179, to provide a new GI educational assistance program; and
(2) Tower-Nunn amendment No. 3180 (to Glenn amendment No. 3179), of a perfecting nature.
Mr. Tower
“Mr. President, what is the pending business?”
Presiding Officer
“The pending question on amendment No. 3180 offered by the Senator from Texas, to amendment No. 3179, offered by the Senator from Ohio.”
Mr. Tower
“Mr. President, we debated this matter at some length last Monday [June 11, 1984]. I do not know that there is much in addition I can say about my amendment, which is designed to make the proposal of the Senator from Ohio a test program. I am prepared to get a vote on that rather soon… I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.” [It was a Glenn amendment, then perfected by Tower and Nunn.]
Presiding Officer
“Is there a sufficient second? The yeas and nays were ordered.”
Mr. Glenn
“Monday, after some rather spirited discussion and opposition by Senators Cohen, Cranston, and Matsunaga, who argued that the Armstrong GI Bill was preferable, we achieved an agreement that the citizen-soldier bill amendment should be laid aside until this morning when we would take it up first thing, and that is where we are now.
“On the desk of each Senator is a second ‘Dear Colleague’ letter on the citizen-soldier bill, to bring them up to date.
“This new ‘Dear Colleague’ is cosigned by the amendment’s cosponsors, Senators Jepsen [Iowa], Thurman [South Carolina], Warner [Virginia], and myself. It incorporates the provision of the Tower-Nunn amendment and reiterates the major attributes of the program. I commend it to you as a reference point in our discussion this morning.
“I feel that this citizen-soldier bill will do precisely what it is designed to do; that is, induce high-quality recruits to join the military from a wide spectrum of American society. This will have the concurrent effect of enhancing a national attitude of societal responsibility and boosting our post-secondary educational system at the same time. All this can be achieved at less cost than comparable plans, though it would not conflict or prevent utilization of plans already in place.
“… I yield the floor.”
Mr. Armstrong
Bill Armstrong
“[I] express my appreciation to the Senator from Ohio, the Senator from Texas, the Senator from California, the Senator from Wyoming, and others who were kind enough when this issue arose and I was away from the chamber to arrange it to recur at a moment I could be here.
“As Senators know, I have long been a champion of the GI Bill. I believe it to be one of the most successful of all the programs which have been undertaken in the entire history of our country. “For several years, I have been urging my colleagues to consider bringing back the GI Bill, which in my opinion, was unwisely terminated in 1976.23
“The pending question, as I understand it, is the Tower amendment. Now I happen to believe for reasons I will explain a little later that the Glenn amendment really does not address itself to the needs of this country, neither from a national defense standpoint nor from an educational standpoint.
“Now, I do not wish at this time to discuss either the Glenn amendment nor the alternative proposal which I will shortly introduce, which is a full-blown GI Bill education program.
“So, Mr. President, I have nothing to add at this point. We are sort of jockeying for position to get the various proposals on the table as fairly and as cleanly as we can so that everyone can reflect and make up his own mind, and I am certainly going to vote for the Tower amendment.”
Presiding Officer
“Mr. President, the yeas and nays have already been ordered on my amendment, and I think it is fitting we have a roll-call vote on it.
“The clerk will call the roll.”24
“Without objection, it is so ordered.
“Is there further debate? If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Texas [Mr. Tower]. The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.”
[And the legislative clerk called the roll… ]
Presiding Officer
“Are there any other Senators in the Chamber wishing to vote?25
“The result was announced—yeas 96, nays 1….
“Mr. Tower’s amendment was agreed to [meaning approved].”26
The lesson is what I call legislative discretion. Did you see how Senators Armstrong, Cohen, and Cranston voted for the Glenn amendment, even though they had their own amendment? Senator Armstrong and company knew they’d have the opportunity to offer their own amendment to the Senate, too. There was no reason to be perceived as overly rigid, especially since Senator Glenn had the support of the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee (Mr. Tower and Mr. Nunn). Sometimes the best course is to strategically yield and prepare for a later opportunity to make your case.26
WHAT’S NEXT
About seven more hours of Senate debate on the Glenn and Armstrong proposals and five more votes appear in the next two of our chapters.