On the recordJune 27, 2002
I have another question for the chairman and the sponsors. Again, I am sympathetic to what we are trying to do. But at the same time, I find within the existing framework of the law-- that is title X--I would like to read that: Section (c) item (1) increase the end strength authorized pursuant to subsection (a)(1)(B) for a fiscal year for any of the armed forces by a number equal to not more than 2 percent of that end strength. The existing law gives the Secretary of Defense the right to go to not only the end strength submitted by our two colleagues--that is roughly 1 percent over the current table in our bill--but could go to even another percent of 2 percent. It is not clear to this Senator exactly what the pending amendment does that the Secretary does not already have the authority to do. Everything that the pending amendment, one way or another, urges be done, he has the right. I say this respectfully to the distinguished Senator from Michigan, our chairman. Yesterday, on missile defense, let's say it was a top priority of the Senate to focus this, as the Senator from Arizona said, to cure the problems associated. Fine. I have no objection to that. But I do not like to see the Senate adopt an amendment which does nothing to change the authority of the Secretary of Defense under the existing law. The question is, What does this amendment do that existing law does not permit the Secretary of Defense to do?
Source
govinfo.gov




