[Pages S5805-S5843]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. THURMOND (for himself and Mr. Nunn) (be request):
S. 727. A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1996 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for fiscal year 1996, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Armed Services.

the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 1996

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, by request, for myself and the senior
Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], I introduce, for appropriate
reference, a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1996 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military
personnel strength for fiscal year 1996, and for other purposes.
I ask unanimous consent that a letter of transmittal requesting
consideration of the legislation and a section-by-section analysis
explaining its purpose be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

General Counsel of the

Department of Defense,

Washington, DC, April 20, 1995.
Hon. Albert Gore,
President of the Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: The Department of Defense proposes the
enclosed draft of legislation, ``To authorize appropriations
for fiscal year 1996 for military activities of the
Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel
strengths for fiscal year 1996, and for other purposes.''
This legislative proposal is part of the Department of
Defense legislative program for the 104th Congress and is
needed to carry out
[[Page S5806]] the President's budget plans for fiscal year
1996. The Office of Management and Budget advises that there
is no objection to the presentation of this proposal to the
Congress and that its enactment would be in accord with the
program of the President.
This bill provides management authority for the Department
of Defense in fiscal year 1996 and makes several changes to
the authorities under which we operate. These changes are
designed to permit a more efficient operation of the
Department of Defense.
Enactment of this legislation is of great importance to the
Department of Defense and the Department urges its speedy and
favorable consideration.
Sincerely,
Judith A. Miller.
____

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996

section-by-section analysis

Title I--Procurement

Authorization of Appropriations

Section 101. Army
Section 102. Navy and Marine Corps
Section 103. Air Force
Section 104. Defense-wide activities
Section 105. Defense Inspector General
Section 106. Chemical demilitarization program
Section 107. Defense health program
Sections 101 through 107 provide procurement authorization
for the Military Departments and for Defense-wide
appropriations in amounts equal to the budget authority
included in the President's budget for fiscal years 1996 and
1997.
Section 108. Repeal of requirement for separate budget
request for procurement of reserve equipment
Section 108 repeals the provisions of section 114(e) of
title 10, United States Code, requiring a separate budget
request for the procurement of Reserve equipment.

Title II--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

Section 201. Authorization of appropriations
Section 201 provides for the authorization of each of the
research, development, test, and evaluation appropriations
for the Military Departments and Defense Agencies in amounts
equal to the budget authority included in the President's
budget for fiscal years 1996 and 1997.

Title III--Operation and Maintenance

Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

Section 301. Operation and maintenance funding
Section 301 provides for authorization of the operation and
maintenance appropriations of the Military Departments and
Defense-wide appropriations in amounts equal to the budget
authority included in the President's budget for fiscal years
1996 and 1997.
Section 302. Working capital funds
Section 302 authorizes appropriations for the Defense
Business Operations Fund and the National Defense Salified
Fund in amounts equal to the budget authority included in the
President's budget for fiscal years 1996 and 1997.
Section 303. Civilian Marksmanship Program fund
Section 303 amends the provisions of section 4308 and 4313
of title 10, United States Code, relating to the Civilian
Marksmanship Program, to reflect the President's Budget
proposal that the Program be funded exclusively from
reimbursements received in the execution of the program.
Section 304. Repeal of limitations on activities of Defense
Business Operations Fund
Section 304 amends section 316(b) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 to repeal
limitations on the activities of the Defense Business
Operations Fund
Section 305. Amendments relating to the Ready Reserve Force
Component of the Ready Reserve Fleet
Section 305 amends the provisions of section 2218 of title
10, United States Code, relating to the National Defense
Sealift Fund, to reflect the funding for the Ready Reserve
Component of the Fleet by the Department of Defense as
requested in the President's budget.

Subtitle B--Reserve Component

Section 321. Reimbursement of pay and allowances and
accountability of Reservists supporting cooperative
threat reduction with States of the Former Soviet Union.
This section amends section 1206 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995, which authorizes
funds for the execution of the Cooperative Threat Reduction
Act of 1993 (title XII of Public Law 103-160) by adding two
new subsections.
New subsection (c) would permit funds appropriated to
execute programs authorized by the Cooperative Threat
Reduction Act to be utilized to reimburse the military
personnel appropriations accounts for the pay and allowances
paid to reserve component personnel for service while engaged
in any program authorized by this Act. The utilization of
Reserve component personnel, particularly in expansion of
military-to-military and defense contacts, is particularly
advantageous.
Permitting these funds to be used to reimburse the active
military appropriations accounts removes a significant
resource impediment to increasing the opportunities for
ordering individual reserves to active duty with their
consent as specified in section 513 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995. A similar provision
was passed by the 103rd Congress in section 1316 (a) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 for
Military-to-Military Contracts and Comparable Activities.
New subsection (d) would exempt members of a reserve
component participating in activities or programs specified
in the Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 1993 who served
over 180 days from counting against the authorized end
strength for members of the armed forces on active duty under
section 115(a)(1) of title 10 and against the senior grade
strength limitations of sections 517 and 523 of title 10.
Approval of this exemption from end strength and senior grade
strength limitations removes an impediment to increasing the
opportunities for ordering individual reserves to active duty
with their consent as specified in section 513 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995. A
similar provision was passed by the 103rd Congress in section
1316 (c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1995 for Military-to-Military Contacts and Comparable
Activities.
There are no additional costs associated with enacting this
legislation.
Section 322. Authority for Department of Defense funding for
National Guard participation in joint exercises with the
Army and Air Force for disaster and emergency assistance
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army and
the Secretary of the Air Force to provide for personnel of
the National Guard, using funds appropriated for National
Guard training exercises, to participate in joint exercises
with the Army and Air Force to train for disaster and
emergency response, and would thus allow these personnel to
participate in such exercises in a Federally paid (title 32)
status under state authority.
Under current law, Department of Defense funding for the
National Guard may not be used for training the National
Guard for disaster and emergency response. Funding for this
training is the responsibility of the states and FEMA, and
such training must be done in a state active duty status.
This provision would authorize a limited exception to this
allocation of responsibility by permitting use of Department
of Defense funds and title 32 status for the Guard when
engaged in joint exercises with the Army or Air Force for
disaster and emergency response training. Disaster and
emergency response training and exercises of the National
Guard when not conducted in conjunction with the Army or the
Air Force would continue to be a state and FEMA
responsibility.
This amendment will ensure that National Guard personnel
participating in joint exercises with members of the other
components of their armed forces are eligible for the same
protections and benefits as their counterparts from the Army
Reserve, Air Force Reserve, and Regular components with whom
they are participating. It will also avoid situations where
lack of state or FEMA funds preclude participation by Guard
units in joint exercises and thereby undermine the efficacy
of those exercises.

Subtitle C--Other Matters
Section 331. Aviation and vessel war risk insurance
The purpose of this legislation is to provide a means for
rapid payment of claims and the rapid reimbursement of the
insurance funds to protect commercial carriers assisting the
Executive Branch from catastrophic losses associated with the
destruction or damage to aircraft or ships while supporting
the national interests of the United States. Allowing the
Department of Defense to transfer any and all available funds
will allow the United States, in these two vital reinsurance
programs, to match standard commercial insurance practice for
the timely payment required by financial arrangements common
in the transportation industry today. Reporting and the
requirements for supplemental appropriations, if any, ensures
Congressional oversight at all stages.
Subsections (a) and (b) of the proposed legislation set
forth the short title and the findings and purposes,
respectively.
Subsection (c) of the proposed legislation amends section
44305 of title 49, United States Code, by adding a new
subsection (c).
Subsection (c)(1) allows transfer of any funds available to
the Department of Defense, regardless of the purpose of those
funds. Although other authorities may exist to transfer
funds, limitations as to amounts and priorities make these
authorities insufficient to rapidly respond to the
obligations of the Department of Defense under the current
law, especially if contingencies or war-time conditions
exist. Proposed language would not distinguish between types
of insurance or risk, so long as the Federal Aviation
Administration had issued a policy covering the risk. The
language would not limit the authority to a specific fiscal
year, but would be ongoing without need for reenactment
periodically by Congress. Such Congressional oversight is
already in place through the reauthorization of the Aviation
Insurance Program, next scheduled to take place in 1997.
Subsection (c)(2) provides specific time limits with which
the Secretary of Defense must pay claims and reimburse the
Federal Aviation Administration. Notification to Congress and
the 30 day delay before transfer
[[Page S5807]] required in other statutes is waived. The most
important issue for the air carriers is the replacement of
the hull so that they may continue operations, including
supporting the requesting agency, without idling crews or
having to lay off personnel due to the lack of airframes. A
longer time frame is provided for other claims, such as
liability to third parties, as normal claims procedures can
adequately protect their interests.
Subsection (c)(3) requires reports to Congress within 30
days of loss for amounts in excess of one million dollars,
with periodic updates to ensure Congress is aware of amounts
being transferred and paid out under the chapter 443 program.
As supplemental appropriations may be necessary, Congress
will have sufficient information on which to base a decision
regarding the supplemental appropriations.
Subsection (d) of the proposed legislation amends section
1205 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, (46 App. U.S.C.
Sec. 1285) by adding a new subsection 9c).
Subsection (c)(1) authorizes the Secretary of Defense to
transfer funds available to the Department to pay claims by
contractors, for the damage or loss of vessels and death or
injury to personnel, insured pursuant to Title XII of the
Merchant Marine Act, 1936, or loss or damage associated
therewith. Proposed language would not distinguish between
types of insurance or risk, so long as the Maritime
Administration had issued a policy covering the risk. The
language would not limit the authority to a specific fiscal
year, but would be ongoing without need for reenactment
periodically by Congress. Such Congressional oversight is
already in place through the
reauthorization of the Vessel War Risk Insurance Program,
next scheduled to take place before the 30 June 1995
expiration (46 App. U.S.C. Sec. 1294).
Subsection (c)(2) provides specific time limits within
which the Secretary of Defense must reimburse the Secretary
of Transportation.
Subsection (c)(3) requires reports to Congress on a
periodic basis for claims paid in amounts in excess of one
million dollars to ensure Congress is aware of amounts being
transferred and paid out under the Title XII program. As
supplemental appropriations may be necessary, Congress will
have sufficient information on which to base a decision
regarding the supplemental appropriations.
The addition of subsection (c) to section 44305 of title
49, United States Code, and subsection (c) to section 1205 of
the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, (46 App. U.S.C. Sec. 1285)
would allow the Department of Defense to rapidly pay claims
resulting from damages or injuries caused by risks covered by
the respective programs as a consequence of providing
transportation to the United States when commercial insurance
companies refuse to cover such risks on reasonable terms and
conditions. The requirement to reimburse the Federal Aviation
Administration or the Maritime Administration already exists;
however, the only method for payment currently available may
involve requesting supplemental appropriations from Congress.
Such a process historically has taken six months or longer.
Many air carriers have indicated their financial obligations
may not allow them to continue to support the United States
if rapid payment for losses cannot be made. Commercial
aircraft insurance policies and practice require payment in
less than 30 days when cause is not an issue, usually within
72 hours.
If enacted, this legislation would not result in an
increase in the budgetary requirements of the Department of
Defense.
Section 332. Testing of theater missile defense interceptors
The purpose of this legislation is to eliminate the
requirement to attempt complex, multi-shot-engagement
scenarios
with relatively immature Engineering Manufacturing
Development hardware when these same scenarios must be
performed with production-representative hardware during
the Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) phase.
The requirement to demonstrate interceptor performance
under operationally realistic conditions with production-
representative hardware already exists. The premature
duplication of this testing will only add greater technical
complexity, cost, and risk to the program and provide little
if any technical value.
Theater Missile Defense (TMD) interceptor performance will
be performed during the Initial Operational Test and
Evaluation (IOT&E) phase and results reported to Congress
prior to the system being allowed to enter production. The
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, Office of the
Secretary of Defense, will prepare and submit a Beyond Low-
Rate Initial Production Report. This report will confirm that
adequate testing, including multi-shot scenarios, has been
completed. This testing must be conducted in operational
environments and scenarios, consistent with conditions that
the interceptor will be expected to operate in when fielded.
Section 333. Authority to assign overseas school personnel to
domestic schools and vice versa
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
assign personnel of either the school system established
under section 2164 of title 10 or the school system
established by the Defense Dependents' Education Act of 1968
(title XIV of the Education Amendments of 1978; 20 U.S.C. 921
et seq.) to provide administrative, logistical, personnel,
and other support services to the other system, either in
addition to, or in place of, their normal duties. Such
assignments may be for the period prescribed by the
Secretary.
Section 334. Authorization for expenditure of O&M and
procurement funds for the accelerated architecture
acquisition initiative
This section amends title 10 by adding a new section 2395a
the purpose of which is to allow the Central Imagery Office
(CIO), as a Combat Support Agency, to expend currently-
programmed
O&M and Procurement funds to establish, implement, and
deploy a worldwide imagery architecture. Having
flexibility to use these funds will provide the Central
Imagery Office the ability to meet changing imagery
requirements, ensure readiness, and provide timely support
to military operations.
In the past, numerous studies and evaluations have
indicated that the United States imagery system was unable to
provide required imagery support in a timely manner. The
experience of Desert Shield/Desert Storm reinforced those
evaluations. The Central Imagery Office was created and
assigned responsibility for enhancing the ability of the
military departments, Unified Commands, their components,
Joint Task Forces, tactical units, and other activities to
make use of all imagery assets in a timely manner. The
Accelerated Architecture Acquisition Initiative is a key
program through which the Central Imagery Office will develop
and field systems to provide real-time access to and
dissemination from existing and planned imagery collection
systems (national and theater) to defend and national users
worldwide, real-time access to distributed digital imagery
and imagery-product archives, and enhancements to and
increases in the capacity of existing Department of Defense
data networks to accommodate increased requirements from the
imagery assets.
Critical to the success of the Accelerated Architecture
Acquisition Initiative is centralized management and
oversight to balance requirements to ensure successful
development, procurement, and development of necessary
hardware, software, communications, and services. Central
Imagery Office must ensure the standardization,
compatibility, and interoperability of equipment and
processes to provide a worldwide system for required, timely
imagery support. A key element the Accelerated Architecture
Acquisition Initiative is the near-term provision to JCS-
selected users of that equipment necessary to receive and use
digital imagery products.
The Central Imagery Office's proposal provides the express
language needed in the 1996 Appropriations Act for authority
to purchase and deploy hardware, software, and
communications, using Central Imagery Office funds, for
activities funded in the Department of Defense-funded portion
of the NFIP. Without this special provision, 31 U.S.C.
section 1301A would prevent the Central Imagery Office from
using funds appropriated to it in the
defense-wide appropriation in this manner. The Central
Imagery Office will be unable to carry out its intended
emission to deliver Accelerated Architecture Acquisition
Initiative capabilities to the organizations that require
them and to establish successfully the Accelerated
Architecture Acquisition Initiative architecture
worldwide. This legislation will allow for an efficient
and highly flexible way for the Central Imagery Office to
deploy needed capabilities during crisis and emergencies,
to meet changing imagery requirements, ensure readiness,
and provide timely support to military operations.
Enactment of this proposal will not increase the budgetary
requirement of the Department of Defense.
Section 335. Establishment of a Department of Defense
Laboratory Revitalization Demonstration Program
The authority would establish a test program to allow the
heads of selected defense laboratories greater flexibility to
undertake facilities modernization without the requirement to
seek approval from higher levels. The purpose of the program
is to reduce the amount of time required to upgrade research
and development capabilities at Department of Defense
laboratories. The provision would recognize that facilities
construction in support of research and development is
historically more expensive than similar-sized projects in
other construction categories. For test program laboratories,
the provision would raise the threshold from $1.5 million to
$3.0 million for minor military construction projects that
the Secretary of Defense may carry out without specific
authorization in law. The provision would also raise the
threshold for minor military construction projects requiring
prior Secretary of Defense approval from $500,000 to $1.5
million. Finally, the provision would raise for selected
laboratories the threshold from $300,000 to $1.0 million for
the value of any unspecified military construction project
for which operation and maintenance funds may be used.
The test authority would expire on September 30, 2000. It
would also require the Secretary of Defense to designate
participating laboratories before the test may begin and to
report to Congress on the lessons learned from the test
program one year before it is terminated.
Subsection (a). A healthy and responsive defense laboratory
system is essential to the
[[Page S5808]] national defense and security, and to foster
the growth and development of new technologies having both
military and civilian applications. A strong and flexible
defense laboratory system, staffed by top quality scientists,
technicians, and engineers, with state-of-the-art equipment
and facilities is critical to meeting new and changing world
threats, as well as maintaining America's technological
military leadership.
The ability of defense laboratories to rapidly introduce
technological innovation into military systems, and to
respond to technological exigencies has been significantly
degraded by requirements that the laboratories conduct their
facilities modernization functions under a set of complex and
time consuming procedures inappropriate to laboratory
operations. The inability of our laboratories and centers to
modernize antiquated facilities in a prompt fashion has
resulted in an ineffective and inefficient use of tax
dollars.
The Secretary of Defense has determined that many of the
problems in the defense laboratory system stem from the
application of procedures and processes to the laboratories
that are inappropriate to the research and development
community. The Secretary anticipates that the elimination of
certain unnecessary and cumbersome restrictions would result
in much more efficient and effective laboratories. The
Secretary has already selected laboratories from each of the
military departments to participate in a demonstration
program to substantiate the hypothesis. Currently, internal
procedures and regulations are being updated, streamlined, or
abolished for the purpose of the demonstration program. This
proposal is intended to make those legislative changes
identified by the Secretary of Defense as necessary to
partially implement the Demonstration Program.
In implementing any authorizations in this Act that are
waivers or exceptions to existing law or laws, the Secretary
will assure that the basic purposes and interests of the
original laws will be carried out and protected in a manner
most appropriate to the research and development community.
The Secretary will review and evaluate the findings of the
demonstration program, and make appropriate recommendations
as to
the applicability of legislative changes to all Department
of Defense laboratories.
Subsection (b). This section is aimed at improving the
research and development facility based by enhancing the
process for upgrading the facilities including built-in
equipment necessary for performing state-of-the-art research
and development.
The inherently complex nature of conducting modern research
requires facilities, equipment and support infrastructure
that are simply more expensive, on a unit basis, than other
types of military support activity. For example,
representative examples of minor facilities construction
obtained from each of the three Services from their fiscal
year 1993 minor military construction (MILCON) requests, show
laboratory construction, expansion or reconfiguration
costing, on a square foot basis, about three times what a
similarly sized office building cost.
Aside from meeting and responding to military crises such
as Desert Storm, the very nature of the experimental process
requires a rapid response to a scientific discovery. Often
significant new information can be acquired by building on an
existing experiment if that ``add on'' experiment can be put
in place in a coherent fashion. Time is of the essence if
experimental opportunities are to be maximized and
efficiently exploited.
Operating and maintaining a government owned research and
development facility base is in the best interests of the
nation for the following reasons;
The Department of Defense research and development
operations perform research and development activities
quickly in response to operational needs. Examples of
government scientists involved in the Desert Storm operation
attest to the efficacy of the Department of Defense
laboratory programs. Having Federal employees dedicated to
defense research and development assists in assuring accurate
communications and continuity of research and development
assistance.
The cadre of government scientists with contemporary
facilities assures that government managers have
knowledgeable unbiased advisors on research and
development, i.e., the ``smart buyer'' model. To stay
current, scientists must not only continue their academic
education, but need to be actively involved in
contemporary research and development.
There are certain types of research and development that
the government needs to maintain, due to their sensitive
nature. Specific examples include chemical and biological
agents, and nuclear effects.
There are some types of research and development that are
not accomplished in private institutions, but are necessary
for military operations. Specific examples include fuzing,
communications network defense, special sensors, special
military related medical research, and night vision
equipment.
There are certain types of generic research in exotic or
speculative areas which may have significant future military
impact. Our laboratories, at least on a limited and selective
basis, must have the ability to promptly pursue such research
as opportunity dictates.
Subsection (b)(1). Sections 2805 (a) and (b) (1) of title
10 were established under Public Law 97-214 and were
effective October 1, 1982. This provision is available to the
agency to perform minor construction which was not specified
in the Military Construction requests. The dollar limitations
contained in 2805 (a) and (b) of title 10 were last revised
in 1991.
The construction of laboratory and supporting facilities in
direct support of state-of-the-art research and development
historically is more expensive than similar sized projects in
other construction categories. Specifically, there are unique
safety, security, and operational requirements which
inherently increase the cost for laboratory facilities.
Increasing the limit of unspecified minor military
construction to $3,000,000 for facilities in support of
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) would
allow the head of the laboratory the same relative latitude
as the commander of other military programs.
Subsection (b)(2). The provisions contained in section
2805(b)(2) were intended to insure proper Congressional
control and oversight of the minor military construction
flexibility granted to the Service Secretaries. While the
provisions of this Bill would modify the dollar threshold
level at which such notification to the Congress would be
required for this demonstration program, an effective
evaluation of this demonstration program does require an
appropriate reporting function. Consequently the Department
of Defense, through already existing internal mechanisms,
intends to identify the scope, nature and dollar amount of
the use of this authority. The Services will report to the
Director of the Defense Research and Engineering at the end
of each fiscal year on how this authority was utilized
describing dollar amounts, sources of funds and projects
undertaken. This data could be made available to the Congress
as part of the evaluation of the program.
Subsection (b)(3). The current provision found at section
2805(c)(1) setting a limit of $300,000 operation and
maintenance funds for minor modifications and construction is
appropriate for typical government office buildings, such as
establishing walls and electrical outlets for an office.
However, this dollar amount has been unduly restrictive for
accomplishing laboratory modifications. To establish a state-
of-the-art research and development environment, there are
often special needs such as special ``clean room''
requirements, and special plumbing or ventilation
requirements for safety equipment that cannot be met for
$300,000. Raising the amount to $1,000,000 would allow the
type of minor work available to most Commands but precluded
to most Heads of Laboratories.
Subsection (c). It is the intention of the legislation to
conduct an experiment to determine the effectiveness and
benefits of granting this authority. Consequently, some
baseline participation must be established for comparative
purposes to permit effective evaluation of the program.
Subsection (d). The Department intends to document the
performance and results of this program in order to
effectively recommend to the Congress whether and with what
changes this initiative should be made permanent.
Subsection (e). This section is included to assure that the
language of this Act does not limit any existing authority
that may have been granted to one or more of the
laboratories under this Program.
Subsection (f). This section provides the definitions
common to this Act.
Subsection (g). This section is included to insure that
appropriate recommendations are made to the Congress.
Section 336. Repeal of certain depot-level maintenance
provisions
This section repeals sections 2466 and 2469 of chapter 146,
title 10, United States Code. These sections impose
limitations on the amount of depot-level maintenance of
materiel that can be performed by non-federal government
employees and place restrictions on changing the performance
of maintenance workloads currently performed in depot level
activities of the Department of Defense to other depots and
to private industry.
Section 2466 provides that not more than 40 percent of the
funds made available in a Fiscal Year to a military
department or a Defense Agency, for depot-level maintenance
and repair workload may be used to contract for performance
by non-Federal Government personnel of such workload for the
military department or the Defense Agency. Repeal of Section
2466 will provide the Department of Defense and the military
departments the needed flexibility to accomplish more than 40
percent of their depot maintenance workload by non-Federal
Government employees when needed to achieve the best balance
between the public and private sectors of the Defense
industrial base. The repeal of Section 2466 will not increase
the budgetary requirements of the Department of Defense.
Section 2469 prohibits the Secretary of Defense or the
Secretary of a Military Department from changing the
performance of a depot-level maintenance workload that has a
value of not less than $3,000,000 and is being performed by a
depot-level activity of the Department of Defense unless,
prior to any such change, the Secretary uses competitive
procedures to make the change. The Department has suspended
cost competitions for depot maintenance workloads because the
data and cost accounting
systems of the Department are not capable of determining
actual costs for accomplishing specific depot
[[Page S5809]] maintenance workloads in the depots. Repeal of
Section 2469 will permit the Department of Defense and the
military departments to shift workloads from one depot to
another or to private industry as required to resize the
depot maintenance infrastructure to support a smaller force
structure. The repeal of section 2469 will not increase the
budgetary requirements of the Department of Defense.
This legislation will enable the Department to structure
its organic Defense depot maintenance activities consistent
with satisfying core logistics capability requirements that
are based on providing effective support for national defense
contingency situations and other emergencies.
The proposed repeal of sections 2466 and 2469 will permit
the Department of Defense to accomplish depot maintenance for
weapon systems and equipment in the most cost effective and
efficient manner. The Department is establishing core depot
maintenance centers of excellence to retain the best quality
products and services to support its combat forces. The
Department's core depot maintenance concept promotes sharing
of workload between Defense depots and private industry to
accommodate teaming efforts and supports the best application
of modern technology for accomplishing depot maintenance.
The repeal of sections 2466 and 2469 will allow the
Department to shift workloads from current depots to other
Defense depots and to compete workloads in the private sector
to achieve the lowest costs and best efficiency in support of
the core depot maintenance concept. It will also enable the
Department to size its depot maintenance infrastructure to
best support emergency and contingency scenarios with the
required levels of weapon systems readiness.
The enactment of this proposal will not increase the
budgetary requirements of the Department of Defense.

Title IV--Military Personnel Authorizations

Subtitle A--Active Forces

Section 401. End strengths for Active Forces
Section 401 prescribes the personnel strengths for the
Active Forces in the numbers provided for by the budget
authority and appropriations requested for the Department of
Defense in the President's budget for fiscal years 1996 and
1997.

Subtitle B--Reserve Forces

Section 411. End strengths for Selected Reserve
Section 411 prescribes the strengths for the selected
Reserve of each reserve component of the Armed Forces in the
numbers provided for by the budget authority and
appropriations requested for the Department of Defense in the
President's budget for fiscal years 1996 and 1997.
Section 412. End strengths for Reserves on active duty in
support of the Reserves
Section 412 prescribes the end strengths for reserve
component members on full-time active duty or full-time
National Guard duty for the purpose of administering the
reserve forces.

Subtitle C--Military Training Student Loads

Section 421. Authorization of training student loads
Section 421 provides for the average military training
student loads in the numbers provided for this purpose in the
President's amended budget for fiscal years 1996 and 1997.

Title V--Military Personnel Policy

Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy

Section 501. Equalization of accrual of service credit for
officers and enlisted members of the Armed Forces
Subsection (a) amends section 972 of title 10 by combining
and redrafting paragraphs (3) and (4) and by replacing
``liable'' with ``required''. These changes are intended to
clarify the provision and do not make substantive change to
the current law. Section 972 states that enlisted members
must make up lost
under certain circumstances before that time can be counted
toward service for retirement.
Subsection (b) amends title 10 by adding a new section
972a. The purpose of this new section is to prevent accrual
of service credit to an officer of the armed forces under the
following circumstances: (1) while in a deserter status; (2)
while absent from duty, station, or organization for more
than one day without proper authority; (3) while confined by
military or civilian authorities for more than one day
before, during or after trial; or (4) while unable for more
than one day to perform duties because of intemperate use of
drugs or alcoholic liquor, or because of disease or injury
resulting from an officer's misconduct. These circumstances
are the same as those under which an enlisted member is
required to make up time lost under section 972 of title 10.
Such time would not count in computing the officer's length
of service for any purpose except the computation of basic
pay under section 205 of title 37, including, but not limited
to, voluntary retirement for length of service under chapters
367, 571, or 867 of title 10.
Sections 3925 and 8925 of title 10 address computation of
years of service for voluntary retirement by regular enlisted
members of the Army and the Air Force, subject to the
provisions of section 972. As noted above, section 972 states
that enlisted members must make up time lost under certain
circumstances before that time can be counted toward service
for retirement. This made-up time ensures that the Army and
the Air Force receive a full commitment based on an
enlistment or induction contract. Comparable provisions
relating to the Navy in chapter 571 of title 10, do not
reference section 972 and do not have a provision comparable
to sections 3925 and 8925.
Sections 3929 and 8926 of title 10 address computation of
years of service for voluntary retirement by regular and
reserve commissioned officers of the Army and the Air Force.
Comparable provisions relating to the Navy in chapter 571 of
title 10, do not have a provision comparable to sections 3929
and 8926. Presently, there are no limitations placed on
officers for actions similar to those in section 972.
Officers continue to receive service credit towards
retirement eligibility, higher longevity pay, and increased
multiplier for retired pay purposes.
At the same time, highly-qualified officers selected for
early retirement cannot be extended past their mandatory
retirement date to reach a pay increase point. This
proposal will rectify these inequities.
Subsections (c) and (e) amend sections 3926 and 8926 of
title 10 to make reference to new section 972a in the same
fashion that section 972 is referenced in sections 3925 and
8925 of title 10. Subsection (d) amends title 10 by adding a
new section 6328 in chapter 571 to make reference to both
sections 972 and 972a.
The enactment of this proposal will not increase the
budgetary requirements of the Department of Defense.
Section 502. Changes in general officer billet titles
resulting from the reorganization of headquarters, Marine
Corps
The purpose of this legislation is to replace the current
Sections 5041(b), 5044 and 5045 of Chapter 506 of title 10,
United States Code, with language to reflect reorganization
of Headquarters Marine Corps to more efficiently support the
Commandant in his two roles as a member of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff and as a Service Chief.
Based on a Headquarters Marine Corps Reorganization Study,
proposed changes were recommended to establish a viable
organization that incorporates coherent, timely and forceful
resource management and advocacy; General Officer
efficiencies; and the ability to respond rapidly to emerging
issues in a coordinated and comprehensive method.
The following changes in general officer billet titles were
proposed to more efficiently accomplish support to the
Commandant:
The Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps to Vice
Commandant of the Marine Corps;
Deputy Chiefs of Staff of the Marine Corps to Deputy
Commandants of the Marine Corps;
Assistant Deputy Chiefs of Staff of the Marine Corps to
Assistant Deputy Commandants of the Marine Corps;
Assistant Chiefs of Staff of the Marine Corps to Assistant
Commandants of the Marine Corps.
This proposal will be effected at no cost to the Department
of Defense or the Department of the Navy
Section 503. Increase in the transition period for officers
selected for early retirement
Paragraphs (1) of subsections (a) and (b) would amend
sections 581 and 638 of title 10, United States Code, to
extend the transition period for officers selected for early
retirement by three months. Under subsections 581(b) and
638(b)(1)(A) of title 10, an officer must be retired ``not
later than the first day of the seventh calendar month
beginning after the month in which the Secretary concerned
approves the report of the board which recommended the
officer for early retirement.'' Subsections (a) and (b) of
this proposal would require officers selected for early
retirement to be retired not later than the first day of the
tenth calendar month beginning after the month in which the
Secretary concerned approves the report of the board which
recommended the officer for early retirement.
Paragraphs (2) of subsections (a) and (b) would authorize
the Secretary concerned to defer the retirement of an officer
otherwise approved for early retirement under section 581,
638 or 638a of title 10 for not more than 90 days, in order
to prevent a personal hardship for the officer or for other
humanitarian reasons.
Subsection (c) would exclude from counting for the purpose
of determining authorized end strength under section 115 of
title 10, those officers selected for early retirement whose
mandatory retirement date has been deferred, for up to 90
days, by the Service Secretary for reason of personal
hardship or other humanitarian reasons.
Under current law, officers selected for early retirement
have six months and some fraction of a seventh month to
prepare for an involuntary transition to civilian life. In
most cases,
these officers have career expectations which are limited
only by statutory restrictions on years of commissioned
service and, therefore, are not prepared to make this
sudden, unwanted transition. Many of the officers selected
for early retirement must seek and attain post-military
service employment, move families to retirement locations,
meet current financial obligations such as mortgage
payments and college tuition costs for older children and
work around secondary and elementary education school
schedules for younger children.
Compressing these major events into a six month period is
difficult, particularly if the officer is deployed or
stationed overseas. Extending the transition period by three
months would not only permit officers selected for early
retirement to plan a more
[[Page S5810]] orderly transition to civilian life while
still performing in their military positions, but would also
provide the Services more time in which to identify and
detail reliefs for these officers while still meeting fiscal
year officer end strength requirements.
This proposal to increase the transition period for
officers selected for early retirement by three months is a
modest, but necessary change which will positively affect one
of the military's most negative personnel reduction
processes. While this change will not eliminate an officer's
shock of being forcibly retired early from a Service, it will
soften the impact for affected officers and their families
who have dedicated 20 or more years of faithful and
professional military service to the United States.
There is no cost associated with this proposal. Selective
Early Retirement Boards could be convened three months
earlier to offset any net increase in total pay and
allowances expended as a result of the three month extension
in the transition period.
Section 504. Revision in the authorized strength limitations
for Air Force commissioned officers on active duty in the
grade of major
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force
to raise temporarily the ceiling on the number of majors on
active duty in the Air Force by 1,100. Such statutory
authority
would allow the Air Force to accelerate promotion timing to
meet congressional intent as expressed through the Defense
Officer Personnel Management Act. This proposal will not
increase the total number of commissioned officers
authorized by the Air Force and will not impede planned
reductions in the officer force.
Section 505. Revision in the authorized strength limitations
for Navy commissioned officers on active duty in grades
of lieutenant commander, commander, and captain
This section temporarily and uniformly raises the ceilings
on the numbers of lieutenant commanders, commanders and
captains on active duty in Navy by 910, 722 and 300,
respectively. This temporary increase in ceilings is
necessary to provide sufficient grade authorizations to
maintain Unrestricted and Nurse promotion flow and
opportunity within Defense Officer Personnel Management Act
(DOPMA) guidelines. This temporary authority would expire on
the 30th of September, 1997, by which time Navy post-draw
down officer requirements and end strength will have
stabilized, and a more precise determination of permanent
grade table relief requirements can be made. For the long
term, Navy requires permanent grade table relief to maintain
officer career progression within Defense Officer Personnel
Management Act guidelines. Navy will pursue this permanent
relief as part of a joint Service effort coordinated by the
Department of Defense.
Navy's Unrestricted Line O-4 flow point will exceed the
Defense Officer Personnel Management Act guideline of 11
years in fiscal year 1999, and peak at 13 years and 6 months
in fiscal year 2003, despite the use of forced attrition
programs to control this increase. As the significant career
milestone of promotion to O-4 slips further off into the
future, Navy will find it increasingly more difficult to
attract high-caliber officers and retain its best junior
officers, particularly in the current climate of declining
strength, increased forced attrition and reduced retirement
benefits.
To provide Nurse Corps officers with comparable promotion
opportunity and, Navy has had to provide substantial internal
compensation to the Nurse Corps. Without this
``compensation'' Nurse Corps promotion opportunity and timing
would remain outside of the Defense Officer Personnel
Management Act promotion system
guidelines indefinitely at the grades of commander and
captain. In the current environment of declining strength
this compensation is becoming increasingly more difficult
to provide.
The proposed temporary change to the grade table will
provide sufficient grade relief to maintain Unrestricted Line
and Nurse Corps promotion opportunity and timing within
Defense Officer Personnel Management Act guidelines and
ensure Navy's ability to attract and retain the high-caliber
officers it requires.
The approximate cost to implement this initiative is
estimated as follows (in millions): Fiscal Year 1996: 00.00;
Fiscal Year 1997: 10.00.
These amounts have not been included in any estimates for
appropriations submitted through budget channels by the
Department of Defense.
Section 506. Authorization of general or flag officer
promotion zones
This section amends section 645 of title 10 to clarify the
definitions of promotion zones which are applicable to
Chapter 36 of title 10. The modified definitions will not
require executive level officers (grades 0-6 and above) to be
placed in a promotion eligibility category (above the zone)
for officers who have failed of selection for promotion.
Executive level officers become eligible to be selected for
promotion when they have one year service in grade, and
remain eligible unless selected for promotion or retired.
In part, the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act
(DOPMA) was enacted to make uniform the provisions of law
relating to promotion of regular commissioned officers of the
Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. The Defense Officer
Personnel Management Act was, however, enacted primarily for
the purpose of field grade officer management.
At the time of the Defense Officer Personnel Management
Act's enactment, it was apparent that executive level
officers
were not intended to be subject to all of the provisions of
the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act. The House of
Representatives Report of the Committee on Armed Services
which accompanied Senate bill 1918 states ``this category
of executives is in many ways unique and can and should be
managed accordingly. The small numbers involved permit
this, and the importance of the resource demands this.''
The House report further states that ``the concept of
failing selection for promotion does not apply when
officers are not selected for promotion to the flag and
general officer grades.''
Given that executive level officers do not fail selection
for promotion and, therefore, should not be placed in an
``above the promotion zone'' category, it is proposed that
the definition of ``promotion zone'' be modified to include
executive level officers considered previously for promotion.
The proposed amendment would, therefore, clarify that such
officers are not above the zone, and thereby eliminate any
stigma of failing of selection, bringing the statute squarely
within the apparent intent of Congress. There are no other
provisions of the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act
which are affected by the proposed modifications.
There are no costs associated with this legislation.

Subtitle B--Reserve Component Matters

Section 511. Repeal of requirement for physical examination
on calling militia into Federal service
This section repeals section 12408 of title 10, United
States Code, which requires that each member of the National
Guard receive a physical examination when called into, and
again when mustered out of, Federal service as militia. For
short periods of such service, this requires two complete
physical examinations during a period of days or weeks. In
view of other statutory and regulatory requirements for
periodic medical examinations and physical condition
certifications for members of the National Guard, this
additional examination requirement is unnecessary,
administratively burdensome, and expensive, and could impede
the rapid and efficient mobilization of the National Guard
for civil emergencies.
There is no corresponding statutory requirement for
physical examinations when members of the National Guard or
other reserve components are ordered to active duty as
reserves.
Section 512. Military leave for public safety duty performed
by members of the Reserve components of the Armed Forces
This section amends section 6323(b) of title 5 by
permitting employees to elect, when performing duties
described in that section, either military leave under that
subsection or annual leave or compensatory time to which they
are otherwise entitled. This amendment would not permit use
of sick leave for the performance of military duty described
in section 6323(b).
Section 513. Change to Reserve Officers' Training Corps
advanced course admission requirements
This section amends section 2104(b)(6)(A)(ii) of title 10
to permit the Secretary of the military department to
prescribe the length of the field training or practice cruise
that persons who have not participated in the first two years
of Reserve Officers' Training Corps must complete to be
enrolled in the Reserve Officers' Training Corps Advanced
Course. Currently, the preliminary training must last at
least six weeks.
This proposal authorizes the Secretary concerned to
prescribe the length of the field training or practice cruise
required for admission to the Reserve Officers' Training
Corps Advanced Course.
Section 514. Clarifying use of military morale, welfare, and
recreation facilities by Retired Reservists
This section amends section 1065(a) of title 10, United
States Code, to give members of the Retired Reserve who would
be eligible for retired pay but for the fact that they are
under 60 years of age (gray area reservists) the same
priority for use of morale, welfare, and recreation (MWR)
facilities of the military services as members who retired
after active-duty careers.
Currently, section 1065(a), enacted in 1990, gives the
retired reservists the same priority as active-duty members.
They, therefore, have preference over retirees from active
duty. This section amends the current section 1065(a) by
revising the last sentence to correct this inequity.
Enactment of this section will not result in an increase in
the budgetary requirements of the Department of Defense.
Section 515. Objective to increase percentage of prior active
duty personnel in the Selected Reserve
Section 1111(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1993 provides that the Secretary of the Army
shall have an objective of increasing the percentage of prior
active duty personnel in the Army National Guard to 65
percent in the case of officers and 50 percent in the case of
enlisted members. This change would amend section 1111 and
eliminate from the law what may be seen as essentially an
arbitrary percentage as a target. It will also facilitate
increasing
[[Page S5811]] the active duty percentage of the career
officer and enlisted leadership under Department objectives
established by the Army's Section 1111 Congressional Plan
submitted to Congress in January, 1994. The plan, developed
after months of extensive modeling and analysis by the Deputy
Chief of Staff for Personnel, supports objectives of 65
percent for warrant officers and commissioned officers in the
grades above first lieutenant and below brigadier general. It
also limited the grades for enlisted members to sergeants and
above and increased the objective from 50 to 60 percent.
Section 516. Wear of military uniform by National Guard
technicians
This section would amend section 709 of title 32, United
States Code to provide that National Guard technicians who
are required as a condition of such civilian employment to be
members of the National Guard are also required to wear
military uniforms in the course of performing their duties as
technicians. These technicians are currently required to wear
uniforms in their civilian jobs, and this requirement has
been upheld by the Federal Labor Relations Authority and the
courts. Recent decisions by the Federal Labor Relations
Authority and the FSIP have required state National Guard
organizations to negotiate with employee unions on the
civilian clothing allowance under 5 U.S.C. 5901. These
decisions may result in state Guard
organizations being required to provide monetary civilian
clothing allowances to compensate technicians that have
already been furnished the required military uniforms
under the military wear and tear replacement provisions of
37 U.S.C. 418.
Subsection (b) would allow a period of service as a
technician by a person who is an officer in the National
Guard to be considered active duty for the purposes of
uniform allowances for officers under title 37. This would
place technician officers on the same footing as AGRs as to
eligibility for uniform allowances. This subsection would
also provide that these allowances are exclusive of civilian
uniform allowances authorized under titles 5 and 10.
Subsection (c) would authorize more frequent issuance of
military uniforms to members of the National Guard who are
technicians, as a result of wear and tear from wear during
the course of their civilian employment. It would also
provide that the issuance of uniforms or provision of a
uniform allowance to these technicians under 37 U.S.C. 418
would be exclusive of authority to provide civilian uniforms
or allowances under 5 U.S.C. 5901 or 10 U.S.C. 1593.
Section 517. Active duty retirement sanctuary for reservists
This section amends sections 1163(d) of title 10 to provide
for an exception to the active duty retirement sanctuary
provision for a member of a reserve component, who is on
active duty (other than for training) and is within two years
of becoming eligible for retired pay or retainer pay under a
purely military retirement system. This proposal would
provide authority for the Secretaries of the military
departments to issue regulations requiring that the length of
active duty be at least 180 days before members of a reserve
component could request retention on active duty until they
become eligible for active duty retired pay. Such regulations
would require reservists with 18 or more years of qualifying
service for active duty retired pay to serve on active duty
for special work for a period of 180 consecutive days or
longer in order to request active duty retirement sanctuary.
Certain reservists involuntarily recalled to active duty
would be exempt from the 180-day requirement. There are no
costs associated with the provision.
Section 518. Involuntarily separated military reserve
technicians
This section amends section 3329 of title 5 which requires
that certain eligible Department of Defense military reserve
technicians who were involuntarily separated from their
positions are given competitive service job offers in the
Department of Defense within 6 months of application.
Eligibility consisted of those who:
Separated on or after October 23, 1992, with 15 years
technician and 20 years of service creditable for non-regular
retirement under title 10, United States Code, section 1332;
Lost military membership not due to misconduct or
delinquency;
Are not eligible for immediate or early retirement; and
Apply within one year of separation.
This would eliminate the requirement that separated
technicians receive a job offer giving them placement rights
above other separated Department of Defense civilian
employees (including veterans). It also eliminates the
requirement that a vacancy be artificially created. The
proposed amendment would accord eligible technicians the same
priority placement consideration as other displaced
Department of Defense employees.

Subtitle C--Amendments to the Uniform Code of Military Justice

The legislative proposals in this subtitle are the result
of an annual review of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
by the Joint Service Committee on Military Justice. The Joint
Service Committee on Military Justice was established in
response to Executive Order 12473, as amended by Executive
Orders 12484, 12550, and 12708, and consists of
representatives from each of the five services and from The
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The
purpose of the Joint Service Committee is to assist the
President in his responsibilities under article 36 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 836) to ensure
that the principles of law and the rules of evidence
generally recognized in the trial of criminal cases in the
United States District Courts are applied, so far as
practicable, to cases triable by court-martial. The enactment
of this proposed
legislation would result in no additional cost to the
Government.
Section 551. Definitions
This section amends article 1 of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 801) by providing definitions of
the terms ``classified information'' and ``national
security''. These definitions are identical to those used in
the Classified Information Procedures Act (18 App. U.S.C. 1).
The section also provides a definition of the term ``armed
conflict''. This definition is similar to the definition of
``contingency operation'' found in section 101(a)(13) of
title 10, United States Code.
Section 552. Jurisdiction over civilians accompanying the
forces in the field of time of armed conflict
This section amends article 2(a)(10) of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 802(a)(10)) by extending
jurisdiction over civilians accompanying the forces in the
field to situations of armed conflict. This amendment
recognizes that armed conflict may exist without a
declaration of war and overturns United States v. Averette,
41 C.M.R. 363 (C.M.A. 1970). Determining whether an armed
conflict exists in the absence of a formal declaration of war
is a factual determination based on the totality of the
circumstances, including: the nature of the conflict (whether
it involves armed hostilities against an organized enemy);
the movement to and the numbers of United States forces in
the combat area; the casualties involved and the sacrifices
required; the maintenance of large numbers of active duty
personnel; legislation by Congress recognizing or providing
for the hostilities; executive orders and proclamations
concerning the hostilities; and expenditures in the war
effort.
Section 553. Investigations
This section amends article 32 of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 832) by adding a new subsection
which authorizes an article 32 investigating officer to
investigate uncharged offenses when, during the course of a
hearing under this article, the evidence indicates that the
accused may have committed such offenses. An article 32
proceeding frequently
eliminates weak or baseless charges saving the government
the time and expense of having to address them at trial.
It also serves the defense as a valuable discovery tool
permitting it to cross-examine government witnesses under
oath before trial. The investigation's swift completion
saves the accused from the anxiety and uncertainty of what
charges, if any, he will have to defend against and
assures his right to a speedy resolution of the issues.
Authorizing an investigating officer to broaden the scope
of the investigation beyond those offenses charged
benefits both the government and the accused. Under
current procedure, the investigating officer would at a
minimum, have to delay the proceeding in order to allow
the Government time to prepare and serve additional
charges should a basis for such charges arise during the
investigation. Such delays are contrary to the interests
of both the accused and the government in ensuring the
swift and efficient administration of justice.
The proposed legislation should allow the investigating
officer to investigate the uncharged allegation of
allegations without having to delay the proceeding, but still
insure that the accused's due process rights were protected.
The investigating officer would be required to advise the
accused of the nature of the uncharged offense or offenses
and that the offense or offenses will be investigated during
the current investigation. The accused would retain the same
rights with regard to the uncharged offenses as existed with
regard to the charged offenses, i.e., the right to be present
and represented by counsel, to confront and cross-examine
available witnesses, to examine real and documentary
evidence, to examine statements of unavailable witnesses, to
request that the investigating officer call witnesses, and to
present evidence in defense or remain silent. After hearing
all the evidence, the investigating officer may then
recommend the preferral and referral of additional charges in
the formal report on finding that a sufficient factual basis
for doing so exists.
Section 554. Refusal to testify before court-martial
This section amends article 47(b) of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 847(b)) by removing the
limitations on punishment which may be imposed by a Federal
District Court for a civilian witness's refusal, after being
subpoenaed, to appear or testify before a court-martial.
Under the present
statute, the Federal District Court may only impose ``a fine
of not more than $500.00, or imprisonment for not more
than six months, or both'' on a recalcitrant witness. This
proposal leaves the amount of confinement or fine to the
discretion of the Federal Court having jurisdiction over
the case and is based on 18 U.S.C. 401-402. This approach
provides the court greater flexibility in determining a
punishment more appropriately designed to elicit
cooperation from a recalcitrant witness.
[[Page S5812]] Section 555. Records of trial
This section amends article 54(c)(1)(A) of the Uniform Code
of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 854(c)(1)(A)) by changing the
triggering factors which require a verbatim record of trial
in general courts-martial. It eliminates verbatim records of
trial in general courts-martial where the adjudged sentence
does not require mandatory review by a Court of Criminal
Appeals under article 66(b)(1) of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice, i.e., a sentence which does not extend to
death, dismissal, discharge, or confinement for one year or
more. As a result, staff judge advocates would have the
option of preparing the records for such cases in either
summarized or verbatim format, as their available resources
dictate. Courts-martial affected by this legislation are
examined under article 69(a) of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (10 U.S.C. 869(a)) in the Service office of The Judge
Advocate General and can be fairly and efficiently examined
through use of a summarized record of trial, as is currently
the case with records of special courts-marital in which no
punitive discharge is adjudged.
Section 556. Effective date of punishments
This section amends article 57(a) of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 857(a)) by making forfeitures of
pay and allowances and reductions in grade effective
immediately upon being adjudged by a court-martial. It
discontinues the current practice of allowing a convicted
member to retain the privileges of his rank until the record
of trial has been prepared, the accused presents matters for
the convening authority's consideration (up to ten days from
service of the record upon the accused), and the convening
authority reviews the record and takes action on the
sentence. This situation can last from several weeks to
months depending upon the length and complexity
of the trial. The immediate application of forfeitures and
reduction in grade would not only have the desired
punitive and rehabilitative impact upon the accused, but
would also impress upon other members the costs of
misconduct, thus engendering an enhanced deterrence to
future criminal behavior by military members.
Section 557. Deferment of confinement
This section adds a new article 57a of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 857a) which combines the existing
provision authorizing deferment of confinement, i.e., article
57(d) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, with two new
provisions describing additional circumstances under which
such action is authorized.
The first of the new provisions, article 57a(b), permits
the Secretary concerned, or his designee, to defer the
service of an accused's confinement when a Judge Advocate
General orders a case reversed by a Court of Military Review
to be sent to the United States Court of Military Appeals for
further review under article 67(a)(2). The latter court has
directed that, when the government appeals a court of
military review's reversal of the findings or sentence to
confinement, the accused must be released from confinement
pending the government's appeal unless it can be shown that
the accused is a flight risk or a potential threat to the
community should release be granted. See Moore v. Adkins, 30
M.J. 249 (C.M.A. 1990). Since current law only allows
deferment prior to ordering the execution of the sentence to
confinement, this legislation is necessary for the purpose of
establishing procedures to satisfy the mandate of the court.
The second of the new provisions, article 57a(c) allows the
convening authority to defer the running of a sentence to
confinement when a state or foreign country has temporarily
released the accused from its custody to allow the military
to try the accused before a court-martial and the military is
then obligated by agreement such as the Interstate Agreement
on Detainers Act, 18 App. U.S.C., or a treaty to return the
accused to the sender state's custody after the court-martial
is completed. Since article 57(b) provides that an accused's
sentence to confinement begins to run upon the date it is
adjudged, any sentence of confinement imposed by the court-
martial would have
to run concurrently with the accused's confinement by the
sender state in the absence of this legislation. This
would be the case regardless of the fact that the court-
martial conviction was based on different crimes than
those prosecuted by the sender state. The military courts
have been determined to be federal courts for the purpose
of complying with the Interstate Agreement on Detainers
Act. See United States v. Greer, 21 M.J. 338 (C.M.A.
1986).
Section 558. Submission of matters to the convening authority
for consideration
This section amends article 60(b)(1) of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 860(b)(1)) by inserting the word
``written'' in the first sentence. The amendment requires
matters submitted by an accused for consideration by a
convening authority with respect to the findings and sentence
of a court-martial to be limited to written matters.
Section 559. Proceedings in revision
This section amends article 60 of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 860) by adding a new paragraph
(3) to subsection (e). It provides that a proceeding in
revision may be ordered, prior to authentication of the
record of trial by the Military Judge, to correct an
erroneously announced sentence. The sentence may be corrected
even if, in doing so, the severity of the sentence is
increased. The amendment applies only to correction of an
erroneously announced sentence and does not authorize
reconsideration. The amendment overrules United States v.
Baker, 32 M.J. 290 (C.M.A. 1991). The previously designated
subsection (e)(3) is redesignated as subsection (e)(4).
Section 560. Post-trial review of courts-martial
Subsection (a) of this section amends article 61(c) of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 861(c)) by adding
the phrase ``or an application for relief under section
869(b) of this title (article 69(b))''. Subsection (b) amends
article 69(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10
U.S.C. 969(b)) by adding the phrase ``Unless the accused has
waived or withdrawn the right to appellate review under
section 861 of this title (article 61)''. These amendments
address a statutory loophole which
permits an accused to formally waive or withdraw appellate
review under the provisions of article 66 or 69(a) and up
to two years later submit an Application for Relief under
the provisions of article 69(b). The proposed change
limits an accused to a single avenue of post-trial review.
When an accused formally waives or withdraws appellate
review, he or she knowingly waives the right to bring issues
to the attention of a Court of Criminal Appeals or the Office
of The Judge Advocate General. Most legal issues are best
resolved through the normal appellate review process.
Permitting an accused who has waived or withdrawn appellate
review much later to submit an Application for Relief to The
Judge Advocate General allows that accused to equivocate at
the expense of judicial efficiency and economy and in effect
to ``shop'' for the most effective forum.
Section 561. Appeal by the United States
This section amends article 62 of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 862) by allowing the Government
to file an interlocutory appeal of rulings or orders issued
by the military judge which direct the government to disclose
classified information, impose sanctions for nondisclosure of
classified information, or refuse a protective order sought
to prevent the disclosure of classified information. It makes
applicable to courts-martial the same protections with regard
to classified information as apply to orders or rulings
issued on Federal District Courts under the Classified
Information Procedures Act (18 App. U.S.C. 7).
Section 562. Flight from apprehension
This section amends article 95 of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 895.) to proscribe fleeing from
apprehension without regard to whether the accused otherwise
resisted apprehension.
The proposed change responds to the United States Court of
Military Appeals decisions in United States v. Harris, 29
M.J. 169 (C.M.A. 1989), and United States v. Burgess, 32 M.J.
446 (C.M.A. 1991). In both cases, the Court held that
resisting apprehension does not include fleeing from
apprehension, despite
the explanation in Part IV, paragraph 19c(1), MCM, 1984, of
the nature of the resistance required for resisting
apprehension: ``The resistance must be active, such as
assaulting the person attempting to apprehend or flight''
(emphasis added). The 1951 and 1969 Manuals for Courts-
Martial also explained that flight could constitute
resisting apprehension under article 95, an interpretation
affirmed in the only early military case on point, United
States v. Mercer,11 C.M.R. 812 (A.F.B.R. 1953).
Flight from apprehension should be expressly deterred and
punished under military law. Contrary to civilian
jurisdictions, military personnel are specially trained and
routinely expected to submit to lawful authority. Rather than
being a merely incidental or reflexive action, flight from
apprehension in the context of the armed forces may have a
distinct and cognizable impact on military discipline. The
present alternatives for reaching and punishing flight from
apprehension are unsatisfactory, in that they lack uniformity
and are potentially unfair. Reliance on local regulations
(e.g., installation traffic regulations requiring drivers to
stop for a police vehicle with its lights and siren on), or
assimilation of state statutes makes prosecution dependent
upon the vagaries of inconsistent and sometimes nonexistent
law. Punishing a fleeing suspect for disobedience of a law
enforcement officer's order is both problematic (it requires
that the suspect receive an order, which is often not the
case or is impossible to prove) and unfair to the accused
(the maximum punishment for disobedience far exceeds the
misdemeanor-type nature of fleeing apprehension). Finally,
proceeding under article 134 as the Court suggested in
Harris, typically would raise several difficult legal issues,
including preemption and notice.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice must be amended in
order to uniformly proscribe fleeing apprehension under
military law; the Harris and Burgess decisions are premised
upon statutory interpretation, not Manual provisions. The
proposed Manual changes will be included in the Joint Service
Committee's 1994 Annual Review after the legislation passes.
Section 563. Carnal knowledge
Subsection (a) of this section amends article 120(b) of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 920(b)) by making
the crime of carnal knowledge gender neutral,
[[Page S5813]] bringing article 120 of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice into conformity with the spirit of the
Sexual Abuse Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 2241-2245).
Subsection (b) of this section amends article 120 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 920) by adding a
new subsection (d) permitting an affirmative defense of
mistake of fact for alleged carnal knowledge, regarding the
age of the person with whom the accused committed the act of
sexual intercourse. It allows the accused to defend against a
charge of carnal knowledge on the basis that he or she lacked
a criminal intent while protecting children under 12 years of
age from sexual abuse and, thus causes the military offense
of carnal knowledge to more closely conform to its federal
civilian counterpart (18 U.S.C. 2243).
Section 564. Instruction in the Uniform Code of Military
Justice
This section amends article 137(a)(1) of the Uniform Code
of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 937(a)(1)) by lengthening the
period of time in which training in certain provisions of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice is provided to new enlistees
from six to fourteen days.

Subtitle D--Other Matters

Section 571. Indefinite reenlistments for career enlisted
members
Currently, section 505(d) of title 10, United States Code,
authorizes the Secretaries of the military departments to
accept reenlistments in regular components for a period of at
least two but not more than six years. Accordingly, even
senior enlisted members of the armed forces who have made
military service a career must periodically reenlist. This
proposal would eliminate the administrative efforts and
associated costs that occur as a consequence of the
requirement to reenlist continually senior enlisted members.
Under this section, the Secretaries of the military
departments could accept indefinite reenlistments from
enlisted members who have at least ten years of service on
active duty and
who are serving in the pay grade of E-6 or above. The vast
majority of enlisted members with these characteristics
will make military service a career. Thus, an enlisted
member who serves 30 years would avoid the necessity of
continually reenlisting over a 20-year period. The
paperwork for reenlistment and its processing is not
burdensome, but it is not insignificant. Savings should
result. The proposal would also increase the prestige of
the noncommissioned officer corps.
Section 572. Chief Warrant Officer promotions
This section amends sections 574(e) and 575(b) of title 10
to reduce the minimum time in grade necessary for promotion
to two years rather than three, and to authorize the below-
zone selection for promotion to the grade of chief warrant
officer, W-3.
Reduction of the minimum time in grade required for
promotion would result in actual promotion after three years
in grade. It is not now possible for below zone
consideration, even to chief warrant officer, W-4. This
legislation would also authorize chief warrant officer, W-3,
below-zone selection opportunity. This change will permit
recognition of the small number of chief warrant officers, W-
3, deserving of promotion ahead of their peers. The average
chief warrant officer, W-2, has almost eighteen years
enlisted service when commissioned in that grade.
Prior to 1 February 1992 when the Warrant Officer
Management Act became effective, temporary warrant officer
promotions were made under such regulations as the service
secretary prescribed, as authorized by section 602 of title
10. Under this section, repealed by the Warrant Officer
Management Act, warrant officers were temporarily promoted
well ahead of the criteria for permanent regular warrant
officer promotions under section 559 of title 10, also
repealed, and it was also possible for a limited number of
outstanding individuals to be selected early from among
below-zone candidates for the grade of chief warrant officer,
W-3.
Under section 574(e) of title 10, a chief warrant officer
is not eligible to be considered for promotion to the next
higher
grade until he or she has completed three years of service
in current grade.
Additionally, section 575(b)(1) of title 10 limits below-
zone selection opportunity to those being considered for
promotion to chief warrant officer, W-4, and chief warrant
officer, W-5.
This legislation is intended to improve the management of
the Services' chief warrant officer communities by reducing
the minimum time in grade required for chief warrant officers
to be considered for promotion to the next higher grade from
three years to two years, thereby allowing the opportunity
for early selection, and to authorize below-zone selection
opportunity for promotion to the grade of chief warrant
officer, W-3, similar to that currently authorized for
promotion to the grades of chief warrant officer, W-4, and
chief warrant officer, W-5.
With due-course promotions occurring after four years' time
in grade, as they now occur in the Department of the Navy,
the requirement for chief warrant officers to have three
years in grade to be considered for promotion has the effect
of not permitting any early selections. Reducing the minimum
time in grade for promotion consideration to two years would
allow for a small number of individuals to be selected from
among below-zone candidates, and to be promoted one year
early after actually serving three years in grade.
Additionally, authorizing early selection to chief warrant
officer, W-3, would permit recognition as appropriate of the
experience and competence of these individuals. For example,
the average Navy chief warrant officer, W-2, has almost 18
years enlisted service when commissioned in that grade.
Chief warrant officers provide the services with
commissioned officers who possess invaluable technical
expertise, leadership and managerial skills developed during
enlisted service and through formal education. This
legislation is needed to identify and reward the small number
of exceptionally talented chief warrant officers whose
demonstrated performance and strong leadership are deserving
of special recognition by being selected for promotion ahead
of their peers, thereby enhancing morale and maintaining the
vitality of the entire community.
This proposal would not result in any increased cost to the
Department of the Navy, other services, or the Department of
Defense.
Section 573. Retirement of Director of Admissions, United
States Military Academy, for years of service
This section would amend section 3920 of title 10 to
authorize the Secretary of the Army to retire the Director of
Admissions, United States Military Academy, after 30 years of
service as a commissioned officer. Currently, under section
1251(a) of title 10, the permanent professors at the Academy
and the Director of Admissions can serve until the age of 64.
Under section 3920, however, the Secretary of the Army may
direct the retirement of a permanent professor after 30 years
of service. This section would provide the Secretary of the
Army with the same retirement authority over the Director of
Admissions.

Title VI--Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits

Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances

Section 601. Military pay raise for fiscal year 1995
The purpose of this section is to obtain one-time relief
from the provisions of 37 U.S.C. 1009 and, thereby, permit an
adjustment to monthly Basic Allowance for Quarters (BAQ)
rates that exceeds the overall average percentage increase
permitted in subsection (b)(3) without recourse to
Presidential action authorized in subsection (c). With regard
to January 1, 1996, the annualization of the General Schedule
rates by statute would result in a basic allowance for
quarters average rate increase of 2.4 percent to those rates
in force on January 1, 1995. As the result of the recent
Department of Defense study addressing military quality-of-
life issues, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with
the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff agreed to the programming
and budgeting of an additional $43 Million in Fiscal Year
1996 and equivalent out-year Basic Allowance for Quarters
funding through Fiscal Year 2001 to improve service member
reimbursement and living accommodations. Execution of the
Fiscal Year 1996 program at this funding level, as an augment
to annualization of the General Schedule rates, will result
in an
overall Basic Allowance for Quarters rate increase of 3.4
percent to those rates in force on January 1, 1995.
As noted by the joint House-Senate Conference Committee
that considered the 1988/1989 Defense Authorization Act, ``in
1985 the basic allowance for quarters rates [were]
restructured so that they would cover 65 percent of national
median housing costs in each pay grade.'' Since the 1985
restructuring, BAQ rates have declined to under 59 percent of
the national housing median. Combined with funding caps to
the variable housing allowance program, service members now
absorb over 21 percent of their housing costs instead of the
congressional intent of 15 percent. Support for the use of
this additional funding and establishment of the 3.4 percent
increase in basic allowance for quarters for Fiscal Year 1996
is executed to reduce the percent of out-of-pocket housing
costs service members pay by one percent through Fiscal Year
2001.
This improvement of quality-of-life initiative will help
defray the cost of off-base housing for military members,
improve the adequacy of these quarters and, as result,
contribute to force readiness via improved morale, individual
readiness and retention of personnel.
The following amounts are included in the President's
Fiscal Year 1996 budget submission to reflect enactment of
this legislation:
[In millions of dollars]

Fiscal year 1996...................................................43.0
Fiscal year 1997...................................................43.8
Fiscal year 1998...................................................44.6
Fiscal year 1999...................................................45.6
Fiscal year 2000...................................................46.9
Fiscal year 2001...................................................48.2

Section 602. Evacuation allowances that permits equal
treatment of military dependents to civilians and their
dependents
Subsection (a) amends section 405a(a) of title 37 by
changing ``ordered'' each place it appears to ``officially
authorized or ordered'' in each instance. The purpose for
this change is to equalize evacuation allowances to ensure
that treatment of dependents of military personnel is equal
to that of civilian dependents.
The Foreign Service Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-465)
broadened section 5522 of title 5 to allow advance pay along
with travel and transportation allowances to civilians and
[[Page S5814]] their dependents whenever they are officially
authorized or ordered to leave an overseas area due to
unsettled conditions. Congress believed this change was in
the best interest of the Government and the individual by
providing flexible requirements in this area and by allowing
the Government to more easily order departures of dependents
and nonessential personnel without ordering a full scale
evacuation. Similar treatment for military dependents is
required as a matter of equity since military dependents are
evacuated from an overseas location along with civilian
employees and their dependents. This small change will allow
the Chief of Diplomatic Mission authority to treat military
dependents identical to civilians and their dependents by
``authorizing'' as well as ``ordering'' military dependents
to evacuate and ensure our policies are consistent with the
Department of State's evacuation procedures.
Enactment of this legislative proposal will not cause an
increase in the budgetary requirements of the Department of
Defense.
Section 603. Continuous entitlement to career sea pay for
crewmembers of ships designated as tenders
The purpose of this section is to modify current law by
specifying duty on board submarine and destroyer tenders as
qualifying for career sea pay, removing the requirement for
the tender to be away from homeport in order to support
career sea pay eligibility.
Title 37 distinguishes between ships with a primary mission
accomplished underway (continuous career sea pay entitlement)
and ships with a primary mission accomplished in port (non-
continuous career sea pay entitlement).
In 1980, when the Secretary of the Navy Hidalgo presented
to Congress the proposal that led to the current career sea
pay legislation, he explained that tenders were the most
representative class of ships that met non-continuous career
sea criteria because their primary mission, at that time, was
accomplished in port.
In 1988, the fact that assignment to tender duty involved
the same intensive, arduous operational environment as other
shipboard duty (with accompanying continuous career sea pay
entitlement) was recognized by Congress when section
305a(d)(2) of title 37 was amended by Public Law 100-456 to
credit tender crewmembers with all time performed (both
underway and in port) aboard those ships as cumulative day-
for-day longevity for sea service time. Before that time,
both sea service time (longevity) and the actual entitlement
to career sea pay for non-continuous entitlement ships
accrued only after the ship was underway for more than 30
consecutive days.
Navy's drawdown in recent years has added to the demands on
tender crews, making them unquestionably deserving of
continuous career sea pay entitlement. This considerable
increase in operational tempo has resulted from continuing
demands preparing deploying units for overseas duty, as well
as being required to assist in the numerous decommissioning
as a result of Navy's ship drawdown.
These demands on the crews of our tenders are further
exacerbated by the drawdown of the tenders themselves. By
October 1, 1995, the tender fleet will have been reduced from
17 to 4 ships (two homeported overseas (La Maddalena,
Sardinia and Guam) and the remaining two in the United States
(one per coast)).
Today, tender crews, on fewer ships, are experiencing more
underway time and, when in port, are facing the same or more
rigorous demands and working hours as the crews of the
continuous career sea pay ships they support. The proposed
legislation would remove the significant pay inequity that
currently exists for crewmembers assigned to those submarine
and destroyer tenders.
Enactment of this proposed legislation would result in the
following expenditures by the Department of Defense (Dollars
in Millions):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal
year year year year year
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army N/A................... ....... ....... ....... ....... .......
Air Force.................. N/A ....... ....... ....... .......
Navy....................... 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Marine Corps\1\............ ....... ....... ....... ....... .......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Negligible (<50K/yr)

Section 604. Increase in the subsistence allowance payable to
a member of the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps
This section would increase the monthly subsistence
allowance for Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps cadets/
midshipmen to $200 per month, effective August 1, 1996 (start
of 1996-97 school year). The current stipend, using
cumulative increases in the Consumer Price Index, CPI-Food
component, and subsistence allowances of active duty members,
is worth only $25 to $28 in 1994 dollars. The increase would
be in addition to the $50 monthly increase authorized in
section 603 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 2782), and is
necessary to reverse a growing shortage in Reserve Officers'
Training Corps enrollment. Currently, the Army and the Air
Force are operating approximately 20 percent short of
enrollment goals. Navy is meeting overall enrollment
objectives, but the mix of academic disciplines does not
fully match its objectives.
Section 605. Dislocation allowance (DLA) for base realignment
and closure (BRAC) moves
This section would authorize the current dislocation
allowance entitlement to Service members who must relocate in
a base realignment and closure location when their mission
has not changed. Current law requires that a Service member
must change jobs (receive orders) and have a government
funded movement of household goods to be entitled to
dislocation allowance. The requirement to change jobs to be
authorized this entitlement places a financial strain on some
Service members at base realignment and closure locations.
Most members move to a new duty station with base realignment
and closure but some (recruiters, ROTC instructors, etc.)
must remain in the area because their mission has not
changed. Although most of these members move locally, the
costs (security and utility deposits) incurred during
preparation for and during the move require an outlay of
funds that should be defrayed by a dislocation allowance.
Section 606. Family separation allowance (FSA-II)
This section would continue the authorization for
entitlement to FSA-II for members embarked on board a ship
(away from their home port) or on temporary duty (away from
their permanent duty station) for 30 consecutive days, whose
dependents were authorized under 37 U.S.C. 406 (permanent
change of station (PCS)) to accompany the member to the
homeport or permanent duty station, but voluntarily chose not
to do so. Although this allowance historically has been paid
to continental United States (CONUS) geographic bachelors,
and continued payment is funded in Service budgets, the
Defense Finance and Accounting Service has advised that
recent legal interpretations prohibit continued payments
unless the statute is amended. This would apply needed
corrections. Since this action simply sustains the status
quo, there are no new funding demands associated with
enactment.
Section 607. Authorization of payment of basic allowance for
quarters to certain members of the uniformed services
assigned to sea duty
This section would provide the entitlement of basic
allowance for quarters (BAQ) and variable housing allowance
(VHA) (or overseas housing allowance (OHA) if assigned to
ship homeported overseas) to single E-6 (Petty Officer First
Class) personnel assigned to shipboard sea duty. Currently
only pay grades E-7 (Chief Petty Officer) and above are
entitled to BAQ-VHA (or OHA) based on section 403 of title 37
while assigned to shipboard sea duty. This proposal would
provide quality of life/compensation relief to a small-but-
senior leadership group (ages 26-40+; 4,000 people) whose 60
month-at-sea/24-to-36-month-ashore assignment rotations
prevent them from establishing and maintaining permanent
residence ashore commensurate with their leadership position.

Subtitle B--Income Tax Matters

Section 611. Exclusion of combat pay from withholding limited
to amount excludable from gross income
There is no income tax withholding under section 3401(a)(1)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 3401(a)(1))
with respect to military pay for a month in which a member of
the
Armed Forces of the United States is entitled to the
benefits of section 112 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (26 U.S.C. 112) (sec. 3401(a)(1)). With respect to
enlisted personnel, this income tax withholding rule
parallels the exclusion from income under section 112;
there is total exemption from income tax withholding and
total exclusion from income. With respect to officers,
however, the withholding rule is not parallel; there is
total exemption from income tax withholding, although the
exclusion from income is limited to $500 per month. The
bill makes the income tax withholding exemption rules
parallel to the rules providing an exclusion from income
for combat pay.

Subtitle C--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays

Section 621. Aviation career incentive pay (ACIP) gates
This section would reduce the initial ACIP operational
flying requirement (known as the ``flight gate'') from 9 of
the first 12 years to instead stipulate 8 of the first 12
years. As a result of the drawdown, the loss of flying
billets, the increased time to promotion, and the increased
emphasis on non-flying duty (Washington, joint duty, graduate
education), nearly 30% of Naval aviators in year groups '86,
'87, and '88 will fail to meet their initial flight gate.
Similar patterns are found in other Services. This proposal
would provide a more reasonable (based on prevailing career
patterns) way for aviators to ``make their gates'' and
continue to receive ACIP, while still generating a tougher
standard than that which existed immediately prior to
enactment of the current (9/12) gate. There are no new costs
associated with enactment, because affected Services have
budgeted under the assumption that waivers (which currently
are authorized under law) would continue to be Service-
approved. This change adjusts the standard, to recognize the
current density of career-enhancing (non-flying) duty
demands, while reducing the overhead associated with
processing of those waivers.
Section 622. Expiring authorities
Subsections (a) through (e) amend sections 308b(f),
308c(e), 308e(e), 308h(g) and 308i(I) of title 37, United
States Code, to extend the authority to pay bonuses for (1)
enlistment,
reenlistment or affiliation with the Selective
[[Page S5815]] Reserve, (2) enlistment, reenlistment or
extension of an enlistment in the Ready Reserve other than
the Selected Reserve, and (3) enlistment in the Selected
Reserve of individuals with prior service. These authorities
currently expire on September 30, 1996. Termination of these
Reserve bonus programs would adversely impact the readiness
of Reserve component units by limiting the ability to recruit
individuals possessing critical skills or qualified to train
for critical skills and to ensure necessary manning levels in
specific critical units.
Subsections (f) through (h) amend section 2130a(a)(1) of
title 10, United States Code, and sections 302d(a)(1) and
302e(a)(1) of title 37, United States Code, to extend the
authority to pay (a) a nurse officer candidate accession
bonus, (b) an accession bonus for registered nurses, and (c)
incentive Special pay to military Certified Registered Nurse
Anesthetists. The original legislation was effective November
29, 1989 as part of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1990. Under current legislation, the
authority for these programs will expire on September 30,
1996. Each of these valuable programs has been successful in
helping the Military Departments obtain needed numbers of
professional nurses on active duty. Shortages of nurses with
a qualifying degree continue to make recruiting of nurses
difficult in light of intense competition with the private
sector. The Department believes that the nurse accession
bonus is necessary to attract new graduates from colleges and
universities that award a Bachelor's of Science in Nursing.
Subsection (i) amends section 308(g) of title 37, United
States Code, to extend the authority to pay reenlistment
bonus to active duty service members who reenlist or who
extend their enlistment in a regular component of the service
concerned for at least three years. This authority currently
expires on September 30, 1996.
Subsection (j) amends section 308(c) of title 37, United
States Code, to extend the authority to pay enlistment bonus
to a person who enlists in an armed force for at least four
years in a skill designated as critical, or who extends his
initial period of active duty in that armed force to a total
of at least four years in a skill designated as critical.
This authority currently expires on September 30, 1996.
Subsection (k) amends section 308f(c) of title 37, United
States Code, to extend the authority to pay enlistment bonus
to a person who, among other qualifications, enlists in the
Army for at least three years in a skill designated as
critical. This authority currently expires on September 30,
1996.
Subsection (1) amends section 308d(c) of title 37, United
States Code, to extend the authority to which permits the
payment of additional compensation to enlisted members of the
Selected Reserve assigned to high priority units, so
designated by the Secretary concerned because that unit has
experienced or reasonably might be expected to experience,
critical personnel shortages. This authority currently
expires on September 30, 1996.
Subsection (m) amends section 2172(d) of title 10, United
States Code, to extend the authority which permits the
repayment by the Secretary concerned of educational loans of
health professionals who serve in the Selected Reserve and
who possess professional qualifications in a health
profession that the Secretary of Defense has determined to be
needed critically in order to meet identified wartime combat
medical skill shortages. This authority currently expires on
October 1, 1996. Termination of Reserve health professional
incentive programs would limit the ability of the Reserve
components to fill shortages in the designated health
professionals.
Subsection (n) amends section 613(d) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1989 (37 U.S.C. 302
note) to extend the authority which permits payment of
special pay to a health care professional who is qualified in
a specialty designated by regulation as a critically short
wartime specialty and who agrees to serve in the Selected
Reserve for at least one year. This authority currently
expires on September 30, 1996. Extension of this authority
will allow the Department of Defense to conclude a test
program of a reserve medical bonus.
Subsections (o) through (q) amend sections 312(e), 312b(c),
and 312c(d) of title 37, United States Code, to extend the
authority to pay certain bonuses to attract and retain top
quality nuclear career officers. These authorities currently
expires on September 30, 1996 or October 1, 1996. Nuclear
officer shortfalls still exist, and the Department of the
Navy is experiencing a climate of particularly law
retention among junior nuclear trained officers. Submarine
junior officer retention is at a 15-year low.
Historically, the special pay for nuclear qualified
officers extending period of active service and the
nuclear career annual incentive bonus have been
instrumental in correcting these shortfalls. The
Department of the Navy continues also to come short of
nuclear officer accession goals (92% of goal reached in
fiscal year 1994). The nuclear career accession bonus is a
tool that allows the Department of the Navy to attract top
junior officers into the nuclear program.
Subsections (r) through (t) amend sections 3359(b),
8359(b), 3380(d) and 8380(d) of title 10, United States Code,
and section 1016(d) of the Department of Defense
Authorization Act, 1984, to extend certain reserve officer
management authorities extended by section 514 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994
(Public Law 103-160; 107 Stat. 1649). These authorities
currently expire on September 30, 1995. No further extension
will be necessary; the Reserve Officer Personnel Management
Act, which takes effect on October 1, 1996, provides
permanent fixes for the problems addressed by the extension
of these expiring authorities.
Subsection (u) amends section 1214 of the Merchant Marine
Act, 1936, to extend the authority to provide war risk
insurance. This authority currently expires on June 30, 1995.
Use of the self-insurance authority saved $500 million during
Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm.
Subsection (v) amends section 301b(a) of title 37, United
States Code, to make permanent the aviation officer retention
bonus. This authority currently expires on September 30,
1996. Making this authority permanent is necessary to counter
a decade-long problem in aviator retention that has not been
solved, and will not be solved by the time the current
authority expires in September 1996. This bonus represents a
vital component of aviation readiness since it keeps seasoned
aviators in the military, assuring a higher level of
performance and safety. Moreover, the cost of this bonus
represents a fraction of the costs associated with training
new aviators to overcome retention deficits that would worsen
if this authority were allowed to lapse.
Aviation continuation pay is a Congressionally authorized
incentive program paid to eligible aviators who, upon
completion of their minimum service requirement, agree to
remain on active duty in a flying status through their
fourteenth year of commissioned service. The sole purpose of
aviation continuation pay is to ensure adequate inventories
of pilots and other flight officers to meet each aviation
sub-community's department head requirements.
Despite the drawdown in the Department of Defense, aviation
continuation pay is still used as a valuable tool to ensure
critically manned aviation sub-communities maintained enough
aviators to fill department head billets. For example, Naval
Aviation has sub-communities that did not downsize. As a
matter of fact, the FA-18 community continued to grow through
the downsizing years.
As aviation forces begin to stabilize, retention of
qualified and well trained aviators will continue to be an
issue. For example, the numbers of aviators accessed into the
Navy in the 1990's is considerably less than what was brought
in the 1980's. Although the Navy is paying aviation
continuation pay to only 6 to 14 aviation sub-communities
today, that number is predicted to increase in the out years
because of the need to keep a higher percentage of the
smaller force throughout Naval Aviation. In addition, the
airline industry will have 20,000 of 57,000 pilots that will
reach retirement age between 1994 and 2004, opening up
employment opportunities for military pilots. The Navy will
have a tougher job keeping qualified aviators in the service,
and aviation continuation pay is the one tool the Navy has to
ensure enough aviators remain in the service to meet
requirements. The Army and the Air Force are similarly
situated.
Pilot retention in the military departments is not a
temporary problem; the effect of airline hiring and the
persistent strength of the economy of the United States is
likely to exert a steady demand for military trained pilots
in the commercial airline industry for the foreseeable
future. Additionally, a need exist; to provide permanent and
increased bonus authority in order to have the flexibility to
solve critical skill shortages as they manifest themselves in
projections, rather than incur losses in critical skills and
lose
the time and experience levels that would result while
training replacement aviators.
Subsection (w) amends section 5721 of title 10 to make
permanent the authority for temporary promotions of certain
Navy lieutenants.
The Navy has a shortage of available qualified officers to
fill key engineering billets. To counter this shortage, some
exceptional lieutenants are assigned to lieutenant commander
engineering related assignments. These are extremely
difficult and challenging assignments that include Engineer
Officer on nuclear powered submarines, Engineer Officer on
Nuclear powered cruisers, Engineer Officer on Ticonderoga
class cruisers, Engineer Officer on CLF ships, Members of the
fleet Commander-in-Chief's Nuclear Propulsion Examining Board
or Propulsion Examining Board.
SPOT promotion authority provides a flexible low cost
solution to precisely target the shortfall of skilled
engineering officers. It is limited by the Secretary of the
Navy's policy to only key engineering billets for which a
shortage of available qualified officers exists. SPOT
promotions occur within statutory lieutenant commander
ceilings with a 1:1 reduction of regular promotions to
lieutenant commander. Officers are promoted only while
serving in a qualifying billet. The program accounts for 100-
120 SPOT promotions a year.
An absolute shortage of permanent lieutenant commanders
exists within those line communities that fill Lieutenant
Commander SPOT billets. The table below summarizes the
specific shortages of permanent Lieutenant Commanders by
community.

[[Page S5816]]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community
Designator Total specific Shortfall
inventory billets
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1110............................. 1,317 1,406 89
1120............................. 635 819 184
6400............................. 62 67 5
6130............................. 55 73 18
6230............................. 25 24 -1
--------------------------------------
Total........................ 2,094 2,389 295
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The shortfall becomes significantly more pronounced if the
inventory is limited to those permanent Lieutenant Commanders
with the skills required for SPOT promotion billets.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community
Designator Total specific Shortfall
inventory billets
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1110............................. 1,095 1,406 311
1120............................. 436 819 383
6400............................. 62 67 5
6130............................. 55 73 18
6230............................. 25 24 -1
--------------------------------------
Total........................ 1,673 2,389 716
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The qualified lieutenant commander inventory includes those
officers who are Engineering Officer of the Watch qualified
(for conventional assignments) or have current nuclear
engineer qualifications (for nuclear assignments).
The number of community specific billets actually
understates the billet fill requirements in the case of
unrestricted line officers who must also fill a fair share of
1000/1050 billets.
The following table summarizes the distribution of SPOT
promotions that have helped correct some of the depicted
shortfalls:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filled by
Total SPOT Filled by SPOT Filled by
Designator billets lieutenant\1\ promoted permanent
LCDR LCDR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1110.............. 171 37 49 85
1120.............. 187 33 8a1 73
6400,6130,6230.... 62 15 322 15
-----------------------------------------------------
Total......... 420 85 162 173
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These lieutenants have not met the three month evaluation time in billet
requirement to be recommended and approved for SPOT promotion.

The continued use of SPOT promotions remain necessary due
to the critical shortage of officers qualified to fill
engineer officer, engineering departmental principal
assistants, engineering material officer and engineering
staff billets directly supporting fleet engineering
readiness. Originally enacted in 1965, SPOT promotion has
proven its value as a strong incentive and retention tool for
our top officers. It remains a very effective management tool
to ensure our ability to fill extremely demanding billets
with the best officers.
Subsection (x) amends section 1105 of title 10, United
States Code, as enacted by the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160, Nov. 30, 1993;
107 Stat. 1691) by repealing subsection (h) which is a sunset
clause for the provision to expire as of September 30, 1995.
The specialized treatment services program (STS)
established new requirements for CHAMPUS beneficiaries to
obtain certain highly specialized health care services from
selected sources, either military or civilian. The program
will not be fully implemented by its expiration date. Full
implementation is necessary for managed care within the
Department of Defense. This program will provide for DOD
beneficiaries quality care while assuring for appropriate
utilization of specialized medical health care services at
the most reasonable cost.
Certain military and civilian treatment facilities, based
on demonstrated capability, are being designated as
Specialized Treatment Services Facilities for some highly
specialized types of medical care. The mechanism for
requiring CHAMPUS beneficiaries to use the STS Facilities is
similar to the familiar Non-availability Statement but with
either a nationwide or 200-mile catchment area instead of the
normal 40-mile catchment area. Criteria for demonstrated
capability for STS designation have been developed by the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs and
provided to the military departments. Nationwide STS
designations have been approved for bone marrow
transplantation and liver transplantation. The Regional Lead
Agents are in the process of developing mechanisms for
approving STS designation within their respective regions.
STS authority should be extended to allow completion of this
program.
Subtitle D--Travel and Transportation Allowances

Section 631. Authority to expend appropriated funds to pay
certain actual expenses of Reservists
This section amends section 404(j) of title 37 (as added by
section 622 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 2784)) by
authorizing the expenditure of appropriated funds to pay for
contract quarters as lodging in kind when on-base quarters
are not available during annual training or inactive duty
training for Reservists who are otherwise entitled to travel
and transportation allowances in conjunction with their duty.
The Department of Defense Appropriations Acts for Fiscal
Years 1993, 1994 and 1995 have included a provision which
authorizes such expenditures. This recurring provision also
provides that ``if lodging in kind is provided, any
authorized service charge or cost of such lodging may be paid
directly from funds appropriated for operation and
maintenance of the reserve component of the member
concerned.'' The recurring provision in the Appropriations
Act reaffirms actual practice over more than two decades
which has provided cost-efficient accommodations to
Reservists who travel at their own expense to components for
skilled and trained manpower.
Section 632. Flexibility when authorizing shipment of a motor
vehicle incident to permanent change of station orders
Subsection (a) of this section amends section 2634(a)(4) of
title 10 to authorize the shipment of privately owned motor
vehicles for a member of the armed forces by the most
economical means. Current statute only authorizes shipment by
surface means. In some underdeveloped or remote areas of the
world, shipment by air is oftentimes more economical than
shipment by surface transportation.
If enacted, this proposal will not increase the budgetary
requirements of the Department of Defense. By amending this
section, the permanent change of station (PCS) funding would
not increase, and should actually decrease. Significant
numbers of privately owned vehicles would not be shipped by
air; however, cost savings would be realized. Personnel
quality of life improvements would also be realized since
surface transportation
in these areas often take many months in addition to being
an expensive mode of transportation.
Section 633. Authorization of return to United States of
formerly dependent children who attain age overseas
This section would authorize the return of certain
formerly-dependent children to the United States. By law, a
child 21 or 22 years of age who is a full-time student may
travel at government expense to a member's overseas duty
station. However, if the child loses that dependent status
while in the overseas area, the government will not return
the child to the United States until the member receives
subsequent permanent change of station (PCS) orders. This
proposal would expand the entitlement to include those
dependents over 21 who are full-time students and
subsequently lose their dependency eligibility by either
turning 23 or because they are no longer enrolled full-time
in school. In other words, this simply would permit
acceleration of the final-authorized trip to the continental
United States (CONUS). This is a no-cost initiative.
Subtitle E--Retired Pay, Insurance, and Survivor Benefits
Section 641. Retired pay for non-regular service
This section amends section 1331 of title 10, United States
Code, by inserting a new subsection (d), and by redesignating
the existing sections (d) and (e) as (e) and (f),
respectively. The new subsection (d) provides that a non-
regular member is not eligible for retired pay if he or she
is convicted by court-martial of an offense under the Uniform
Code of Military Justice, and the executed sentence includes
death, dishonorable discharge, a bad-conduct discharge, or
dismissal from the service. The new subsection conforms a
nonregular members's eligibility for retired pay with that of
a regular member who is convicted by court-martial, and whose
executed sentence includes death, dishonorable discharge, a
bad conduct discharge or dismissal from the service. See
generally, 44 Comp. Gen. 51 (1964); 44 Comp. Gen. 227 (1964).
See also 5 U.S.C. 8312-8322 concerning forfeiture of
annuities and retired pay.
Section 642. Fiscal Year 1996 cost-of-living adjustment for
military retirees
This section makes the military retired pay cost-of-living
adjustment payable for March 1996 rather than September 1996.
Section 643. Automatic servicemember's group life insurance
(SGLI)
This section would automatically enroll members at the
maximum insurance level of $200,000 instead of the $100,000
level currently in law. Members may now increase their
coverage up to $200,000 by making an election for such
coverage. However, sometimes such elections are not passed to
the finance offices for immediate collection of premiums, and
survivors have complained that their member did not have the
proper opportunity to elect the highest benefit level. Having
automatic coverage at the maximum would ensure coverage is no
less than desired. Coverage could be declined or reduced if
the member does not want the maximum. Those who currently are
insured and who have not made elections and are in receipt of
coverage of $100,000 would automatically have their coverage
increased to $200,000.
Section 644. Improved death and disability benefits for
Reservists
This section amends sections 1074a and 1481 of title 10 and
sections 204 and 206 of title 37 by providing reservists
performing inactive duty training the same death and
disability benefits as active duty members. Although previous
authorization bills have corrected some of the inequities,
there are still instances when a reservist is not covered for
certain disability or death benefits if the occurrence
happens after sign-out between successive training
periods.This proposal would
[[Page S5817]] extend death and disability benefits to all
reservists from the time they depart to perform authorized
inactive duty training until the reservist returns from that
duty. Reservists who return home between successive inactive
duty training days would be covered portal to portal only.
There are no additional costs associated with this provision.

Subtitle F--Separation Pay
Section 651. Transitional compensation for dependents of
members of the Armed Forces separated for dependent abuse
This section would amend authorization to include
transitional compensation for dependents whose sponsor
forfeited all pay and allowances, but was not separated from
the Service (e.g., members court-martialed). Current language
of section 1059 of title 10, as added by section 554(a) of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994
(Public Law 103-160; 107 Stat. 1663) and redesignated and
amended by sections 535 and 1070(a)(5) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law
103-337; 108 Stat. 2762 and 2855) does not allow this
payment. This appears to be an administrative oversight. This
change would allow payment as apparently intended by
Congress. No additional cost would result, since costs
associated with this technical amendment would previously
have been recognized in the course of enactment of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995.

Subtitle G--Other Matters

Section 661. Military clothing sales stores, replacement
sales
This section amends title 10, United States Code, to add
new section 7606. The purpose of this amendment is to provide
the Navy and Marine Corps the same statutory authority
currently granted to the Army and Air Force under title 10,
United States Code, section 4621 and section 9621
respectively.
Based on a variety of studies and tests, the Marine Corps
has determined that it is most cost effective to conduct in-
kind replacement sales through the Military Clothing Sales
Stores managed by the Marine Corps Exchange system. These in-
kind replacement sales are lost, damaged, or destroyed
individual equipment for which individual Marines and sailors
are responsible to the Government.
Unlike the authority granted to the Army and Air Force
under title 10, United States Code, section 4621 and section
9621 respectively, there is no specific statutory authority
allowing the Navy or Marine Corps to sell individual
equipment. This
legislation will create parity throughout the Department of
Defense.
This proposal will be effected at no additional cost to the
Department of Defense or the Department of the Navy.

Title VII--Civilian Employees

Subtitle A--Civilian Personnel Policy

Section 701. Holidays and alternative work schedules
This section would amend title 5 to change the designation
of holidays for employees on alternative work schedules. When
Monday holidays fall on an employee's day off, under section
6103 of title 5, he or she must take the preceding Friday
off. This creates a severe staffing shortage on Fridays
before holiday weekends. The proposed language would make
Tuesday the employee's day off rather than the preceding
Friday.
Section 702. Elimination of 120-day limit on details
This section amends section 3341 of title 5 to eliminate
the requirement that temporary assignments (details) of
employees be made in 120-day increments and allows details to
be documented and authorized up to the time required (within
the limits specified in other statutory, regulatory and
administrative provisions).
Section 703. Elimination of part-time employment reports
This section strikes section 3407 of title 5 which requires
that agencies report progress on the part-time career
employment program to the Office of Personnel Management
twice yearly. Information for reports is available through
the Central Personnel Data File and agencies can monitor the
program through personnel management evaluation programs.

Subtitle B--Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits

Section 711. Repeal of prohibition on payment of lodging
expenses when adequate Government quarters are available
The purpose of the proposed legislation is to repeal
section 1589 of title 10, which prohibits the Department of
Defense from paying a lodging expense to a civilian employee
who does not use adequate available Government lodgings while
on temporary duty. Although the purpose of section 1589 is to
reduce the Department of Defense travel costs, the law can
increase travel costs because it considers only lodging
costs, not overall travel costs. Deleting the provision would
enable Department of Defense travelers, supervisors and
commanders to make more efficient lodgings decisions, with
potential cost savings for the trip as a whole.
The title 10 provision (added in 1985 to codify similar
provisions in the Department of Defense Appropriations Acts
from 1977) prohibits payment of a lodging expense to civilian
employees who don't use adequate available Government
quarters. The Fiscal Year 1978 Committee Report on Department
of Defense Appropriations (H. Rep. No. 95-451) notes that if
employees on temporary duty at military installations for
school, training and other work assignments were directed to
use available Government quarters, ``many thousands of
dollars could be saved.''
When a temporary duty trip involves business on and off-
base, the cost-effective business decision, considering
factors such as rental car costs, must be made on a case-by-
case basis. The current law allows no flexibility for the
cost-conscious resource manager. To be reimbursed for
lodging, the traveler must stay on-base whether it is
efficient or not. Further, in temporary travel when team
integrity is essential, the mission may preclude employees
staying in available government lodgings. To maintain team
integrity under current law when quarters are adequate for
only the less senior members of the team, quarters must be
determined ``not available'' for each member of the team,
imposing an unnecessary administrative cost.
The Department is committed to improving the efficiency of
the temporary duty travel system to enhance mission
accomplishment, reduce costs, and improve customer service.
The proposal would be a significant step in this direction.
Enactment of the legislative proposal will not cause an
increase in the budgetary requirements of the Department.
Section 712. Overtime exemption for nonappropriated fund
(NAF) employees
This section amends section 6121(2) of title 5 so that
nonexempt NAF employees may be put on a compressed schedule
without the entitlement to overtime for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours a week.

Subtitle C--Separation Provisions

Section 721. Continued health insurance coverage
Section 8905a of title 5, as amended by this proposal,
extends continued health insurance coverage and payment of
employer portion of the premium plus administrative fee for
surplus employees who voluntarily resign in response to
realignments, installation closures, and downsizing of the
Department of Defense. This proposal will help avoid
reduction-in-force (RIF) by increasing the number of surplus
employees voluntarily resigning. Currently, employees must
wait to receive a RIF notice to qualify for this benefit.
Increased cost would be more than offset by the savings
generated by earlier separation of 120 days or more. This
benefit would only apply to employees who have been
designated as surplus by the Department of Defense.
Section 722. Lump sum severance payments
This section concerns lump sum payment of severance pay.
Currently severance pay is paid on a bi-weekly basis for up
to one year based on years of service and age of the
employee. This proposal would permit, at the discretion of
the agency, lump sum payment of the severance pay credit to
the employee upon request. Many eligible employees would
prefer to receive the total amount in order to start new
businesses or relocate.
Section 723. Civilian Voluntary Release Program
This section would allow employees who are not affected by
a reduction-in-force (RIF) to volunteer to be RIF separated
in place of other employees who are scheduled for RIF
separation.
Some employees (e.g., retirement eligible, employees with
their own businesses, employees with good prospects for
employment elsewhere), whose RIF retention standing them
from RIF, can afford to volunteer to be RIF separated in
place of other employees who are scheduled for RIF
separation. The proposal would permit these more senior
employees to volunteer to be RIF separated. Management
would be tasked to publish implementing regulations.

Title VIII--Health Care Provisions

Subtitle A--Health Care Management
Section 801. Codification of CHAMPUS Physician Payment Reform
Program.
This section would codify a provision of the Department of
Defense Appropriations Act for 1995, section 8009, which
establishes a process for gradually reducing CHAMPUS maximum
payments amounts down toward the limits for similar services
under Medicare, with special consideration given to
preserving access to care and limiting balance billing by
providers. The payment limits in use for Medicare are the
product of long-term efforts to achieve a rational payment
system for physicians, using resource-based relative values
to determine appropriate payments rather than basing payment
on the historical charges submitted by providers. The
Medicare payment limits represent a determination by the
largest Federal payer of what is fair and reasonable payment
for health care services; as such, they provide appropriate
target values for CHAMPUS. Additionally, this provision
includes special authority to exceed the allowable amounts in
cases where managed care plan enrollees obtain emergency care
from non-network providers, to enhance the benefits of
enrollment.
Additionally, this provision would build on the successful
example set for inpatient hospital reimbursement: the CHAMPUS
DRG-Based Payment System is modeled closely on the Medicare
Prospective Payment System, with modifications as necessary
to reflect the differences in the programs and the
beneficiaries they serve. The Department of Defense
Authorization Act, 1984 (Public Law 98-94), provided CHAMPUS
with statutory authority to
reimburse institutional providers following Medicare
reimbursement rules.
[[Page S5818]] Under the authority proposed in this
section, the Department would make a transition from its
current system of prevailing charges for professional
services to payment limits similar to the Medicare Fee
Schedule. CHAMPUS allowable payment limits for physicians are
approximately 30 percent higher than those under Medicare, so
there is room for constraint without unduly penalizing
providers or limiting beneficiary access to high quality
care. Exceptions to the Fee Schedule limits would be made to
maintain higher payments when needed to assure adequate
access to care for our beneficiaries. In order to assure a
smooth transition to the new payment limits, reductions in
payments for specific procedures would be restricted to no
more than 15 percent per year.
In order to protect beneficiaries, limitations on balance
billing for CHAMPUS would be established similar to those in
effect for Medicare, which limits balance billing to 15
percent above the allowable amount. This step will complement
the Congress' action in the Department of Defense
Authorization Act for 1992 to require providers generally to
file claims for beneficiaries.
This section amends Section 1079(h) of title 10, United
States Code, to limit CHAMPUS payments to the amounts payable
under Medicare for similar procedures, and provides for a
gradual transition of CHAMPUS payment amounts to Medicare
levels. Additionally, it provides for exceptions if needed to
protect beneficiary access to care, and limits beneficiary
liability for excess charges (balance billing) to the limits
established for Medicare. It also includes a provision to
permit payment of amounts greater than allowable amounts when
needed to protect managed care plan enrollees from balance
billing when they obtain emergency care from non-
participating providers.
Because CHAMPUS payment limits were substantially higher
than Medicare's, implementing this approach for individual
professional providers should produce cost avoidance of
approximately $500 million over the next five years. These
estimates of cost avoidance have been incorporated into
Department of Defense budget projections, which assume
continuation of the current Appropriations Act provisions
for physician payment reforms.
Section 802. Repeal of certain limitations on reductions of
medical personnel
This purpose of this section is to repeal the following
provisions of law:
Section 711 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1991, as amended by section 718(a) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and
1993;
Section 718(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993; and
Section 518 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1993, as amended by section 716 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995.
Section 711 prohibits reductions in military and civilian
health care personnel below the number of such personnel
serving on September 30, 1989, unless the Department of
Defense certifies to Congress that the number of personnel
being reduced is excess to current and projected needs of the
Services and that the reduction will not increase Civilian
Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services
(CHAMPUS) costs.
Section 718(b) requires that effective fiscal year 1992,
the total number of Navy officers serving on active duty in
health professions specialties be not less than 12,510,
unless Department of Defense certification is accomplished.
Section 518, as amended by section 716 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law
103-337; 108 Stat. 2803), requires certification for any
reduction in Reserve Component medical personnel. Any Reserve
reduction must be excess to the current and projected needs
of the military department and be consistent with the wartime
requirements identified in the final report on the
comprehensive study of the military medical care system
pursuant to section 733 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993.
With the implementation of TRICARE, the adoption of
capitation based financing, and the completion of the ``733
Study'', the Department has in place the tools necessary to
size and shape the Military Health Services System, without
increasing CHAMPUS costs. The Department will maintain
sufficient active duty and Reserve Component medical
personnel to meet all wartime requirements (consistent with
the ``733 Study''), and using military treatment facilities
and at risk managed care support contractors, meet the
peacetime health care needs of Department of Defense
beneficiaries. This prohibition on personnel reductions
contained in current law significantly and unnecessarily
restricts the Secretary's capability to manage the
Department's military and civilian personnel strengths as the
Department of Defense downsize its manpower inventories.
This provision will not increase the budgetary requirements
of the Department of Defense.

Subtitle B--Other Matters

Section 811. Recognition by States of military advance
medical directives
Subsection (a) of this section amends title 10 by inserting
a new section 1044c in chapter 53. The purpose of the
amendment is to ensure that advance medical directives
prepared by members of the armed forces, their spouse, or
other persons eligible for legal assistance under section
1044 of title 10 are recognized as valid even though a
directive might not meet the precise requirements of the
state where the member, spouse, or other person is located at
the time of incapacitation.
An advance medical directive is a document that indicates a
person's desire concerning the medical care to be received if
that person becomes incapable of making health care decisions
or gives to another person the authority to make those
decisions under like circumstances. The Patient Self-
Determination Act (42 U.S.C. 1395cc(f)(1)) requires certain
medical facilities to have procedures to handle advance
medical directives. The Act, however, left the substance of
the law concerning the preparation of advance medical
directives to the states. The states have
adopted different procedures and requirements. Because
members of the armed forces and their family members
travel so frequently from state to state due to
reassignments and duty requirements, it is very difficult
to ensure that an advance medical directive they prepared
in one state will be honored in another. The American Bar
Association has endorsed this proposed legislation.
Subsection (a) of the proposed section 1044c would exempt a
military advance medical directive from any state requirement
concerning ``form, substance, formality, or recording'' and
require that a military advance medical directive be given
full legal effect.
Subsection (b) of the proposed section 1044c defines a
military advance medical directive.
Subsection (c) of the proposed section 1044c would require
a military advance medical directive to include a statement
that clearly identifies it as such and, thus, would put
health care professionals on notice of the requirement to
give the advance medical directive full effect.
Subsection (d) of the proposed section 1044c defines a
``state'' to include the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and a possession of the United
States.
Subsection (b) of this section would amend the table of
sections at the beginning of chapter 53 of title 10 to
reflect a new section 1044c. Subsection (c) of this section
would clarify that a military advance medical directive
declared prior to enactment of the amendment would be covered
under the amendment.
Section 812. Closure of the Uniformed Services University of
the Health Sciences
This section requires an orderly phase-out and closure of
the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences.
Subsection (a) repeals the statutory authority for the
University.
Subsection (b) establishes and orderly phase-out process,
beginning in fiscal year 1996, and ending with the closure of
the
University not later than September 30, 1999. Under the
phase-out, the Secretary of Defense will have all
necessary authorities to operate the University so as to
achieve an orderly phase-out. The last student class will
enter in fiscal year 1995 and graduate in fiscal year
1999.
Subsection (c) makes clear that the closure of the
University will not affect previously established service
obligations of University graduates, nor other medical
education, research, and related activities of the Department
of Defense that are conducted under other authorities under
law.
Subsections (d) and (e) sets forth conforming and clerical
amendments.
Section 813. Repeal of the statutory restriction on use of
funds for abortions
This section repeals section 1093 of title 10, United
States Code, which prohibits using funds available to the
Department of Defense to perform abortions except where the
life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were
carried to term. The provision being repealed is sometimes
referred to as the ``Hyde Amendment''.

Title IX--Department of Defense Organization and Management

Subtitle A--Secretarial Matters

Section 901. Additional Assistant Secretary of Defense
This section increases the number of Assistant Secretaries
of Defense by one. This increase will allow the Secretary of
Defense to change the position of Director of Program
Analysis and Evaluation to the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Program Analysis and Evaluation.
Section 902. Change in name of Assistant to the Secretary of
Defense for Atomic Energy to Assistant to the Secretary
of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical Programs
This section would change the name of the Assistant to the
Secretary of Defense for Atomic Energy to the Assistant to
the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical
Programs. Section 142 currently provides a statutory
designation for the subject position. The revision is
required to reflect more precisely the current functions
of the position. Further the term ``atomic energy'' is
obsolete with regard to current lexicon. Within the
Department of Defense, the Assistant to the Secretary is
responsible for advising the Secretary on nuclear energy,
nuclear weapons, and chemical and biological defense
program matters. The Assistant to the Secretary also
serves as the Staff Director for the Nuclear Weapons
Council. That
[[Page S5819]] function is reflected in section 179 of title
10. The amendment to title 5 is a conforming amendment
necessary to reflect the proposed change in name designation.

Subtitle B--Professional Military Education

Section 911. Inclusion of Information Resources Management
College in the National Defense University
The purpose of this legislation is to add the Information
Resources Management College (IRMC) to the definition of the
National Defense University (NDU) contained in section
1595(d)(2) of title 10 and to add it and the Institute for
National Strategic Studies (INSS) to the definition of the
National Defense University contained in section 2162(d)(2)
of title 10. This legislation would update the statutes to
include all of the component parts of the University in both
definitions and to eliminate the inconsistency between the
two definitions. Further, it would clarify the authority of
the Secretary of Defense to hire professors, lecturers, and
instructors for the Information Resources Management College
under section 1595 just as he does for the other integral
components of the National Defense University. It also would
update the Institute for National Strategic Studies name from
``Study'' to ``Studies.''
The National Defense University was founded by the Joint
Chiefs of Staff in 1976 and initially consisted of the
National War College (NWC) and the Industrial College of the
Armed Forces (ICAF). The University's mission has grown as
joint education and interservice strategic thought have
become more dynamic and vastly more significant. Though the
passage of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense
Reorganization Act of 1986
dramatically highlighted the significance of its joint
mission, the National Defense University has been
continually evolving to meet its enhanced mission
requirements since its inception. In 1981, the Armed
Services Staff College (AFSC) joined it. In 1982, what is
now the Information Resources Management College was
established, and, in 1984, the Institute for National
Strategic Studies became the last major component of the
National Defense University.
Through this evolution, the statutory definition of the
National Defense University has not kept pace with the
University's adjustment to its enhanced mission. The
existence and mission of the National Defense University were
first recognized statutorily in the Goldwater-Nichols Act
(e.g., see 10 U.S.C. 663(b)); however, the University was not
statutorily defined until the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1990 added section 1595 to title 10
(Public Law 101-189; 103 Stat. 1558). There the University
was defined as consisting of the Air War College, the
Industrial College of the Armed Forces, and the Armed
Services Staff College. The National Defense Authorization
Act for the Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510; 104 Stat.
1626) enacted the same definition of the National Defense
University by adding section 2162(d)(2) to title 10. The
Institute for National Strategic Studies was added to the
definition in section 1595(d) of title 10 in 1991 by the
National Defense Authorization Act for the Fiscal Years 1992
and 1993 (Public Law 102-190; 105 Stat. 1452). However, that
amendment did not add Institute for National Strategic
Studies to section 2162(d)(2) of title 10 nor add Information
Resources Management College to either sections 2162(d) or
1595(d) of title 10. This legislation will cure that
inconsistency.
The proposed legislation also would further clarify the
Secretary of Defense's title 10 hiring authority for the
faculty of the Information Resources Management College. As
with the other components of the National Defense University,
the General Service grading system does not meet the needs of
the traditional academic ranking system. This legislation
would ensure that the Secretary has the same latitude in
employing civilian faculty for all components of the National
Defense University as the Service Secretaries have for their
professional military schools. This is appropriate as the
Information Resources Management College's mission is
commensurate in importance with those of the other
components of the University.
The Information Resources Management College's mission is
to provide an intensive graduate level curriculum for senior
Department of Defense officials, both civilians and military,
in an exponentially expanding field of knowledge crucial to
twenty-first century national defense. That field is the
joint management of information resources as a component of
national power and the integration of those resources into
national strategy. The keystone of the curriculum, the
Advanced Management Program, is an accredited course of
graduate study. The course content includes the latest in
information technology, information based warfare,
acquisition and functional analysis. It demonstrates the
sophistication and complexity of the subject matter as well
as the Information Resources Management College's success in
addressing it to date. However, Information Resources
Management College is also recognized by the Defense
Acquisition University to be among its level-3 Acquisition
Corps granting consortium. More recently, Information
Resources Management College has launched a pilot, 10-month,
senior military course in the information component of
national power. This course, of equal stature to National War
College and Industrial College of the Armed Forces, educates
future defense leadership in the art of possible future
conflict and operations other than war. These courses
underscore the necessity for nationally recognized faculty to
maintain the highest level of instruction. To attract and
retain such faculty, the Information Resources Management
College needs title 10 hiring authority, just as the other
components of the University do.
Enactment of the proposed legislation would not result in
an increase in the budgetary requirements of the Department
of Defense.
Section 912. Employment of civilians at the Asia-Pacific
Center for Security Studies
The purpose of this section is to grant the Secretary of
the Defense the authority to appoint, administer and
compensate the civilian faculty to the Chester W. Nimitz
Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies. The National
Defense University (10 U.S.C. 1595), United States Naval
Academy (10 U.S.C. 6952), the United States Military Academy
(10 U.S.C. 4331), the United States Air
Force Academy (10 U.S.C. 9331), the Naval Postgraduate
School (10 U.S.C. 7044), the Naval War College (10 U.S.C.
7478), the Army War College (10 U.S.C. 4021), the Air
University (10 U.S.C. 9021) and the George C. Marshall
European Center for Security Studies (10 U.S.C. 1595) have
such authority for their civilian faculty.
The Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies is a new
institution chartered by the Secretary of Defense to be under
the authority, direction and control of the Commander in
Chief, United States Pacific Command. The center's mission is
to facilitate broader understanding of the United States
military, diplomatic, and economic roles in the Pacific and
its military and economic relations with its allies and
adversaries in the region. The center will offer advanced
study and training in civil-military relations, democratic
institution and nation building, and related courses to
members of the United States military and military members of
other Pacific nations. The mission of this critically
important and innovative center will require first-rate
faculty and scholars with international reputations.
Under current authority available to the Commander in
Chief, United States Pacific Command, civilian faculty for
the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies must be
appointed, administered and compensated under title 5. The
faculty must be classified under the General Schedule (GS)
and recruitment and compensation must be limited to GS grade,
occupational series and pay rates. However, the GS grading
system does not meet the needs of the traditional academic
ranking system wherein faculty members earn and hold rank
based on educational accomplishment, experience, stature and
other related academic and professional endeavors. The GS
grading system also will not allow the center to hire non-
United States citizen academics from international
institutions. Legislation is required for the Commander in
Chief, United States Pacific Command to utilize title 10
excepted service authority which will provide greater
flexibility to appoint, administer and compensate the
center's civilian faculty.
Section 1595 of title 10 provides for employment and
compensation of civilian faculty at certain Department of
Defense schools. There is no provision for civilian faculty
of the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies.
The proposed legislation provides excepted service
authority for appointing, administering and compensating the
civilian faculty of the Asia-Pacific Center for Security
Studies.

Subtitle C--Other Matters

Section 921. Reduction of reporting requirements
The purpose of this proposal is to reduce the Department of
Defense reporting requirements determined to be unnecessary
or incompatible with efficient management.
Subsection (a)--Closure of Military Child Development
Centers for Uncorrected Inspection Violations.--Section
1505(f)(3) of the Military Child Care Act of 1989 requires
the Secretary of Defense to inspect military child
development centers not less than four times a year. All
inspections should be unannounced and at least one each
should be carried out by an installation representative and a
major command representative. If a violation occurs, the
centers have 90 days to correct it or be forced to close
down. If after 90 days the violation is still not corrected,
the Secretary of the military department concerned shall
forward a report to both the House and Senate Armed Services
committee notifying them of the closure. The report shall
include (a) notice of the violation that resulted in the
closing and the cost of remedying the violation; and, (b) a
statement of the reasons why the violation had not been
remedied as of the time of the report.
The Department of Defense has instituted a comprehensive
inspection system that mirrors a check and balance system.
Unannounced inspections are carried out at least four times a
year at each child development center and all levels
including the installation, major command, service, and
Department of Defense, are inspected in this system. The
Department of Defense inspection system is extremely
aggressive. Additionally, there is even a multi-disciplinary
Department of Defense team in place that inspects random
installations each year to check the military services
inspection procedures. Based on the provisions now in place
the requirement for this report is no longer necessary.
[[Page S5820]] Subsection (b)--Energy Savings at Military
Installations.--Section
2865(e) of title 10 authorizes the Secretary of Defense to
carry out a military construction project for energy
conservation, not previously authorized. It directs the
Secretary of Defense to notify in writing the Armed
Services and Appropriations Committees in both the House
and the Senate of his decision to carry out a project. The
project may then only be carried out after a 21 day period
after official notification of the committees.
This requirement should be eliminated since it is a
notification requirement only. Currently all new military
construction project plans incorporate programs to reduce
energy usage and procedures to protect our environment.
Subsection (c)--Military Relocation Assistance Programs.--
Section 1056 (f) of title 10 requires the Secretary of
Defense to submit a report to Congress not later than 1 March
of each year outlining assessments on available/affordable
private-sector housing available for military members and
their families, actual nonreimbursed costs associated with a
permanent change of station for military members and their
families, numbers of members who live on military
installations and those who do not live on military
installations, and the effects of the relocation assistance
programs on the quality of life for members of the Armed
Forces.
The Department has met all requirements outlined in this
section of title 10 related to relocation assistance.
Recommend termination of this report because it is a more
cost-effective use of limited manpower resources of the Armed
Forces to provide information when requested. The information
outlined in this report could be furnished to Congress or an
outside agency as needed in response to requests, saving
extremely needed personnel manhours.
Subsection (d)--Limitation on Source of Funds for
Nicaraguan Democratic Resistance.--Section 1351 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1987
requires the Secretary of Defense not to expend any
operations and maintenance or other supplied funds in
providing support to the Nicaraguan democratic resistance
forces. If funds appropriated or otherwise made available to
the Department of Defense are authorized by law to be used
for such assistance, such funds may only be derived from
amounts appropriated for procurement (other than
ammunition). Before such funds are used the Secretary of
Defense shall submit a report to Congress describing the
specific source of the funds.
The Nicaraguan resistance is no longer in operation, so the
requirement for this report is no longer valid.
Subsection (e)--Limitation on Reductions in Medical
Personnel.--Section 711 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1991 requires that before the Secretary
of Defense can reduce the number of medical personnel, he
must certify to Congress that the number of personnel being
reduced is in excess to the current and projected needs of
the military departments and such a reduction will not result
in an increase in Civilian Health and Medical Program of the
Uniformed Services.
This certification/report was required by Congress to
ensure that as the military departments and Department of
Defense downsized that the medical personnel were not
affected by the drawdown. Congress felt that any drawdown
affecting military medical personnel could both jeopardize
the care provided to members not affected by the drawdown and
also drive up the cost of Civilian Health and Medical Program
of the Uniformed Services. During the drawdown both military
and civilian medical personnel were prohibited from
participating in the reduction of forces thus protecting the
medical personnel levels.
As the downsizing nears its completion and the TRICARE
implementation program gets underway, the Department of
Defense needs to have the flexibility to tailor its medical
staff levels to correspond to the needs of the population.
This certification limits the Secretary of Defense management
authority and should be terminated.
Subsection (f)--Foreign National Employees Salary
Increase.--Section 1584(b) of title 10 requires the Secretary
of Defense to submit a report to the Appropriations and Armed
Services Committees of both the House and the Senate when any
salary increase granted to direct and indirect hire foreign
national employees, stated as a percentage, is greater than
percentage pay authorized for civilian employees of the
Department of Defense or when the percentage increase is
greater than the salary increase of the national government
employees of the host nation.
Due to continuing annual appropriations acts these payments
have been limited. The report has never been necessary and
the reporting requirement should be deleted.
Subsection (g)--Civilian Positions: Guidelines for
Reduction.--Section 1597 (c) and (e) of title 10 outlines the
requirements for three reports from the Secretary of Defense.
The first report requires the Secretary of Defense to
annually submit along with budget requests a report outlining
a master plan for civilians. The master plan should include
the tracking of accessions and losses of civilian positions,
numbers of civilian personnel both stateside and abroad, a
breakdown of civilians by service and major commands, a total
number of civilian employees, the number of foreign national
employees, and various other requirements.
The second report permits the Secretary of Defense to
provide a variation from the requirement outlined above if
deemed necessary in the interest of national security. If a
variation is needed, the Secretary of Defense shall
immediately notify the Congress of any such variation and the
reasons for such variation.
The third report prohibits the Secretary of Defense from
implementing any involuntary reduction or furlough of
civilian positions in a military department, Defense Agency,
or other component of the Department of Defense until the
expiration of a 45-day period beginning on the date which the
Secretary submits to Congress a report outlining the reasons
for the reduction or furlough and describing any change in
workload or position requirements that will result from such
reductions or furloughs.
Based on the fact that the civilian force is not as
structured as the military force, data to support such a
report is quite difficult to obtain. Through the submission
of O&M Justification Materials and the Defense Manpower
Requirements Report, information required by this report is
already accessible. Based on this, the Department of Defense
recommends that the first two reporting requirements be
deleted.
The third reporting requirement should be deleted based on
the fact that the Department of Defense already has in place
procedures in DOD Directive 5410.10 to notify Congress of
involuntary reductions affecting 50 or more federal civilian
employees or 100 or more contractor personnel. Any
additional requirements for reporting on such measures
causes a significant administrative burden on the entire
department including the services.
Subsection (h)--Industrial Fund Management Reports.--
Section 342 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1993 requires the Secretary of Defense to submit
a report at the same time the President submits the budget to
Congress outlining the condition and operation of working-
capital funds. A report should be furnished for each
industrial fund or working capital fund. There are five
separate funds, one for each service and one for the
Department.
This reporting requirement should be deleted due to the
nonexistence of these reports within the Department of
Defense.
Subsection (i)--Elimination of Use of Class I Ozone-
Depleting Substances in Certain Military Procurement
Contracts.--Section 326(a) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 outlines a reporting
requirement of the Secretary of Defense in relation to use of
certain class I ozone-depleting substances. The provision
noted states that no Department of Defense contract awarded
after June 1, 1993, may include a specification or standard
that requires the use of a class I ozone-depleting substance
or that can be met only through the use of such a substance
unless the inclusion of the specification or standard in the
contract is approved by the Senior Acquisition Official for
the procurement covered by the contract. The Senior
Acquisition Official may grant the approval only if the
Senior Acquisition Official determines (based upon the
certification of an appropriate technical representative of
this official) that a suitable substitute for the class I
ozone-depleting substance is not currently available. Each
official who grants an approval shall submit to the Secretary
of Defense a report on that approval or determination. The
Secretary of Defense shall promptly transmit to the
committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of
Representatives each report submitted to him by the Senior
Acquisition Official. The Secretary of Defense shall transmit
the report in classified and unclassified forms.
Based on the fact that the production of halons was phased
out in January 1994, only recycled/reclaimed products may
now be procured. Production class I ozone depleting
substances, refrigerants, and solvents will be phased out
on January 1, 1996. Report uses a large quantity of
Department of Defense resources and provides no useful
management tool for Department of Defense or Congress.
Subsection (j)--Kinds of Contracts: Multiyear Contract
Certification.--Section 2306(h)(9) of title 10 states that a
multiyear contract may not be entered into for any fiscal
year for a defense acquisition program that has been
specifically authorized by law to be carried out using
multiyear contract authority unless each of the following
conditions are satisfied: 1) the Secretary of Defense
certifies to Congress that the current 5-year defense program
fully funds the support costs associated with the multiyear
program; and 2) the proposed multiyear contract provides for
production at not less than minimum economic rates given the
existing tooling and facilities.
Currently the Comptroller must provide a justification
package with the budget when any multiyear production
contracts are requested. Also, multiyear contracts are more
difficult to sustain during the current post cold-war defense
environment where the major focus now is towards the United
States maintaining its technology base capabilities. Outside
of the report mentioned from the Comptroller to Congress, all
other reports concerning multiyear production contracts
should be deleted.
Subsection (k)--Notice to Congress Required for Contracts
Performed over Period Exceeding 10 Years.--Section 2352 of
title 10 states that the Secretary of a military department
shall submit to Congress a notice with respect to a contract
of that military department for services for research or
development in any case in which--(1) contract is awarded or
[[Page S5821]] modified, and contract is expected, at the
time of award or as a result of the modification to be
performed over a period exceeding 10 years or (2) the
performance of the contract continues for a period exceeding
ten years and no other notice has been provided to Congress.
This reporting requirement should be deleted due to the
fact there are very few contracts, if any, for services for
research and development which extend over a period exceeding
10 years.
In addition, internals controls currently exist in
regulation (e.g. FAR 17.204(e)) that preclude contracts
being written for, or being extended to encompass, 10
years or more.
Subsection (l)--Major Defense Acquisition Program
Defined.--Section 2430(b) of title 10 defines a ``major
defense acquisition program'' as a program of the Department
of Defense acquisition program, is not classified, and (1)
that is designated by the Secretary of Defense as a major
defense acquisition program; or (2) that is estimated by the
Secretary of Defense to require an eventual total expenditure
for research, development, test, and evaluation of more than
$300,000,000 (based on fiscal year 1990 constant dollars) or
an eventual total expenditure for procurement of more than
$1,800,000,000 (based on fiscal year 1990 constant dollars.)
The section states that the Secretary of Defense may adjust
the amounts (and the base fiscal year) on the basis of
Department of Defense escalation rates. Any adjustment shall
be effective after the Secretary transmits a written
notification of the adjustment to the Committees on Armed
Services on the Senate and House of Representatives.
The adjustments noted above was utilized recently in
updating Department of Defense directives which are published
in the Federal Register and made available to the public.
Annual reports to Congress should be deleted because the
information is available to the public.
Subsection (m)--Weapons Development and Procurement
Schedules.--Section 2431 of title 10 states that the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress each calendar
year, at the same time the President submits the budget to
Congress under section 1105 of title 31, a written report
regarding development and procurement schedules for each
weapon system for which fund authorization is required by
section 114(a) of title 10, and for which any funds for
procurement are requested in that budget.
The reporting requirement should be deleted since any
necessary information should be included in the Selected
Acquisition Reports. No additional reports should be
necessary.
Subsection (n)--Selected Acquisition Reports for Certain
Programs.--Section 127 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal
Years 1988 and 1989 requires the Secretary of Defense to
submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate
and House of Representatives a selected acquisition report
for each of the following programs: (1) the advanced
technology bomber program; (2) the advanced cruise missile
program; and (3) the advanced tactical aircraft program.
These reports should be deleted. The programs were
terminated by the Secretary of Defense and selected
acquisition reports are no longer needed for these programs.
Subsection (o)--Core Logistics Functions Waiver.--Section
2464(b) of title 10 states that the Secretary of Defense may
waive the requirement that performance of a logistics
activity identified by the Secretary and performance of a
function of the Department of Defense, may not be contracted
for performance by non-Government personnel under the
procedures of OMB Circular A-76. This waiver will be in the
case of such logistics activity or function and provide that
performance of such activity or function shall be considered
for conversion to contractor performance in accordance with
OMB circular A-76. Any such waiver shall be made under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense and shall
be based on a determination by the Secretary that government
performance of the activity or function is no longer required
for national defense reasons. Such regulations shall include
criteria for determining whether government performance of
any such activity or function is no longer required for
national defense reasons. A waiver may not take effect until
the Secretary of Defense submits a report on the waiver to
the Committees on Armed Services and the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives.
This reporting requirement is eight years old--is no longer
required and should be deleted. Public Law 100-320 and OMB
Circular A-76 provides proper safeguards for contract
conversions.
Subsection (p)--Improved National Defense Control of
Technology Diversions Overseas.--Section 2537 of title 10
requires the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy
to each collect and maintain a data base containing a list
of, and other pertinent information on, all contractors with
the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy,
respectively, that are
controlled by foreign persons. The data base shall contain
information on such contractors for 1988 and thereafter in
all cases where they are awarded contracts exceeding
$100,000 in any single year by the Department of Defense
or the Department of Energy. The Secretary of Defense, the
Secretary of Energy, and the Secretary of Commerce shall
submit to Congress, by March 31 of each year, beginning in
1994, a report containing a summary and analysis of the
information collected for the year covered by the report.
The report shall include an analysis of accumulated
foreign ownership of U.S. firms engaged in the development
of defense critical technologies.
Based on the fact that there are currently no existing data
bases to identify which contractors are foreign controlled
and the amount of additional work this requirement will place
on contractors and the Department of Defense, recommend
termination of the reporting requirement.
Subsection (g)--Real Property Transactions: Reports to
Congressional Committees.--Section 2662 of title 10 covers
three reporting requirements for the Secretary of Defense.
The first reporting requirement requires that the Secretary
of a military department, or his designee, may not enter into
any of the following listed transactions by or for the use of
that department until after the expiration of 30 days from
the date upon which a report of the facts concerning the
proposed transaction is submitted to the Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives: 1)
an acquisition of fee title to any real property, if the
estimated price is more than $200,000; 2) a lease of any real
property to the United States, if the estimated annual rental
is more than $200,000; 3) a lease or license of real property
owned by the United States, if the estimated annual fair
market rental value of the property is more than $200,000; 4)
a transfer of real property owned by the United States to
another federal agency or another military department or to a
state, if the estimated value is more than $200,000; 5) a
report of excess real property owned by the United States to
a disposal agency, if the estimated value is more than
$200,000; and 6) any termination or modification by either
the grantor or grantee of an existing license or permit of
real property owned by the United States to a military
department, under which substantial investments have been or
are proposed to be made in connection with the use of the
property by the military department.
The second reporting requirement requires that the
Secretary of each military department shall report annually
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the
House of Representatives on transactions described above that
involve an estimated value of more than the small purchaser
threshold under section 2304(g) of title 10 but not more than
$200,000.
The third and final reporting requirement for this section
requires that no element of Department of Defense shall
occupy any general purpose space leased for it by the General
Services Administration at an annual rental in excess of
$200,000 (excluding the cost of utilities and other operation
and maintenance services), if the effect of such occupancy is
to increase the total amount of such leased space occupied by
all elements of Department of Defense until the expiration of
30 days from the date upon which a report of the facts
concerning the proposed occupancy is submitted to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives.
All three of these reporting requirements should be deleted
based on the fact these reports are incompatible with
efficient management (threshold of $200,000 is .00001% of
proposed fiscal year 1995 budget) and unnecessary. This
section is not an authority for the transaction so, any
action must meet another statute's requirements.
Subsection (r)--Acquisition: Interests in Land When Need Is
Urgent.--Section 2672a(b) states that the Secretary of a
military department may acquire any interest in land that--
(1) he or his designee determines is needed in the interest
of national defense--(2) is required to maintain the
operational integrity of a military installation; and (3)
considerations of urgency do not permit delay necessary to
include the required acquisition in an annual military
construction authorization act. The Secretary of a military
department contemplating action under this section shall
provide notice in writing to the Committees on Armed Services
of the Senate and House of Representatives at least 30 days
in advance of any action being taken.
This reporting requirement should be terminated because of
the problems the 30-day delay causes. Actions that were
needed in an urgent manner during Operations Desert Shield/
Storm were hindered by this reporting requirement.
Subsection (s)--Operations of Department of Defense
Overseas Military Facility Investments Recovery Account.--
Section 2921 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1991 requires the Secretary of Defense not later
than January 15 of each year, to submit to the Congressional
defense committees a report on the operations of the
Department of Defense overseas military facility investment
recovery account during the preceding fiscal year and
proposed uses of funds in the special account during the next
fiscal year. This requirement appears in the Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990, section 2921(f) and appears as other
provisions in the committee print for fiscal year 1994.
Should be included in the quarterly report to Congress on
the status of residence value negotiations prepared by the
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Economic Security).
The Comptroller would have collateral action and coordination
on the report.
Subsection (t)--Environmental Restoration Requirements at
Military Installations To Be Closed.--Section 334(c) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and
1993 allows the Secretary of Defense, as
[[Page S5822]] it relates to environmental restoration
requirements at military installations to be closed and in
consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency, to
extend for a 6-month period of time the cleanup process at a
facility scheduled for closure. The Secretary of Defense
submits to Congress a notification containing a certification
that, to the best of the Secretary's knowledge and belief,
the requirements cannot be met with respect to the military
installation by the applicable deadline because one of the
conditions set forth exists; and a period of 30 calendar days
after receipt by Congress of such notice has elapsed.
Status of these installations is contained in the DERP
annual report to Congress required by Public Law 103-160. The
Environmental Protection Agency consultation is obtained by
detailed coordination and teamwork between the Environmental
Protection Agency, state regulators, and the Department of
Defense in the development of each closing installation's
BRAC cleanup plan.
Subsection (u)--Environmental Restoration Costs for
Installation To Be Closed Under 1990 Base Closure Law.--
Section 2827 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993
states that each year, at the same time the President
submits to Congress the budget for a fiscal year, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on
the funding needed for the fiscal year for which the
budget is submitted, and for each of the following four
fiscal years, for environmental restoration activities at
each military installation separately by fiscal year for
each military installation.
This requirement is already contained in the defense annual
environmental restoration program report to Congress required
by PL 103-160. The reporting requirement should be deleted.
Subsection (v)--Fuel Sources for Heating Systems;
Prohibition on Converting Certain Heating Facilities.--
Section 2690(b) of title 10 states that the Secretary of the
military department concerned shall provide that the primary
fuel source to be used in any new heating system constructed
on lands under the jurisdiction of the military department is
the most cost effective fuel for that heating system over the
life cycle of that system. The Secretary of a military
department may not convert a heating facility at a United
States military installation in Europe from a coal-fired
facility to an oil-fired facility, or to any other energy
source facility, unless the Secretary--(1) determines that
the conversion is required by the government of the country
in which the facility is located, or is cost effective over
the life cycle of the facility; and (2) submits to Congress
notification of the proposed conversion and a period of 30
days has elapsed following the date on which Congress
receives the notice.
The language directing the use of the least life cycle cost
fuel should be retained. Since conversions from coal will be
done only if they meet the least life cycle cost requirement,
Congressional notification should not be required.
Subsection (w)--Architectural and Engineering Services and
Construction Design.--Section 2807 of title 10 states that
within amounts appropriated for military construction and
military family housing, the Secretary of the service
concerned may obtain architectural and engineering services
and may carry out construction design in connection with
military construction projects and family housing projects.
Amount available for such purposes may be used for
construction management of projects that
are funded by foreign governments directly or through
international organizations and for which elements of the
Armed Forces of the United States are the primary user. In
the case of architectural and engineering services and
construction design to be undertaken for which the
estimated cost exceeds $300,000, the Secretary concerned
shall notify the appropriate Committees of Congress of the
scope of the proposed project and the estimated cost of
such services not less than 21 days before the initial
obligation of fund for such services.
This reporting requirement should be deleted based on the
fact that design and project fees have since enactment of
this requirement and so the notice is required for too many
projects. The notification process delays execution and
should be deleted.
Subsection (X)--Construction Projects for Environmental
Response Actions.--Section 2810 of title 10 states that the
Secretary of Defense may carry out a military construction
project not otherwise authorized by law (or may authorize the
Secretary of a military department to carry out such a
project) if the Secretary of Defense determines that the
project is necessary to carry out a response action under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act. When a decision is made to carry out a
military construction project, the Secretary of Defense shall
submit a report, in writing, to the appropriate Committees of
Congress on that decision. Each report shall include the
justification for the project and the current estimate of the
cost of the project; and the justification for carrying out
the project.
Environmental cleanup requirements are contained in the
annual Department of budget justification material provided
with the Department of Defense budget each year. Cleanup
requirements are identified in the DERP annual report to
Congress required by Public Law 103-160. The reporting
requirement should be terminated.
Subsection (y)--Improvements to Family Housing Units.--
Section 2825(b)(1) and section 2825(c)(1) of title 10
outlines two reporting requirements. The first requirement
states that funds may not be expended for the improvement of
any single family housing unit, or for the improvement of two
or more housing units that are to be converted into or are to
be used as a single
family housing unit, if the cost per unit of such
improvement will exceed (a) $50,000 multiplied by the area
of construction cost index as developed by the Department
of Defense for the location concerned at the time of
contract award, or (b) in the case of improvements
necessary to make the unit suitable for habitation by a
handicapped person, $60,000 multiplied by such index. The
Secretary concerned may waive the limitations if such
Secretary determines that, considering the useful life of
the structure to be improved and the useful life of a
newly constructed unit the improvement will be cost
effective, and a period of 21 days elapses after the date
on which the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate
and of the House of Representatives receive a notice from
the Secretary of the proposed waiver together with the
economic analysis demonstrating that the improvement will
be cost effective.
The second reporting requirement states that the Secretary
concerned may construct replacement military family housing
units in lieu of improving existing military family housing
units if--(a) the improvement of the existing housing units
has been authorized by law; (b) the Secretary determines that
the improvement project is no longer cost-effective after
review of post-design or bid cost estimates; (c) the
Secretary submits to the committees on Armed Services and
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
a notice containing (i) an economic analysis demonstrating
that the improvement project would exceed 70 percent of the
cost of constructing replacement housing units intended for
members of the Armed Forces in the same pay grade or grades
as the members who occupy the existing housing units and (ii)
the replacement housing units are intended for members of the
Armed Forces in a different pay grade or grades,
justification of the need for the replacement housing units
based upon the long-term requirements of the Armed Forces in
the location concerned.
Both reports should be terminated and replaced by internal
reports. The Reporting requirements are unnecessary.
Subsection (z)--Relocation of Military Family Housing
Units.--Section 2827 of title 10 states that the Secretary
concerned may relocate existing military family housing units
from any location where such units exceeds requirements for
military family housing to any military installation where
there is a shortage. A
contract to carry out a relocation of military family
housing units may not be awarded until (1) the Secretary
concerned notifies Congress of the proposed new locations
of the housing units to be relocated and the estimated
cost of and source of funds for the relocation, and (2) a
period of 21 days has elapsed after the notification has
been received by the Committees.
The report is unnecessary. It should be terminated and
replaced by a Department of Defense report for management if
needed for management.
Subsection (aa)--Annual Report to Congress With Respect to
Military Construction Activities and Military Family Housing
Activities.--Section 2861 of title 10 requires the Secretary
of Defense to submit a report to the Appropriate Committees
of Congress each year with respect to military construction
and military family housing activities. Each report shall be
submitted at the same time that the annual request for
military construction authorization is submitted for that
year. Otherwise, information to be provided in the report
shall be provided for the two most recent fiscal years and
for the fiscal year for which the budget request is made.
This reporting requirement should be terminated. The data
supplied by this report can be furnished by the service
concerned on an as needed basis.
Subsection (bb)--Energy Savings at Military
Installations.--Section 2865 of title 10 requires the
Secretary of Defense to designate an energy performance goal
for the Department of Defense for the years 1991 through
2000. To achieve the goal designated, the Secretary of
Defense shall develop a comprehensive plan to identify and
accomplish energy conservation measures to achieve maximum of
energy conservation measures under the plan shall be limited
to those with a positive net present value over a period of
10 years or less. The Secretary of Defense shall provide that
\2/3\ of the portion of the funds appropriated to Department
of Defense for a fiscal year that is equal to the amount of
energy cost savings realized by the Department of Defense,
including financial benefits resulting from shared energy
savings contracts and financial incentives described for any
fiscal year beginning after fiscal year 1990 shall, remain
available for obligation through the end of fiscal year
following the fiscal year for which the funds were
appropriated, with additional authorization or
appropriation. The Secretary of Defense shall develop a
simplified method of contracting for shared energy savings
contract services that will accelerate the use of these
contracts with respect to military installations and will
reduce the administrative effort and cost on the part of
Department of Defense as well as the private sector. The
Secretary of Defense shall permit and encourage each
military department defense agency, and
[[Page S5823]] other instrumentality of Department of Defense
to participate in programs conducted by any gas or electric
utility for this management of electricity demand or for
energy conservation. Not later than, December 31 of each
year, the Secretary of Defense shall transmit an annual
report to Congress containing a description of the actions
taken to carry out energy savings at military installations
and the savings realized from such actions during the fiscal
year ending in the year in which the report is made.
This reporting requirement has been superseded by the
Energy Policy Act of 1992 which established conservation
goals for the year 2005 and requires annual agency reports to
Congress through the Department of Energy.
Subsection (cc)--Reports on Price and Availability
Estimates.--Section 28 of the Arms Export Control Act
requires the President to submit to the Speaker of the House
of Representatives and the chairman of the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the Senate, within fifteen days after
the end of each calender quarter, a report listing each price
and availability estimate provided by the United States
Government during such quarter to a foreign country with
respect to a possible sale under this chapter of major
defense equipment for $7,000,000 or more, of any other
defense articles or defense services for $25,000,000 or more,
or of any Air-to-Ground or Ground-to-Air missiles, or
associated launchers (without regard to the amount of the
possible sale).
This report is redundant. The provision for this report
requires reporting of potential foreign military sales which
may or may not result in actual sales. Sales offers to
foreign purchasers as well as actual sales are being reported
in a broader scope at the $1 million threshold on a quarterly
basis, as required by section 36(a) of the Arms Export
Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2765). The reporting requirement
should be deleted.
Subsection (dd)--Annual Report on the Status of the
Exercise of the Rights and Responsibilities of the United
States Under the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977.--Section 3301
of the Panama Canal Act of 1979 requires the President to
submit a report annually on the status of the exercise of the
rights and responsibilities of the United States under that
treaty and includes the following: (1) the condition of the
Panama Canal and potential adverse effects on United States
shipping and commerce; (2) the effect on canal operations of
the military forces under General Noriega; and (3) the
commission's evaluation of the effect on canal operations if
the Panamanian government continues to withhold its consent
to major factors in the United States Senate's ratification
of the Panama Canal treaties.
The report has been overtaken by events and should be
discontinued. Report requirements are superseded by those of
Public Law 103-129.
Subsection (ee)--Monitoring and Research of Ecological
Effects of Organotin Antifouling Paint.--Section 7 of the
Organotin Antifouling Paint Control of 1988 in regards to
estuarine monitoring, states that the Secretary of the Navy,
in consultation with the Under Secretary of Commerce for
Oceans and Atmosphere, shall monitor the concentrations of
organotin in the water column, sediments, and aquatic
organisms of representative estuaries and near-coastal waters
in the United States. This monitoring program shall remain in
effect until 10 years after the date of the enactment of this
act (enacted June 11, 1988). The Administrator shall submit a
report annually to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and to the President of the Senate detailing
the results of such a monitoring program for the preceding
year. As such, the Secretary shall submit a report annually
to the Secretary and to the Governor of each state in which a
home port for the Navy is monitored detailing the results of
such monitoring in the state. Regarding home port monitoring,
the Secretary shall provide for periodic monitoring, not less
than quarterly, of waters serving as the home port for any
navy vessel coated with an antifouling paint containing
organotin to determine the concentration of organotin in the
water column, sediments, and organisms of such waters.
The Navy currently has fewer than six ships using organotin
coatings. By the end of fiscal year 1994, only two ships with
organotin coatings will remain in the fleet. Current Navy
policy does not allow use of organotin coatings. By fiscal
year 1998 no ships will have organotin coating. With
organotin use going to zero, this report should be
terminated.
Subsection (ff)--Minority Group Participation in
Construction of Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Project.--
Section 185 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976
requires the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief
of Engineers, is directed to make a maximum effort to assure
the full participation of members of minority groups, living
in the states participating in the Tennessee-Tombigbee
Waterway Development Authority, in the construction of the
Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway project, including actions to
encourage the use, wherever possible, of minority owned
firms. The Chief of Engineers is directed to report on July 1
of each year to the Congress on the implementation of this
section, together with recommendations for any legislation
that may be needed to assure the fuller and more equitable
participation of members of minority groups in this project
or others under the direction of the Secretary.
This report should be terminated because this project has
been completed.
Subsection (gg)--Presidential Recommendations Concerning
Adjustments and Changes in Pay and Allowances.--Section 1008
of title 37 requires the President, after an annual review of
the adequacy of the pays and allowances authorized to members
of the uniformed services, to submit a report to Congress
summarizing the results of such annual review together with
any recommendations for adjustments in the rates of pay and
allowances.
The pay adequacy report, required on an annual basis by
section 1008(a) of title 37, was mandated in an era when
there was no regular annual military pay raise. This report
would provide information on a number of economic indicators,
and when it was determined that an annual pay raise was
needed, the raise would be requested. The law on military
compensation has changed. Current law (Public Law 101-509)
pegs military pay raises to the employment cost index. Pay
raises are annual and are based upon changes in private
sector wages and salaries for the average worker. The
information contained in the pay adequacy report is no longer
needed and media coverage of the pay
raise system is widespread. The reporting requirement should
be deleted.
Subsection (hh)--Adjustments of Compensation.--Section
1009(f) of title 37 outlines a report by the President that
is owed with the quadrennial review of military compensation
when the President decides not to give equal percentage pay
raise to all military members.
This report is due from the quadrennial review group only
when there is a reallocation of the basic pay raise. This
rarely happens; when it does, it would not appear useful to
require that such a fact be reviewed and reported by a
quadrennial review group that meets every fourth year. The
reporting requirement should be deleted.
Subsection (ii)--Travel and Transportation Allowances:
Dependents; Baggage and Household Effects.--Section 406 of
title 37 requires the Secretary of Defense to submit to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives a report at the end of each fiscal year
stating (1) the number of dependents who during the preceding
fiscal year were accompanying members of the Army, Navy, Air
Force, and Marine Corps who were stationed outside the United
States and were authorized by the Secretary concerned to
receive allowances or transportation for dependents; and (2)
the number of dependents who during the preceding fiscal year
were accompanying members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and
Marine Corps who were stationed outside the United States and
were not authorized to receive allowances or transportation.
Neither the Office of the Secretary of Defense nor the
services have ever submitted such reports, insofar as we can
determine. We are skeptical of the interest this report holds
for Congress; therefore, the reporting requirement should be
deleted.
Subsection (jj)--Health-Care Sharing Agreements Between
Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense.--
Section 8111 to title 38 states that for each of fiscal years
1993 through 1996 the Secretary of Defense shall submit a
report on opportunities for greater sharing of the health
care resources of the Veterans Administration and the
Department of Defense which would be
beneficial to both veterans and members of the Armed Forces
and could result in reduced costs to the government by
minimizing duplication and under use of health care
resources. The fiscal year 1996 report will also include--
(1) an assessment of the effect of agreements entered into
on the delivery of health care to eligible veterans, (2)
an assessment of the cost savings, if any, associated with
provision of services under such agreements to retired
members of the Armed Forces dependents of members or
former members, and beneficiaries, and (3) any plans for
administrative action, and any recommendations for
legislation, that the Secretary of Defense considers
appropriate.
Public Law 97-174 requires the Secretaries of the
Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense to submit a joint
annual report to Congress on the status of health care
resources sharing. After careful review of the reporting
requirements of Congress, recommend combining this report
with the report entitled ``Sharing of Department of Defense
Health-Care Resources.'' Combining these reports will avoid
redundancy and allow for a succinct review of health care
resources sharing activity between the departments.
Subsection (kk)--Water Resources Projects.--Section 221(e)
of the Flood Control Act of 1970 requires the Secretary of
the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, shall
maintain a continuing inventory of agreements and the status
of their performance, and shall report thereon to Congress.
This shall not apply to any project the construction of which
was commenced before January 1, 1972, or to the assurances
for future demands required by the Water Supply Act of 1958,
as amended. Following the date of enactment, the construction
of any water resources project, or an acceptable separable
element thereof, by the Secretary of the Army, Chief of
Engineers or by a nonfederal interest where such interest
will be reimbursed for such construction under the provisions
of the Flood Control Act of 1960 or under any other provision
of law, shall not be commenced until each nonfederal interest
has entered into a written agreement with
[[Page S5824]] the Secretary of the Army/Chief of Engineers
to furnish its required cooperation for the project. The
agreement may reflect that it does not obligate future state
legislation appropriations for such performance and payment
when obligating future appropriations would be inconsistent
with state constitutional or statutory limitations.
This annual report contains only the total number of
agreements executed (according to six types of agreements)
and states whether maintenance of any projects has been found
to be deficient. However, the inventory requires substantial
effort to track agreements, and report relevant data. When
this requirement was new Congress was curious as to its
effectiveness. However, over 2,000 agreements have been
executed since 1972, and Congress has shown no interest in
this report. This reporting requirement should be deleted.
Subsection (ll)--Public Health Service Hospitals.--Section
1252 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act of 1984
states that the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with
the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary
of Transportation when the Coast Guard is not operating as a
service in the Navy, shall submit annually to the Committees
on Appropriations and on Armed Services of the Senate and the
House of Representatives a written report on the result of
the studies and projects carried out. The first such report
shall be submitted not later than one year after the date of
enactment. The last report shall be submitted not later than
one year after the completion of all such studies and
projects.
This reporting requirement should be terminated. Assessment
reports were completed in the 1980s. No such studies and
projects are underway or planned.
Subsection (mm)--Review of Contracts.--Section 3(b) of the
Act of August 28, 1958 states that all contracts entered
into, amended, or modified pursuant to authority contained in
this act shall include a clause to the effect that the
Comptroller General of the United States or any of his duly
authorized representatives shall, until the expiration of
three years after final payment, have access to and the right
to examine any directly pertinent books, documents, papers,
and records of the contractor or any of his subcontractors
engaged in the performance of and involving transactions
related to such contracts or subcontracts. If the clause is
omitted, after taking into account the price and availability
of the property or services from United States sources, that
the public interest would be best served, by the omission of
the clause, the agency head will submit a report to Congress
in writing.
Recommend termination of this report. This report is
required when the agency head concerned determines that
public interest would best be served by omitting the clause
permitting examination of functional and other records as
otherwise required for inclusion in contract where relief has
been granted.
Subsection (nn)--Special Defense Fund (SDAF) Annual
Report.--This provision would repeal section 53 of the Arms
Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2795b). This is an extensive
and time consuming report that provides information readily
available through numerous other resources.
Subsection (oo)--Annual Department of Defense Conventional
Standoff Weapons Master Plan and Report on Standoff
Munitions.--Section 1641 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (10 U.S.C.
2431, note) requires the Department to provide to the
Congressional defense committees an annual plan on the
development of those standoff weapons that can adequately
address the needs of more than one of the Armed Forces.
Much staff work is required to generate the report. We
believe that the specific report content is dated and no
longer useful to the recipients. The specific report contains
an accounting of the Department's standoff weapons programs
in the budget, which can be found in other documentation
supporting the budget. The programs described in the
Conventional Munitions Master Plan, submitted to Congress
every other year. Request this reporting requirement be
deleted.
Subsection (pp)--Special Defense Acquisition Fund (SDAF)
Annual Report.--Due to the decapitalization of the Special
Defense Acquisition Fund (SDAF), the requirement for a year
end report to the Congress pursuant to section 53 of the Arms
Export Control Act is not longer necessary. Subsections
(a)(1), (a)(4) are no longer applicable since new
procurements under the fund have not been authorized since
fiscal year 1993. Reports pursuant to subsection (a)(3) are
also unnecessary; while ongoing, transfers of Special Defense
Acquisition Fund stocks will decrease over time as they are
sold off. Further, such transfers are already notified to the
Congress pursuant to other applicable reporting requirements
in the Arms Export Control Act.
Section 922. Repeal of prohibition of contracting for
firefighting and security guard functions at military
facilities
This proposed legislation is the result of cumulative
recommendations by our military services to remove this
prohibition so the installation commanders and facility
managers can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
their fire and security guard functions.
Adoption of this proposal will be implemented within
existing Department of Defense appropriations. This proposal
will permit the Department to become more efficient in the
conduct of business directly supporting the installation
operations and maintenance resources. Our firefighting and
security guard functions will become more effective and
efficient through competition.
It is essential that we get our firefighting and security
guard functions in the most effective and efficient posture
during the dramatic reductions the Administration desires and
approved by the Congress. Getting the best value out of
smaller budgets demands better performance, not keeping the
status quo. We firmly believe that this legislative proposal
will allow our military leaders and facility managers to get
the job done with less resources.
The purpose of this section is to repeal section 2465 of
title 10, United States Code, and thereby authorize the
Department of Defense to enter into contracts for
firefighting and security guard functions at military
installations and facilities. This repeal restores the
ability of the Department of Defense to manage the
firefighting and security guard functions in an efficient and
effective manner.
The Department of Defense has been prohibited from
contracting for firefighting and security guard functions
since 1983. This broad prohibition has four limited
exceptions:
When the contract is to be performed overseas;
When the contract is to be performed on Government-owned
but privately operated installations; and
When the contract (or a renewal of the contract) is for the
performance of a function under contract on or before
September 24, 1983.
When the contract is with a local government, for a closing
base, and not earlier than 180 days before base closing (Pub.
L. 103-160, Section 2907).
Prior to 1983, firefighting and security guard functions
were successfully competed using the OMB Circular A-76
process.
The prohibition against contracting firefighting and
security guard functions prevents the Department of Defense
from realizing savings in circumstances where private firms
or state and local governments could provide the services for
lower cost at equal or better performance. It also prohibits
commanders from obtaining contract services for temporary
requirements at remote locations or at leased facilities
outside military installations.
Section 2465 of title 10, United States Code currently
provides that Department of Defense funds may not be spent to
enter into contracts for the performance of firefighting and
security guard functions at any military installation or
facility. The prohibition does not apply to contracts for
services at locations outside the United States where armed
forces members, otherwise involved in unit readiness, would
be performing the function. Nor does it apply to contracts
for services at GOCO facilities or for contracts extant on
September 24, 1983.
This section was first enacted by the Department of Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1987 (Pub. L. 99-661,
Section 1222(a), 100 Stat. 3976). The Senate version of that
Bill had contained a provision that would extend for one year
a freestanding, public law provision setting forth the same
prohibition. The Senate language also contained a reporting
requirement to review the performance standards and
inherently governmental activities within the firefighting
function, and an estimate of cost savings associated with
such contracting out over a five year period. The Senate
Report indicated that firefighting would continue to be
exempted until the congressional report indicated that
positions could be contracted
out in the future (Senate Report No. 99-331, October 8,
1986, p. 526).
The House version of the Bill proposed codification of a
prohibition on firefighting functions currently being
performed by Department of Defense civilians, with the
exception as currently listed. In conference, the House
version was adopted. The conferees also agreed to extend the
current prohibition on conversion of security guard functions
for one additional year, unless the Secretary of Defense
determines that such conversion would not adversely affect
installation security, safety and readiness (House Report No.
99-1001, October 14, 1986, p. 526).
The importance of repealing section 2465 is underscored by
downsizing of the Defense budget and personnel when the
infrastructure is not downsizing proportionately. Commanders
need all of their tools to manage reducing operating budgets.
One tool is competing commercial activity functions such as
firefighting and guard service.
The repeal of section 2465 will not automatically result in
the loss of civilian firefighters and security guards from
the workforce. Reductions in force may occur as a result of
competitions performed under chapter 146 of title 10 and OMB
Circular A-76.
(a) Existing Procedures. In accordance with existing
procedures, the Department provides Congressional
notification of the intent to study specific functions, and
will provide the results of the competition if the decision
is to convert to contract. Separations from Federal Service
may result from the development of the most efficient
organization, or a contract with the private sector
[[Page S5825]] when the costs are lower than that estimated
for in-house performance. The Department fully supports the
basic employee protections requiring contractors to offer
displaced Government employees the right of first refusal for
comparable employment with the contractor.
(b) Benefits of Contracts with local governments. Many
installations adjoin or are surrounded by local
municipalities which provide firefighting and security guard
services to their communities. Some of these municipalities
could provide these services to military commanders at
little additional cost or at considerable savings. To
engage in a cost comparison under these circumstances
would waste government and contractor resources needed to
prepare estimates for the cost comparison process. Where
local governments can provide security guard and
firefighter services at reduced costs, the Secretaries of
the military departments should be authorized to contract
directly with such governments non-competitively without
regard to chapter 146 of title 10 and OMB Circular A-76.
OMB Circular A-76 specifically recognizes that firefighting
and security guard functions are commercial activities and
can be outsourced if a contractor can provide the service
effectively and at a lower cost. Defense Firefighting and
security guard functions are no different than other
commercial activity functions at our installations and
facilities from other Federal agencies. The Department is
unaware of any rationale for excluding firefighting and
security guard functions from the Government-wide process of
determining the least expensive method for performing
Government work.
Based on past cost comparisons, competition for the
Departments firefighting and security guard functions could
potentially generate a 240 million dollar savings while
retaining in-house about 50 percent of the firefighting and
security guard functions competed.
Section 923. Increase in unspecified minor construction
threshold from $1.5 million to $3.0 million and the
operation and maintenance threshold from $300 thousand to
$1 million
This section amends section 2805 of title 10, United States
Code, to change the minor construction thresholds to
$1,700,000 and $350,000 respectively. The current law limits
minor construction projects to less than $300,000 and
unspecified minor construction for a single undertaking to an
approved cost equal to or less than $1,500,000. There are no
provisions for adjustments caused by high costs encountered
in non-Continental United States locations.
The primary factor that creates the problem with the
existing $300,000 limit is the large variation in area
cost factors. The area cost factors for almost half of the
installations in the Continental United States is less
than 1.0, while area cost factors for Alaskan and other
Pacific overseas installations often exceed 2.75, and go
as high as 3.0 which means the cost to construct an item
in the Pacific theater is up to 3 times that for a similar
item in Continental United States. This severely limits
the amount and kinds of work that can be accomplished
because of the ever present danger of violating the
statutory limits.
Section 924. Annual report on National Guard and Reserve
component equipment
Subsection (a) of this section amends section 115b(a) of
title 10, United States Code, to extend the submission date
of the report from February 15 to March 1. The Department has
been aggressively pursuing quality improvements in the report
within the time constraints for submission that would
significantly increase report usefulness. Currently, the
Reserve components must submit data quickly after the end of
the fiscal year which begins report data detail. For the
Fiscal Year 1996 report due to Congress on February 15, 1995,
the data cutoff is September 30, 1994. These data, which were
collected before the end of October, must reflect actual
deliveries, withdrawals and ending balances that occurred
during the fiscal year. An additional two weeks for the
Reserve components to collect, edit and verify their data
would materially increase accuracy. Understanding the
requirement by Congress to have this information at the onset
of budget hearings, the March 1 report submission date
beginning with the next following report will be very helpful
to the Department to improve the quality of the report while
at the same time support Congressional needs.
Subsection (b) of this section amends section 115b(b) of
title 10, United States Code, to delete all references to
``major items of equipment'' and replace with ``combat
essential items of equipment.'' The term ``major items'' is a
broadly defined term that embraces thousands of items in each
Service. The Department interprets Congressional interest to
be focused on ``combat essential items'' of equipment which
comprises the several hundred most important equipment in
each component. Also, the term ``combat essential'' is
clearly defined by the Joint Staff, unlike ``major item.''
Subsection (c) of this section provides that the requested
changes to section 115b of title 10, United States Code,
shall take effect on October 1, 1995.
Section 925. Revision of date for submittal of joint report
on scoring of budget outlays
The current submittal date of 15 December does not allow
sufficient time for the Office of Management and Budget and
the Congressional Budget Office to meet the requirements of
the joint report. For the past two years the submittal date
has not been met. The published letter, if sent out on 15
December would be incomplete as budget decisions of the
President and the Secretary of Defense have not generally
been finalized by this date or in sufficient time for the
Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget
Office to meet this joint reporting requirement. A report of
this magnitude shall reflect all of the scoring agreements
and disagreements between the Office of Management and Budget
and the Congressional Budget Office, and at the present date,
this requirement is not being met. Should this reporting date
remain in effect, it is likely that multiple scoring letters
would be forwarded to Congress for each legislative session
in order to properly document the Office of Management and
Budget and the Congressional Budget Office outlay scoring
approaches. If the submission date is revised to match the
submission of the President's budget, then only one joint
letter should be necessary to document the outlay scoring
that will be used for Department of Defense appropriations.
Section 926. Repeal of annual report to Congress on
contractor reimbursement costs of environmental response
actions
Section 2706(c) of title 10, United States Code, is an
annual report of the Secretary of Defense to the Congress. It
is to be provided to the Congress before 30 days after the
President submits the budget for the following fiscal year.
The data collected for this report are not necessary for
properly determining the allowability of environmental
response action costs on Government contracts. Furthermore,
the Department does not routinely collect data on any other
categories of contractor
overhead costs. This reporting requirement needlessly is
burdensome on both the Department of Defense and defense
contractors. It also diverts limited resources for data
collection efforts that do not benefit the procurement
process.

Title X--General Provisions

Subtitle A--Financial Matters

Section 1001. Appointment and liability of disbursing and
certifying officials
This section provides for the designation and appointment
of disbursing officials and certifying officials within the
Department of Defense (including the military departments and
defense agencies and field activities). In addition, this
section defines the responsibilities and liabilities of
disbursing and certifying officials as well as provide for
their relief from liability in appropriate cases.
Section 1002. Due process exemptions for minor adjustments in
indebtedness actions
This section amends section 5514(a) of title 5 to insert a
new subparagraph (3). The purpose of this amendment is to
exempt from the due process provision routine adjustments of
pay that are attributable to clerical or administrative
errors or delays in the processing of pay documents that have
occurred within four pay periods preceding the recoupment and
any adjustment that amounts to fifty dollars or less.
The Debt Collection Act of 1982 provides for due process
safeguards prior to involuntary salary offset. Under the
provisions of the Act, prior to effecting an offset the
indebted party has the right to a minimum of a thirty days
written notice, the opportunity to inspect and copy
Government records relating to the debt, the opportunity to
enter into a written repayment agreement, the right to a
hearing by an individual who is not under the supervision or
control of the head of the agency, and the right to request a
waiver of the debt.
These provisions apply to all indebtedness with the
exception of underdeduction of Federal benefit premiums for
health and life insurance which accumulated over four pay
periods or less. Strict adherence to these provisions
subjects all indebtedness to full panoply of due process
regardless of the cause or amount.
The proposed legislation exempts from full pre-offset due
process those debts resulting from routine adjustments of pay
attributable to clerical or administrative errors or delays
in the processing of pay documents that have occurred within
the four pay periods preceding the adjustment and any
adjustment of fifty dollars or less. The legislation also
proposes that at the time of the adjustment, or as soon
thereafter as practical, the individual be provided written
notice of the nature and the amount of the adjustment.
The most common occurrence of this type of routine
adjustment would be a corrected time and attendance report
submitted by an employee's supervisor that changes the amount
of a previously reported pay which has already been disbursed
to the individual. One example of this type of adjustment
would be the downward correction of the number of hours
previously reported as overtime. This downward adjustment
would decrease entitlement on the part of the individual and
result in an indebtedness, usually of a small dollar amount.
Providing the full panoply of due process to these types of
adjustments, which most likely has already been discussed by
the employee and supervisor, is administratively burdensome
and the costs often far outweigh the relatively small dollar
amounts recovered.
Federal agencies experience a multitude of these
adjustments each pay period due to the rapidly changing
nature of entitlements,
[[Page S5826]] benefits, allowances, and the remote location
of many personnel. For example, a survey of one large
Department of Defense consolidated civilian payroll office
revealed approximately five hundred such adjustments were
being made each pay period. Proving full due process for
these routine adjustments are time consuming and costly and
could result in the wholesale writeoff of certain debts as
not cost effective to collect.
Passage of the legislation would bring adjustment
procedures for clerical and administrative errors in line
with those of Federal benefit premiums and greatly benefit
all Federal agencies
by decreasing the overall cost of administering the debt
collection process while still providing the individual
with full disclosure of the adjustment.
Section 1003. Amendments to Chapter 131, Title 10, United
States Code, and to the National Defense Authorization
Act of fiscal year 1991
Subsection (a)(1) amends title 10, United States Code, by
adding a new section 2219, ``Authority to incur readiness
obligations.'' It would authorize the incurability of
readiness obligations during the last half of the fiscal year
in excess of contract authority and amount available to the
Department of Defense. The authority could only be exercised
to the extent provided in an appropriations act and would
require approval of the Office of Management and Budget. If
the Authority were exercised it could only be for essential
readiness obligations; it would be limited in amount to not
more than 50 percent of the amount provided to the Department
for Operation and Maintenance, Budget Category 1; budget
proposals for the liquidation of obligations would have to be
accompanied by offsetting rescission proposals, unless the
President determined that emergency conditions precluded such
rescissions; and the Secretary of Defense would have to
notify the Congress promptly of any obligations incurred
pursuant to the authority provided by section 2219.
Subsection (a)(1) also amends title 10, United States Code,
by adding a new section 2220, ``Closed and expired accounts:
procedures.'' New section 2220 contains provisions pertaining
to subdivided appropriations of the Department. It defines a
current account as being any subdivision of such a legally
subdivided appropriation and provides that in calculating the
amount that may be charged to a current account the 1%
limitation on such charges shall be calculated on the basis
of the cumulative total of the amounts appropriated in the
subdivisions of the subdivided appropriation.
Subsection (b) amends section 1405 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 to add provisions
pertaining to charging of current appropriations when records
of the Department indicate that an expired or closed account
may have been over expended or over obligated in violation of
the
Anti-Deficiency Act. Under the current law, payment cannot
be made while the apparent violation is being
investigated. In those cases where the investigation
reveals that there was an accounting error, and that there
are sufficient funds in the account, payment of valid
vendor invoices would have been held in time during the
period of the investigation. This results in numerous
contract payments not being paid in a timely manner and
can result in interest payments under the Prompt Payment
Act.
The amendment provides that an obligation or an adjustment
to an obligation in such an account for a fiscal year before
fiscal year 1992 may be charged to any current appropriation
of the Department available for the same purpose. Obligations
could not be charged in such a circumstance unless the
Congress were notified by the Secretary of Defense of the
facts and circumstances for the negative balance and that an
investigation had been initiated into any possible violation
of the ``Anti-Deficiency Act'' that might have occurred; if
such a violation occurred, that a report of such a violation
would be promptly submitted to the Congress as required by
law; and, if such a violation did not occur with respect to
an account that is expired but not closed, that any charge to
a current account would be reversed and the obligation would
be charged to the account that would have been charged but
for the need to conduct an investigation to determine whether
the Anti-Deficiency Act had been violated.
Section 1004. Claims of personnel for personal property
damage or loss
Subsection (a) adds a new paragraph (3) to section 3721(b)
of title 31. It provides that the Secretary of Defense, or
the Secretary of a military department not part of the
Department of Defense, may waive the settlement and payment
limitation of paragraph (b) for claims by personnel under the
jurisdiction of the concerned Secretary for damage or loss of
personal property where the concerned Secretary determines
that such claims arose from an emergency evacuation or from
extraordinary circumstances that warrant such a waiver. It
also provides for the promulgation of regulations and grants
delegation authority. Subsection (c) provides that the
amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to
claims arising on or after June 1, 1991.
Subtitle B--Counter-drug Activities
Section 1011. Clarification and amendment of authority for
Federal support of drug interdiction
This section amends section 112 of title 32, United States
Code to clarify and amend the authority for Federal support
of drug interdiction and counterdrug activities of the
National Guard.
Subsection (a) reenacts present subsection 112(f) which
provides definition for certain terms used in section 112.
Subsection (a)(1) defines the activities for which funding
may be provided. Specifically, the term ``drug interdiction
and counterdrug activities'' is defined as the use of
National Guard personnel, while not in Federal service, in
any drug interdiction and counterdrug law enforcement
activities authorized by state law and requested by the
governor. The use of the term ``authorized by law'' is not
intended to imply that the activities in question must be
explicitly authorized by statutory law. For purposes of this
term, the activities may include any such activities that may
lawfully be conducted by the National Guard under the law of
the state, whether statutory or not. Subsections (2) and (3)
reenact the corresponding subsections of subsection 112(f)
without change, except for a minor wording change in
subsection (3). Subsection (4) provides a new definition of
``counterdrug duty'' as a special type of full-time National
Guard duty.
Subsection (b) reenacts present subsection 112(a), expands
it to provide explicit statutory authority for the conduct of
drug interdiction and counterdrug activities by members of
the National Guard in full-time National Guard duty status,
and makes additional minor changes for clarity. Specifically
present subsection (1)(B) is renumbered to clarify that funds
may be provided for operation and maintenance costs of
counterdrug activities as well as for pay and allowances of
personnel. This section would be the authority for providing
funds to a state for reimbursement of state pay and
allowances as well as for operation and maintenance (O&M)
costs. Present section 112 was initially interpreted by the
National Guard Bureau to permit
Federal pay and allowances for members of the National Guard
used for counterdrug activities in a full-time National
Guard duty status under 32 U.S.C. 502(f), but the present
language is not entirely clear on this point. The
amendment would explicitly provide authority to the
Secretary of Defense to authorize full-time National Guard
duty, while still allowing a state at its option to
request, and the Secretary in his discretion to provide,
Federal funds for the payment of state pay and allowances
under state active duty, for all or any part of its
counterdrug activities funded under this section. Section
502(f) would be the authority for the use of National
Guard personnel in full-time National Guard duty status
with Federal pay and allowances for drug interdiction and
counterdrug activities.
Specific congressional consent would be granted, pursuant
to Article I, section 10 of the Constitution, for up to 4,000
members of the National Guard to be on counterdrug duty on
orders for more than 180 days, or on orders for more than 180
days for counterdrug activities with state pay and allowances
reimbursed under this section, at the end of any fiscal year.
The Secretary of Defense would be authorized to increase this
end strength by up to 20% at the end of any fiscal year, in
order to accommodate unexpected needs. The fluid nature of
the counterdrug program necessitates this flexibility. As of
June 1994 there were estimated to be 3100 members of the
National Guard on orders for counterdrug duty tours in excess
of 180 days. It is not anticipated that the cap of 4,000 will
be met or exceeded in the next few years, but substantial
leeway for rapid response to new requirements should be
provided to avoid delays that would result from need for
Congressional action. Tight statutory limits without
flexibility for unexpected changes, such as exist for the end
strengths for the AGR program, would unduly constrain the
ability of the States to respond to changes, and would
require excessive control of allocations by the Department of
Defense to the States of this end strength. Since these
personnel would not be on duty for administering the National
Guard, they would not be subject to annual end strengths for
AGR personnel, or to the grade strengths in sections 12011
and 12012 of title 10.
Section (c) restates present subsections 112(b) and (c) and
expands the requirements for plans submitted by governors.
Requirements are included for certification by State civil
officials that the activities proposed under a state's plan
are
authorized by and consistent with state law and that any
activities in conjunction with federal agencies serve a
state law enforcement purpose. These requirements are
included to lessen the likelihood of successful legal
challenges to funded operations or to arrests or evidence
resulting from National Guard support to civil authorities
under funding authorized by this section. New subsection
(c)(2) includes a technical change to include reference to
ordering personnel to counterdrug duty as well as to
providing funds to a governor.
Subsection (d) restates present subsection 112(d) without
change.
The proposed amendments will not result in an increase in
the budget requirements of the Department of Defense.
Section 1012. Authorization to conduct outreach programs to
reduce demand for illegal drugs
This section amends chapter 18 of title 10, United States
Code, to add a new section 381, which authorizes the
Secretary of Defense to establish outreach programs to reduce
the demand for illegal drugs by youths. These
[[Page S5827]] programs are to be directed toward youths in
general and at-risk youths in particular.
New section 381 derives from section 1045 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (10 U.S.C. 410
note), which authorized the Secretary of Defense to establish
a pilot outreach program to reduce the demand for illegal
drugs. Pursuant to the section 1045(e), the Secretary of
Defense, on November 2, 1994, provided an assessment of the
pilot program to the Congress and recommended that the pilot
program be replaced by permanent community outreach programs.
He noted that in order to continue the outreach programs
beyond the end of Fiscal Year 1995, permanent legislative
authority would be required.
The new section 381 converts the pilot program into the
permanent outreach programs the Secretary of Defense desires.
The proposal deletes any reference to pilot programs and to a
termination date for the outreach programs. It instead
provides only that the Secretary of Defense may establish
outreach programs aimed at reducing the demand for illegal
drugs among youth.
The programs to be conducted under the new permanent
authority are volunteer-based and require limited funding.
Consequently, this proposal will allow expansion of the
outreach programs, but the programs will be funded at
approximately the same level as is currently budgeted. The
programs would continue to be included in the Drug
Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities central transfer
account.

Subtitle C--Other Matters

Section 1021. Authorization of transportation between
residence and place of employment
Subsection (a) of this section amends section 1344 of title
31, United States Code, to redesignate the extension period
of transportation for a federal employee or officer from four
90 day extensions to a single extension of one year and to
delete the requirement for the written agency requirement to
include the name of the affected employee or officer. The
purpose of this amendment is to authorize the head of a
federal agency to extend the effective date of an agency
determination for transportation of an employee or officer
between residence and place of employment if a clear and
present danger, an emergency, or a compelling operational
consideration exists.
Currently, four 90-day extensions are required in order to
maintain the home-to-work authorization. However, the
overseas billets for which this transportation has been
authorized by the Secretary of the Navy typically do not
change in each 90-day reporting cycle. To extend the
authorizations for up to one year rather than the present 90-
day cycle would alleviate a redundant reporting requirement.
Since the requirements are long-term, an annual review should
ensure high-level oversight of home-to-work requirements.
This proposal would also delete the requirement for the
written agency determination to include the name of the
officer or employee affected and only require the name of the
affected position. This would alleviate additional reporting
requirements each time the name of the incumbent changed. In
addition, this proposal would permit the delegation of the
authority to make determinations from the Secretary of
Defense to the Heads of Department of Defense Components and
from the Secretary of the
Military Departments to an officer at or above the level of
Vice Chief of each military service. This delegation of
authority would maintain control at a high enough level to
ensure full compliance while eliminating the
administrative delays associated with the signature of the
service secretary.
No additional costs or budget requirements are incurred by
the Department of Defense from this proposed legislation.
Section 1022. National Guard Civilian Youth Opportunities
Program
This section amends section 1091 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (32 U.S.C. 501 note)
to provide permanent authority for the National Guard
Civilian Youth Opportunities Program, presently established
as the National Guard Civilian Youth Opportunities Pilot
Program. The program is now in its third year of operation
and has proven successful in meeting the statutory
objectives.
This section also provides authority for the United States
Property and Fiscal Officer of each state or other
jurisdiction to requisition and lease Government Services
Administration vehicles to be furnished to the National Guard
for use in support of the Civilian Youth Opportunities
Program.
Section 1023. Clarification of authority for requisitioning
and lease of general services vehicles for the National
Guard
This section clarifies the authority for requisitioning and
lease of General Services Administration motor vehicles for
use in the training and administration of the National Guard.
The United States Property and Fiscal Officer for each state
or other jurisdiction would be identified as the
requisitioning authority for leasing vehicles to be furnished
to the state National Guard. Such use of GSA vehicles has
been made for many years. This provision would provide a
clear statutory basis for this practice.
Section 1024. Armed Forces Historical Preservation Program
This section amends section 2572(b)(1) of title 10 to
clarify which historic preservation programs may be
authorized by the service secretaries. The current statute
authorizes ``restoration services,'' but is ambiguous
regarding the scope of that term. The proposed amendment
clarifies the statute to include the full range of modern
historic preservation activity by inserting additional
specific terms.
``Conservation and preservation'' services include
treatment of historic books and documents, metal and wooden
artifacts to reduce deterioration. ``Restoration'' is often
not possible. Most historic documents were not printed on
acid free paper and thus deteriorate with the passage of
time. This has been described as ``a silent fire''
threatening historic collections. This proposal contemplates
both preservation of items and conservation of their contents
by microfilm, photographic and digital means.
``Educational programs'', while inherent in the mission of
all preservation activity, includes such programs as
videotaped tours to provide access by the handicapped to
historic ships and aircraft, publications and cooperative
programs with universities and other educational
institutions.
``Supplies or conservation equipment, facilities and
systems'' includes equipment and supplies for conservation
laboratories used to treat documents and artifacts, museums
with associated storage facilities and equipment and the
H.V.A.C. systems necessary to maintain proper temperature,
humidity and air quality conditions essential for
preservation of historical collections.
Other provisions of the statute would not be changed by
this proposal. These ensure administration of historical
collections of the armed forces and will remain under the
control of the respective service secretaries and subject to
their oversight.
No additional cost or budget requirements are incurred by
the Department of Defense from this proposed legislation.
Section 1025. Amendments to education loan repayment programs
This section amends sections 2171, 16301, and 16302 of
title 10 to include in the existing loan repayment programs
authority to repay loans made by borrowers under the William
D. Ford
Federal Direct Loan Program as authorized by the Student
Loan Reform Act of 1993 and codified at section 1087a et
seq. of title 20. There are no new costs associated with
the enactment of this proposal, as loan repayment under
the expanded authority would be made within existing
program and budget levels for this incentive.

Title XI--Matters Relating to Allies, Other Nations, and International
Organizations

Section 1101. Burdensharing contributions: Accounting
This section amends section 2350j of title 10, United
States Code, to authorize the United States to accept
burdensharing contributions in the currency of the host
nation or in dollars, and to manage it as a separate account,
available until expended. Current law requires that the money
be ``credited to . . . [and] merged with'' existing
Department of Defense appropriations.
There are a number of problems which arise because of the
requirement to ``credit'' and ``merge.'' In law, the term
``merged'' usually means that when ``A'' is merged with
``B'', ``A'' loses its separate identity and becomes part of
``B.'' Thus, the ``merging'' of host nation funds into our
appropriated funds subjects them to the same limitations on
use that govern appropriated funds. However, the practical
fact cannot be overlooked that the host nation contribution
is not United States taxpayers' money, but rather that of the
host nation taxpayers. The source of the host nation
contribution constrains the United States' authority to treat
those funds in the same way that appropriated funds are
treated.
Primarily, the following three limitations on use of
appropriated funds create problems with burdensharing
contributions:
a. The Competition in Contracting Act. For example, the
Republic of Korea provides money on the condition that the
money go to Republic of Korea contractors and suppliers,
where possible. Under the Competition in Contracting Act, we
cannot limit competition to Republic of Korea contractors and
suppliers when using appropriated funds; applying the same
limitation to contracts funded with burdensharing
contributions which have
merged with appropriated funds results in an inability to
meet the condition placed by the Republic of Korea on the
money it contributed.
b. The Foreign Currency Fluctuation Account. For example,
the United States accepts contributions from the Republic of
Korea in won. Since appropriations are in dollars, not in
won, in order to be credited to the Department of Defense
appropriation, the won provided by the Republic of Korea must
be converted to dollars at the market rate. The dollars then
are converted to won for expenditures through a formula
which, in the case of won, usually results in less won than
if the market rate were used. Similarly, where the
contributions from the Republic of Korea are accepted in
dollars and then credited to the appropriation, applying the
Foreign Currency Fluctuation Account conversion rate when
expending those dollars usually results in less won than it
took the Republic of Korea to obtain the dollars.
c. The Fiscal Year. For example, the question of what
happens when money contributed by the Republic of Korea
cannot be expended in the United States fiscal year in which
we receive it. This can happen since the Republic of Korea is
on a calendar year
[[Page S5828]] fiscal year; their supplemental appropriations
bill usually passes in July or August with money coming to
the Department of Defense in August or September. If the
burdensharing contributions cannot be spent for the purpose
for which it was provided, it should not expire along with
the appropriation to which it is credited. In addition,
unobligated appropriations usually revert to the Treasury;
this should not happen to unused contributions from the
Republic of Korea.
Establishing a separate account which can accept, manage,
and disburse in the currency of the host nation and which
does not expire at the end of the United States fiscal year
solves these problems. The money is not confused with
appropriated funds, thus the Competition in Contracting Act
and the Foreign Currency Fluctuation Account do not apply;
further since it is available until expended, it does not
expire and the question of reversion to the United States
Treasury General Fund does not arise.
Section 1102. Relocation of United States Armed Forces in
Japan and the Republic of Korea
This section adds a new section 2530k to title 10, United
States Code, which establishes authority and procedures for
the Secretary of Defense to accept contributions from Japan
and the Republic of Korea for the purposes of relocating
United States armed forces within the host nation when such
relocation is being accomplished at the convenience of the
host nation and for the purpose of deploying United States
troops to the host nation during a contingency deployment.
Currently, relocation expenses are not considered
burdensharing.
Congress has made it clear that burdensharing consists of
our allies sharing a greater portion of the United States
forces overseas basing costs. Most relocations of United
States forces are done at the convenience of the host nation
and are not for any military purposes. It is clear that
Congress does not consider the payment of these relocations
driven by the host nation's convenience to be burdensharing.
Examples of relocations that would fit this category are the
relocation of United States forces from Yongsan to the Osan-
Camp Humphreys area in Korea, and the relocation of
ammunition storage facilities in Okinawa, Japan, for the
expansion of the Zukeyama Dam Water Reservoir.
In addition, by having a separate account to be set up in
the host nation currency, Fly America Act problems with the
use of Korean Airlines (KAL) in a contingency to transport
United States troops to the host nation, in particular to the
Republic of Korea, could be avoided. As the host nation
currency and separate account would not be United States
funds, the Competition in Contracting Act and other
restrictions would not apply. Liability issues would still
exist, but the payment for Korean Airlines flights could be
accomplished in a reasonable manner.
This legislation further outlines the types of expenditures
authorized, the method of contributions, and annual reporting
requirements to Congress.
Enactment of this provision will not increase the budgetary
requirements of the Department of Defense.
Section 1103. Rationalization, standardization and
interoperability
This section amends section 515(a)(6) of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 to remove references to specific
countries and organizations where it states military
personnel assigned to Security Assistance Officers may
promote rationalization, standardization and
interoperability. Section 515(a)(6) of the Foreign Assistance
Act currently indicates that the President may assign to
members of the United States armed forces in a foreign
country the function of ``promoting rationalization,
standardization, interoperability, and other defense
cooperation measures among members of NATO, and the armed
forces of Japan, Australia and New Zealand. . . .'' This
initiative seeks removal of specific country references.
In the post-Cold War international environment, it is
becoming increasingly likely that the forces we fight
alongside may be other than those of NATO, Japan, Australia
or New Zealand. However, as specified in Section 515 of the
Foreign Assistance Act, these are the only countries with
which United States military personnel may promote
rationalization, standardization and itneroperability.
Especially in the Central Region, this self-imposed
limitation in the Foreign Assistance Act precludes the United
States from achieving the greatest possible degree of
interoperability with out coalition partners. For example,
during deployment for Desert Shield, United States forces
derived considerable benefit from the commonality of weapon
and support systems possessed by several of the Middle
Eastern states.
To the extent that interoperability existed, it facilitated
the deployment and employment of a multinational force, many
parts of which were mutually supporting due to common
equipment and training. This interoperability, which was
achieved entirely without legal sanction, has only served to
emphasize the need to promote rationalization,
standardization and interoperability with all our potential
allies.
Section 1104. Cost of leased items which have been destroyed
by the lessee
Paragraph (1) of this section amends section 61(a)(3) of
the Arms Export Control Act to allow leased items, if
destroyed, to be priced at less than replacement value if the
United States Government does not plan to replace the item.
Current legislation requires the leasing country to pay
``The replacement cost (less any depreciation in the value)
of the articles if the articles are lost or destroyed while
leased.'' In circumstances in which the leased item is not
going to be replaced by the United States Government, the
rationale that justified charging the foreign government the
full replacement cost is no longer valid or just. Section
21(a)(1)(A) of the Arms Export Control Act contains a
provision regarding the pricing of items to be sold that the
United States does not intend to replace: ``The President may
sell, if such country agrees to pay, in the case of a defense
article not intended to be replaced at the time such an
agreement is entered into, not less than the actual value
thereof.'' This same rationale should be used in the pricing
of lost or destroyed leased items.
Paragraph (2) of this section authorizes the Secretaries of
the military departments to use amounts paid by the foreign
country or international organization to reimburse for
defense articles lost or destroyed to replace the items (if
the United States intends to replace the item) or to fund
upgrades or modifications of similar systems (if the United
States does not intend to replace the item). These funds
would otherwise go to Miscellaneous Receipts account of the
United States Treasury.
Section 1105. Exchange and returns of defense articles
previously transferred pursuant to the Arms Export
Control Act
This section authorizes repairable exchange programs and
permits the Department of Defense to accept for return
defense articles sold previously through Foreign Military
Sales. This section provides clear statutory authority in
both of these areas, increasing the readiness of both the US
and its allies and friends, particularly in contingency
situations.
Exchange for Repair. Under the present procedure for the
repair of items for Foreign Military Sales customers, the
item is received into the repair system and tracked through
the repair
cycle to ensure that the exact same item is returned to the
Foreign Military Sales customer. Both the cost and the
time taken to repair the item is increased by the
requirement to track the item through the process.
For many components and spare parts, the United States
Armed Forces use a different system for their own needs. An
unserviceable item is returned for repair and the United
States unit immediately receives a serviceable replacement
from Department of Defense stocks. When the unserviceable
item is repaired it is added to Department of Defense stocks
for future use. No tracking of individual items is required.
The proposal would simply allow repairs for Foreign
Military Sales customers to follow the same procedure as that
used for United States forces, reducing the time customers
must wait to receive a serviceable item dramatically (often
by months) and increasing the readiness of Foreign Military
Sales customers.
Repair and exchange would only be allowed for items for
which stock levels are sufficiently high that providing this
service would not adversely affect United States readiness.
The proposal would not place foreign customers ahead of
United States forces--it would simply place them on an equal
footing in the use of the repair process.
Incoming items would be inspected to ensure that repair is
possible and to prevent abuse of the system by foreign
customers. The foreign customer would be charged the same
price as the Department of Defense customer plus a Foreign
Military Sales administrative surcharge.
It is estimated that at least 20,000-25,000 repair and
exchange transactions would be requested each year, with a
value in the range of $60-$70 Million. Most of the items
repaired would be aircraft and electronic components. The
service would be especially useful for allies who cannot
afford to maintain high inventory levels.
Return. The return proposal would allow the Department of
Defense to accept the return of items previously sold to a
foreign government when either the United States has a
requirement for the item or when another eligible foreign
country
or international organization wishes to receive the item
pursuant to Foreign Military Sales procedures.
For example, United States stocks of helicopter engine
blades for T-64 engines became dangerously low during Desert
Shield/Desert Storm. The Navy located stocks of these blades
which had previously been sold to Germany and which Germany
offered to return to the United States. In this instance the
United States bought these blades under a slower authority
(NATO Mutual Logistics Support Agreement). This authority
would have allowed this transaction to occur quickly.
This proposal would not circumvent FAR and DFAR
requirements. Materiel previously sold through Foreign
Military Sales has already been subjected to these
requirements in the process of the original Foreign Military
Sales sale. If the materiel had to be bought back through the
FAR process, it would be subjected twice to these
requirements.
[[Page S5829]] Section 1106. Foreign disaster assistance
A requirement for the President to notify Congress of all
foreign disaster assistance financed with Department of
Defense funds was added this year to title 10 by section 1412
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1995 (Public Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 2912). The intent of the
Senate, who added the requirement, was concern over costly
and long duration foreign operations. The Senate cited as
examples Bangladesh, the Philippines, northern Iraq, Somalia,
and the former Yugoslavia.
Preparation of these reports is a burden and a diversion
for Department of Defense personnel when they are
expeditiously developing and executing disaster relief
missions.
This proposal significantly reduces the burden of reporting
by requiring notification only on foreign disaster missions
that are not natural disasters and are expected to cost $10
million or more or last longer than three (3) months.
Congressional intent, as expressed in Senate Report 103-282,
page 221, is preserved.
Section 1107. Humanitarian assistance
This reporting requirement was enacted by section 304 of
the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993
(Public Law 102-484; 106 Stat. 2361).
In its current form, reports are required twice a year on
the use of Humanitarian Assistance (HA) funds. Information is
required on total funds obligated, the number of missions and
descriptions of cargo, their recipient, and cost. Reports are
required sixty days following enactment of a Department of
Defense Authorization Act and again on June first of each
year.
This initiative reduces reporting to once a year consistent
with the principle of reducing the burden of reporting to a
level consistent with efficient management by Department of
Defense and oversight by Congress. The annual report would
accompany the submission of other justification material
supporting the annual President's budget request.
To further reduce the burden of reporting, the contents of
the report would be reduced by eliminating detailed reporting
of the current and acquisition value of cargo delivered by
mission. However, the total cost for distributing and
transporting the cargo as charged against humanitarian
assistance funds would continue to be reported. Further,
since ``flights'' are not the only mechanism for transporting
relief the language is revised to refer to ``transportation
missions''. This recognizes the use of land and sea
transportation in addition to air deliveries.
Section 1108. Humanitarian assistance program for clearing
landmines
Permanent title 10 authorization language is needed for the
Department of Defense humanitarian demining program with
extended authorities to permit more efficient application of
the program to world-wide needs than currently allowed under
section 1413 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 2913).
The provisions of this section extend the use of demining
funds to the rudimentary construction and repair of
facilities supporting the program. This is identical to the
existing authority under section 401 of title 10 for the
Humanitarian and Civic Assistance program.
The language permits the United Nations and other
international organizations to participate in the program.
Lastly, expanded language identifies the uses of funds for
cooperative agreements and grants, and permits relevant
equipment and technology to be sold or donated to all program
participants.
Section 1109. Reimbursements, credits, and limited payments
for assessments relating to international peacekeeping
and peace enforcement activities
This section amends title 10 by adding a new section 406
which establishes the International Peacekeeping and Peace
Enforcement Activities Account and authorizes the use of
Department of Defense funds to pay for a share of
assessments, the furnishing of personnel, supplies, services,
and equipment in support of United Nations peace operations,
and the reimbursement to the appropriate department of the
Department of Defense for any incremental costs incurred in
the provision of such assistance.
The provisions of this section authorizing the use of
Department of Defense funds to pay for a share of assessments
are designed to ensure that there is adequate funding for
United Nations peace operations in which United States combat
forces participate. The authority to use Department of
Defense funds to pay United Nations peacekeeping assessments
applies only to Chapter VI and Chapter VII United Nations
peace operations in which United States combat forces
participate. The Department of State would continue to have
financial responsibility for all other peace operations.
Section 1110. Extension and amendment of counterproliferation
authorities
This section would extend through fiscal year 1996 the
International Nonproliferation Initiative contained in
section 1505 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484; 106 Stat. 2567; 22
U.S.C. 5859a), as amended by sections 1182(c)(5) and 1602 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994
(Public Law 103-160; 107 Stat. 1772 & 1843) and by sections
1070(c)(1) and 1501 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995
(Public Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 2857 & 2914).
In addition, this section would authorize the Department to
provide assistance and support in the destruction and
elimination of weapons of mass destruction outside the states
of the former Soviet Union. Activities of this nature
demonstrate United States willingness to assist other nations
to dismantle weapons of mass destruction. As new arms control
or assistance agreements come into effect, such efforts could
increase, especially in the chemical, biological, and
ballistic missile weapons arena.
Section 1111. Cooperative research and development agreements
with NATO organizations--technical and conforming
amendments
This is a technical and conforming amendment to bring
section 2350b of title 10 into line with section 2350a of
such title. Section 2350a was amended by section 1301 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995
(Public Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 2888) in a similar manner as
the instant proposal. The following section, section 2350b,
requires a similar amendment for consistency of treatment.

Title XII--Acquisition Reform

Section 1201. Waivers from cancellation of funds
This proposal would provide that, notwithstanding section
1552(a) of title 31, United States Code, funds for satellite
incentive fee and shipbuilding contracts shall remain
available for obligation and expenditure until the purpose
intended to be achieved by the contract is achieved.
The Department believes that these funds, when properly
obligated on a contract should remain available for the
purpose originally intended, i.e., making payments for the
performance of the contract to which they were obligated.
Clearly such funds should not be diverted for any new work or
other purpose unrelated to performance of that contract.
However, with these
unique programs, the funds should remain available to pay
for completion of uncompleted work, contract price
adjustments, close-out costs, settlement of claims, or any
other action arising from performance of the work for
which the funds were originally obligated.
Section 1202. Amendment to conform procurement notice posting
thresholds
This section would conform the defense procurement notice
posting threshold (currently $5,000) to the same threshold as
exists for the civilian agencies (currently $10,000). There
is no logical reason for applying unique notification rules
to DOD rather than setting a government-wide standard. This
proposal would correct this anomaly.
Section 1203. Competitiveness of United States companies
Section 2761(e) of title 22, United States Code, currently
provides for recoupment of non-recurring research and
development charges for products sold through the foreign
military sales program. Repeal of the provision in 22 U.S.C.
2761(e) concerning recoupment of non-recurring research and
development charges would increase United States
competitiveness in global markets and enhance the national
security and industrial base. This proposal will assist
efforts by defense oriented companies to shift toward
commercial activities by eliminating a major barrier to the
free flow of technology between the commercial and defense
sectors of the United States economy. The proposal will also
enhance the ability of American firms to compete for billions
of dollars of business that they might otherwise lose.
Section 1204. Inapplicability of prohibition on gratuities
This section would amend 2207 of title 10 to provide an
exemption for contracts under this simplified acquisition
threshold and for contracts for commercial items. This would
eliminate a contract clause that is inappropriate for
simplified purchases and for commercial item contracts.
Section 1205. Prompt resolution of audit recommendations
This section would delete a requirement that audit
recommendations be acted upon within 6 months, as this
requirement currently exists in regulation. The
requirement can be maintained in regulation without a
statutory mandate. Retaining this requirement in statute
is excessive oversight and removes managerial flexibility
from the Department of Defense.
Section 1206. Repeal of domestic source limitation
This section would repeal 10 U.S.C. 4542, which currently
sets forth limits on the technical data packages that may be
provided to defense contractors for certain armament
production. Only the Secretary of Defense should determine
the appropriate balancing of industrial base, technology
transfer and defense trade policies. Statutory constraints on
that authority hinder effective management of these
sometimes-conflicting policies, especially in a time of
drawdown.
Section 1207. Extraordinary contractual relief
This proposal would repeal a restriction on the use of
extraordinary contractual relief under Public Law 85-804,
limiting its applicability to wartime or national emergency.
Extraordinary contractual relief should be available during
peacetime as well as during wartime or national emergencies.
Relief
[[Page S5830]] under Public Law 85-804 is used for many
purposes unrelated to the existence of national emergency,
e.g., indemnification and recognition of contingent
liability. This limitation has not yet had any direct impact
because the United States has been under a state of national
emergency since the Korean War. However, should this
condition be lifted, this authority would immediately be
unavailable.
Section 1208. Disposition of naval vessels
This section proposes a technical correction to section
7306(a)(1) of title 10, U.S. Code. The National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 consolidated several
statutes dealing with this subject into a single,
consolidated statute. However, the drafting of the
consolidated provision did not exactly duplicate the
previously existing coverage. Some corrections to reconcile
the consolidated provision with previously existing law were
made by FASTA, but this correction was omitted. If this
proposal is adopted, the consolidated
statute will then be identical in scope to the previously
existing law, and permit the transfer of vessels in United
States territories as well as states.
Section 1209. Test program for negotiation of comprehensive
subcontracting plans
This section would amend the Test Program for Negotiation
of Comprehensive Subcontracting Plans (Section 834 of Public
Law No. 101-189, 15 U.S.C. 637 note). Current statutory
language limits purchasing activities allowed to participate
in the test to one activity in each of the Military
Departments and Defense Agencies. Subsection (a) proposes to
remove this limitation. This deletion will enhance the
underlying purpose of the law, which is to improve business
opportunities for small and disadvantaged businesses as well
as small businesses, and to require that efforts be made to
include in the program contracting activities purchasing a
broad range of the supplies and services acquired by the
Department of Defense.
This subsection also proposes a technical correction to a
provision of this same law. The proposal would require that
contractors' ability to participate in the test to be based
on the contracts that they received during the preceding
fiscal year rather than the fiscal year ending September 30,
1989, as the current law states. This amendment also reduces
the number of contracts and aggregate dollar value of those
contracts that are required to establish a condition for a
contractor's participation in the test from five contracts
worth $25 million to three contracts worth $5 million.
Finally, the proposal would delete paragraph (g) of this
public law in its entirety and redesignate paragraph (h) as
paragraph (g). Paragraph (g) currently limits participation
in the program after fiscal year 1994 to those firms that had
participated in the program before October 1, 1993.
All of these amendments would greatly facilitate more
meaningful tests. The test as currently established does not
result in participation of sufficient number of firms to
provide a valid statistical sample of the contractors doing
business with the Department of Defense and does not cover a
representative sample of the supplies and services that the
Department acquires.
For example, the restriction placed upon the conducting of
the test, i.e., allowing only one contracting activity in
each of the military departments and defense agencies to
participate; and limiting contractor participants to those
receiving at least five contracts and being paid at least $25
million, has severely limited both the number of contractors
that are involved and the types of supplies and services
being acquired. As a result of this limitation, of the eight
contractors participating in the program, six are in the
aerospace industry. One of the remaining firms is involved in
shipbuilding and the other is an electronics firm. The
participating contractors represent the very largest prime
contractors and are involved in the development and
manufacture of major weapons systems. Generally, the larger
the prime contractor the more likely that there is a need for
subcontractors that are manufacturers in the high technology
product area. High technology manufacturing is where the
least amount of capability exists in the small and small
disadvantaged business community. As a result, neither the
number of firms involved in the test nor the supplies and
services that they are providing is sufficiently
representative of the Department's acquisition programs.
Therefore, it is not possible to apply the results of the
test to date as representative of what could be achieved by
all of the 1863 defense prime contractors participating the
Department of Defense subcontracting program.
Section 1210. Civil Reserve Air Fleet
This proposal would modify authority newly-enacted by FASTA
that permits the DOD to contract with Civil Reserve Air Fleet
(CRAF) contractors to grant them limited commercial use of
CONUS military airfields. Currently, however, the authority
to permit limited commercial use is limited to times of full
CRAF activation. Deletion of the word ``full'' before
``CRAF'' as proposed will permit use of this valuable
authority during a military operation requiring less than
full CRAF activation. This flexibility is important because
of the need to mobilize civil and reserve fleets in advance
of declaration of war.
Section 1211. Eighteen-month shipbuilding claims
Under section 2403 of title 10 as amended by the FASTA,
contractors may bring shipbuilding claims within 6 years of
the accrual of the claim, for contracts entered into after
the date
of enactment of the FASTA. For contracts entered into before
date of enactment, the prior, 18 month claims limit period
appeals. Under a recent decision of the Federal Circuit
Court of Appeals, the statute's limitations period was
interpreted to apply only to the secretaries of the
military departments, not to the Boards of Contract
Appeals or courts. This technical amendment would clarify
that the 18 month limit on shipbuilding claims, to the
extent that it still exists for contracts entered into
before enactment of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining
Act, applies to the Boards of Contract Appeals and courts
as well as the secretaries of the military departments.
Section 1212. Naval salvage facilities
This proposal would consolidate all statutes pertaining to
naval salvage facilities' contracting currently in chapter
637 of title 10. The consolidate includes a deletion of an
outdated limit on salvage appropriations. This consolidation
would contribute to the streamlining of the acquisition laws.
Section 1213. Factories and arsenals: Manufacture at
This section would consolidate and amend two service
specific statutes dealing with manufacture of supplies at
inhouse, United States owned arsenals and factories.
Currently, the Army authority is mandatory--it must produce
supplies inhouse unless the requirement is waived.
Conversely, the Air Force authority is discretionary--it may
produce supplies inhouse. The consolidation would establish
one authority Department of Defense-wide that is clearly
discretionary. The discretion to make judgments about in-
house production is critical in this era of downsizing.
Section 1214. Bar on documenting economic impact
This section would repeal a bar on the use of government
contract funds to demonstrate the economic impact of a
government contract. It is inappropriate to maintain this
level of oversight in statute. It is also unnecessary because
this bar is currently maintained in regulation.
Section 1215. Fees for samples, drawings
This section would amend a newly-enacted statute,
Sec. 2539b. This statute was intended to provide, among other
things, authority for private sector use of Department of
Defense testing facilities. However, commercial use of a
certain subset of those test facilities, Major Range Test
Facility Bases (MRTFBs), is also authorized by another newly
enacted statute, Sec. 2681. Both statutes were enacted by the
National Defense Authorization Act for FY 1994. However, the
two statutes prescribe different rules on government fees for
the use of such test facilities. Section 2539b provides that
the government can charge only direct costs, thus precluding
the government from charging for indirect costs. Conversely,
Sec. 2681 permits charges for indirect costs as well. This
amendment would resolve that discrepancy by requiring, under
Sec. 2539b, at least the charge of direct costs, but not
prohibiting the charge of indirect costs when appropriate.
Section 1216. Contracts: Delegations
This section would repeal 10 U.S.C. 2356. That statute
provides authority for a secretary of a military department
to delegate specified research contracting authorities to
listed officials. It is not considered necessary because it
duplicates a secretary's inherent authority to delegate. In
addition, the statute is not currently relied upon by any
pertinent Department of Defense components.
The proposal would eliminate unnecessary and duplicative
authorities, thereby increasing efficiency and streamlining
the acquisition process.
Section 1217. Defense acquisition pilot programs
This section would amplify the statutory waivers available
to the defense acquisition pilot programs that were
authorized by the FASTA.
Section 1218. Testing
Section 2366 of title 10 provides for survivability and
lethality testing of major systems with an Office of the
Secretary of Defense-level report to Congress. Survivability
testing must be on the full-up system as configured for
combat unless the Secretary of Defense waives the requirement
for
full-up testing. This provision would change the requirement
to realistic vulnerability or lethality testing rather
than require costly testing of actual products. The
provision makes other changes to ensure the integrity of
the testing process by appropriate contract sources, when
necessary.
Section 1219. Coordination and communication of Defense
research activities
Currently this section establishes a requirement for the
Secretary of Defense to promote, monitor, and evaluate
programs for the communication and exchange of technological
data among Department of Defense Components. It also requires
that technological issues be considered and made part of the
record at Milestone O, I, and II decisions.
The proposed technical change to this section deletes the
specific references to, and definitions of, the Milestone
decisions and substitutes references to acquisition program
decisions. This change retains the intent of the statute, but
does not tie accomplishment of the requirements to events
which may change over time as the acquisition process changes
or may be tailored out
[[Page S5831]] of a particular program's acquisition
approach. Rather, it provides for the requirement to be
satisfied at all decision reviews for the program, whether or
not they are milestone decisions.
Section 1220. Undefinitized contract actions
Section 2326(b)(4) of title 10, United States Code, permits
the head of an agency to waive the limits on the use of
undefinitized contract actions if such waiver is necessary to
support contingency operations. This amendment would exclude
peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief
operations from the scope of these limits on the use of
undefinitized contract actions. This amendment is needed to
provide the Department's contracting personnel with maximum
flexibility during these specialized operations. Contracting
personnel supporting these types of operations should be
granted the same tools as contracting personnel supporting
contingency operations. For example, during disaster relief
operations, the Department often needs authority to purchase
and take delivery of relief supplies prior to final agreement
on price.
Section 1221. Independent cost estimates
This amendment would permit military departments or
agencies, independent of their respective Acquisition
Executives, to prepare independent cost estimates for
acquisition category I C programs (component-overseen major
defense acquisition programs). These offices are the Army
Directorate of Cost Analysis, Naval Center for Cost Analysis,
or Air Force Office of Cost and Economics, all three of which
report to the Assistant Secretary for Financial Management in
their respective departments. The proposed language would
align the responsibility for independent cost estimating with
the level of the decision authority.
Section 1222. Unit cost reports
This section would amend the unit cost report requirement
at 10 U.S.C. 2433 to (1) delete the reference to ``current
fiscal year,'' (2) restore a former provision to report to
the appropriate service acquisition executive further unit
cost increases of 5 percent or more, and (3) replace the
phrase ``contract as of the time the contract was made'' with
``contract cost baseline.''
The current law, as amended by the Federal Acquisition
Streamlining Act of 1994, contains reference to ``current
fiscal year.'' Use of this phrase will result in the second
reporting of the same program breach when a new acquisition
program baseline is not approved prior to the end of the
fiscal year in which the unit cost breach occurred. The
references to ``current fiscal year'' were appropriate when
the President's budget was used as the unit cost reporting
baseline. But it is not appropriate for the acquisition
program baseline, which is not automatically revised each new
fiscal year. The deletion of these references will eliminate
the duplicative reporting of unit cost breaches.
In addition, the newly amended statute does not now require
reporting of subsequent increases in unit cost after a unit
cost breach occurs and before a new acquisition baseline is
approved. Therefore, there is no motivation to have a new
acquisition program baseline approved in a timely manner
after a unit cost breach. The former provision to report to
the appropriate service acquisition executive further unit
cost increases of 5
percent or more is thus proposed to be restored, as amended
for the use of the acquisition program baseline as the
unit cost reporting baseline.
This revision would also replace ``contract as of the time
the contract was made'' with ``contract cost baseline.'' This
amendment would provide the Department with the flexibility
to define the basis for determining contract cost breaches.
Section 1223. Repeal of spare parts quality control
This proposal would repeal 10 U.S.C. 2383, requiring
contractors providing critical aircraft or ship spare parts
to provide parts that meet specified quality requirements
(using quality requirements for original parts unless written
determination to the contrary).
DOD must move away from the use of government unique specs
and standards that are outdated and do not recognize modern
industrial manufacturing methods. Failure to do this may
result in the procurement of higher-priced, inferior quality
goods. Specifically, qualifications and quality standards
should be a matter for engineering and technical judgment
based on current needs, technology and experience with the
use of the particular item.
Section 1224. Patent and copyright cases
This section proposes a technical amendment to update the
statutory terminology. It would amend 10 U.S.C. 2386 to
substitute ``designs, processes, technical data and computer
software'' for ``designs, processes and manufacturing data''
as ``manufacturing data'' is an outmoded phrase.
Section 1225. Defense Acquisition Workforce Act improvements
This proposal, at subsection (a), would amend section 663
of title 10 to authorize the Secretary of Defense to exclude
from the mandatory joint duty requirement for military
members of the Acquisition Corps, as defined in section 1731
of title 10, who have graduated from the Senior Acquisition
Course at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces. This
exemption is permitted if they are assigned to Critical
Acquisition Positions,
as defined in section 1733 of title 10, upon graduation.
This amendment will allow the Acquisition Corps to exploit
the talents of these high-potential officers by assigning
them to billets in the correct career field where they can
employ the skills developed through attendance at the Senior
Acquisition Course. Section 1205(a)(4) of the Defense
Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act (Public Law 101-510)
directed the Department to create a Senior Acquisition Course
as a substitute for and equivalent to, existing senior
professional military education school courses, specifically
designed for personnel serving in critical acquisition
positions. The Industrial College of the Armed Forces (ICAF)
was selected as the location for the Senior Acquisition
Course because a significant portion of the existing
curriculum addressed subjects essential to any advanced
program of study in acquisition.
Consequently, the Senior Acquisition Course is composed of
the standard ICAF curriculum, augmented by specifically
tailored electives, writing projects and additional classes
for acquisition students. While the use of ICAF to present
the Senior Acquisition Course offered significant benefits
derived from the existing curriculum, it also invoked the
joint duty assignment requirement established for officers
graduating from a Joint Professional Military Education
School, as provided in section 663(2)(A) of title 10. This
section requires that ``. . . a high proportion (which shall
be greater than 50 percent) of the officers graduating from a
joint professional military education school who do not have
a joint specialty shall receive assignments to a joint duty
assignment as their next duty assignment or, to the extent
authorized in subparagraph (B), as their second duty
assignment after such graduation.''
The problem, however, is that there are generally more
acquisition graduates than expected joint billets at the
appropriate grade levels. This career field mismatch leaves
the Department with three unsatisfactory alternatives: (1)
assign officers into acquisition career fields in which they
are not certified; (2) assign them to joint billets that do
not require acquisition expertise; or (3) require line
officers to have an increased requirement disproportionately
imposed on them to account for the acquisition personnel not
going into joint assignments. The first alternative conflicts
with the statutory
requirement (section 1723(a)) to apply qualification
standards to all acquisition positions. The second
alternative is counter to the basic concept for
establishing a Senior Acquisition Course, is counter to
the concept that the Acquisition Corps officers should
serve in critical acquisition positions, and could
disadvantage officers competing for promotion. Finally,
the third alternative is not feasible due to the existing
claims for line officers.
Subsection (b) of this proposal would repeal subsection (a)
of Sec. 1734 of title 10 and redesignate the remaining
sections.
Currently, section 1734(a) of title 10, United States Code,
requires individuals assigned to critical acquisition
positions (CAP) to serve in that position for a period of
time not less than three years. Additionally, it establishes
a requirement for individuals entering a CAP to sign a
written agreement to remain in that position for at least
three years. While these provisions were envisioned to
promote stability and professionalism within the acquisition
workforce, they are having a direct and detrimental impact on
civilian professional development and the implementation of
innovative management initiatives to re-engineer the
acquisition process.
Specifically, the tenure requirement, with its associated
written agreement, adversely affects the acquisition
workforce in five areas: (1) civilian promotions are tied
directly to changing jobs. Any barrier, such as a three year
tenure requirement, serves only to inhibit and discourage
individuals from advancement; (2) current management
initiatives seek to employ integrated product/process
development teams. This concept has been endorsed as an
excellent management initiative; however, it requires moving
people into different jobs and positions. The process of
establishing these teams frequently results in team members
moving into positions prior to meeting the three year tenure
mark in their former position; (3) cross-functional expertise
is another attribute desirable in today's acquisition
workforce. Yet in order to develop the requisite skills,
individuals must be assigned to a variety of positions to
develop the background experience and exposure to multiple
functional areas. A three year tenure requirement in each
position inhibits the breadth of the developmental events
that someone can experience; (4) the realities of today's
environment
in terms of force reductions, realignments and BRAC all
place our acquisition professionals in tenuous positions.
The tenure agreement obligates the acquisition
professional to remain in Federal service for at least
three years. Enforcement of this agreement deprives the
individual of taking advantage of the early out and early
retirement incentives that accompany the on-going force
reductions. Further, with the uncertainties associated
with the BRAC process and subsequent relocation of major
organizations (e.g., NAVAIR with approximately 4,700 jobs)
people are reluctant to sign tenure agreements they
probably would not honor because they do not want to move
out of their current geographic region; and (5) finally,
if rigidly enforced, the tenure
[[Page S5832]] agreements could create the situation where
critical acquisition positions are filled by the most
available, not the best qualified person, because the best
qualified individual for the job has not completed three
years in their current position.
The Department is provided the authority to waive these
provisions. However, waivers are viewed negatively,
especially given the annual GAO audit of all waivers executed
under the provisions of Chapter 87. Waivers should be used
for exceptional situations, but the requirements of this
section generate waivers as a routine and normal event.
Today's acquisition workforce is significantly different
from when this provision was enacted. We now have a cadre of
trained and experienced acquisition professionals. This
provision serves only to constrain viable career paths that
contribute to developing cross-functional expertise through
career broadening assignments. It stifles the opportunity to
assign the best qualified people to critical positions and to
employ innovative management practices. Consequently, this
provision is counterproductive to good management practices
and should be repealed.
Section 1226. Technical amendment to authority to procure for
experimental or test purposes
This section would amend a newly codified authority, at 10
U.S.C. 2373, that currently permits a narrow category of
noncompetitive procurement of limited quantities for test or
experimental purposes, to conform the new codified section to
the full scope of the prior, existing service specific
statutes.
Section 1227. Repeal of certain depot level maintenance
provisions
Section 2466 provides that not more than 40 percent of the
funds made available in a Fiscal Year to a military
department or a Defense Agency, for depot-level maintenance
and repair workload may be used to contract for performance
by non-Federal Government personnel of such workload for the
military department or the Defense Agency. Repeal of Section
2466 will provide the Department of Defense and the military
departments the needed flexibility to accomplish more than 40
percent of their depot maintenance workload by non-Federal
Government employees when needed to achieve the best balance
between the public and private sectors of the Defense
industrial base. The repeal of Section 2466 will not increase
the budgetary requirements of the Department of Defense.
Section 2469 prohibits the Secretary of Defense or the
Secretary of a Military Department from changing the
performance of a depot-level maintenance workload that has
value of not less than $3,000,000 and is being performed by a
depot-level activity of the Department of Defense unless,
prior to any such change, the Secretary uses competitive
procedures to make the change. The Department has suspended
cost competitions for depot maintenance workloads because of
problems with the data and cost accounting systems of the
Department. Repeal of Section 2469 will permit the Department
of Defense and the military departments to shift workloads
from one depot to another or to private industry as required
to resize the depot maintenance infrastructure to support a
smaller force structure. The repeal of section 2469 will not
increase the budgetary requirements of the Department of
Defense.
______

By Mr. THURMOND (for himself and Mr. Nunn) (by request):
S. 728. A bill to authorize certain construction at military
installations for fiscal year 1996, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Armed Services.

the military construction authorization act for fiscal year 1996

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, by request, for myself and the senior
Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], I introduce, for appropriate
reference, a bill to authorize certain construction at military
installations for fiscal year 1996 and for other purposes.
I ask unanimous consent that a letter of transmittal requesting
consideration of the legislation and a section-by-section analysis
explaining its purpose be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

General Counsel of the

Department of Defense,

Washington, DC, April 24, 1995.
Hon. Albert Gore, Jr.,
President of the Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: The Department of Defense proposes the
following draft of legislation that would authorize certain
construction at military installations for Fiscal Year 1996,
and for other purposes. The bill would be called the
``Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1996.'' This proposal is necessary to execute the President's
Fiscal Year 1996 budget plan. It is drafted to be a principal
division of the departmental authorization legislation.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection to the presentation of this proposal to
Congress, and that its enactment would be in accord with the
program of the President.
This proposal would authorize appropriations in Fiscal Year
1996 for new construction and family housing support for the
Active Forces, Defense Agencies, NATO Infrastructure Program,
and Guard and Reserve Forces. The proposal establishes the
effective dates for the program. The proposal includes
construction projects resulting from base realignment and
closure actions. Additionally, the Fiscal Year 1996 draft
legislation includes General Provisions.
Enactment of this legislation is of great importance to the
Department of Defense and the Department urges its favorable
consideration.
Sincerely,
Judith A. Miller.
____

Department of Defense--Facility Programs Legislative Sectional Analysis

sale and replacement of excess and/or deteriorated military family
housing (sec. 2801)

This provision authorizes the Secretaries of the Military
Departments to sell, at fair market value, military family
housing at non-base closure United States or U.S. Overseas
installations which has deteriorated beyond economical repair
or is no longer required, along with the parcel of land on
which the structures are located. The provision also
authorizes the Secretary concerned to use the proceeds from
the sale of the property to replace or revitalize housing at
the existing installation or at another installation with a
continuing requirement.
As a result of planned force structure reductions and base
closures, the Services are divesting themselves of military
family housing deteriorated beyond economical repair or no
longer required. Currently there is no statutory authority
available to enable the proceeds from the sale of these
properties at non-base closure installations to be used
specifically for the replacement of revitalization of family
housing. The proceeds from the disposal of excess military
family housing at non-base closure locations must be
deposited in a special account in the Treasury of the United
States to be used by DoD for maintenance and repair and for
environmental restoration (40 U.S.C. 485(h)). Allowing the
military departments to sell and reinvest the proceeds will
accelerate the revitalization of military family housing and
reduce the requirement for appropriated funds.

waiver of maximum amounts for family housing foreign lease (sec. 2802)

Notwithstanding the overseas drawdown, the Department's
requirements for overseas high cost leases continues to grow.
This increase is attributable to the growth of the
Department's presence in overseas cities rather than at U.S.
installations or enclaves, particularly in extremely high-
cost Asian cities, such as Singapore. In Singapore, the rents
range from $25,000 to $44,000 per year, and those rental
costs are below market rates, in accordance with an agreement
with the government of Singapore. Without the increase in the
number of high cost
leases allowed to the Department, military members assigned
to duties that require them to live on the economy in high
cost areas will have to pay the difference out of their
own pocket. In some instances, the cost difference will be
prohibitive.

increase in square footage when acquiring existing family housing (sec.
2803)

This modification to 10 U.S.C. 2826(e) would make permanent
the authority to waive statutory square foot limits
established in Fiscal Year 1992. This modification would
permit the military departments, in situations where family
housing construction has been authorized, to continue to
acquire rather than construct existing family housing units
that are larger than the current statutory limits, provided
the purchase price is within the amount authorized for
construction.

expansion of authority for limited partnerships (sec. 2804)

Section 2837 of Title 10, United States Code provides the
Department Of the Navy with authority to invest in limited
partnerships for developing privately owned family housing
near installation if there is a shortage of suitable housing.
The rationale that supported the provision for the Navy
applies equally as well to the Army and Air Force
installations in areas with reasonably large private sector
housing markets. The additional housing units this authority
would generate would have minimal effect on total local
market assets, and if military requirements were reduced in
the future, the units would be readily absorbed into the
private sector.

military construction cost notification reports (sec. 2805)

The proposed change would modify existing subsection (d) by
dropping the requirement for notification to Congress on cost
increases which exceed the limitations of subsection (a) when
the increase is to settle a court ordered contract claim.
This requirement is considered an unnecessary administrative
burden as these settlements are preexisting legal
liabilities, their payment is not discretionary to the
military departments.

clarification of unspecified minor construction authority (sec. 2806)

This clarification provision will make the definition of a
minor military construction project in section 2805(a)(1)
consistent with the definition for a military construction
project in section 2801(b) by removing the portion of
section 2805(a)(1) that is inconsistent with section
2801(b). All other provisions,
[[Page S5833]] including the monetary limitation on minor
construction, are unaffected.

Clarification of funding for environmental restoration at installations
to be closed or realigned (sec. 2807)

Environmental restoration at bases selected for closure or
realignment as the result of BRAC 95 is restricted to the
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) account as the source of
funding. Environmental restoration costs for Fiscal Year 1996
at those bases were submitted in the President's budget for
Fiscal Year 1996 as part of the Defense Environmental
Restoration Account (DERA); the recommendations from the 1995
BRAC Commission will not be final until September 1995 and
the Fiscal Year 1996 budget was submitted in February, 1995.
This provision permits the environmental cleanup at
installations selected for closure pursuant to BRAC 95 to be
funded from the DERA account for Fiscal Year 1996 only. After
Fiscal Year 1996, environmental restoration must be funded
from the BRAC account.

Contracts for certain services at installations being closed (sec.
2808)

P.L. 103-160, Section 2907, authorized the Secretary to
obtain certain caretaker services from local governments at
installations being closed. As written, however, Section 2907
requires the use of a standard government contract executed
in accordance with applicable procurement laws and
regulations. Local governments are reluctant, and in some
cases have refused, to enter into such standard government
contracts.
The proposed legislation authorizes the use of less formal
agreements with local governments while still protecting the
Government's interests, thereby providing the military
departments with the maximum degree of flexibility in
obtaining caretaker services at closing installations during
the transition from military to civilian use. The primary
benefit is the ability to obtain caretaker services by the
most practical and cost effective means.

Clarification of covenants applicable to leases (sec. 2809)
Environmental remedial actions may take several years to
complete and to demonstrate their effectiveness. This
amendment allows DoD to enter into an agreement with
prospective purchasers and the environmental regulator to
assure all remedial actions will be undertaken by DoD after a
lease transfer. This agreement is similar to purchase
agreements private parties can enter into to transfer cleanup
liability with the additional protection of regulator
concurrence. Without this amendment, interim leases and the
associated economic redevelopment at closing military
installations are impeded.

contents of certain deeds and leases (sec. 2810)

This provision allows EPA or a state to defer the Superfund
(Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980, as amended) Section 120(h)(3)(B)(I)
determination if an agreement between DoD and the potential
buyer has been entered and appropriate measures will be
undertaken assuring future remedial action, if necessary.
This determination requires the completion of all
environmental remedial action before DoD can convey title to
property at closing bases.
This amendment allows DoD to enter into long-term leases
while any phase of cleanup, which can be a lengthy process,
is ongoing. Long-term leases at closing military
installations are an important tool for both the government
and the community in stimulating the local economic
redevelopment following the base closure. However, a recent
court decision questioned DoD's ability under CERCLA
120(h)(3)(B) to enter into long term leases before remedial
action is complete. Without this amendment, both the
Government's ability to enter into such long-term leases at
closing bases and the community's ability to begin economic
redevelopment as soon as possible are impeded.

utility transfer at fort dix, new jersey to burlington county, new
jersey (sec. 2811)

This provision will authorize the Secretary of the Army to
transfer the Resource Recovery Facility at Fort Dix, New
Jersey, which receives solid waste from the Fort Dix Military
Reservation, McGuire Air Force Base, and other operations at
Fort Dix, including a federal prison, to Burlington County,
New Jersey.
The Fort Dix Resource Recovery Facility has failed to
produce the cost savings originally anticipated. Moreover
escalating O&M expenses continue to increase solid waste
disposal costs beyond projections. With the reduced
activities of Fort Dix due to base realignments and closure,
the Fort is unable to collect enough solid waste to utilize
the facility effectively. In addition the facility is
currently in violation of its Air Permit issued by the New
Jersey Department of Environment Protection and Energy
(NJDEPE).
The transfer of the Resource Recovery Facility to
Burlington County will result in present worth savings of
approximately $20.6M, which translates into annual savings to
the Army of $1.94M, as calculated by a life cycle costs
analysis. Further, as the incinerator operator, Burlington
County would bear all costs related to operations and
maintenance of the facility, including ash testing and
disposal, and utilities. This would eliminate O&M costs,
including operator, auxiliary fuel and off-site disposal
costs associated with incinerator by-products from the Army's
annual budget. With Burlington County operating the facility
at full design capacity, additional steam would be generated,
displacing fuel oil that would otherwise be used to supply
steam to the steam loop. The Army would realize fuel savings
from increased utilization of the resource recovery facility
since the county would credit the installation for steam
purchase from the facility. Additionally, conveyance to the
county will relieve the Army of safety and environmental
compliance requirements associated with the operation of the
facility.

utility transfer at fort gordon, georgia, to the city of augusta,
georgia (sec. 2812)

The provision will authorize the Secretary of the Army to
transfer a water plant and a wastewater treatment plant and
their collection and distribution systems at Fort Gordon,
Georgia to the City of Augusta, Georgia. An Army analysis
comparing the cost of private ownership of the water
distribution and wastewater collection systems to the status-
quo of Government-related ownership of the utility systems
with constructed operation and maintenance of the systems
demonstrates that it is most beneficial to the Army to
transfer the systems to the City of Augusta, Georgia.
The transfer of the water and wastewater treatment plants
and related collection and distribution systems to the City
of Augusta will result in transferring all costs related to
operations and maintenance of the facilities, including
testing, permitting, and environmental compliance, to the
city. This would reduce O&M costs from the post's annual
budget. The conveyance also eliminates the Army's funding
future major capital system improvements and shifts safety
and environmental regulation compliance from the Army to the
City of Augusta.

utility transfer at fort irwin, california to the southern california
edison company, ca (sec. 2813)

This provision will authorize the Secretary of the Army to
transfer an electrical distribution system at Fort Irwin,
California to the Southern California Edison Company, CA.
Fort Irwin, California owns and operates an existing on-post
12-kV electrical distribution system. The Ft. Irwin
electrical distribution system is aging and a planned
maintenance and replacement program is not included in the
Army budget, nor is the inclusion of the cost of such a
program in the Army budget practicable.
It is vital to the continued operation of the National
Training Center that planned maintenance and a replacement
program be in place. The transfer of the electrical
distribution system to the Southern California Edison Company
will result in Southern California Edison implementing a
planned maintenance and replacement program in compliance
with the California Public Utility Commission standards,
while providing the Army utility credits toward the purchase
of electrical
power. The Army will also be relieved of the costs of
massive capital improvements and of future environmental
liability.

Sale of electricity (sec. 2814)

This provision expands the Department of Defense's
authority by providing greater flexibility to allow the
military departments to take advantage of changing electric
power marketing conditions. This revised authority increases
private sector electric generating plant investment
opportunities on military installations. This change also
increases the ability to outsource for energy, as recommended
by the National Performance Review.
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 provisions for increased
competition of independent power producers has created
considerable private sector interest in locating electric
generating facilities on military bases. Current authority
permits the military departments to retain revenues from only
those facilities that use renewable energy or are
cogeneration facilities. The current limitation restricts the
potential benefits of making military bases available to
improve energy independence, improve efficiency, facilitate
private sector investment in energy plants at military bases,
and improve electrical reliability.

Energy and Water conservation savings at military installations (Sec.
2815)

This provision specifically includes water conservation in
the Department's overall conservation efforts, making the
incentives to the Department available for water conservation
efforts, in addition to other energy conservation efforts.

Conveyance of primate research laboratory and Air Force owned
chimpanzees to the Coulston Foundation (sec. 2816)

The provision authorizes the Air Force to transfer a new
primate research laboratory located at Holloman Air Force
Base (AFB) and a colony of Air Force owned chimpanzees to the
Coulston Foundation, a not-for-profit corporation engaged in
primate research. In 1989, and 1990, New Mexico State
University (NMSU) received federal grants totaling ten
million dollars for the construction of a new, state-of-the-
art primate research laboratory within the boundaries of
Holloman AFB. The new building was to replace certain outworn
facilities which had
been leased to NMSU for primate research. A colony of
approximately 150 Air Force owned chimpanzees were used in
NMSU's research
[[Page S5834]] program and this colony, along with additional
NMSU research animals, was to occupy the new laboratory. The
General Services Administration (GSA) was responsible for
grant administration and transfer of the completed building.
On July 8, 1994, NMSU indicated it no longer wished to
conduct a primate research program and would terminate its
leases with the Air Force on September 30, 1994. In light of
NMSU's termination of its primate research program, GSA
deemed it inappropriate and inconsistent with the grant terms
to transfer the new building to NMSU. GSA transferred the
building to the Air Force since the building is on property
under the custody of the Air Force and was intended to house
the Air Force chimpanzees.
The Air Force has no further requirement for its chimpanzee
colony and desires to divest itself completely of chimpanzee
ownership. The Coulston Foundation is a private organization
with demonstrated expertise with primate research programs.
The Coulston Foundation is familiar with the Holloman
chimpanzee research program and, pursuant to an agreement
with NMSU, and with the Air Force consent, has been operating
the primate research facility on a day-to-day basis since
July, 1993. In that time, Coulston has demonstrated its
interest, commitment of resources, and expertise in program
management. Coulston is therefore a well qualified and
appropriate transferee.
The transfer of the laboratory and the Air Force owned
chimpanzees will be without consideration in light of the
value of Coulston's primate research activities and its
caretaking of the chimpanzee population. The Air Force will
continue to provide to Coulston, by lease, the underlying
land and the security of location of the primate laboratory
on a military installation. In the event Coulston declines to
accept the facility and the chimpanzee colony at the time of
conveyance, the Air Force is authorized to convey the
facility and the colony to another not-for-profit entity the
Air Force determines capable of caring for the colony and
conducting research.

special operations land lease authority (sec. 2817)

The amendment making the Special Operations leasing
authority permanent. The amendment also makes permanent the
reporting requirement of activities carried out under this
section.

construction of elementary and secondary schools on dod installations
(sec. 2818)

Section 2008 of title 10, United States Code, enables DoD
to fund repair and maintenance and construction projects on
school buildings constructed by Department of Education
pursuant to section 10 of the Act of September 23, 1950 (20
U.S.C. 640). Section 10 of P.L. 81-815 was repealed as part
of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-382)
as of October 20, 1994. Under section 8008 of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the Department of
Education is now authorized to continue to provide assistance
for school facilities that were supported under section 10
prior to its repeal. Section 2008 would be amended in a
similar fashion.
______

By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. LOTT):
S. 729. A bill to provide off-budget treatment for the highway trust
fund, the airport and airway trust fund, the inland waterways trust
fund, and the harbor maintenance trust fund, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Governmental Affairs,
jointly, pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, that if one committee
reports, then the other committee have 30 days to report or be
discharged.

TRUST FUND RESTORATION ACT OF 1995

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I want to thank the majority whip,
Senator Lott, for joining me in the introduction of this bill.
Madam President, today Senator Lott and I are introducing a bill to
take four transportation trust funds off budget, the highway, aviation,
inland waterways, and harbor maintenance trust funds. This is a
bipartisan effort.
Transportation issues tend to be bipartisan. Members on both sides of
the aisle generally support highway construction, bridge repair and
airport improvements. This support is there because infrastructure
improvements are needed for increased efficiency and mobility across
this country.
As the Senator from Mississippi said this bill also provides truth in
budgeting. By taking these four trust funds off-budget, revenue
generated from fuel and other excise taxes will be available for the
intended purpose of infrastructure improvements.
Without the enactment of the principals of this bill, not all of the
money paid into these trust funds by American consumers will be
available. Right now, excess revenue and the balances of these trust
funds is used to mask the size of the Federal deficit. The bill we are
introducing today will fix this problem. It will put truth in our
budgeting process. We need to give American taxpayers confidence that
their taxes do not go down a black hole but that these tax dollars are
used for infrastructure improvements.
This act will restore the trust in our transportation and
infrastructure trust funds, by taking those trust funds off-budget.
Thus, it will make sure we spend the money on the things the American
public expects it to buy--better highways, bridges, airports, and
waterways.
The act would also end the practice of considering this money--
collected by user fees and held for a specific public purpose--as
general revenue which can be used to reduce the deficit. That will make
sure we have an honest accounting of the size of the deficit.
Specifically, the bill would take the highway, aviation, inland
waterways, and harbor maintenance trust funds off-budget. These trust
funds now have balances of over $30 billion. But our ability to use the
money is restricted because they are counted as part of the general
Treasury funds, and thus subject to budget laws.

highway trust fund

The highway trust fund is the biggest and most egregious example.
This fund was established in 1956, to develop the system of highways on
which our economy and millions of jobs depend. It is financed by excise
taxes on gasoline, diesel, special fuels, and other items.
The fund now has a cash balance of over $19 billion--over $9 billion
in the highway account and $10 billion in the transit account. This
money was collected to pay for our Nation's infrastructure.
That is why people are paying these taxes, to pay for our Nation's
infrastructure, and that is what I submit we must use those dollars
for.
There are unmet needs across the country. The Department of
Transportation estimates that we will need to spend $212 billion to
eliminate the backlog of highway deficiencies and $78 billion to fix
our decaying bridges, and that is without even considering new needs.
Today, 24 percent of Montana's bridges are deficient and in need of
repair. There are highway projects that desperately need funding--
projects such as the expansion of Highway 93 in the Kalispell-Whitefish
area. You can find similar problems across the State--across the West--
across the country. And it is galling beyond belief that a lot of money
is right there, today, in the highway trust fund waiting for us to
spend it.
But it cannot be. Why? Because it is held hostage by arcane, backward
budget laws.
A sensible budget policy situation would let us use it for what it is
supposed to be used for--highways. That would mean continued growth in
travel and tourism. And it would give our businesses increased mobility
and efficiency, making us more competitive in this global economy. And
it would mean jobs. Remember that $1 billion in transportation spending
generates 60,000 direct and indirect jobs.

conclusion

Madam President, it is time to put trust back into these trust funds.
Let us use some common sense. Let us take these trust funds off-budget
so that the transportation user gets what he or she pays for--a better
transportation system, not an accounting gimmick that disguises the
size of the deficit.
I look forward very much to working with the Senator from Mississippi
and others to pass this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 729

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 ``Trust Fund Restoration Act
of 1995''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Airport and airway trust fund.--The term ``Airport and
Airway Trust Fund'' means the Airport and Airway Trust Fund
established by section 9502 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986.
(2) Harbor maintenance trust fund.--The term ``Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund'' means the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund
[[Page S5835]] established by section 9505 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.
(3) Highway trust fund.--The term ``Highway Trust Fund''
means the Highway Trust Fund established by section 9503 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(4) Inland waterways trust fund.--The term ``Inland
Waterways Trust Fund'' means the Inland Waterways Trust Fund
established by section 9506 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986.

SEC. 3. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF HIGHWAY TRUST FUND, AIRPORT
AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND, INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST
FUND, AND HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND.

(a) In General.--The receipts and disbursements of the
Highway Trust Fund, the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, the
Inland Waterways Trust Fund, and the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund--
(1) shall not be included in the totals of--
(A) the budget of the United States Government as submitted
by the President under section 1105 of title 31, United
States Code; or
(B) the congressional budget (including allocations of
budget authority and outlays provided in the congressional
budget);
(2) shall not be--
(A) considered to be part of any category (as defined in
section 250(c)(4) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900(c)(4))) of
discretionary appropriations; or
(B) subject to the discretionary spending limits
established under section 251(b) of the Act (2 U.S.C.
901(b));
(3) shall not be subject to sequestration under section
251(a) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 901(a)); and
(4) shall be exempt from any general budget limitation
imposed by statute on expenditures and net lending (budget
outlays) of the United States Government.
(b) Disbursements Subject to Appropriations.--The
disbursements referred to in subsection (a) shall be subject
to appropriations.

SEC. 4. SAFEGUARDS AGAINST DEFICIT SPENDING OUT OF AIRPORT
AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND.

(a) In General.--Chapter 471 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 47129 the
following:

``Sec. 47130. Safeguards against deficit spending

``(a) Estimates of Unfunded Aviation Authorizations and Net
Aviation Receipts.--Not later than March 31 of each year, the
Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the
Treasury, shall estimate--
``(1) the amount that would (but for this section)
constitute the unfunded aviation authorizations at the
termination of the first fiscal year that begins after that
March 31; and
``(2) the net aviation receipts at the termination of the
fiscal year referred to in paragraph (1).
``(b) Procedure if Excess Unfunded Aviation
Authorizations.--If, with respect to a fiscal year, the
Secretary determines that the amount described in subsection
(a)(1) exceeds the amount described in subsection (a)(2), the
Secretary shall determine the amount of the excess.
``(c) Adjustment of Authorizations if Unfunded
Authorizations Exceed Receipts.--
``(1) Determination of percentage.--If the Secretary
determines, in accordance with subsection (b), that there is
an excess amount with respect to a fiscal year, the Secretary
shall determine the percentage that the excess amount is of
the sum of--
``(A) the amounts authorized to be appropriated from the
Airport and Airway Trust Fund for the next fiscal year; and
``(B) the amounts available for obligation from the Airport
and Airway Trust Fund for the next fiscal year.
``(2) Adjustment of authorizations.--If the Secretary
determines, in accordance with subsection (b), that there is
an excess amount with respect to a fiscal year, each amount
authorized to be appropriated or available for obligation
from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund for the next fiscal
year shall be reduced by the percentage determined in
accordance with paragraph (1).
``(d) Availability of Amounts Previously Withheld.--
``(1) Adjustment of authorizations.--Any amount authorized
to be appropriated or available for obligation from the
Airport and Airway Trust Fund that is reduced under
subsection (c)(2) shall be further adjusted in accordance
with paragraph (2) if, after an adjustment has been made
under subsection (c)(2) for a fiscal year, the Secretary
determines that, with respect to the fiscal year--
``(A) the amount described in subsection (a)(1) does not
exceed the amount described in subsection (a)(2); or
``(B) an excess amount determined under subsection (b) is
less than an excess amount determined as a result of a
previous determination.
``(2) Adjustment.--Each amount that is subject to a further
adjustment under paragraph (1) shall be increased by an equal
percentage determined by the Secretary under paragraph (3).
``(3) Percentage.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the
percentage referred to in paragraph (2) shall be the maximum
percentage that does not cause the amount described in
subsection (a)(1) to exceed the amount described in
subsection (a)(2).
``(B) Limitation.--The amount of any increase determined
under this subsection may not exceed the amount of the
corresponding reduction under subsection (c)(2).
``(4) Apportionment.--The total amount of any increases
determined for a fiscal year under paragraph (3) shall be
made available to the Secretary for apportionment. The
Secretary shall apportion the amount in accordance with this
subsection.
``(5) Period of availability.--Any funds apportioned under
paragraph (4) shall remain available for the period for which
the funds would be available if the apportionment were made
under appropriations and obligations for the fiscal year in
which the funds are apportioned under paragraph (4).
``(e) Reports.--The Secretary shall report to Congress--
``(1) any estimate made under subsection (a); and
``(2) any determination made under subsection (b), (c), or
(d).
``(f) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Airport and airway trust fund.--The term `Airport and
Airway Trust Fund' means the Airport and Airway Trust Fund
established by section 9502 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986.
``(2) Net aviation receipts.--The term `net aviation
receipts' means, with respect to any period, the amount by
which--
``(A) the receipts (including interest) of the Airport and
Airway Trust Fund during the period; exceeds
``(B) the amounts to be transferred during the period from
the Airport and Airway Trust Fund under section 9502(d) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (other than under section
9502(d)(1) of the Code).
``(3) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Transportation.
``(4) Unfunded aviation authorizations.--The term `unfunded
aviation authorization' means, at any time, the amount by
which--
``(A) the total amount authorized to be appropriated or
available for obligation from the Airport and Airway Trust
Fund that has not been appropriated or obligated; exceeds
``(B) the amount available in the Airport and Airway Trust
Fund at that time to make the appropriation or to liquidate
the obligation (after all other unliquidated obligations at
that time that are payable from the Airport and Airway Trust
Fund have been liquidated).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 471 of
title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
of subchapter I the following:

``47130. Safeguards against deficit spending.''.
SEC. 5. SAFEGUARDS AGAINST DEFICIT SPENDING OUT OF INLAND
WATERWAYS TRUST FUND AND HARBOR MAINTENANCE
TRUST FUND.

(a) Estimates of Unfunded Inland Waterways Authorizations
and Net Inland Waterways Receipts.--Not later than March 31
of each year, the Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of the Treasury, shall estimate--
(1) the amount that would (but for this section) constitute
the unfunded inland waterways authorizations and unfunded
harbor maintenance authorizations at the termination of the
first fiscal year that begins after that March 31; and
(2) the net inland waterways receipts and net harbor
maintenance receipts at the termination of the fiscal year
referred to in paragraph (1).
(b) Procedure if Excess Unfunded Authorizations.--If, with
respect to a fiscal year, the Secretary determines with
respect to a Trust Fund that the amount described in
subsection (a)(1) exceeds the amount described in subsection
(a)(2), the Secretary shall determine the amount of the
excess.
(c) Adjustment of Authorizations if Unfunded Authorizations
Exceed Receipts.--
(1) Determination of percentage.--If the Secretary
determines, in accordance with subsection (b), that there is
an excess amount with respect to a fiscal year, the Secretary
shall determine the percentage that the excess amount is of
the sum of--
(A) the amounts authorized to be appropriated from the
Trust Fund for the next fiscal year; and
(B) the amounts available for obligation from the Trust
Fund for the next fiscal year.
(2) Adjustment of authorizations.--If the Secretary
determines, in accordance with subsection (b), that there is
an excess amount with respect to a fiscal year, each amount
authorized to be appropriated or available for obligation
from the Trust Fund for the next fiscal year shall be reduced
by the percentage determined in accordance with paragraph
(1).
(d) Availability of Amounts Previously Withheld.--
(1) Increase of authorizations.--Any amount authorized to
be appropriated or available for obligation from a Trust Fund
that is reduced under subsection (c)(2) shall be further
adjusted in accordance with paragraph (2) if, after an
adjustment has been made under subsection (c)(2) for a fiscal
year with respect to the Trust Fund, the Secretary determines
that, with respect to the Trust Fund and the fiscal year--
(A) the amount described in subsection (a)(1) does not
exceed the amount described in subsection (a)(2); or
(B) an excess amount determined under subsection (b) is
less than an excess amount determined as a result of a
previous determination.
(2) Adjustment.--Each amount that is subject to a further
adjustment under paragraph (1) shall be increased by an equal
percentage
[[Page S5836]] determined by the Secretary under paragraph
(3).
(3) Percentage.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the
percentage referred to in paragraph (2) shall be the maximum
percentage that does not cause the amount described in
subsection (a)(1) to exceed the amount described in
subsection (a)(2) with respect to the Trust Fund.
(B) Limitation.--The amount of any increase determined
under this subsection may not exceed the amount of the
corresponding reduction under subsection (c)(2).
(e) Reports.--The Secretary shall report to Congress--
(1) any estimate made under subsection (a); and
(2) any determination made under subsection (b), (c), or
(d).
(f) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Net harbor maintenance receipts.--The term ``net harbor
maintenance receipts'' means, with respect to any period, the
receipts (including interest) of the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund during the period.
(2) Net inland waterways receipts.--The term ``net inland
waterways receipts'' means, with respect to any period, the
receipts (including interest) of the Inland Waterways Trust
Fund during the period.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Army.
(4) Trust fund.--The term ``Trust Fund'' means the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund or the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, as
the case may be.
(5) Unfunded harbor maintenance authorizations.--The term
``unfunded harbor maintenance authorizations'' means, at any
time, the amount by which--
(A) the total amount authorized to be appropriated or
available for obligation from the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund that has not been appropriated or obligated; exceeds
(B) the amount available in the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund at that time to make the appropriation.
(6) Unfunded inland waterways authorizations.--The term
``unfunded inland waterways authorizations'' means, at any
time, the amount by which--
(A) the total amount authorized to be appropriated or
available for obligation from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund
that has not been appropriated or obligated; exceeds
(B) the amount available in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund
at that time to make the appropriation.

SEC. 6. ENFORCEMENT.

An officer or employee of the United States Government who
fails to comply with this Act and the amendments made by this
Act shall be subject to the penalties specified in section
1350 of title 31, United States Code.

SEC. 7. APPLICABILITY.

This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall apply to
authorizations and obligations made for fiscal years 1996 and
thereafter.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I have seen a quote, ``As transportation
trust funds sit unused, so do Americans sit in traffic jams on beat-up
roads or in dingy airport lounges.''
That is a fact. For many years, going back to my years in the House,
I always felt as if our transportation trust funds were abused. The
American people pay funds through taxes, or fees, if you will, directly
into trust funds for highways and for airports, and yet those funds are
quite often not used. They are used, I guess, but only to make the
deficit look better.
We should have a system where, when the American people pay into a
trust fund for a specific purpose, those funds in a logical way would
be used so that the people will have the transportation infrastructure
they want; so that they will be safer; so that we will not have
highways falling apart and bridges collapsing. It is time we do
something about it.
What we have now does not make fiscal sense, and it does not make
infrastructure sense. So today I am introducing a bill with the
distinguished Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus] and it will move to
restore the integrity of America's transportation trust funds.
I know the Senator from Montana has worked on this issue for a long
time. He is on the committee that has jurisdiction in this area, but I
also serve as chairman of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee of
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, so I am
delighted to join with him in this effort.
The bill will require that the funds be used to complete maintenance
and expansion of America's infrastructure that is long overdue and is
already authorized.
I am talking about a procedural budget change for the following funds:
highway trust; airport and airway trust; inland waterways trust; and
harbor maintenance trust.

The effect of our bill is to remove the transportation trusts from:
Calculations of the on-budget deficit; congressional budget
resolution's spending allocations; and spending points of order under
the Budget Act.
Daily, $80 million pours into these trusts through fuel taxes while
$360 billion in documented infrastructure needs are neglected. This has
permitted a $33 billion cash balance to build up in these trusts. This
balance does not help those Americans who need their transportation
infrastructure repaired or upgraded. This balance only helps Federal
budgeteers--and I am one of them--who are using these funds to mask the
real deficit, while not doing what needs to be done in the
infrastructure.
Our legislative proposal offers a simple and direct solution--take
these transportation trust funds off budget.
We have proposed a responsible and appropriate legislative solution
because the American Government made an implied contract with taxpayers
who are paying these user fees. Why collect the fees if it is not
really going to be used for the stated purpose? The American people are
being deceived by hiding the true size of the Federal deficit. These
misleading arguments mask the real intent of the unified budget.
The American people want to get a more accurate and reliable budget.
This will not unravel the unified budget process.
Besides, transportation trusts have a unique, special antideficit
mechanism unlike other trust funds. Let me tell you why these trust
funds are different.
They are wholly self-financed by user fees. They must be self-
supported because of a pay-as-you-go requirement. They are deficit
proof because of spending limits and it only buys capital assets, not
operating expenses.
Opponents will say that taking transportation trusts off budget is
bad because unified budgets only work if we have everything included
and that the off budget status will skew national priorities.
Transportation trusts are neither more special than the other 160
trusts nor will they escape congressional review.
There is a House companion bill, a very good bill. This one is very
similar, and I presume will be basically identical, although we are
making some improvements in the bill. It was introduced by the chairman
of the appropriate committee there, Congressman Bud Shuster, of
Pennsylvania.
In the House, they already have 147 cosponsors. So I am inviting our
colleagues here in the Senate to take a look at this bill and join in
cosponsoring it. I think we will have a large majority of our
colleagues who will support it.
Let me be very clear; this bill is not about playing budget gimmicks.
It is more about trying to do what really needs to be done and what we
committed to the American people that we will do.
In fact, this is really truth in budgeting. It is time that we face
up to the infrastructure needs of America. There are dangers out there
in this country. The money is there and it is not being spent. This
would give us a logical, reasonable process in a bipartisan way to get
that done.
______

By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 732. A bill to amend chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, to
prohibit Members of Congress from receiving Federal worker's
compensation benefits for injuries caused by stress or any other
emotional condition, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor
and Human Resources.

federal workers' compensation benefits legislation
<bullet> Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation
that would prohibit Members of Congress from receiving Federal workers'
compensation benefits based on claims of psychological stress. I am
sure it would surprise most Americans that Members of Congress are
eligible for these benefits, but it is true.
In California, a public official who pled guilty to a felony has been
able to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars in stress benefits
under the State workers compensation system. This elected official, a
former member of the Board of Equalization pled guilty in 1992 to
falsifying expense accounts. After being forced to resign in disgrace,
he claimed that the stress of political
[[Page S5837]] life, exacerbated by the stress of evading the law,
caused him such emotional trauma that he was unable to work.
Unbelievably, the State Workers Compensation Board agreed with him, and
awarded him $73,788 in workers compensation benefits plus a lifetime
disability pension.
Several bills have been introduced in the California Legislature to
correct this problem with State law, but until now, no corrective
proposal has been introduced at the Federal level. It is important to
note that this legislation applies only to stress claims by Members of
Congress and does not infringe on the ability of States to set workers
compensation law.
Mr. President, being a Member of Congress is a stressful job. I know
that and all my colleagues know it. We knew it when we ran for the job
and we know it now. There is no reason why we should be able to claim
stress and collect a taxpayer-funded lifetime Government entitlement.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on this issue and I hope
the Congress will enact this bill when it considers pension reform
later this year.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 732

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS BY
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

(a) In General.--Section 8101(5) of title 5, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(5) `injury'--
``(A) includes, in addition to injury by accident, a
disease proximately caused by the employment, and damage to
or destruction of medical braces, artificial limbs, and other
prosthetic devices which shall be replaced or repaired, and
such time lost while such device or appliance is being
replaced or repaired; except that eye-glasses and hearing
aides would not be replaced, repaired, or otherwise
compensated for, unless the damages or destruction is
incident to a personal injury requiring medical services; and
``(B) shall not include, with respect to a Member of
Congress, injuries or occupational diseases caused by stress
or any mental or emotional condition.''.
(b) Effective Date.--This Act shall take effect 30 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply
only to claims filed under chapter 81 of title 5, United
States Code, on or after such effective date.<bullet>
______

By Mr. ROTH (for himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Moynihan, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Chafee, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Cohen, and
Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 733. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to permit
States to use Federal highway funds for capital improvements to, and
operating support for, intercity passenger rail service, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

intercity rail investment act

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, The legislation I am introducing today has a
very simple and important purpose: To give States the much needed
flexibility to use Federal transportation money for Amtrak passenger
rail service.
Since late last year, Amtrak has begun a much needed restructuring.
This restructuring has required substantial participation by State
governments in determining which rail lines will stay in service. While
States currently have wide authority in allocating Federal
transportation dollars--whether it be on pedestrian walkways, bikeways,
buses, light rail, highway and other intermodal and commuter based
transit needs--a damaging double standard exists which by law prevents
them from utilizing these funds to improve, expand or simply maintain
vital Amtrak service if they so choose.
My legislation would eliminate this double standard and allow States
to utilize their Federal transportation dollars for Amtrak passenger
rail service.
There are a number of realistic, sensible ways this flexibility can
be achieved.
One option is to allow States to use funds available in the
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program [CMAQ] for passenger rail
service. This program, created in the Intermodal Surface Transportation
and Efficiency Act, provides an incentive to focus on transportation
alternatives which reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality and
lower fuel consumption. Amtrak passenger rail service clearly meets
these criteria, potentially better than any other transportation
alternative currently available. My bill would allow States to use CMAQ
funds for passenger rail service if they so choose.
More rural regions, that are less congested, receive proportionately
less CMAQ funds, but also receive additional funds through the Rural
Public Transportation Program, known as section 18. These funds can be
used for capital costs, and would be particularly appropriate for those
more rural areas that depend on passenger rail service. In addition,
funds in excess of the annual State allocation can be transferred into
this category, so expenditures on passenger rail would not detract from
other services being funded through section 18. These services include
intercity bus service. My bill would ensure that States--if they choose
to do so--could use section 18 funds for Amtrak passenger rail service.
Another important way to achieve flexibility is to designate
appropriate Amtrak routes as part of the National Highway System,
eligible for National Highway System funding. Many of Amtrak's rail
corridors meet the definition of an arterial route serving major
national population centers, popular travel destinations and key
intermodal transportation facilities and hubs. However, current law
prevents States from using their Federal transportation allocation for
Amtrak. My legislation would amend the National Highway System map to
include the Northeast rail corridor and other high speed routes--giving
States the flexibility to use National Highway System funds for Amtrak
passenger rail service if they so choose.
Passenger rail plays a critical role in this country's transportation
infrastructure. But current law does not take this into account. Most
projects that are in the same corridor as, or in proximity to, a
National Highway System segment, or that will improve the level of
service on an National Highway System segment, are eligible for
National Highway System funding. However, passenger rail, which is
often in the same corridor as an National Highway System segment, is
not eligible to receive National Highway System funding. My legislation
would eliminate this contradiction and give States the flexibility they
need to use National Highway System funds wisely and productively to
encourage passenger rail service.
Congress has recognized the need for States to have flexibility with
Federal subsidies in important local transportation decisions. I
believe it is time that that recognition be extended to allowing States
to go with something that works. This proposal is an optimal mix of
alternatives that will support long distance, intercity commuter rail
service and the benefits that we know it accrues. Amtrak is safe, fuel
efficient, speedy and the best transportation alternative for millions
of Americans. It is time for the Federal Government to remove the
barriers in place that prevent States from deploying resources in their
best interest and allowing Amtrak to reach its potential.
Mr. President, this legislation calls for no new spending. It does
not change Federal transportation allocation formulas, nor does it
mandate States to spend their Federal transportation dollars on
passenger rail service. As I have said, it simply gives States the
ability to spend Federal transportation money as they see fit and in
ways which have been repeatedly found to be good for them and good for
the country.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to commend Senator Roth for
his work on this important legislation.
This Monday, May 1, residents of my State will celebrate the
introduction of a revitalized passenger rail link to Vermont. This new
service, called the Vermonter, will replace the Montrealer, which
previously ran from Washington to Montreal.
As Amtrak moved to restructure America's national passenger rail
corporation this past winter, they indicated that train service across
the country would be scaled back. The proposal called for the
elimination of the
[[Page S5838]] Montrealer, the last passenger rail service to northern
New England. In an effort to maintain rail service to our region,
Senator Leahy and I, along with the State of Vermont, held extensive
negotiations with Amtrak. The result is the Vermonter. This new train
will operate from Springfield, MA, to St. Albans, VT. This daytime
service will allow visitors from across the country to conveniently
visit our State and allow residents of northern New England to access
the national passenger rail system.
Continuation of this rail service would not have been possible
without the financial support from the State of Vermont. In fact, the
Vermont State Legislature recently agreed to provide over $700,000 to
support this service for the year. In addition, the Vermont Legislature
has included funding to study yet another passenger rail link to the
western side of Vermont. This new route would allow passengers from New
York City to reach some of Vermont's most beautiful recreation areas in
under 5 hours. I predict that many travelers will choose to take this
new train over driving or flying.
Both of these rail lines represent an opportunity to get commuters,
tourists, and travelers out of their cars. This will alleviate
congestion, reduce air pollution and reduce our reliance on imported
oil.
As noted, these rail lines also require State funding. The funding
mechanism contained in this legislation will allow States to utilize
Federal funding to maintain their rail infrastructure. Such efforts
will assist in the establishment of intercity rail travel and the
servicing of rail infrastructure for freight and other commercial rail
options.
Mr. President, this legislation will allow States to decide how they
will best use their Federal transportation dollars. I hope my
colleagues will support these efforts.
______

By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Bryan):
S. 734. A bill to designate the U.S. courthouse and Federal building
to be constructed at the southeastern corner of Liberty and South
Virginia Streets in Reno, NV, as the ``Bruce R. Thompson United States
Courthouse and Federal Building,'' and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.

bruce r. thompson u.s. courthouse and federal building

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise to offer legislation designating the
new Federal building and courthouse in Reno the ``Bruce R. Thompson
United States Courthouse and Federal Building.'' After considering the
recommendations of many first-rate candidates, I have decided to
support the naming of this new Federal building after the late Judge
Bruce Thompson.
As a member of the Nevada Bar, I take great pride in our many
distinguished members--both past and present--and believe that this
selection will enjoy widespread support throughout the State's legal
community. Judge Thompson was a honorable jurist whose years of service
on the bench contributed greatly to the betterment of the Reno
community.
One of the responsibilities I enjoy as a senior Senator is the naming
of Federal buildings. This responsibility is an honor requiring that
thoughtful deliberation be given to all of the recommendations from the
people of Nevada. Other well-qualified names recommended to me for this
building included the Laxalt family, Felice Cohn, Sarah Winnemucca, and
Alan Bible.
The Laxalt family has contributed greatly to the betterment of the
lives of many Nevadans. This family includes a distinguished former
Senator, an author, a successful attorney, and a woman who has
dedicated her life to the service of others as a Roman Catholic nun.
Felice Cohn is another prominent Nevadan whose name was recommended
by a great number of supporters. Felice Cohn was a famous woman's
suffrage activist who was admitted to the Nevada Bar in 1902 at the age
of 18.
I also received a number of letters recommending a more historic
designation honoring the truest native Nevadans, the American Indians.
These supporters promoted naming the courthouse in honor of Sarah
Winnemucca, a historic American Indian whose name all Nevadans
associate with the city of Winnemucca, NV.
Finally, I must mention the tremendous support for naming the
courthouse in honor of Senator Alan Bible. Senator Bible's dedicated
service to the State of Nevada will always be remembered and honored by
the people of Nevada.
The great number of letters and phone calls in support of these names
evidences that their significant contributions and accomplishments are
also well known and much appreciated throughout Nevada. The abundance
of well-deserving nominees made my decision that much more difficult.
In the end, however, I concluded that Judge Thompson merited this
honor. By naming the new Federal courthouse in Reno after Judge
Thompson, we honor the memory of his exemplary years of service on the
bench.
______

By Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. Bond):
S. 736. A bill to amend title IV of the Social Security Act by
reforming the Aid to Families With Dependent Children Program, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

THE WELFARE TO SELF-SUFFICIENCY ACT OF 1995

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, just a short while ago, I spoke in front
of the Senate Finance Committee regarding welfare reform. I want to
take this time on the floor to outline my thoughts on welfare reform
and to announce that Senator Bond from Missouri and I are introducing a
bipartisan bill today on the issue of welfare reform.
Mr. President, Franklin Roosevelt sounded the alarm 60 years ago.
Listen to what he told Congress in 1935:

Continued dependence on relief induces a spiritual and
moral disintegration, fundamentally destructive to the
national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to
administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human
spirit.

Well, the current welfare system stands as a monument to all that
Roosevelt warned against. Mr. President, today, Senator Bond and I are
introducing a bipartisan plan to cut off that narcotic of dependence
and inject a good strong dose of common sense into the welfare system.
It is a responsible, flexible, bipartisan plan that transforms the
system from the ground up, moving families off the dead end of welfare
and on the road to self-sufficiency.
These days, there are a lot of different approaches to reforming
welfare. But there is also a lot of common ground. We all agree that
the system is broken. It punishes work, rewards dependence, cripples
opportunity and wastes tax dollars.
We all agree that there should be a change. We have heard it on the
floor and in the other body. We have heard it from the administration,
and we have certainly heard it from our constituents.
But what have we seen? Well, we have seen plans with a lot of tough
talk but no real action. We have seen too much partisanship and not
enough results. When you get down to the bottom line, what is the
ultimate goal in welfare reform? Well, it is simple: To help families
achieve self-sufficiency.
I choose my words carefully. I did not say that the goal in welfare
reform is helping families move into a job after 2 years. I did not say
that the goal of welfare reform was creating Government dead-end, make-
work jobs for welfare recipients. I said self-sufficiency, a path to
real independence; not simply getting families off of welfare, but
keeping them off permanently.
That is the goal. So with any reform plan, let us ask the questions:
What does it do to help families achieve self-sufficiency? What about
responsibility? What about results?
Let us put the House plan to the test. Now they called it the
Personal Responsibility Act. But it is just the opposite; it is totally
irresponsible. I will give the plan credit for one thing--it reforms
welfare all right; it reforms it from bad to worse.
Well, we do not want to trade one large failed dependency-inducing
system for 50 varieties of the same thing.
We also hear a lot about flexibility. But under the House plan,
States must cut off benefits for unwed teens. States must cut off
benefits after 5 years. States must impose a family cap. And the list
goes on.
[[Page S5839]] So the House says they want to give the States
flexibility but they take that flexibility right away. So that is not
flexibility, it is more micromangement from the Federal Government that
we have seen from the House of Representatives. It is not change, it is
more of the same.
There are other plans. The administration has one, and others are
floating around. There are some good ideas but, in the end, they all
fail the test of achieving the basic goal: self-sufficiency and
independence.
Some say we should stick a 2-year straitjacket on families on
welfare. Two years maximum and you are out. One size fits all. But how
responsible is an inflexible time limit? I have said, Mr. President, if
you have a 2-year maximum, it will become a 2-year minimum. People will
be on it for 2 years, and most people do not need to be on welfare for
2 years. Where are the real incentives for families to escape the
welfare trap?
The fact is, as I said, many families do not need it for 2 years.
With a hand up, they can start climbing the ladder or ramp of
opportunity and move into the job market a lot sooner than that.
The legislation that Senator Bond and I are introducing today passes
the test for true welfare reform. It is tough but realistic. It puts
people on the path to self-sufficiency on day one, not after year two.
The centerpiece of our plan is the Family Investment Agreement, which
requires all families on welfare to enter into an individualized
contract with the State in order to receive welfare benefits.
Under our plan, each family would sit down with a case manager and
chart a course to self-sufficiency.
How can we help you get back on your feet? Do you have a high school
degree? What are your skills? Do you have a disability? Do you need
training? Do you need child care? Do you need transportation?
The plan is put on paper. The recipient signs her or his name on the
dotted line, and the State signs on the dotted line, and they put that
contract to work. The contract spells out not how someone may stay on
welfare but how they must get off.
It is based on a simple notion: We, as a society, are willing to help
you, but only if you are willing to help yourself.
We can give a person a boost through education, through health care,
through child care, or transportation, but the person must use it to
lift himself up the ladder of opportunity and become self-sufficient.
If a welfare recipient says, ``I am sick of school. I do not want
training. Just give me my check, and you keep the contract,'' what
happens then? Simple: Their benefits will be cut and ultimately
terminated.
Our plan also rewards work. Instead of keeping incentives for people
to stay on welfare, our bill helps people work their way out. If a
welfare recipient is working, we will let them keep more of what they
earn. If they are investing in themselves--saving to start a business,
buy a first home, or pay for education--the Government will no longer
hold that against them. Their assets will no longer be a liability.
This plan is about responsibility--for people and for States. The
State has a responsibility to help families in need by providing the
tools to achieve independence. Families have a responsibility to use
those tools to build a path to self-sufficiency.
Our plan is also about real flexibility for people and for States.
Instead of taking a cookie-cutter approach, each family investment
agreement is tailored to a family's unique needs. And individualized
time limits based on those circumstances are then set.
In some cases, benefits will be needed for 6 months. Others may
require more time; others less. But we recognize one size does not fit
all, whether they are individuals or whether they are States.
We also recognize that the States need more flexibility. What works
in Brooklyn, IA, may not work in Brooklyn, NY. Instead of dictating how
States must run every aspect of their programs, our plan cuts Federal
red-tape and leaves States with the option of choosing policies best
for them. We also block grant the funds States use to administer
welfare programs.
So our plan is flexible for people on welfare. It is flexible for
States, but it is inflexible when it comes to the bottom line--we
demand results.
When fully implemented, our plan would require 90 percent of
recipients to sign agreements and find work.
We also know that a critical part of welfare reform is to crack down
on deadbeat parents who fail to pay child support. At least $5 billion
in court-ordered child support goes uncollected every year. There is
over $560 million in delinquent child support owed to Iowa children.
Our bill turns the collection of some past due child support over to
the IRS--most of these cases involve parents who have crossed State
lines. And we provide States with several options for improving
paternity establishment, requiring community services, revoking
licenses, and publishing the names of deadbeat parents.
So deadbeat parents may try to run, but under our plan, they cannot
hide.
Our bill puts States in the driver's seat by giving them the option
of requiring minor parents to live with their parents or another
responsible adult. Our plan also increases funding for the title X
family planning program by $100 million to improve education services.
So our bill is a pragmatic, commonsense bill. It demands
responsibility from day one, expands State flexibility, improves child
support collection, and addresses the increase in illegitimate births.
One more thing, Mr. President. This plan works. How can I be so sure?
Because it is working right now in my home State of Iowa. If people
have not heard about it, do not feel bad. Not many people have.
I call the Iowa welfare reform plan the Rodney Dangerfield of welfare
reform. It does not get any respect, or at least not enough attention.
Mr. President, several years ago, the State of Iowa embarked upon
experimentations on how to best deliver welfare and get people off of
welfare. Based upon those experiments, a year and a half ago, Iowa
passed a welfare reform bill.
I might point out, Mr. President, that that bill passed the Iowa
Legislature with the support of conservative Republicans and liberal
Democrats. It was signed--in fact, it only got one dissenting vote--
into law by a conservative Republican Governor, Governor Branstad.
What has happened in Iowa since we have put our welfare reform to
work? The number of welfare recipients holding jobs has grown by 80
percent. These charts will show that. These are the number of families
on welfare who are working. When we started, we had about 6,500, and it
has now gone up to 12,000--almost double. We now have the distinction,
Mr. President, of having a higher percentage of people on welfare
working in Iowa than in any State in the Nation. We are proud of that.
So the plan is working. It is getting people to work.
Second, look what has happened to our case load. Now, initially, we
knew the case load would go up because we allowed people to work to
keep more of their earnings, and people were able to get on, and then
the case load started coming down dramatically in the State of Iowa as
people became self-sufficient and got off of welfare.
Here is the real icing on the cake. That is the total expenditures on
our AFDC grants in Iowa. The yellow line is just for fiscal year 1994;
the blue line is fiscal year 1992; the green line is fiscal year 1993;
the red line is fiscal year 1995.
We can see since last October what has been happening to the cost in
our program. It has dropped precipitously in the State of Iowa. In
fact, the average recipient payment has gone from $373 a month to $343
a month.
Therefore, what we have done is we have more people working, we are
reducing the case load by getting people off of welfare earlier, and we
are reducing the cost. What more could anyone want in a welfare reform
program?
It is tough. Sure, it is tough. In fact, Iowa is, I believe, now the
only State that has actually cut welfare benefits to people who refused
to sign these contracts or who violate their contracts. We have
actually stopped cash payments. Other States talk tough, but Iowa has
done it. We had the carrot and we have had the stick, and it is working
in the State of Iowa. Therefore, Mr. President, we know the right way
to go.
[[Page S5840]] Iowa and Missouri have worked together for meaningful
welfare reform. I urge my colleagues to examine the Harkin-Bond plan
and join us in this commonsense, bipartisan approach to reaching common
ground on welfare reform.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the
legislation appear in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 736, Welfare to Self-Sufficiency Act of 1995--A Bipartisan Approach
to Welfare Reform

The Welfare to Self-Sufficiency Act of 1995 is a common-
sense, bipartisan plan that transforms welfare. It changes
today's failed dependency-inducing system to one that demands
responsibility from day one on the part of welfare recipients
and provides them the helping hand they need to get off
welfare and become self-sufficient. Unlike other reform plans
it does not apply a one-size fits-all two year time limit,
but sets individualized time limits (most of which should be
well under two years) based on the particular circumstances
of each family. It makes work more financially attractive
than welfare by expanding work incentives. This plan also
emphasizes moving recipients into private sector jobs, not
government jobs created solely for placement purposes.
The legislation also provides much greater flexibility to
the states so they can design welfare programs to fit their
unique characteristics. It eliminates federal bureaucracy and
red tape by consolidating the administrative costs of major
welfare programs into a block grant, while maintaining
uniform federal eligibility criteria for benefits.
In addition, the Welfare to Self-Sufficiency Act combats
the unacceptable rise in teenage pregnancy by demanding
responsibility from teens and providing them positive
incentives, but without measures that primarily punish
children who bear no responsibility for the conditions
surrounding their birth. It also fundamentally overhauls our
failed child support enforcement system, cracking down on
deadbeat parents that escape their responsibilities by moving
across state lines and failing to fulfill their obligations
to their children.
The bill is paid for by reforming and ending the rapid
growth in federal payments to states for the administration
of welfare programs, requiring sponsors of immigrants to take
greater financial responsibility for ensuring that immigrants
don't fall onto welfare rolls and through other savings
achieved in related welfare programs.

title i--family investment agreement

The centerpiece of the legislation is the Family Investment
Program which requires AFDC families to negotiate and sign
individualized Family Investment Agreements in order to
receive benefits. This agreement is a contract between the
state and family which outlines the steps each individual
family must take to become self-sufficient and move off of
welfare. The contract would outline activities such as job
training, education, job search and work that family would
have to participate in. States would have to provide
necessary services, including child care, to keep their end
of the contract. Unlike other proposals which set a one-size-
fits-all two year time limit, this plan provides for time
limits that will vary from family to family based on the
unique circumstances of each family. In Iowa, where this plan
has been put into effect, most contracts contain time limits
shorter than two years.
Families who refuse to negotiate and sign a contract or
fail at any time during the contract to meet the obligations
outlined in the individual agreement would enter a limited
benefit plan that leads to the termination of welfare
benefits. Under the limited plan, families would continue to
receive full benefits for three months, for the next three
months benefits would be reduced to the children's portion of
their benefits and benefits would be completely cut off at
the end of this six month period. These families would be
ineligible for AFDC benefits for six additional months.

title ii--increasing work and self-sufficiency

This bill promotes work in private sector jobs that are
needed to enable a family to become self-sufficient. States
would be given the option of providing the following
incentives that will encourage families to work and save:
The disregard for work expenses could be increased from $90
a month to 20% of gross earnings.
Under current law, an individual has a 12 month work
transition period. During the first 4 months, $30 per month
plus 1/3 of gross earnings are disregarded. For the following
8 months $30 is disregarded. The bill permits states to
disregard 50% of gross earnings until a family has reached
self-sufficiency.
The resource limitation for families applying for AFDC
could be increased from $1000 to $2000. To encourage saving
by AFDC families, the resource limitation for recipients
already on public assistance could be increased from $1000 to
$5000. In order to assure more reliable transportation to and
from work, recipients could be allowed to own a car worth
$3,000, rather than the current limit of $1,500.
Families are also encouraged to save and plan for long-term
expenses such as starting a small business, buying a first
home or for job training or education programs. AFDC families
could be allowed to save up to $10,000 for these purposes.
Training programs for small business development are also
included.
At state option, earnings of teen-age members of the
household would no longer be counted in determining a
family's eligibility for AFDC.
In order to promote private sector job opportunities for
welfare recipients, states would also be given the option to
implement wage supplementation programs in which employers
could add to value of AFDC and food stamp benefits to the
wages earned by AFDC eligible workers.

title iii--improving state flexibility

To help states implement education and training programs
for welfare recipients, the federal contribution for the JOBS
program is increased. This enhanced match is provided for
funds that a state spends over their 1995 level.
States need more flexibility to design welfare programs
that meet the individual characteristics of each state. The
waiver authorization of the 1988 Family Support Act was a
good start. However, too often the waiver process has been
cumbersome and time-consuming.
To provide states with added flexibility, the bill
authorizes several policy options which will not require
federal waivers. The bill provides these additional state
options:
Provides for the equivalent treatment of stepparent and
parent income; and
To make children healthier, requiring AFDC parents to have
their children receive appropriate preventive health care,
including timely immunization.
In addition, considerable federal red tape would be cut by
block granting the administrative costs associated with AFDC,
Food Stamps and Medicaid. Payments to states would be frozen
at the 1995 level. The HHS Inspector General has reported
that such an approach would save approximately $8 billion
over 5 years.

title iv--combatting teenage pregnancy

The rapid increase in out-of-wedlock births to young women
must be addressed in a logical manner. We must educate
teenagers about the problems of becoming parents at an early
age, stabilize young families, and require teen age parents
to finish high school. The bill attacks teen pregnancy on a
number of fronts.
Continues the state option requiring minor parents to live
with their parents or another responsible adult.
Provides a state option that requires teenage parents to
stay in school.
Autorizes an additional $100 million for Title X Family
Planning Grants targeted at combating teen pregnancy.

title v--improving child support collection

Many families are forced onto the welfare rolls when an
absent parent refuses to meet child support obligations. Only
one-third of court ordered child support is paid today. This
bill strengthens child support enforcement by referring
collection of certain delinquent child support orders to the
Internal Revenue Service. Cases in which less than 50% of
ordered child support was collected by the state within a
year (mostly involving out of state parents) would be
referred to the IRS for collection. The IRS would be able to
garnish wages of the deadbeat parents to recover ordered
payments.
To encourage additional improvements in the collection of
child support, the bill provides several new state options.
States may revoke the drivers, professional and
occupational licenses of delinquent parents.
States may release the names of delinquent parents to the
news media for publication.
Provides several new options to improve the process for
establishment of paternity.

title vi--financing

The Welfare to Self Sufficiency Act would be paid for
through savings achieved in three major areas:
Welfare payments to immigrants would be reduced by
requiring the sponsors of these individuals to take greater
responsibility for assuring that they don't become dependent
on Federal assistance. The income of sponsors would be
counted as available to the immigrant for purposes of
determining eligibility for Food Stamps, SSI, AFDC and
Medicaid until the immigrant becomes a U.S. citizen.
Exceptions are made for non-citizens who are American
veterans and those who have paid taxes for five or more
years.
Payments to states for the administration of the AFDC, Food
Stamps and Medicaid program would be block granted and frozen
at 1995 levels.
Payments from the AFDC Emergency Assistance program would
be capped. This program has experienced rapid growth and has
been used for purposes beyond that originally intended.
(At the request of Mr. Dole, the following statement was ordered to
be printed in the Record.)
<bullet> Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original
cosponsor of the welfare bill my friend from Iowa has just introduced.
Our proposal represents a fundamental change in the
[[Page S5841]] way we would approach public assistance.
Since the creation of aid to families with dependent children, public
aid has been regarded as an entitlement. If you meet the requirements
for eligibility, you receive the cash, with no strings attached.
The current system has been rightly maligned by persons from all
walks of life, including researchers, advocates, pastors, politicians,
and even the recipients. The system is impersonal, inefficient and
encourages continued dependency. Recipients can continue to receive
cash month after month after month without having to think about their
futures, and without being given any help in thinking what they might
do to become self-sufficient.
Our proposal changes that way of thinking and requires something from
the recipients in return for benefits. By the year 2003, 90 percent of
recipients would be required to sign a binding contract with the State.
The contract would outline the specific steps that each recipient will
take to move off of welfare and into self-sufficiency. The contract
states clearly when benefits will end. If a recipient fails to live up
to the terms of the agreement at any time, benefits will be reduced and
ultimately terminated.
I believe a large reason for the malaise and stagnation in today's
welfare programs is that we have not required anything in return for
benefits. This one way street, this lack of reciprocity, has bred an
ethic of dependence rather than a work ethic. The only way we can turn
this around is to require something in return for the generosity of the
American taxpayer. Most Americans believe our Government has a
responsibility to help families in need, but also believe that
individuals have a responsibility to help themselves. This plan will
help people who want to help themselves to create a better life.
The contractual arrangement between recipients and the State--
representing the taxpayer donors--is the only requirement we would
impose on the States. I believe it is fundamental to ensuring that we
move people from welfare into productive private sector work. The
House-passed bill requires States to implement a number of ideas that
make good sense, but this notion of a contract is not among them. I am
concerned that if we do not require that recipients of public
assistance work, or behave responsibly, or take steps to wean
themselves from public assistance in every case, then our efforts at
reform will result in more of the same. The principle that Senator
Harkin and I have agreed on that should govern welfare reform efforts
at every level is this: Public assistance is a two-way street. If you
want to receive benefits, you must work and behave responsibly in
return.
That said, we have also learned that our Nation's Governors are far
ahead of Washington in generating reform ideas and in implementing
them. Currently States must undertake a lengthy and cumbersome waiver
process in order to obtain permission to implement common sense
reforms. States that want to require welfare recipients to obtain
preventive health care for their children, or to ensure that their
children stay in school, or wish to allow recipients to keep more of
their earnings from a part-time job--good ideas all--must now obtain a
waiver from HHS. This is costly, time-consuming, and silly. Our bill
permits States to implement any one, a combination of, or all of a
variety of options to reform welfare without permission from the feds.
The current system penalizes work and saving by placing severe
restrictions on outside income and on assets. Our plan permits States,
at their discretion, to increase the earnings limits and amounts
families can save prior to losing benefits. We also permit States to
disregard the income of a teenage worker in the family. The current
system encourages a high rate of teenage unemployment among AFDC
households. The last thing stressed, low-income neighborhoods need is
more unemployed teenagers.
One of the major problems low-income families face today is cycling
on and off welfare. Mothers who leave welfare must often return within
a matter of months, because their child-care arrangements have fallen
through or because they simply cannot make their bills. Our bill would
extend transitional child care benefits from 1 year to 2. We permit
States to allow families to keep more outside income before losing
benefits, and to save more prior to leaving welfare so that the
transition from welfare to work runs more smoothly.
We provide a menu of welfare reform options, but leave it up to the
States to decide which combination will best suit their needs. I hope
the version that is eventually passed by the Senate will expand State
flexibility, not restrict it further. We recognize that our plan is not
the be all and end all of welfare reform. I will be open to other
options that expand State flexibility and innovation. But I believe
this bill contains many good ideas which are not being widely discussed
and hope to draw the attention of my colleagues to those ideas.
I commend the efforts of my friend from Iowa and urge other Senators
to review our bipartisan effort as we begin debating this contentious
issue.<bullet>
______

By Mr. DOLE (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Thurmond,
Mr. Simpson, Mr. Brown, Mr. Kyl, and Mr. Gramm):
S. 735. A bill to prevent and punish acts of terrorism, and for other
purposes; read the first time.

antiterrorism legislation

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, America will not be intimidated by the
madmen who masterminded last week's vicious and cowardly bomb attack in
Oklahoma City.
America will not be paralyzed into inaction by those who have
committed this evil deed.
And, yes, justice will be rendered. The guilty will be punished. And
America--slowly, but with determination--will begin to heal herself.
Our job today is not to dwell on the past, but to look to the
future--to lay the foundation for a comprehensive antiterrorism plan
for America. We must take every reasonable step, every responsible
action, to reduce the chances that other, similar tragedies will occur
elsewhere in the United States.
That is why I am pleased today to join with the chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, and with my distinguished colleague
from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles, in introducing the
Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act of 1995.

Many of the provisions of this act were contained in S. 3, the
anticrime bill introduced by Senate Republicans last January: Increased
penalties for those who conspire to commit firearms and explosives
offenses; expanded extradition authority for the attorney general; the
Alien Terrorist Removal Act, designed to deport alien terrorists in a
prompt manner without disclosing vital national security information;
and increased funding for Federal law enforcement, including the FBI.
Today's legislation also contains comprehensive habeas corpus reform,
which is something the Senator from Utah, the chairman of the
committee, has long sought, which should go a long way in preventing
violent criminals from gaming the system--with more delays, more
unnecessary appeals, and more grief for the victims of crime and their
families.
In fact, the President said justice is going to be swift. I am not
certain how swift it is going to be if they can appeal and appeal and
appeal in the event they are apprehended, tried and convicted--
continued appeals for 7, 8, 10, 15 years in some cases.
During a recent television interview, the President did say we needed
strong, comprehensive habeas reform so that those who committed this
evil deed will get what they deserve--punishment that is swift,
certain, and severe. This legislation will help accomplish this goal.
With respect to international efforts to counter terrorism, the
legislation expands efforts to isolate the worst of the rogue regimes:
State sponsors of terrorism. It would make it easier to support
international antiterrorism efforts. We need to send a strong signal to
our allies and our adversaries--if you are with us in fighting the
scourge of terrorism, we will try to help--but if you are aiding
terrorists and terrorist states, it is no more business as usual.
Finally, this legislation contains many of the reforms sought by
President Clinton himself--prohibitions on
[[Page S5842]] fundraising for foreign terrorist organizations; the
tagging of plastic explosives to make them more detectable; and
amendments to the Fair Credit Reporting Act to ease access to financial
and credit reports in terrorism cases.
The bottom line is that fighting terrorism is not, and should not be,
a
partisan issue. America must stand together--Democrats and
Republicans, liberals and conservatives--to confront the terrorist
threat wherever it may exist.

And, of course, I look forward to working with President Clinton and
with my distinguished colleague, Senator Daschle, in refining this
proposal, and perhaps considering other worthy proposals, to strengthen
America's antiterrorism hand. Today's legislation is not the end but
the beginning of the process that hopefully will lead to a strong
antiterrorism action plan for our country.
And I have been reminded today that we want to look back at the
legislation we pass a year from now or 2 years from now and know that
it is just as good then as it may appear to be now. In other words, we
should not be carried away because of the emotion of the moment. And I
know that under the leadership of the distinguished chairman of the
Judiciary Committee that will not happen.
But, Mr. President, as we move forward with legislation, let me add a
cautionary note: No legislation can make America completely safe. In a
free society, there is no such thing as absolute security. We must work
to make our country safer from the terrorist threat, but there are no
guarantees that every terrorist, every madman, can be stopped. The
American people deserve the straight story, and the straight story is
that America is not an impregnable fortress.
Let me also say that there has been a great deal of speculation about
the so-called Attorney General guidelines. These guidelines are the
internal Justice Department policies that govern if, and when, the FBI
can monitor and infiltrate domestic organizations suspected of being
engaged in terrorist activities. Some say the guidelines are too
restrictive and, in fact, hamstring the FBI. Others argue that the
guidelines go too far.
This is a complex issue, and one made more complex and more urgent by
the fact that our constitutional liberties are at stake. Before rushing
to judgment, we should get all the facts out on the table: Have the
guidelines been effective? Do they provide adequate authority to the
FBI to monitor the activities of domestic terrorist organizations? Have
there been any instances when an FBI agent sought authority to initiate
an investigation and this authority was denied? And if so, why?
In my view, we should hear from the law enforcement professionals
themselves first before drawing any conclusions. And that is why this
legislation asks the Director of the FBI to provide Congress with a
detailed report on the adequacy of the guidelines and any other laws
regulating the surveillance of suspected terrorist groups operating
within the United States. In other words, let us get the facts first
and then let us make decisions later. Let us not rush to judgment
without all the facts.
Let me say that in this bill--and the Senator from Utah may discuss
it also--we left out the provision as far as expanding the authority of
the military. That was in the President's request. We have not seen the
draft language. But I think that is another area where we want to be
very, very careful, before we start bringing the military into law
enforcement areas. And I believe my colleague from Utah agrees.
It is reported in the paper this morning ``to allow the military to
participate in domestic law enforcement.'' That may sound good on the
face of it, but I think there are a lot of pitfalls there and a lot of
dangers. We better be certain we look at this before we do anything by
statute. So hopefully that will be a subject of extensive hearings in
the Judiciary Committee.
Finally, I join all of my Senate colleagues in extending our thoughts
and prayers to the good people of Oklahoma City. The self-sacrifice and
heroism they have displayed in the past week has been an inspiration to
us all. They have been doing their duty. It is now our obligation to
lay the groundwork for an America that is more secure for all of her
citizens.
As I understand, Mr. President, the Senator from Utah will now speak
on this issue.
Mr. HATCH. I wish to congratulate the distinguished majority leader
for excellent leadership in this area among so many others. Without his
leadership and without his prime sponsorship of this bill, I do not
think we would be nearly as far along as we are.
We were both down at the White House yesterday with the President,
and we both committed to working with the President to making sure that
this bill is everything the President would like to have. In addition,
we have added some things that we think will strengthen the bill in
many ways including the habeas corpus provision.
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with the
distinguished majority leader, the Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention
Act of 1995. The Nation continues to mourn the tragic loss of life
suffered last week in Oklahoma City.
I want to commend all the men and women who have been involved in the
rescue effort. Their courage and devotion to duty stands in stark
contrast to this cowardly act of terrorism.
I also salute the swift and efficient work of the Federal, State, and
local law enforcement officials who are working tirelessly to solve
this crime. We must not rest until all the perpetrators are discovered
and punished.
President Clinton was right when he called the people who committed
this act ``evil cowards.'' According to the twisted set of values of
these individuals, they will push their agenda even when it means
killing a 6-month-old infant--or nearly killing a 3-year-old boy like
Brandon Denny, whose brother held his hand and wished him well after
brain surgery last Thursday. There is no room in a free society for
individuals who attempt instead to effect change through violence and
who are willing to murder innocent people to make a political
statement.
For years, I have been fighting for legislation to strengthen our
counterterrorism efforts. Last week's heinous attack only underscores
the need to give Federal law enforcement officials the tools to prevent
and detect future terrorist attempts. Legislation is needed--and needed
now. If those responsible for this act thought they could intimidate
the United States, they were dead wrong.
Today, we are introducing the Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act
of 1995. Our legislation adds several crucial provisions to our
Nation's antiterrorism laws, and embodies much of the legislative
recommendations called for by President Clinton.
First, our bill enhances the penalties for engaging in certain
terrorist acts, and extends the crime of conspiracy to certain
terrorist crimes, something that has not been done before,
and will make it easier for law enforcement to find these terrorists,
ferret them out, and get them sent to court.

Second, our bill will give the President greater tools to fight
terrorism on an international level, as well as the domestic level. It
provides foreign aid to countries that either aid or provide military
equipment to terrorist states, eases the restrictions on the provision
of antiterroism assistance to foreign nations, and prohibits the
transfer to terrorist states of technology or products which the
Secretary of State determines can be used to promote or conduct
terrorism.
Third, our bill will give our law enforcement officials and courts
the tools they need to remove alien terrorists from our midst without
jeopardizing national security or the lives of law enforcement
personnel. It allows for a special deportation hearing and in camera,
ex parte review by a secret panel of Federal judges when the disclosure
in open court of Government evidence would pose a threat to national
security.
Fourth, it reforms our habeas corpus laws so that we can be sure that
President Clinton's promise that punishment be swift is kept.
Fifth, our bill includes provisions making it a crime to knowingly
provide material support to the terrorist functions of groups
designated by a Presidential finding to be engaged in terrorist
activities.
I am sensitive to the concerns, as is the majority leader, of some
that this
[[Page S5843]] provision impinges on freedoms protected by the first
amendment. And, the first amendment has no greater champion than the
distinguished majority leader and certainly myself. I have worked to
ensue that this provision will not violate the Constitution or place
inappropriate restrictions on cherished first amendment freedoms.
Nothing in this provision prohibits the free exercise of religion or
speech, or impinges on the freedom of association. Moreover, nothing in
the Constitution provides the right to engage in violence against
fellow citizens. Aiding and financing terrorist bombings is not
constitutionally protected
activity. Additionally, I have to believe that honest donors to any
organization would want to know if their contributions were being used
for such scurrilous purposes.

Our bill provides for numerous other needed improvements in the law
to fight the scourge of terrorism, including the authorization of in
additional appropriations--nearly $1.6 billion--to Federal law
enforcement to beef up counterterrorism efforts and increasing the
maximum rewards permitted for information concerning international
terrorism.
I would note that many of the provisions in this bill enjoy broad,
bipartisan support and, in several cases, have passed the Senate on
previous occasions. Indeed, many of the provisions in this bill have
the active support of the Clinton administration. And I believe, as the
President reads this bill, he will support the whole bill.
The people of the United States and around the world must know that
this is an issue that transcends politics and political parties. Our
resolve in this matter must be clear: our response to the terrorist
threat, and to acts of terrorism, will be certain, swift, and unified.
Mr. President, ours is a free society. Our liberties, the openness of
our institutions, and our freedom of movement are what make America a
Nation we are willing to defend. These freedoms are cherished by
virtually every American.
But this freedom is not without its costs. Because we are so open, we
are vulnerable to those who would take advantage of our liberty to
inflict terror on us. The horrific events of last week in Oklahoma City
tragically demonstrate the price we pay for our liberty. Indeed, anyone
who would do such an act, and call it a defense of liberty, mocks that
word.
We must now redouble our efforts to combat terrorism and to protect
our citizens. A worthy first step in the enactment of these sound
provisions to provide law enforcement with the tools to fight
terrorism.
Again, I thank our majority leader. Without him, we would not be this
far along. Without him, this bill would not be nearly as good. Without
his leadership, it probably would have grave difficulties. But with his
leadership and with the work that he and his staff have put in, along
with staff of other members of the Judiciary Committee, we have a bill
that we believe is sound. We believe it is efficient. We believe it is
fair. We believe it takes care of constitutional rights and liberties.
And we believe that it will solve the problem in the future and give
law enforcement the tools and the teeth in order to take the big bite
of out of terrorism worldwide, but especially in our country that needs
to be taken.
I urge all of our colleagues to support this legislation and again I
thank our distinguished majority leader.

____________________