[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 51 (Tuesday, May 3, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTION
By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Exon):
S. 2057. A bill to replace the aid to families with dependent
children program under title IV of the Social Security Act and a
portion of the food stamp program under the Food Stamp Act of 1977 with
a block grant to give the States the flexibility to create innovative
welfare to work programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Finance.
welfare to work act of 1994
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bipartisan welfare
reform proposal that I have developed with my colleague, Chuck
Grassley. Our legislation is based on one fundamental conviction: that
the current welfare system is so bad--so removed from the American
values of work, family, and responsibility--that it must be completely
abolished. Our legislation will take the Federal Government out of the
business of welfare and put the States into the business of empowering
their residents to find and keep jobs.
Before I describe our bill, let me talk a moment about the current
system. It discourages work, discourages marriage, and discourages
responsible choices about parenthood. We have set up a cash grant
program that tells young women--don't work, don't marry, have children,
and you will get support. Work, marry, plan your family for when you
can afford to support it, and we will leave you out in the cold--in
fact, we will take your tax money to support those who have decided not
to work. The current welfare system pays people to reject the values of
work and family that have made this country strong, and the time has
come to reject that approach.
Right now, State and local governments that want to reject this
system and implement something that helps those down on their luck get
jobs don't have the freedom to do so--they have to beg Washington for
waivers from myriad Federal rules, and often as not, they get turned
down or have to wait years and years for an answer. Meanwhile, another
generation grows up in our broken welfare system.
We think there is a better way. A simple, commonsense approach, that
is consistent with American values. Our legislation truly ends welfare
as we know it by abolishing AFDC and most of food stamps. The money now
used for welfare payments and Federal administrative costs is turned
over to the States in the form of a block grant. They will use the
grant to establish welfare-to-work systems designed to meet the needs
of their local communities.
Our legislation ensures that the elderly and disabled continue to get
food stamp assistance and that needy children get food through an
expansion of WIC. Beyond that, States are allowed to use the money we
now spend on welfare to connect people to work in any way they
determine will be successful--through job placement assistance, job
training, child care, transportation assistance, earnings supplements,
public service jobs, et cetera.
To have its block grant renewed each year, all a State would have to
do is show that it is moving people into work. If it meets this test,
then it is doing better than we have ever done at the Federal level,
and its block grant will be continued.
Our welfare-to-work legislation will spend not one penny more on
welfare than we currently spend. There are many who would argue that we
have to add more money to the current system to get it to work. But, as
most people operating in the private sector know, it doesn't matter how
much you spend to dress up a product nobody wants, in the end, all you
have is an expensive product nobody wants. It is time to stop pouring
money into a welfare system that doesn't help anyone, because in the
end all we will get is an expensive welfare system that still doesn't
help anyone. We can use the money currently spent on welfare--including
$3 billion in administrative expenses--to let the States design systems
that work for them and their citizens. By turning over to the States
most of the money we currently spend on Federal administrative costs,
and getting States to reorient their systems away from checkwriting and
toward helping people find jobs, we can make big strides in getting
people to work.
Another reason we keep the block grant at current welfare spending
levels is the fact that placing people in jobs will generate savings
for State welfare-to-work programs, since such individuals won't need
as much assistance as they were getting before, allowing those savings
to be used to help harder-to-place people get the job training, child
care, and other assistance they need to get and keep jobs. Another part
of the answer lies in encouraging States to better utilize other
Federal resources they already get. Right now, we give States over $7
billion to help people attain, and maintain self-sufficiency through
child care, social services, and job training grants. These grants
could be better targeted, and if connected to State welfare-to-work
systems, could provide additional support to help welfare-to-work
programs be even more successful.
Economic circumstances and people in Kenosha, WI are different from
those in Ottumwa, IA. Portland, ME, is not San Diego, CA. A one-size-
fits-all welfare plan designed in Washington cannot work for all these
communities. By introducing this bill, we are saying that it is time to
face the fact that the answer to something as hard as helping people
get work is not going to be developed in Washington--the many answers
we need are going to come from communities throughout this country.
State and local governments have been pleading for flexibility to
design programs that work--it is time to get out of their way.
Some may think that we're bashing the Federal Government when we say
that we don't think it can solve this problem. We're not. We're simply
saying that there are some things Washington is good at, such as the
relatively straight-forward tasks of collecting payments for Social
Security and sending out the checks our elderly so depend on. And there
are some things our Federal Government is not good at, such as trying
to help individuals get back on their feet. This is because so much of
the answer to getting welfare beneficiaries into jobs depends on an
individual's circumstances and the local situation--both of which are
impossible to take completely into account when developing a
comprehensive, national solution.
The crucial difference between our bill and others you may hear about
is this: instead of adding yet another layer to the overly complex
welfare system we have today, we admit that it needs to be abolished
and completely replaced, and propose to do so with a simple program,
run by States, that moves people to work.
Many of us are concerned that welfare reform plans need to show
compassion for children. We think this proposal meets that test: it
ensures needy children will get nutrition assistance through WIC and
that their parents will receive assistance getting connected to a job.
Frankly, we think the most compassionate thing we can do for these
children is to help their parents get a job, which is more than the
current system can say. Our bill says that Government has the
responsibility to provide a helping hand to assist individuals, but
also that individuals have the responsibility to use the assistance to
help themselves.
As a final note, let me point out that this plan would remove the
requirement that families break up before they can get assistance. With
this block grant, States can help families who need help before they
break up. This is one more reason why we think this bill is more
consistent with American values--the values of compassion, work,
family, and responsibility--than our current welfare system.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter the text of the
attached bill summary into the Record, as well as the entire text of
the bill.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 2057
Be it enacted by by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Welfare to
Work Act of 1994''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Purpose.
Sec. 4. Definition of State.
Sec. 5. Applications by States.
Sec. 6. State welfare to work program described.
Sec. 7. State grants.
Sec. 8. State maintenance of effort.
Sec. 9. Termination of certain Federal welfare programs.
Sec. 10. Eligibility for WIC program.
Sec. 11. Secretarial submission of legislative proposal for amendments
to medicaid eligibility provisions and technical and
conforming amendments.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The current welfare system is broken and requires
replacement.
(2) Work is what works best for American families.
(3) Since State and local governments know the best methods
of connecting welfare recipients to work and since each
community faces different circumstances, Federal assistance
to the States should be flexible.
(4) Government has the responsibility to provide a helping
hand to assist individuals but individuals have the
responsibility to use the assistance to help themselves.
SEC. 3. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to create a block grant program
to replace the aid to families with dependent children
program under title IV of the Social Security Act and a
portion of the food stamp program under the Food Stamp Act of
1977 and give the States the flexibility to create innovative
welfare to work programs.
SEC. 4. DEFINITION OF STATE.
For purposes of this Act, the term ``State'' means each of
the several States of the United States, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
SEC. 5. APPLICATIONS BY STATES.
(a) In General.--Each State desiring to receive a grant to
operate a State welfare to work program described in section
6 shall annually submit an application to the Secretary of
Health and Human Services (hereafter in this Act referred to
as the ``Secretary'') containing the matter described in
subsection (b) in such manner as the Secretary may require.
(b) Contents.--
(1) Fiscal year 1995.--An application for a grant to
operate a State welfare to work program during fiscal year
1995 shall contain a description of the program in accordance
with section 6.
(2) Subsequent fiscal years.--
(A) In general.--
(i) Contents.--Except as provided in clause (ii), an
application for a grant to operate a State welfare to work
program during fiscal year 1996 and each subsequent fiscal
year shall contain--
(I) a description of the program in accordance with section
6;
(II) the State work percentage (as determined under
subparagraph (B)) for each of the 2 preceding fiscal years;
(III) a statement of the number of participants who became
ineligible for participation in the program due to increased
income for each of the 2 preceding fiscal years; and
(IV) a statement of the amount of non-Federal resources
that the State invested in the program in the preceding
fiscal year.
(ii) Special rule for applications submitted for fiscal
year 1996.--An application for a grant to operate a State
welfare to work program during fiscal year 1996 shall contain
the information described in subclauses (II) and (III) of
clause (i) only for the preceding fiscal year in lieu of such
information for each of the 2 preceding fiscal years.
(B) State work percentage.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A)(ii), the State work percentage (prior to any adjustment
under subparagraph (C)) for a fiscal year is equal to--
(i) the number of participants in the State welfare to work
program in the fiscal year who were employed in private
sector or public sector jobs for at least 20 hours per week
for 26 weeks out of the year, divided by
(ii) the total number of participants in the State welfare
to work program in the fiscal year.
(C) Adjustment.--
(i) In general.--The State work percentage determined under
subparagraph (B) for a fiscal year shall be adjusted by
subtracting 1 percentage point from such State work
percentage for each 5 percentage points by which the
percentage of individuals described in subparagraph (B)(i)
who are also described in clause (ii) participating in the
program in such fiscal year falls below 75 percent of the
number of individuals described in subparagraph (B)(i) in
such fiscal year.
(ii) Individual described.--An individual described in this
clause is a custodial parent or other individual who is
primarily responsible for the care of a child under the age
of 18.
(D) Monitoring of data.--The Secretary shall ensure the
validity of the data provided by a State under this
paragraph.
(c) Approval.--
(1) Fiscal years 1995 and 1996.--The Secretary shall
approve each application for a grant to operate a State
welfare to work program--
(A) during fiscal year 1995, if the application contains
the information described in subsection (b)(1); and
(B) during fiscal year 1996, if the application contains
the information described in subsection (b)(2).
(2) Automatic approval in subsequent fiscal years.--The
Secretary shall approve any application for a grant to
operate a State welfare to work program during fiscal year
1997 and each succeeding fiscal year if the State's
application reports that--
(A) the State work percentage for the preceding fiscal year
is greater than the State work percentage for the second
preceding fiscal year; or
(B) more participants became ineligible for participation
in the State welfare to work program during the preceding
fiscal year due to increased income than became ineligible
for participation in the program in the second preceding
fiscal year as a result of increased income.
(3) Secretarial review.--
(A) In general.--If a State application for a grant under
this Act is not automatically approved under paragraph (2),
the Secretary shall approve the application upon a finding
that the application--
(i) provides an adequate explanation of why the State work
percentage or the number of participants who became
ineligible for participation in the State welfare to work
program due to increased income during the preceding fiscal
year did not exceed such State work percentage or the number
of participants who became ineligible for participation in
the program in the second preceding fiscal year; and
(ii) provides a plan of remedial action which is
satisfactory to the Secretary.
(B) Adequate explanations.--An adequate explanation under
subparagraph (A) may include an explanation of economic
conditions in the State, failed program innovations, or other
relevant circumstances.
(4) Resubmission.--A State may resubmit an application for
a grant under this Act until the Secretary finds that the
application meets the requirements of paragraph (3)(A).
SEC. 6. STATE WELFARE TO WORK PROGRAM DESCRIBED.
(a) In General.--A State welfare to work program described
in this section shall provide that--
(1) during fiscal year 1995, the State shall designate
individuals who are eligible for participation in the program
and such individuals shall include at least those individuals
who received benefits under the State plan approved under
part A of title IV of the Social Security Act during fiscal
year 1994;
(2) during fiscal year 1996 and each subsequent fiscal
year, the State shall designate individuals who are eligible
for participation in the program (as determined by the
State), with priority given to those individuals most in need
of such services; and
(3) the program shall be designed to move individuals from
welfare to self-sufficiency and may include--
(A) job placement and training;
(B) supplementation of earned income;
(C) nutrition assistance and education;
(D) education;
(E) vouchers to be used for rental of privately owned
housing;
(F) child care;
(G) State tax credits;
(H) health care;
(I) supportive services;
(J) community service employment; or
(K) any other assistance designed to move such individuals
from welfare to self-sufficiency.
(b) No Entitlement.--Notwithstanding any criteria a State
may establish for participation in a State welfare to work
program, no individual shall be considered to be entitled to
participate in the program.
SEC. 7. STATE GRANTS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall annually award to each
State with an application approved under section 5(c) an
amount equal to--
(1) in fiscal year 1995, 100 percent of the State's base
amount;
(2) in fiscal year 1996, the sum of 80 percent of the
State's base amount, 20 percent of the State's share of the
national grant amount, and any applicable bonus payment;
(3) in fiscal year 1997, the sum of 60 percent of the
State's base amount, 40 percent of the State's share of the
national grant amount, and any applicable bonus payment;
(4) in fiscal year 1998, the sum of 40 percent of the
State's base amount, 60 percent of the State's share of the
national grant amount, and any applicable bonus payment;
(5) in fiscal year 1999, the sum of 20 percent of the
State's base amount, 80 percent of the State's share of the
national grant amount, and any applicable bonus payment; and
(6) in fiscal year 2000 and each subsequent fiscal year,
the sum of 100 percent of the State's share of the national
grant amount and any applicable bonus payment.
(b) State Base Amount.--
(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), a State's
base amount is equal to--
(A) for fiscal year 1995, 100 percent of the amount
determined under paragraph (2); and
(B) for fiscal year 1996 and succeeding fiscal years, 99.6
percent of the amount determined under paragraph (2).
(2) Amount determined.--The amount determined under this
paragraph for a State is an amount equal to the sum of--
(A) the amount of Federal financial participation received
by the State under section 403 of the Social Security Act
during fiscal year 1994; and
(B) an amount equal to the sum of--
(i) the benefits under the food stamp program under the
Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), including
benefits provided under section 19 of such Act (7 U.S.C.
2028), during fiscal year 1994 other than benefits provided
to elderly or disabled individuals in the State (as
determined under section 3(r)) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 2012);
and
(ii) the amount paid to the State under section 16 of the
Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) during fiscal
year 1994 for administrative expenses for providing benefits
to non elderly and non disabled individuals.
(c) State Share of the National Grant Amount.--
(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), the
State's share of the national grant amount for a fiscal year
is equal to the sum of the amounts determined under paragraph
(2) (relating to economic need) and paragraph (3) (relating
to State effort) for the State.
(2) Economic need.--The amount determined under this
paragraph is equal to the sum of the amounts determined under
subparagraphs (A) and (B) for the State.
(A) State per capita income measure.--The amount determined
under this subparagraph is an amount which bears the same
ratio to one-quarter of the national grant amount as the
product of--
(i) the population of the State; and
(ii) the allotment percentage of the State (as determined
under paragraph (4)),
bears to the sum of the corresponding products for all
States.
(B) State unemployment measure.--The amount determined
under this subparagraph is an amount which bears the same
ratio to one-quarter of the national grant amount as the
number of individuals in the State who are estimated as being
unemployed according to the Department of Labor's annual
estimates bears to the number of individuals who are
estimated as being unemployed according to the Department of
Labor's annual estimates in all States.
(3) State effort.--The amount determined under this
paragraph is the amount which bears the same ratio to one-
half of the national grant amount as the product of--
(A) the dollar amount the State invested in the State
welfare to work program in the previous fiscal year, as
reported in section 5(b)(2)(A)(iv); and
(B) the allotment percentage of the State (as determined
under paragraph (4)),
bears to the sum of the corresponding products for all
States.
(4) Allotment percentage.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (C),
the allotment percentage for any State shall be 100 percent,
less the State percentage.
(B) State percentage.--The State percentage shall be the
percentage which bears the same ratio to 50 percent as the
per capita income of such State bears to the per capita
income of all States.
(C) Exception.--The allotment percentage shall be 70
percent in the case of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam,
and American Samoa.
(5) Determination of grant amounts.--Each State's share of
the national grant amount shall be determined under this
subsection on the basis of the average per capita income of
each State and all States for the most recent fiscal year for
which satisfactory data are available from the Department of
Commerce and the Department of Labor.
(6) National grant amount.--The term ``national grant
amount'' means an amount equal to 99.6 percent of sum of the
amounts determined under subsection (b)(2) for all States.
(d) Bonus Payment.--Beginning with fiscal year 1996, the
Secretary may use 0.4 percent of the sum of the amounts
determined under subsection (b)(2) for all States to award
additional bonus payments under this section to those States
which have the highest or most improved State work percentage
as determined under section 5(b)(2)(B). The Secretary shall
designate one State as the leading job placement State and
such State shall receive the highest bonus payment under the
preceding sentence and the President is authorized and
requested to acknowledge such State with a special
Presidential award.
(e) Use of Funds for Administrative Purposes.--A State
shall not use more than 10 percent of the amount it receives
under this section for the administration of the State
welfare to work program.
(f) Capped Entitlement.--This section constitutes budget
authority in advance of appropriations Acts, and represents
the obligation of the Federal Government to provide the
payments described in subsection (a) (in an amount not to
exceed the sum of the amounts determined under subsection
(b)(2) for all States).
SEC. 8. STATE MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT.
Any funds available for the activities covered by a State
welfare to work program conducted under this Act shall
supplement, and shall not supplant, funds that are expended
for similar purposes under any State, regional, or local
program.
SEC. 9. TERMINATION OF CERTAIN FEDERAL WELFARE PROGRAMS.
(a) Termination of AFDC and JOBS Programs.--
(1) AFDC.--Part A of title IV of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``termination of authority
``Sec. 418. The authority provided by this part shall
terminate on October 1, 1994.''.
(2) JOBS.--Part F of title IV of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 681 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``termination of authority
``Sec. 488. The authority provided by this part shall
terminate on October 1, 1994.''.
(b) Food Stamp Program To Serve Only Elderly and Disabled
Individuals.--
(1) Definitions.--Section 3 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977
(7 U.S.C. 2012) is amended--
(A) in subsection (g)--
(i) in paragraph (4), by striking ``(and their spouses)'';
(ii) in paragraph (5)--
(I) by striking ``in the case of'' and inserting ``in the
case of elderly or disabled''; and
(II) by inserting ``disabled'' before ``children''; and
(iii) in paragraph (8), by inserting ``elderly or
disabled'' before ``women and children temporarily'';
(B) in subsection (i)--
(i) in the first sentence--
(I) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``elderly or disabled''
before ``individual''; and
(II) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``, each of whom is
elderly or disabled,'' after ``individuals'';
(ii) in the second sentence, by inserting before the period
at the end the following: ``, if each of the individuals is
elderly or disabled'';
(iii) in the third sentence--
(I) by striking ``, together'' and all that follows through
``of such individual,''; and
(II) by striking ``, excluding the spouse,''; and
(iv) in the fifth sentence--
(I) by striking ``coupons, and'' and inserting ``coupons,
and elderly or disabled''; and
(II) by inserting ``disabled'' after ``together with
their''; and
(C) in subsection (r), by striking ``Elderly'' and all that
follows through ``who'' and inserting the following:
``Elderly or disabled', with respect to a member of a
household or other individual, means a member or other
individual who''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Eligibility.--Section 5 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 2014) is
amended--
(i) in the first sentence of subsection (c)--
(I) by striking ``program if--'' and all that follows
through ``household's income'' and inserting ``program if the
income of the household'';
(II) by striking ``respectively; and'' and inserting
``respectively.''; and
(III) by striking paragraph (2); and
(ii) in subsection (e)--
(I) in the first sentence, by striking ``containing an
elderly or disabled member and determining benefit levels
only for all other households'';
(II) in the fifteenth sentence--
(aa) by striking ``containing an elderly or disabled
member''; and
(bb) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``elderly or disabled
members'' and inserting ``the members'';
(III) in the seventeenth sentence, by striking ``elderly
and disabled''; and
(IV) by striking the fourth through fourteenth sentences.
(B) Periodic reporting.--Section 6(c)(1)(A)(iv) of such Act
(7 U.S.C. 2015(c)(1)(A)(iv)) is amended by striking ``and in
which all adult members are elderly or disabled''.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply on and after October 1, 1994.
(c) References in Other Laws.--
(1) In general.--Any reference in any law, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to any
provision that has been terminated by reason of the
amendments made in subsection (a) shall, unless the context
otherwise requires, be considered to be a reference to such
provision, as in effect immediately before the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(2) State plans.--Any reference in any law, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to a
State plan that has been terminated by reason of the
amendments made in subsection (a), shall, unless the context
otherwise requires, be considered to be a reference to such
plan as in effect immediately before the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 10. ELIGIBILITY FOR WIC PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Section 17(d)(1) of the Child Nutrition
Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786(d)(1)) is amended by adding at
the end the following new sentence: ``For purposes of
participation in the program under this section, a child
shall be considered to be at nutritional risk if such child
is in the care of a custodial parent or other individual
primarily responsible for the care of such child who is a
participant in a State welfare to work program which receives
Federal funds under the Welfare to Work Act of 1994.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 17(d)(2)(A)(ii) of the
Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786(d)(2)(A)(ii)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``(ii)(I)'' and inserting ``(ii)''; and
(2) by striking subclause (II).
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply on and after October 1, 1994.
SEC. 11. SECRETARIAL SUBMISSION OF LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL FOR
AMENDMENTS TO MEDICAID ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AND
TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
The Secretary shall, within 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, submit to the appropriate committees
of Congress, a legislative proposal providing eligibility
criteria for medical assistance under a State plan under
title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.)
in lieu of the eligibility criteria under section
1902(a)(10)(A)(i) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(A)(i))
relating to the receipt of aid to families with dependent
children under a State plan under part A of title IV of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and such
technical and conforming amendments in the law as are
required by the provisions of this Act.
____
Summary--Welfare-to-Work Act
overview
The ``Welfare-To-Work Act'' will take Federal welfare money
and replace it with a flexible, community-based program that
connects people to work and makes work pay. Aid to Families
with Dependent Children (AFDC) and part of Food Stamps will
be replaced with a new Federal Block Grant, which would allow
states and local communities to design work-based systems to
help low-income Americans get jobs that enable them to
support their families. Food Stamps would remain in place for
the disabled and elderly and the USDA feeding programs for
children and for the elderly would also be maintained. The
Supplemental Feeding Program for Women, Infants, and Children
(WIC) program would be expanded so that needy children can
get food.
major provisions
Bill replaces welfare (AFDC and most of Food Stamps) with
state block grant for implementing ``welfare to work''
programs.
Block grant gives states almost complete flexibility in
designing program--as long as it WORKS to move people from
welfare to work. Each year a state gets more participants
working, it continues to get the block grant with no other
federal constraints.
Bill modifies WIC eligibility to ensure children of
participants in this program are eligible for WIC food
assistance.
costs
Bill caps amount spent on block grant at current welfare
spending levels, ensuring money will always be there for
states by creating a capped entitlement. The block grant
amount is approximately $37 billion.
Block grant is allocated to states based on: (1) economic
need (defined by unemployment rates and per capita income)
and; (2) state effort (measured by how much the state invests
in this program).
how program works
States would use the block grant money to design their own
work-connection systems that fit local economic circumstances
rather than being forced to just hand out federally-regulated
welfare checks.
Bill uses a simple outcome measure--whether states get
participants to work--as the only major Federal requirement
for getting their block grant cash.
Bill ensures accountability by requiring states which do
NOT get more people working to explain why their system did
not succeed and to submit new plans to the Department of
Health and Human Services.
Bill ensures former beneficiaries have access to new system
by requiring states to serve such people in the first year.
Bill recognizes successful state innovations through
awarding bonus payments & Presidential awards to states with
particularly good work-connection systems.
Bill requires states to ensure they spend at least as much
on their welfare-to-work system as they currently do on
welfare.
States could work with their counties and cities to use
whatever mix of job training and placement, earnings
supplementation, nutrition assistance and education, housing
vouchers, community service employment, child care, tax
credits, support payment, and health care that will get, and
keep people in, jobs.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague,
Senator Kohl, in his effort to dramatically and unalterably change the
welfare system as we know it. This proposal is reinventing Government
at its best. It moves the decisionmaking process closer to the people.
The most relevant place to start when discussing standards for
reinventing Government is with President Clinton's own words. On March
3, 1993, in the White House Rose Garden, the President said:
Our goal is to make the entire Federal Government both less
expensive and more efficient. * * *. We intend to redesign,
to reinvent, to reinvigorate the entire national Government.
The President went on to say:
We'll challenge the basic assumptions of every program,
asking does it work; does it provide quality service; does it
encourage innovation and reward hard work? If the answer is
no, or if there's a better way to do it or if there's
something that the Federal Government is doing it should
simply stop doing, we'll try to make the changes needed.
When we ask the President's question concerning the current welfare
system, it comes up pretty short.
First, does it work? While Democrats and Republicans may not agree on
many things, there is one issue about which there is complete
agreement: The current welfare program is a dismal failure.
President Clinton acknowledges that the war on poverty has failed. He
ran his Presidential campaign on the promise to ``end welfare as we
know it.'' That promise rang true with the American people, who believe
the current system is in need of dramatic reform.
President Clinton is not alone in his appraisal. In a recent
interview, Finance Committee Chairman Moynihan joined in the call for
welfare reform when he said that there was not a health care crisis but
a welfare crisis. He called for the President to move welfare reform
this year or risk the administration's health care proposal.
David Ellwood, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at the
Department of Health and Human Services and Co-chairman of the
President's Task Force on Welfare Reform acknowledged that there ``is
near universal agreement that the welfare system is broken.''
The second question is also important. Does it provide quality
service? Senator Breaux, chairman of the Subcommittee on Social
Security and Family Policy stated in a recent subcommittee hearing that
``our welfare system does not serve well the people who are on it, nor
does it serve well the people who are paying for it.''
The current system encourages the breakdown of the family, destroys
independence and self reliance, and discourages work. I have to agree
with Senator Breaux that these things do not serve the needs of
recipients or those taxpayers who are funding the program.
The third question which must be considered is: Does it encourage
innovation are reward hard work? Under the current system, States which
desire to try innovative approaches to the problem of helping low-
income people move toward independence must pass a State law with the
new ideas, apply to the Federal Government for a waiver, gain approval
of their ideas and receive the waiver, and finally, implement their
plan. The process is time-consuming and expensive.
The current system also discourages hard work. The welfare mother
receives her check on two conditions: She must not marry an employed
male and she must not work. If she works, she risks losing much of her
welfare and health care benefits.
During that March 3, Rose Garden ceremony, the President said in
response to these three questions that ``if the answer is no, or if
there's a better way to do it if there's something that the Federal
Government is doing it should simply stop doing, we'll try to make the
changes needed.''
Mr. President, that is what the Kohl-Grassley proposal is all about.
This proposal starts with a basic assumption: The welfare program is a
dismal failure and all efforts to reform it at a national level have
failed. That is because the incentives are not properly structured so
that success is required, not just desired.
Under the proposal we are introducing today, the entire Federal Aid
to Families With Dependent Children Program, the JOBS Program, and the
Food Stamp Program as it applies to AFDC recipients are simply
repealed. They are ended. The role of the Federal Government is
unalterably changed.
This is important because this is a reform effort first, not a budget
exercise. The resulting budget and deficit reductions are important but
secondary. They must be viewed as an enforcement mechanism for the
reforms--the teeth, if you will.
The focus must be on reform. Because, if we're not careful and view
this as a budget cutting exercise only, these programs may be trimmed
now, but the structural deficiencies that brought them about will grow
right back again as soon as we look away. We need to perform corrective
surgery so that what we have now will not come back again.
This proposal is that corrective surgery but there are also clear
budget implications in this bill. It establishes a cap for Federal
spending on assistance programs for low-income Americans at 1994 levels
and block grants the money to the States to serve the same population.
States are then free to experiment with new ideas for dramatic
change. They are also responsible to make the changes work because
their funding is capped at 1994 levels and the incentive is there to
get people off of welfare and into work. This is the way it should be.
The program should have performance standards that reward work and
change the culture of welfare.
The only affirmative requirement in the law is that States must have
more people working in each year than the previous year. Apart from
that requirement, States are completely free to create a plan that will
work in their own State and meet the needs of their own citizens.
This is the essence of reinventing Government. If the Federal
Government has failed at a given operation, under the President's own
analysis, it is time for us to find new ways to achieve our goals.
This is what the Kohl/Grassley proposal would do.
______
By Mr. NUNN (for himself and Mr. Thurmond) (by request):
S. 2058. A bill to authorize certain construction at military
installations for fiscal year 1995, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
military construction authorization act for fiscal year 1995
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, by request, for myself and the senior
Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond], I introduce, for
appropriate reference, a bill to authorize certain construction at
military installations for fiscal year 1995, and for other purposes.
I ask unanimous consent that a letter of transmittal requesting
consideration of the legislation and explaining its purpose be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Department of Defense,
Office of General Counsel,
Washington, DC, April 20, 1994.
Hon. Albert J. Gore,
President of the Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: Enclosed is a draft of legislation ``To
authorize certain construction at military installations for
Fiscal Year 1995, and for other purposes.'' This legislative
proposal is needed to carry out the President's Fiscal Year
1995 budget plan. The Office of Management and Budget advises
that the enactment of this proposal is in accord with the
program of the President.
The proposal would authorize appropriations in Fiscal Year
1995 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 Fiscal Year 1995
Military Construction Authorization Bill includes
construction projects resulting from base realignment and
closure actions. Additionally, the Fiscal Year 1995 draft
legislation does not include General Provisions.
Sincerely,
Stephen W. Preston,
Acting General Counsel.
______
By Mr. NUNN (for himself and Mr. Thurmond) (by request):
S. 2059. A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1995 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for fiscal year 1995, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Armed Services.
national defense authorization act for fiscal year 1995
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, by request, for myself and the senior
Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond], I introduce, for
appropriate reference, a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 1995 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to
prescribe military personnel strength for fiscal year 1995, and for
other purposes.
I ask unanimous consent that a letter of transmittal requesting
consideration of the legislation and explaining its purpose be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Department of Defense,
Office of General Counsel,
Washington, DC, April 22, 1994.
Hon. Albert J. Gore,
President of the Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: Enclosed is a draft of legislation ``To
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1995 for military
activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe
military activities of the Department of Defense, to
prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 1995,
and for other purposes.''
This proposal is part of the Department of Defense
legislative program for the 103d Congress. The Office of
Management and Budget advises that the proposed
authorizations are in accord with the program of the
President and that there is no objection from the standpoint
of the President's program to the general provisions of the
bill.
Title I of the bill provides procurement authorization for
the Military Departments and for the Defense Agencies in
amounts equal to the budget authority included in the
President's budget for fiscal year 1995. Title II provides
for the authorization of each of the research, development,
test, and evaluation appropriations for the Military
Departments and the Defense Agencies in amounts equal to the
President's budget for fiscal year 1995. Title III provides
for authorization of the operation and maintenance accounts
of the Military Departments and Defense Agencies and Title IV
prescribes the personnel strengths for the active forces and
the Selected Reserve of each reserve component of the Armed
Forces in the amounts and numbers, respectively, provided for
by the budget authority and appropriations requested for the
Department of Defense in the President's budget for fiscal
year 1995.
The general provisions of the bill are an omnibus proposal
that will aid in the management and operation of the
Department of Defense.
Enactment of this proposal is of great importance to the
Department of Defense and the Department urges its favorable
consideration.
Sincerely,
Stephen W. Preston,
Acting General Counsel.
____
Department of Defense Legislative Program for the Second Session of the
103d Congress
title i--procurement
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Sec. 101. Army
Section 101 authorizes the appropriation of funds for
procurement for the Army.
Sec. 102. Navy and Marine Corps
Section 102 authorizes the appropriation of funds for
procurement for the Navy and Marine Corps.
Sec. 103. Air Force
Section 103 authorizes the appropriation of funds for
procurement for the Air Force.
Sec. 104. Defense-wide procurement
Section 104 authorizes the appropriation of funds for
Defense-wide procurement.
Sec. 105. Defense Inspector General
Section 105 authorizes the appropriation of funds for
procurement for the Defense Inspector General.
Sec. 106. Defense health program
Section 106 authorizes the appropriation of funds for
procurement for the Defense health program.
Sec. 107. Chemical demilitarization program
Section 107 authorizes the appropriation of funds for the
demilitarization and destruction of lethal chemical weapons
in the chemical stockpile as specified in section 1412 of the
Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1986, and for the
destruction of chemical warfare material of the United States
that is not covered by section 1412 of such Act.
Subtitle B--Other Matters
Sec. 111. Repeal of requirement for separate budget request for
procurement of Reserve equipment
Section 111 repeals the requirement contained in section
114(e) of title 10, United States Code, that amounts
requested for procurement for the Reserve forces be set forth
separately from other amounts requested for procurement for
the Armed Forces.
title ii--research, development, test, and evaluation
Sec. 201. Authorization of Appropriations
Section 201 authorizes the appropriation of funds for the
Armed Forces for research, development, test, and evaluation.
title iii--operation and maintenance
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Sec. 301. Operation and maintenance funding
Section 301 authorizes the appropriation of funds for the
Armed Forces for operation and maintenance.
Sec. 302. Working capital funds
Section 302 authorizes the appropriation of funds for
working capital.
Sec. 303. Repeal of limitations on operation of activities included in
Defense Business Operations Fund
Section 303 repeals the limitations on the implementation
of the Defense Business Operations Fund which are contained
in section 316 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993. Section 316 was enacted at the
time that the Defense Business Operations Fund was first
established. At the time it was established some temporary
evaluation period for the Fund and the activities operating
under it may have been appropriate. Now that the Fund has
been operating for some time, however, a ``probationary
period'' for the Fund and temporary extensions and
limitations on the operation of the Fund should not be
needed.
Sec. 304. Repeal of provisions relating to charges for goods and
services provided through the Defense Business Operations Fund
Section 304 repeals limitations on the operation and
management of the Defense Business Management Fund which were
contained in section 316(a) and (b) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994. These
changes reflect the plans for operation of the Fund which
were contained in the Defense Business Operations Fund
that was submitted to the Congress in September 1993.
Sec. 305. Disposition of proceeds from operation of Naval Academy
laundry
Section 305 amends the provisions of section 6971 of title
10, United States Code, relating to disposition of proceeds
from certain activities at the United States Naval Academy.
Currently, section 6971 consists of two subsections. Current
subsection (a) provides that funds collected from the
operation of the midshipmen's store, including the barber
shop, the cobbler shop, and the tailor shop, and the dairy at
the Academy are deposited to the Treasury and are available
for operating expenses of these activities and such other
expenditures as the Superintendent of the Naval Academy
considers to be necessary for the health, comfort, and
education of the midshipmen. Current subsection (b) provides
that funds collected from the operation of the Naval Academy
laundry shall be accounted for as public funds and that they
are available for necessary laundry service for Academy
activities and personnel. Section 305 combines the two
separate, but essentially similar, provisions contained in
subsections (a) and (b) into a single provision.
Subtitle B--Other Matters
Sec. 311. Revision of date for submission of future years mission
budget
Section 311 changes the required date for the submission of
the Department's future years mission budget from the same
time that the President's budget is submitted to a time not
later than 60 days after the date of the submission of the
President's budget. Under the current law, the President's
budget, the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP), and the
Future Years Mission Budget (FYMB) must all be submitted at
or about the same time. As a practical matter each is
independent, with the FYDP based on the President's Budget
and the FYMB based on the FYDP. Under section 221 of title
10, the FYDP is required to be submitted ``at or about the
same time that the President's budget is submitted to
Congress.'' Under section 222 of title 10, the FYMB is
required to be submitted ``at the same time that the
President's budget is submitted to the Congress.'' About 30
days are required between the time each report is prepared in
order to ensure consistency and to prepare the reports in an
orderly manner. To reflect this fact, this section would
change the submission date for the FYMB to not later than 60
days after date that the President's budget is submitted to
the Congress.
Sec. 312. Live-fire survivability testing of F-22 Aircraft.
Section 312 requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a
report explaining how the Secretary plans to evaluate the
survivability of the F-22 system and assessing various
alternatives to realistic survivability testing. The
provision also requires the Secretary to ensure that major
components and subsystems that could significantly affect the
survivability of the F-22 be made available for live-fire
testing.
Section 2366 of title 10, United States Code, requires
realistic survivability and lethality testing of covered
systems and munitions programs prior to full-rate production.
The requirement is that the covered system must be tested for
vulnerability in combat by firing munitions, likely to be
encountered in combat, at the system configured for combat.
Section 2366 of title 10 allows the Secretary of Defense to
waive the requirement if, before the system enters full-scale
engineering development, the Secretary certifies to Congress
that live fire testing of the system would be unreasonably
expensive and impractical. Because of the cost of an F-22
aircraft, such testing is both unreasonably expensive and
impractical. Since the F-22 has already entered full-scale
engineering development, legislation is needed to allow the
Secretary of Defense to grant a waiver.
In order for the Secretary of Defense to evaluate the
survivability of the F-22 aircraft, the Air Force developed
the revised live fire test program that is summarized in an
enclosure to this letter. This plan includes detailed
analyses, review of historical test data, and incremental
build-up testing that includes material characterization
tests and live fire testing of selected components and
subassemblies. Information from the results of these tests
will be taken into account in the F-22's design. In this way,
we plant to achieve fully the objective of section 2366 in as
realistic a manner as is consistent with cost effectiveness
and practicality.
The proposal will authorize the Secretary of Defense to
grant a waiver to the survivability testing requirements in
section 2366 as they apply to the F-22 system. The enactment
of this legislative proposal shall not cause any increase in
appropriated funding for the Department of Defense or have
any budgetary impact.
Sec. 313. Ballistic Missile Defense mission
The purpose of the section 313 is to amend the statutory
requirement for an Annual Report on Strategic Defense
Initiative (SDI) programs to reflect the current Ballistic
Missile Defense mission.
The Annual Report to congress provides congressional
committees with an assessment of the progress of BMDO in
fielding a ballistic missile defense and a road map that BMDO
intends to follow for the future. The statutory provision
which prescribes an Annual Report, requires BMDO to report on
actions that are no longer pertinent to the direction of the
BMDO program and the current world situation. This proposed
legislation would amend those requirements to reflect the
current mission of BMDO.
Sections 224(b)(3) and 224(b)(4) require that the Annual
Report to congress detail objectives for the planned
deployment phases and the relationships of the programs and
projects to the deployment phases. The deployment phases were
germane when the SDI was developing a system to be fielded in
phases, with each phase (after phase 1), designed to offset
expected Soviet countermeasures and add to U.S. ballistic
missile defensive capabilities. The current focus of the
BMD program is to field improved theater missile defense
systems and maintain a technology readiness program for
contingency fielding of a national missile defense. The
concept of phased additions to offset Soviet
countermeasures and provide large incremental improvements
to U.S. ballistic missile defense capabilities no longer
exists.
Section 224(b)(7) requires an assessment of the possible
Soviet countermeasures to the SDI programs. With the demise
of the Soviet-Union and the shift in focus of the BMD program
to fielding theater missile defense systems, this requirement
is no longer applicable and should be amended to reflect the
current threat.
Sections 224(b)(9) and 224(b)(10) require details on the
applicability of SDI technologies to other military missions.
The missions addressed have largely become the primary focus
of BMDO and reporting how SDI technologies could be applied
to other military missions is no longer relevant. These two
subparagraphs should be repealed, as they are redundant with
reporting the status of today's BMD.
Enactment of the proposed legislation will not result in
any increase in budgetary requirements. Our analysis of the
costs incurred and the benefits derived is that this
legislation is budget neutral.
Sec. 314. Repeal of requirement for the Secretary of Defense to provide
advance review and approval of proposed developmental tests of limited
defense system program projects and to provide independent monitoring
of the tests
The purpose of section 314 is to remove the current
requirement for the Secretary of Defense to provide advance
review and approval of proposed developmental tests of
Limited Defense System (LDS) program projects and to provide
independent monitoring of the tests.
The requirement for Secretary of Defense review and
approval of proposed LDS program projects developmental tests
prior to conducting the test and for the Secretary to provide
an independent monitoring of the implementation of tests is
an unnecessary requirement. Any additional review, approval,
or monitoring requirements above those already established
for LDS testing would be redundant and bring little value to
the current test and evaluation process that is aggressively
enforced.
Currently the LDS developmental testing program is
monitored by a senior level steering group composed of the
Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition) Director of Test and
Evaluation, the Deputy Under Secretary of the Army
(Operations and Research), the Director of Operational Test
and Evaluation and senior Test and Evaluation officials from
each of the Services. To impose a requirement for additional
monitoring of LDS development testing above the current level
of expertise and responsibility would not be prudent and only
serve to generate a redundant and costly layer of reviews.
Enactment of the proposed legislation will not result in
any increase in budgetary requirements. Our analysis of the
costs incurred and the benefits derived is that this
legislation is budget neutral.
Sec. 315. Expansion of the methods of test and evaluation used to
demonstrate theater missile defense interceptor performance prior to
the interceptor program proceeding into low-rate initial production
acquisition phase
The purpose of section 315 is to expand the methodology
used to demonstrate TMD interceptor performance before the
interceptor program proceeds into the Low-Rate Initial
Production (Milestone IIIA) acquisition phase. The
legislation would allow using validated modeling and
simulation to augment live-fire testing to demonstrate that
interceptors have achieved weapons system performance goals
established in the system baseline document pursuant to
section 235(a)(1)(A) of title 10, United States Code, before
the program entered engineering and manufacturing systems
development.
The requirement for demonstrating interceptor performance
to achieve multiple shot engagements involving multiple
interceptors and multiple targets is traditionally conducted
during Initial Operational Testing and Evaluation (IOT&E).
The IOT&E is conducted at the end of engineering
manufacturing and development (EMD) acquisition phase prior
to entering the production and deployment phase at Milestone
III. The rationale for conducting multiple shot engagements
during the IOT&E is that it provides time for system maturing
during the EMD acquisition phase to obtain a level of
performance capability necessary to conduct multiple shot
engagements. The level of performance needed to achieve
multiple shot engagements can only be obtained from
interceptors that are production representative and available
only during the latter part of EMD.
Requiring interceptor performance to be demonstrated solely
through the use of live-fire testing will be expensive and
likely increase the acquisition time needed to get
interceptor programs into production and fielded. Augmenting
live-fire testing with modeling and simulation can provide a
less expensive and more timely method for predicting
interceptor performance. Validated models and simulations can
augment flight tests to provide accurate projections of
interceptor performance, under varying operational
environments and threats, reducing the number of costly
flight tests that must be conducted several times to
establish confidence in the data.
The Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) has
developed an intense and comprehensive test and evaluation
policy to ensure TMD interceptors meet performance
requirements prior to expending funding for their production.
This policy uses a Continuous Comprehensive Evaluation
process that maximizes the use of technical testing data and
supplements flight test with models and simulations. The
policy includes the procedure for verifying and validating
all models and simulations used to predict interceptor
performance. The models and simulations are based on actual
data collected and analyzed from live-fire
interceptor testing to ensure realistic and accurate
predictions.
TMD interceptor performance will be reported to Congress
prior to entering production (Milestone III) under section
2399 of title 10, United States Code. The Director of
operational Test and Evaluation, Office of the Secretary of
Defense, prepares and submits a Beyond Low-Rate Initial
Production Report to the Secretary of Defense, Under
Secretary of Defense (Acquisition), and congressional defense
committees. This report will confirm that adequate testing
has been conducted in an operational environment consistent
with what the interceptor will be expected to operate in when
fielded to evaluate system performance prior to committing to
a production decision.
Enactment of the proposed legislation could result in a
cost avoidance of approximately $249 million for FY95-99 and
beyond by delaying or reducing the required quantity of
multiple simultaneous engagements for TMD interceptor
programs. More accurate cost estimates will be available as
the TMD programs mature and actual testing costs are
available.
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Beyond
------------------------------------------------------------------------
143........................... 3 50 2 2 50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A more detailed cost analysis follows:
This proposal will result in a reduction of the costs
necessary for compliance with the current statutory language
in Section 237a., Testing of Theater Missile Defense
Interceptors.
These cost are estimates based on evolving Service testing
programs. They reflect the cost savings that can be
reasonable expected to result from the proposed language
change. However, many of the programs that make up Theater
Missile Defense have not reached a level of maturity that
enable them to predict actual testing costs. In some cases,
the selection process for test sites and instrumentation
systems has not been completed. Test article and target
costs, and testing quantities for validation and
demonstration have not been determined. Therefore, for those
cases, costs are estimated to represent probable courses of
action.
The matrix below represent estimated cost savings that
could result from adopting the proposed language, by delaying
or reducing the required quantity of multiple simultaneous
engagements.
SAVINGS BY YEAR
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Program ----------------------------------------------------------------- Out
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAC-3............................. *72 (^) ........... ........... ........... ...........
(9I+9T)
THAAD............................. ........... ........... 72 ........... (^) ...........
(9I+9T)
Corps SAM......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 72
(9I+9T)
Navy L Tier....................... 72 ........... (^) ........... ........... ...........
(9I+9T)
Instrument........................ 45 ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
O&M............................... 10 10 10 10 10 10
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 199 10 82 10 10 82
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I--=Interceptors required.
T--=Targets required.
*--=First opportunity for funding; may be insufficeint lead time to avoid program slip and additional costs.
^--=LRIP IPR.
Assumptions used in the Savings by Year matrix.
1. One test (multiple simultaneous engagement) requires 3
interceptors and three targets.
2. Programs listed above have generally budgeted for a
single interceptor/target flight test rather than multiple
simultaneous engagements. Therefore, the above costs reflect
the cost of the other two interceptors and targets.
3. Estimated cost for an interceptor is $5M.
4. Estimated cost for a target is $3M.
5. No ranges are currently equipped to safely conduct MS?
Required instrumentation and safety equipment will cost an
estimated $54M.
6. LRIP IPRs are tentatively scheduled as follow:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program LRIP IPR Source of date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAC-3.................... MM 2Q96............ Patriot TEMP, Oct 93.
ER 3Q96............ Patriot TEMP, Oct 93.
THAAD.................... 2Q99............... THAAD TEMP, Aug 93.
CORPS SAM................ FY 02.............. CORPS SAM TEMP, 17 Mar
93.
Navy Lower Tier.......... Late FY 97......... TMD Briefing Chart, back
up for TMDI Review,
``Sea Based TBMD
Proposed Schedule''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 316. Disaster relief
Section 316 provides authority for the President to provide
disaster relief assistance in response to civil or foreign
man-made or natural disasters.
The fiscal year 1993 Appropriations Act provided authority
for $50 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide
funding, to be used for the global disaster relief activities
of the Department of Defense. Under this authority, the
Department provided initial support for disaster relief
activities in response to the famine in Somalia, relief for
the Chinese migrants under Operation Provide Refuge; Meals
Ready to Eat and Humanitarian Daily Rations for use in the
Former Yugoslavia; and support of the transportation costs of
the Bosnia Airlift and Airdrop.
In fiscal year 1994, the Appropriations Conference
Committee deleted funding requested specifically for global
Disaster Relief, but directed that the Department use
existing cash balances in the Defense Emergency Response Fund
for natural and other disasters. The Defense Emergency
Response Fund, enacted by Public Law 101-165, the Department
of Defense Appropriations Act of 1990, was initially
established to serve as a revolving contingency fund in
anticipation of reimbursements from State, Federal and local
government agencies for Department of Defense costs incurred
in responding to civil disasters. In amending this language,
Congress expanded authority to use the Defense Emergency
Response Fund to fund any natural of manmade disasters, civil
or foreign, without requiring reimbursement.
The proposed fiscal year 1995 legislation provides clear
authorization within the Defense Authorization Act for
funding these activities. Delegation of this authority by the
President to the Secretary of Defense would be provided by
Executive order. With this language, the Disaster Relief
program would continue to provide the flexibility necessary
to respond to urgent, unanticipated requirements due to civil
or foreign manmade or natural disaster.
Enactment of this proposal will support the
Administration's fiscal year 1995 Budget Request to
appropriate $46 million to support the Disaster Relief
Activities of the Department of Defense. The Department of
Defense considers this proposal to be an important component
of its fiscal year 1995 national security program.
Sec. 317. Amendment to the emergency and extraordinary expense
authority for the Inspector General of the Department of Defense
Section 317 would remove the statutory ceiling on the
Inspector General, Department of Defense, for emergency and
extraordinary expenses authority provided in section 361 of
the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal year 1994
(Public Law 103-160). The removal of this ceiling is
consistent with the emergency and extraordinary expense
authority of the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of
the military departments. The ceiling could jeopardize
ongoing Inspector General investigatory operations. In that
funds made available are contained within the overall
Operation and Maintenance Appropriations available to the
Inspector General, there would remain in effect a ceiling but
at a higher subdivision, thereby providing the Inspector
General with greater flexibility. Since the overall ceiling
would remain in effect, there is no impact on the budget.
title iv--military personnel authorizations
Subtitle A--Active Forces
Sec. 401. End strengths for active forces
Section 401 authorizes the end strengths (the end of the
fiscal year--September 30, 1995) for active duty personnel of
the Armed Forces.
Subtitle B--Reserve forces
Sec. 411. End strengths for Selected Reserve
Section 411 authorizes the end strengths (the end of the
fiscal year--September 30, 1995) for Selected Reserve
personnel of the reserve components.
Sec. 412. End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of the
Reserves
Section 412 authorizes the end strengths (the end of the
fiscal year--September 30, 1995) for the Reserves serving on
full-time active duty in support of the Reserves as
contemplated in section 678 of title 10, United States Code.
Sec. 413. Increase in number of members in certain grades authorized to
be on active duty in support of the Reserves
Section 413 increases the number of members in the grades
of E-9, E-8, Major or Lieutenant Commander, Lieutenant
Colonel or Commander, and Colonel or Navy Captain authorized
to be on active duty in support of the Reserves. The
provision amends the table in section 517 of title 10, United
States Code.
Subtitle C--Military Training Student Loads
Sec. 421. Authorization of training student loads
Section 421 authorizes the average training student loads
for the components of the active and Reserve Armed Forces.
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy
Sec. 501. Authority of Secretary of Military Department to approve
officers serving on certain successive selection boards
Section 501 amends section 612(b) of title 10, United
States Code, to authorize the Secretary of the military
department concerned to approve officers to serve as members
on successive selection boards convened under section 611(a)
of this title for the consideration of officers of the same
competitive category and grade if the second board does not
consider the same officer or officers as the first board.
Section 612(b) of title 10, United States Code, provides
that board members may not be a member of two successive
promotion selection boards convened under section 611(a) of
title 10, United States Code, for the consideration of
officers of the same competitive category and grade. Section
628 of title 10, United States Code, provides that the
membership for special selection boards will be composed in
accordance with section 612.
This legislation proposal provides, under approval of the
Secretary of the military department concerned, that officers
may serve as board members on successive selection boards
convened under section 611(a) of title 10, United States
Code, for the consideration of officers of the same
competitive category and grade if the second board does not
consider the same officer or officers from the first board.
There would be no budget impact if this proposal is enacted.
Sec. 502. Technical changes to sections codified by the Warrant Officer
Management Act
The purpose of section 502 is to amend chapter 33A of title
10, concerning the personnel management of warrant officers,
to make certain sections in the chapter consistent with
parallel provisions applicable to commissioned officers other
than warrant officers. The proposal would also remove
inconsistent language in certain sections and would make the
provisions in chapter 33A applicable to retired warrant
officers who are recalled to active duty.
Currently, regular warrant officers must execute a new oath
of office under section 3331 of title 5 upon appointment to a
higher grade. This oath serves as evidence of the acceptance
of the appointment. Section 626 of title 10, concerning
commissioned officers above the grade of chief warrant
officer, W-5, provides that an officer appointed to a higher
grade is considered to have accepted such appointment on the
date on which the appointment is made unless the officer
expressly declines the appointment. Section 626 also provides
that an officer who has served continuously since the officer
subscribed to the oath required by section 3331 is not
required to take a new oath upon appointment to a higher
grade. This proposal would add virtually identical provisions
to section 578 of title 10 concerning promotions of warrant
officers on the warrant officer active-duty list.
Section 573(a)(2) requires that a warrant officer, W-1,
serve not less than 18 months on active duty in that grade
before promotion to chief warrant officer, W-2. Similarly,
section 574(e) provides that a chief warrant officer may not
be considered for promotion to the next higher grade under
chapter 33A of title 10 until the officer has completed three
years on active duty in the grade in which the officer is
serving. Section 619 of title 10, concerning the promotion of
commissioned officers above the grade of chief warrant
officer, W-5, does not provide that the minimum periods of
service required prior to promotion to a higher grade be
service on active duty. This proposal would amend sections
573(a)(2) and 574(e) to make their service requirements
consistent with those imposed on commissioned officers above
the grade of chief warrant officer, W-5.
Section 575(d) of title 10 provides that each time a
selection board is convened to consider warrant officers on
the active duty list for promotion, each warrant officer in
the promotion zone and each warrant officer above the zone
shall be considered for promotion. Section 577, however,
provides that the Secretary concerned may, by regulation,
preclude from consideration by a selection board a warrant
officer who has an established separation date that is within
90 days after the date on which the board is convened. This
proposal would amend section 575(d) to recognize explicitly
that warrant officers who have an established separation date
within 90 days after the board convened would not have to be
considered for promotion.
Section 576(e) of title 10 provides that a report of a
selection board must be submitted to the Secretary concerned
for approval or disapproval. Section 576(f)(1) indicates that
after the Secretary's review, unless the Secretary returns
the report for corrective action, the Secretary must submit
the report as required by section 576(e), i.e., to the
Secretary of the military department concerned. Read
literally, the last sentence in section 576(f)(1) requires
the Secretary to submit a report to himself. This proposal
would strike that sentence.
Under section 580 of title 10, a warrant officer who has
twice failed of selection for promotion to the next higher
regular warrant officer grade shall be retired if retirement
eligible or separated from active duty. Currently under
section 580(a)(3), a warrant officer who has at least 18 but
not more than 20 years of creditable active service on ``(A)
the date on which the Secretary approves the report of the
board under section 576(e) of [title 10], or (B) the date on
which his name was removed from the recommended list under
section 579 of [title 10], whichever applies'' may remain on
active duty until the officer is retirement eligible. The
date of retirement of such an officer is not later than the
first day of the seventh calendar month beginning after the
date upon which the officer completes 20 years of active
service. These provisions parallel those applicable to
commissioned officers above the grade of chief warrant
officer, W-5, with one exception. To remain on active duty
after having twice failed of selection, a warrant officer
must have at least 18 years but not more than 20 years
active service at the time the Secretary approves the
selection board report. A commissioned officer above the
grade of chief warrant officer, W-5, may remain on active
duty if on the date on which the officer is to be
separated the officer is within two years of qualifying
for retirement, i.e., not later than the first day of the
seventh calendar month beginning after the month the
report is approved. This proposal would amend section 580
to permit a warrant officer to remain on active duty if
the officer is within two years of qualifying for
retirement at the time the officer would otherwise be
separated, rather than at the time the Secretary approves
the selection board report.
Section 582(2) indicates that retired warrant officers on
active duty are not subject to chapter 33A of title 10. This
has resulted in an inequity due to a warrant officer
personnel policy of the past. Section 1305 of title 10
provides that a regular warrant officer below the grade of
chief warrant officer, W-5, who completes 24 years of active
service as a warrant officer shall be retired and that a
chief warrant officer, W-5, who completes 30 years of active
service as a warrant officer shall be retired. Subsection (c)
of section 1305 authorizes the Secretary concerned to defer
retirement for length of service, but not later than 60 days
after the warrant officer becomes 62 years of age. Currently,
members whose retirement dates are deferred remain on active
duty and are subject to chapter 33A of title 10 and can
compete for promotion. In the past, however, rather than
defer retirement, warrant officers were retired and then
recalled to active duty. Because of section 582(2), these
warrant officers are not subject to chapter 33A. This
proposal would make retired warrant officers who were
recalled to active duty without a break in service prior to
the effective date of the Warrant Officer Management Act
(February 1, 1992) subject to chapter 33A. If enacted, this
legislative proposal would not increase the budgetary
requirements of the Department of Defense.
Sec. 503. Authority for facilitated promotions when all officers on a
confirmation list are not confirmed at one time
Section 503(a) of the bill amends section 624 of title 10,
United States Code, to authorize the Secretary concerned, in
a case where the Senate has given its advice and consent to
the promotion of some, but not all officers on a promotion
list, to appoint those confirmed officers junior to the
nonconfirmed officers on the list in the order and at the
time they would otherwise have been appointed. Should the
Senate later confirm an additional officer on the same
promotion list, the Secretary concerned may, upon his
appointment, give him the same date of rank, effective date
for pay and allowances in the higher grade, and the same
position on the active-duty list he would have had if the
delay had not occurred or make such other adjustments as the
Secretary concerned considers appropriate. Section 503(b) of
the bill makes a conforming amendment.
The Department of Defense is required by section 624(c) of
title 10, United States Code, to submit promotion lists for
most officers on the active duty list to the Senate for its
advice and consent. From time to time, the Senate withholds
its advice and consent to some officers on a promotion list
for further inquiry into matters affecting their fitness for
promotions. Under section 624(a)(2) promotions must be made
in the order in which they appear on the promotion list and
only after officers previously selected for promotion in that
competitive category have been promoted. No confirmed officer
on a list who is junior to a nonconfirmed officer is promoted
until the Senate either confirms the senior officer or
finally rejects the officer under section 629(b). Pending
that Senate resolution, proposed section 624(e)(1) would
remove any statutory impediment to the promotion of such
junior officers and thereby ``facilitate their orderly
promotion in accordance with the needs of the service.''
Proposed section 624(e)(2) would grant the Service
secretaries the same power to make an officer whole in the
cases of delayed Senate confirmation, as they currently
possess in cases of formal promotion delay. Under proposed
section 624(e)(2), the Secretary concerned, upon the
officer's confirmation, could adjust the date of rank,
effective date for pay and allowances in the higher grade,
and position on the active duty list as though the officer
had been confirmed with the other officers on the same list,
or grant intermediate relief if the Secretary deems it
appropriate. This authority would be used in cases where the
allegations which gave rise to the original delay in
confirmation were found to be unsubstantiated, and the
officer would suffer an injustice if such an adjustment was
not made. Proposed section 624(e)(2) would empower the
Secretary concerned to afford the officer meaningful relief
by an expeditious administrative process without the need to
petition a board for the correction of military records for
such redress under section 1552 of title 10, United States
Code.
This proposal would result in no increase in cost to the
Department of Defense.
Sec. 504. Retirement or enlistment of certain limited duty officers of
the Navy and Marine Corps
Section 504 applies to limited duty officers in the Naval
service who have twice failed selection for promotion to the
next higher grade. The purpose of the legislation is twofold:
first, it would establish a similar right to achieve
retirement eligibility for limited duty officers of the Navy
and Marine Corps as now exists for those officers who are not
designated for limited duty and for warrant officers; second,
it would provide clear authority for enlistment in a grade
determined by the Secretary if a limited duty officer, having
twice failed selection, was not within two years of achieving
retirement eligibility and it would terminate the current
option of reversion to warrant officer grade now provided in
section 6383 of title 10, United States Code.
Section 632 of title 10, United State Code, provides that
officers of the Navy serving in grades of lieutenant
commander and lieutenant and officers of the Marine Corps
serving in grades of major and captain, who are not
designated for limited duty, shall be retained on active duty
until qualified for retirement in their present grades if
they will qualify for such retirement within two years of the
date on which they would be involuntarily separated following
the second failure of selection. Section 580 of title 10
establishes similar authority for warrant officers. However,
under section 6383 of title 10, the limited duty officer in
the same grade as an officer not designated for limited duty
is not retained automatically in his current grade until
eligible for retirement under the same circumstances. Rather,
the options provided are discharge, possible continuation on
active duty in his current grade if selected by a board by
the Secretary of the Navy under authority of section
611(b) of title 10, or reversion to a warrant officer
grade.
There is no compelling reason to discharge the limited duty
officer who is within two years of retirement eligibility
when non-limited duty officers are retained until retirement
under the same circumstances. While authority to continue the
officers in question by board action does exist under section
6383(i) of title 10, it is considered inefficient and
unnecessary to hold a board for limited duty officers when
officers when officers not designated for limited duty in the
same grades are automatically retained until eligible for
retirement. This proposal would thus promote efficiency in
the management of limited duty officers of the Navy and
Marine Corps.
Some limited duty officers may twice fail of selection for
lieutenant or lieutenant commander, captain or major, before
reaching the point of being within two years of qualifying
for retirement. Others may be considered not qualified for
promotion to lieutenant (junior grade) or first lieutenant.
Officers in this category will not have been commissioned
from the warrant ranks, but from the middle enlisted grades.
Some recognition should be given the effort and time that
those officers will have invested in a military career and it
is considered unduly harsh to terminate their military
careers at that point. The enlistment option is considered to
be the best way of permitting such an individual to continue
his or her career when retirement as an officer is not
available and is preferred to the current practice of
appointment in a warrant officer grade. Reversion to the
warrant officer grades creates significant manpower planning
and integration difficulties in those ranks and therefore is
not a desired option. The possibility of continuation in the
grade then serving would be preserved through Board action
for officers with the rank of Lieutenant Commander (Major) or
Lieutenant (Captain) if, in the opinion of the Secretary, the
needs of the Navy so require.
This proposal would result in no increase in cost to the
Department of Defense.
Sec. 505. Authority for temporary promotions of certain Navy
lieutenants
This section would make permanent section 5721 of title 10,
United States Code, by repealing its sunset provision thereby
authorizing on a permanent basis the temporary promotions of
certain Navy lieutenants.
Subtitle B--Reserve component matters
Sec. 511. Reserve Forces Policy Board amendments
Section 511 amends section 175 of title 10, United States
Code, establishing the membership of the Board to include a
regular flag/general officer assigned to the joint staff and
a general officer of the Regular Marine Corps.
The rationale for this proposal is that the enactment of
the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization
Act of 1986 increased the role of the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and established a new channel of
communication between the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff and the commanders of the combatant commands. As a
result of the fundamental changes occurring in budgets, roles
and missions, and national strategy, more and more Reserve
component issues are emerging which require the attention of
the Board. The addition of a member of the Joint Staff would
provide an essential communication link on Reserve component
matters between the Board, the Joint Staff, and the combatant
commanders, providing a channel for the war fighting CINC's
to bring Reserve component issues to the Board.
Similarly, Board membership should be expanded to include
an Active component representative of both the Navy and the
Marine Corps, providing representation from the active
military side of both elements of the Department of the Navy.
In addition, this would also be an opportune time to amend
the law to affirm the long-standing practice of filling Board
positions with flag and general officers.
Sec. 512. Authorization of Limited Selected Reserve call up authority
and expansion of 90-day call up period
Section 512 would amend section 673b of title 10, United
States Code. It would permit the activation of Selected
Reserve units and members of the Selected Reserve not
assigned to units organized to serve as units for an initial
period of service of 180 days, with extension of an
additional 180 days. Such an amendment would assure the
availability of Selected Reserve units and individuals and
would increase the flexibility of the Total Force in
responding to a crisis. It would authorize the President to
designate the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of
Transportation to order up to 25,000 members of the Selected
Reserve to active duty to support the early phases (up to 90
days) of an operational mission; e.g., to put in place the
infrastructure for movement; to open the seaports; to provide
air crews and maintenance; to establish enroute support; to
set up and operate crisis action teams; to deploy civil
affairs teams; to deploy special operations forces; to
establish mobilization stations; and to surge logistics and
medical support.
Sec. 513. Repeal of obsolete provisions pertaining to transfer to the
retired Reserve
Section 513 would repeal the requirement that Regular
enlisted members who retire after completion of at least 20
but less than 30 years of active service becomes a member of
the Army Reserve or the Air Force Reserve and be subject to
such active duty as may be prescribed until his total
service, including such Reserve service reaches 30 years. The
provisions of section 3914 and 8914 which would be repealed
date to 1946. Since 1983, section 688 of title 10, United
States Code, has provided that a retired member of the
Regular Army or the Regular Air Force who has completed at
least 20 years of active service may be ordered to active
duty by the Secretary concerned at any time, thus rendering
the subject provisions of sections 3914 and 8914 obsolete.
Repeal of these obsolete provisions would also reduce the
requirement for administrative actions which unnecessarily
complicate the Reserve structures of the Army and the Air
Force.
Sec. 514. Guard and Reserve transition initiatives
Section 514 would modify the program of Guard and Reserve
Transition Initiatives to ensure the effective operation of
these initiatives through the life of the program. Section
561(f) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1994 extended these initiatives for an additional four
years and they are now effective through October 1, 1999.
Section 514 would modify the special transition program of
annual payments for Reservists authorized by section 4416 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993
as amended. Since the period of this authority has been
extended by four years, additional flexibility in the program
is needed to ensure its most cost-effective utilization to
meet the needs of the armed forces consistent with
congressional intent.
Section 514(1) would revise the current provision for five
annual payments to authorize from one to five such payments.
Section 514(2) would correct what appears to be an unintended
anomaly of existing law. Under the current law, a member
entitled to an annual payment which is due just prior to the
member's 60th birthday would receive the full amount of the
annual payment, even though the member would be entitled to
retired pay beginning at age 60. The recommended change would
provide for a prorated payment in such cases. Section 514(3)
would conform the annual payment with other separation pays
by requiring that the full amount of any annual payment
received be repaid by reduction from the member's retired
pay, travel, transportation, and relocation expenses of
employees transferred from the Department of Defense to the
Postal Service.
Subtitle C--Other Matters
Sec. 521. Use of exchanges and Morale, Welfare and Recreation
facilities by certain retirees
Section 521 amends section 1065 of title 10, United States
Code, to align the entitlement of retired members of the
Selected Reserve to use Department of Defense exchanges and
other revenue-generating morale, welfare, and recreation
facilities with those of other Armed Force retirees.
The purpose of the proposal is to modify the current
entitlement of members of the Selected Reserve in good
standing (as determined by the Secretary concerned) who would
be eligible for retired pay under chapter 67 of title 10,
United States Code, but for the fact that the members are
under 60 years of age (``gray area'' retirees), and the
dependents of such members, to use Department of Defense
exchanges and other morale, welfare, and recreation revenue
generating facilities.
Section 321(c) of Public Law 101-510 extended members of
the Selected Reserve in good standing (as determined by the
Secretary concerned), and their dependents, and these ``gray
area'' retirees, and their dependents, eligibility to use
Defense exchanges and revenue generating facilities. The
section further provided that their use ``shall be permitted
on the same basis as members on active duty.''
Consistent with long-standing guidance from the Armed
Services Committees of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, Department of Defense policy has provided
that its exchanges and other morale, welfare, and recreation
facilities are operated primarily for active duty personnel
and their dependents. This policy has also provided that
individuals who retired from military careers with pay (and
their dependents) are eligible to use these exchanges and
other facilities, but their use entitlement has been
subordinate to that of active duty military members and their
dependents. The effect of Section 321(c) as it applies to
``gray area'' retirees and their dependents is that it
provides them a use entitlement equal to that of Armed Forces
personnel on active duty and their dependents, and a higher
use-entitlement than that available to individuals who
retired from active duty military careers and retired with
pay and their dependents.
The proposal will not affect the entitlement of members of
the Selected Reserve in good standing (as determined by the
Secretary concerned) and their dependents to use these
exchange and other facilities on the same basis as members on
active duty. It will, however, specifically realign the
entitlement of the ``gray area'' retirees and their
dependents to use these facilities with those of individuals
who retired from active duty military careers and retired
with pay and their dependents.
If enacted, this section would not result in an increase in
the budgetary requirements of the Department of Defense.
Sec. 522. Overseas military end strengths
Section 522 repeals Section 1302 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484)
mandating a 40 percent reduction in U.S. overseas troop
strength by the end of fiscal year 1996.
Section 1302 of the FY 1993 Authorization Act directed a
ceiling on military permanently stationed ashore outside the
United States after September 30, 1996 to no more than 60% of
those so stationed on September 30, 1992. Our initial
estimates show that this ceiling will not allow the
Department of Defense to execute the forward positioning
determined in the Bottom Up Review and directed in the
Defense Program Guidance. Specifically, if the troop strength
ceiling of 100,000 is maintained in Europe, the projected
Pacific troop strength will require a significant troop
reduction to meet the Congressional overseas troop strength
ceiling. Exacerbating the problem in Korea is that the
planned Nunn-Warner phase II drawdown has been postponed due
to the North Korean threat. The option of reducing troops in
Japan is also counterproductive since that country is a major
burden sharing contributor.
The overseas troop ceiling imposed by Public Law 102-484
does not allow effective implementation of the East Asia
Strategic Initiative and inhibits the ability to further
national interests through the strategy of cooperative
engagement in the Asia-Pacific region. The legislation also
runs counter to President Clinton's commitment during his
visit in July 1993 that there would be no reduction in
force structure in the region.
No cost and budget data is available at this time.
title vi--compensation and other personnel benefits
Subtitle A--Pay and allowances
Sec. 601. Military pay raise for fiscal year 1995
Section 601(a) waives any adjustment required by section
1009 of title 37, United States Code, in elements of
compensation of members of the uniformed services to become
effective during fiscal year 1995.
Section 601(b) increases the rates of basic pay, basic
allowance for subsistence, and basic allowance for quarters
of members of the uniformed services by 1.6 percent,
effective January 1, 1995.
Sec. 602. Calculation of retired pay of a commissioned officer of the
Armed Forces when the Secretary concerned determines the officer did
not serve satisfactorily in the grade held at retirement
The purpose of section 602 is to correct the unintended
effect of section 1401a(f) of title 10, United States Code,
which permits certain commissioned officers of the armed
forces to receive retired pay in a grade higher than the
grade in which they were retired.
Section 1401a authorizes an increase in military retired or
retainer pay to reflect increases in the Consumer Price
Index. Subsection (f) of the statute provides that the
monthly retired pay of a member who initially became entitled
to that pay on or after January 1, 1971, may not be less than
the monthly amount to which the member would be entitled if
the member had retired at an earlier date. The purpose of
this subsection was to correct the ``retired pay inversion
problem.'' For several years prior to the enactment of the
provision, upward adjustments of retired pay under section
1401a occurred in greater amounts and at greater frequency
than did increases in active duty basic pay. This caused many
members who remained on active duty after becoming eligible
for retirement to lose substantial retired pay relative to
those who retired earlier with fewer years of service and, in
some instances, at a lower grade.
Although the section was successful in remedying the
inversion problem, it also had an unexpected result. It
protected the retired pay of members who were reduced in
grade after becoming retirement eligible. Congress partially
corrected this problem in 1988 by exempting soldiers reduced
in grade by court-martial from the protection of section
1401a(f). Section 622, National Defense Authorization Act,
Fiscal Year 1989 (Pub. L. 100-456). However, a commissioned
officer who is retired in a grade lower than that which the
officer held at the time of retirement, due to a Secretarial
determination that the officer did not serve satisfactorily
in the highest grade, is still covered by section 1401a(f)
and receives retired pay at the higher grade.
Section 1370 of title 10, provides that a commissioned
officer is retired in the highest grade in which the officer
served on active duty satisfactorily, as determined by the
Secretary concerned, for not less than six months. Section
1371 and 1374 authorize the Secretary concerned to make a
similar determination for warrant officers and reserve
commissioned officers. There is no similar provision for
enlisted members. The authority to retire an officer at a
grade lower than that which the officer holds at the time of
retirement is exercised judiciously in cases involving
officers who have clearly not performed satisfactorily in the
higher grade. Most grade determinations involve misconduct
which precipitates the officer's retirement. Although section
1370 requires the Secretary concerned to make a determination
of satisfactory service in these cases, that determination is
rendered ineffective, for retired pay purposes, by section
1401a(f). This permits an officer who commits misconduct, or
fails to perform up to standard once the officer becomes
retirement eligible, to avoid the requirement to perform
satisfactorily in order to retire in the highest grade held.
This proposal amends section 1401a(f) to exempt grade
determinations under 1370, 1371, and 1374 from the protection
afforded by section 1401a(f). If enacted, this proposal will
not increase the budgetary requirements of the Department of
Defense.
Sec. 603. Expiring authorities
Sections 603(a) through 603(e) amend sections 308b(f),
308c(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 Selected 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,
1995. 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.
Section 603(f) amends section 301b(a) of title 37, United
States Code, to extend the authority to pay a retirement
bonus to aviation career officers extending their period of
active duty for at least one year. this authority currently
expires on September 30, 1994. This extended authority 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 1994.
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. Annual
cost is $12.8 million for the Navy, $1.8 million for the
Marine Corps, and $46.4 million for the Air Force. This money
has been budgeted by the Services for FY 1995.
Section 603(g) 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, 1995.
Section 603(h) amends section 308a(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, 1995.
Section 603(i) 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, 1995.
Section 603(j) 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, 1995. Termination of Reserve health professional
incentive programs would limit the ability of the Reserve
components to fill shortages in the designated health
professions.
Section 603(k) 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, 1995. Extension of this authority
will allow the Department of Defense to conclude a test
program of a reserve medical bonus.
Sections 603(l) through 603(n) 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 expire on September 30, 1995 or October 1, 1995.
Extension of these authorities is essential in mitigating
historical shortages and to ensure continued safe reactor
operations. Current nuclear officer retention is at a ten-
year low. Failure to renew the authority for these pays will
further exacerbate the situation.
Subtitle B--Retired Pay and Survivor Benefits
Sec. 611. Authority for survivors of uniformed service members to
receive, upon death of member, payment for all leave accrued,
regardless of sixty-day limitation
Section 611 amends Section 501(d) of title 37, United
States Code, to authorize survivors of members of the
uniformed services to receive a payment upon death of a
member for all leave accrued.
The purpose of this legislation is to allow the beneficiary
of a member who dies on active duty with accrued leave to
receive payment for all accrued leave, regardless of the
sixty day career limitation. The amendment would prevent the
deceased member from losing credit for accrued leave for
which the beneficiary does not receive payment due to the
sixty day limitation and which the member obviously can no
longer use.
The current law sets a career limit of sixty days on the
number of accrued leave days for which a member may receive
payment. The survivor of a member who dies on active duty
with an accrued leave balance may only receive payment for a
total of sixty days, less any amount previously sold back by
the member. This denies survivors the benefit of payment for
all leave which the member actually earned, but cannot use
only because death intervened. The Persian Gulf Conflict
Supplemental Authorization and Personnel Benefits Act of 1991
waived the sixty day limit for leave accrued during fiscal
years 90 and 91 for survivors of members who die on active
duty as a result of injury or illness incurred during the
Gulf Conflict. The National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1992 waived the sixty day limit for future
members who die in the course of real-world contingency
operations, but limits the waiver of the sixty day sellback
cap to those leave days accrued during the contingency or
conflict. We need a permanent waiver of the sixty day leave
sellback cap for all members who die on active duty, whether
associated with contingency operations or not. In addition,
we should pay for all accrued leave, not just that which is
earned during a contingency operation.
The estimated costs are unknown but expected to be minimal
in comparison to the economic suffering which may otherwise
exist.
Sec. 612. Disability coverage for officer candidates granted excess
leave
Section 612 amends section 1201 of title 10, United States
Code, by including certain members not entitled to basic pay
among those who receive physical disability coverage. Section
312 entitles Service Members on active duty for 30 days or
more to disability benefits under those sections of law only
if disabled while entitled to basic pay. Except as provided
in section 502(a) of Title 37, an individual who is granted
excess leave by the Secretary of the military department
concerned under section 502(b) of that title is not entitled
to basic pay as long as the member is in that status. If such
an individual were to incur any disability while on excess
leave, he or she would not be entitled to any of the benefits
provided under the provisions of sections 1201, 1202, and
1203 of title 10.
Sec. 613. Forfeiture of annuity or retired pay of members convicted of
espionage
Section 613 corrects an apparent oversight in the original
legislation creating Article 106(a), U.C.M.J. Article 106(a)
U.C.M.J., added 8 November 1985, is based on Section 794 of
Title 18, United States Code, which already included in the
list of offenses contained in section 8312 of title 5, United
States Code. When article 106(a), U.C.M.J., was created, it
should have been added to the list of offenses contained in
section 8312, title 5, United States Code.
Specifically, section 613 prohibits an individual, or his
or her survivor or beneficiary, from being paid an annuity to
retired pay on the basis of the service of the individual
creditable toward the annuity or retired pay if the
individual was convicted of violating article 106(a)
(Espionage) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Sec. 614. Crediting of reserve service for computation of retired pay
Section 614 would provide equitable treatment, in
comparison to officers, for enlisted members retiring after
20 or more years (or during the force drawdown transition
period, 15 or more years) by providing for the crediting of
inactive duty performed while a member of a reserve
component. The current inequity appears to be the result of
legislative oversight.
TITLE VIII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Health Care Management
Sec. 701. Improving coordination of benefits information by sharing
health insurance information from the Medicare and Medicaid coverage
data bank
Section 701 will improve the ability of the Department to
identify and collect from third party payers for health care
services provided in facilities of the Uniformed Services and
under the Civilian Health And Medical Program of the
Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS).
Part A of title XI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1301 et seq.) was amended by the First Session of the 103rd
Congress establishing a Medicare and Medicaid Coverage Data
Bank to be operated by Health and Human Services. Annually,
employers are required to submit to the Data Bank health care
insurance coverage data on individuals electing coverage
under the employers' group health plans.
Both the Medicare and Medicaid programs are, by law, second
payers to commercial insurers in situations where Medicare or
Medicaid beneficiaries also have group health coverage
through their own or their spouse's employment. The Data Bank
will substantially improve the ability of Medicare and
Medicaid in identification of, and collection from, third
parties responsible for payment for health care items and
services furnished to their beneficiaries.
The Department of Defense likewise has a legislative
mandate to identify and collect from responsible third
parties the cost of medical care items and services furnished
its beneficiaries within Uniformed Services medical
facilities and under CHAMPUS. However, the current language
in Part A of title XI (42 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.) restricts
access to the insurance coverage information in the Medicare
and Medicaid Coverage Data Bank to those two entities.
The proposed provision would amend the language in Part A
of title XI extending access to information in the Data Bank
to the Department of Defense. This information will enhance
the effectiveness of the Department of Defense third party
collection program. Section 701 would also extend access
regarding this information to the Secretary of the department
in which the Coast Guard is operating when the Coast Guard is
not operating as a service of the Navy.
An accurate estimate of cost savings that would accrue to
the Department as a result of having access to the Medicare
and Medicaid Data Bank cannot be calculated. At present, the
Department has no way to determine what percentage of
beneficiaries have other coverage through employment.
However, an estimate of $34 million in annual savings can be
made based on (a) the current experience of uniformed
services medical facilities and CHAMPUS in identifying and
collecting from third party payers, and (b) private sector
estimates of the percentage of medical claims submitted which
have other coverage.
Sec. 702. Expanded use of partnership and resource sharing programs for
improved cost-effectiveness
Section 102 would notify the Military-Civilian Health
Services Partnership Program under section 1096 of title 10,
United States Code. This program allows the sharing of health
care resources between military medical treatment facilities
and CHAMPUS-funded civilian facilities when cost-effective.
Section 702 provides authority to the Department to pay for
state licenses for Department of Defense providers when it is
in the government's best interests to do so, in order to
fulfill requirements for such providers to obtain a state
license specifically so that they will be allowed to practice
in civilian facilities under the Department of Defense
External Partnership Program. The amount of any reimbursement
may not exceed $500.
Sec. 703. Improvement of uniformed services treatment facilities
program
The purpose of section 703 is to provide a sound basis for
integrating Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities into the
Department's management health care program, rather than
continuing to treat them in isolation from the rest of the
military health services system.
The special status of the former Public Health Service
Hospitals as deemed military medical treatment facilities was
granted in the early 1980s. Since 1982, the projected
termination date for this special status has been extended
repeatedly. Most recently, the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal year 1994, section 717, moved the first date
at which termination could be authorized from December 31,
1993 to December 31, 1996. That means that what was
intended as a short-term program to assist former Federal
facilities in their transition to operation in the private
sector will have extended for more than 15 years.
At the same time that Uniformed Services Treatment
Facilities have been receiving ongoing, special
noncompetitive agreements with the Department of Defense (as
current law requires), dramatic changes have been taking
place in the remainder of the military health services
system. Large-scale tests of managed care approaches,
integration of military and civilian health care delivery,
and important provider reimbursement reforms have changed the
landscape of military health care, while the Uniformed
Services Treatment Facilities remain in isolation--a nearly
$300 million program ``island'' within the several-billion-
dollar military health services system. Now, as dramatic
reforms of the nation's health care system are being
considered by Congress, is the appropriate time to integrate
Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities into the larger
managed care approach which has been developed for military
health care and, under legislative mandate, is being robustly
implemented.
This proposed revision will provide for the potential
incorporation of Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities into
Department of Defense's health programs, eliminating
redundancy while accommodating the Uniformed Services
Treatment Facilities special status with Department of
Defense beneficiaries. It enactment will provide needed
integration of a small, isolated component of the military
health services system, eliminate existing redundancy,
provide needed economies, and maximize our ability to focus
on the vital task of bringing the military health services
system into harmony with national health care reform.
Precise cost avoidance figures are difficult to estimate,
but the rate of funding growth in the Uniformed Services
Treatment Facilities program over the past five years has
been approximately 15 percent per year, while the military
health services system as a whole has grown at about 5
percent per year. Integration of the Uniformed Services
Treatment Facilities can be expected to reduce their growth
rate to that of the system as a whole, which would save about
$15.4 million in fiscal year 1995.
Sec. 704. Authority to conduct health care surveys of families of
retired members
Section 704 would allow the Department to consider all
persons receiving health care under chapter 55 of title 10,
United States Code, as employees of the United States to
determine the availability of health care services to such
persons, their familiarity with facilities and services
provided, their health and their level of satisfaction.
Currently, the Department has authority to survey active duty
members, their families and retired members regarding their
health care. This provision would remove the present
impediment to including the family members of retirees within
the research sample. It would allow the Department to more
readily and accurately determine the availability of health
care services, health status and level of satisfaction,
thereby enhancing the resource allocation process and the
Department's health care reform initiatives. In addition,
section 724 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1993 Act requires that Department of Defense
conduct an annual beneficiary survey.
The provision will not increase the budgetary requirements
of the Department of Defense.
Sec. 705. Effective date
Section 705 establishes an effective date for this
subtitle.
Subtitle B--Personnel Matters
Sec. 711. Increase in incentive special pay for certified registered
nurse anesthetists
The purpose of section 711 is to provide the Department
with authority to increase annual Incentive Special Pay for
military Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists to a maximum
of $15,000. The original legislation, which authorizes a
maximum Incentive Special Pay of $6,000, was effective
November 29, 1989 as part of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1990. This valuable program
has been successful in helping maintain the number of
Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists on active duty in the
Military services, however, the current Incentive Special Pay
amount has not proven adequate to enable the Department to
increase the number of active duty Certified Registered Nurse
Anesthetists to meet staffing requirements. Shortages of
Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists nationwide continue
to make it difficult for Department of Defense to attract and
retain sufficient numbers of these nurses. Competition with
the private sector for this highly-skilled specialty is
intense, and recruitment and retention of Certified
Registered Nurse Anesthetists continues to be an area of
major concern for the Military Departments. The proposed
change to the Incentive Special Pay maximum amount is needed
so that the Department can effectively compete for this
critical professional resource. At present, civilian earning
potential far exceeds military compensation for Certified
Registered Nurse Anesthetists, and the compensation gap
continues to increase.
This provision would increase the Department's budget
requirements for Incentive Special Pay for Certified
Registered Nurse Anesthetists as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
DOD totals:
Fiscal year:
1995...........................................................+2.4
1996...........................................................+2.9
1997...........................................................+3.4
1998...........................................................+3.9
1999...........................................................+4.4
Sec. 712. Authority for nurse accession bonuses, incentive special pay
for nurse anesthetists, and nurse officer candidate accession bonus
The purpose of section 712 is to provide the Department
with continued authority to pay (a) a nurse accession bonus,
(b) Incentive Special Pay to military Certified Registered
Nurse Anesthetists, and (c) a nurse officer candidate
accession bonus. 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, 1995. 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 nationwide continue to make recruiting
of nurses difficult in light of intense competition with
the private sector. The Department believes that the
effectiveness of these programs would be enhanced by their
continuation. Section 712 would extend these authorities
to September 30, 1998.
Resource Requirements
[In millions of dollars]
DOD totals for fiscal year:
Nurse accession bonus:
1994............................................................8.0
1995............................................................8.0
1996............................................................8.0
1997............................................................8.0
1998............................................................8.0
Incentive special pay for certified registered nurse anesthetists:
1994............................................................4.0
1995............................................................4.0
1996............................................................4.0
1997............................................................4.0
1998............................................................4.0
Nurse candidate accession bonus:
1994............................................................1.0
1995............................................................4.0
1996............................................................4.0
1997............................................................4.0
1998............................................................4.0
Sec. 713. Reduction in the maximum number of years for a military
member to be maintained on the temporary disability retired list
The purpose of section 713 is to reduce from five to three
the maximum number of years a military member may remain on
the temporary disability retired list before a final
determination is made. The Department's disability evaluation
system maintains a fit and vital force by separating or
retiring eligible military members determined to be unfit to
perform their duties because of disease or injury incurred
while entitled to basic pay. When a disabling condition is
unstable and the permanence of the degree of disability
cannot yet be determined, the member is placed on the
temporary disability retired list.
This proposed revision would reduce the number of
individuals retained on the temporary disability retired list
by more than 2,400, resulting in a smaller, more easily-
managed list. Required temporary disability retired list re-
evaluations would also be reduced by this same number,
resulting in a net cost savings to the government and
releasing essential medical resources to provide patient
care.
The proposed revision should have no negative effect on the
benefit provided to the disabled member, rather, it would
shorten the period of uncertainty by providing a final
determination at an earlier point in time. Very few
disability ratings, even a determination for cancer, are
changed after the three-year re-evaluation. This fact leads
to the conclusion that three years is sufficient time to
determine the permanence of a disabling condition. The
proposed revision was mutually agreed upon by the Assistant
Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) and the Department of
Defense Inspector General, as a result of a recent audit of
the disability evaluation system.
The proposed revision should result in a net cost avoidance
to the government estimated at $2.1 million yearly.
Subtitle C--Other Matter
Sec. 721. Revision of definition of dependents for purposes of health
benefits
Section 721 modifies the newly enacted revision of the
definition of dependents for purposes of Department of
Defense health benefits found in section 702 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994. It would
authorize for the purposes of coverage in the military health
care system individuals placed in the home of a member or
former member by a placement agency for the purposes of
adoption and make the new category of ``dependents'' eligible
for CHAMPUS as well as military treatment facility care. The
projected health care cost submitted to the Congress with the
revised definition of dependent was $9.7 million. This was
based on an estimate of 7,940 potential beneficiaries, with
an annual cost of $1,227 per person. This proposed
legislative change would be a negligible part of the original
cost projection.
Sec. 722. Repeal of the statutory restriction on use of funds for
abortions
Section 722 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''.
Sec. 723. Authorization for medical and dental care of abused
dependents of certain members of the uniformed services
The purpose of section 723 is to include authorization for
medical and dental care of abused dependents of members of
the uniformed services who are administratively discharged
from a uniformed service due to a conviction under military
or civil law relating to the abuse of the dependent. Members
of the uniformed services who are convicted in a civilian
court of an offense related to the abuse of a dependent are
administratively discharged from a uniformed service. Under
present law, only those abused dependents of service members
who have been discharged as a result of a court-martial for
the related abuse are provided access to medical and dental
care for treatment of injuries or illness resulting from the
abuse. Our objective is to provide equal access to care for
abused dependents of members who are administratively
discharged from a uniformed service as a result of a civilian
conviction for abuse or who are not convicted but are
discharged due to the underlying abuse. In order to eliminate
this disparity, it is recommended that this proposal be
enacted by the Congress.
In the Navy, over 3,000 substantiated cases of child abuse
and 6,000 substantiated cases of spouse abuse have been
reported for each of the past two years; similar results are
expected at the end of 1992. Access to medical care for
abused dependents should be based on their need for treatment
as a result of the abusive behavior and should not be
contingent upon the method by which the member is discharged.
The estimated cost incurred by the Department of Defense
for enactment of this proposal would be negligible.
Approximately $35,000 a year, based on five cases a year at
$7,000 a case. This estimate is based on the costs of an
actual Secretary of the Navy case.
title viii--department of defense organization and management
Subtitle A--Department of Defense
Sec. 801. Order of succession in military departments
The purpose of this section 801 is to include the General
Counsels of the military departments in order of succession
of officers to act as the Secretary of their departments. The
current orders of succession in sections 3017, 5017, and 8017
of title 10, United States Code, were established in 1986,
when the General Counsels were ranked at level V of the
Executive Schedule, one grade below the Assistant Secretaries
for their departments. In 1991, title 10 was amended to raise
the General Counsels to level IV of the Executive Schedule,
equal in rank to the Assistant Secretaries. Like the
Assistant Secretaries, the General Counsel's appointment is
subject to confirmation by the Senate.
On December 31, 1991, an Executive Order was issued
concerning the order of succession of officers to act as
Secretary of Defense. The Executive Order included the
General Counsels in the same rank of succession as the
Assistant Secretaries. Consequently, the General Counsels of
the military departments are currently included within the
order of succession of officers to act as the Secretary of
Defense, while they are not included within the order of
succession to act as the Secretary of their departments.
Section 801 would also establish by statute the order of
succession among the Assistant Secretaries and the General
Counsel of a military department. Succession would be in the
order fixed by their length of service as permanent
appointees in such positions. Currently, the order of
succession must be prescribed by the Secretary of the
military department concerned and approved by the Secretary
of Defense.
Sec. 802. Authority to prepare the official table of distances
The purpose of section 802 is to transfer responsibility
for maintaining the Official Table of Distances from the
Secretary of the Army to the Secretary of Defense. Current
law (37 U.S.C. 404(d)(1)(A)) requires the Official Table of
Distances to be prepared under the direction of the Secretary
of the Army. Because this table is used to reimburse members
of all the services for travel and all service finance
centers have been consolidated under the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service (DFAS), it is clear that the Secretary of
Defense is the appropriate officer to maintain the official
Table of Distances. This legislation will allow the Secretary
of Defense to delegate this authority to the Director of the
Per Diem, Travel, and Transportation Allowance Committee.
Enactment of this legislation will not increase the budgetary
requirements of the Department of Defense.
Sec. 803. Authority to conduct a program to commemorate World War II
Section 378 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1993 permits the Secretary of Defense to conduct
a program to commemorate the 50th anniversary of World War II
during fiscal years 1993 through 1995. Section 803 extends
that authorization through fiscal year 1996.
The anniversary committee planning the 50th anniversary
program proposes to end the three year celebration with a
week of nation-wide events, such as displays, educational
programs, ceremonies, displays, shows, and parades,
culminating on Veterans Day, November 11, 1995. Because this
day commemorates the 50th anniversary of the first Armistice
Day after the end of World War II, it is a particularly
appropriate day to mark the end of the celebration and to
focus the attention of the Nation not only on our
achievements during World War II but during other conflicts
as well.
The extension of the program into fiscal year 1996 will
also permit the final weeks of celebration to coincide with
the 50th anniversary of the United Nations, tentatively set
for October 24, 1995. The anniversary committee hopes to
schedule a joint session of Congress immediately before or
after the United Nations anniversary. This would allow many
of our allies and former adversaries attending the United
Nations anniversary to be present for the joint session of
Congress.
This legislative proposal will not increase the budgetary
requirements of the Department of Defense. Instead, the
increased activities of the last week of celebration should
greatly expand the opportunity for the anniversary committee
to receive revenues from licensing agreements involving the
use of its logo. The anniversary committee anticipates that
revenue will continue to be generated throughout fiscal year
1996.
Sec. 804. Authority for the Department of Defense to share equitably
the costs of claims under international armaments cooperation programs
Liability claims under cooperative agreements are very
rare; however, the issue of claims sharing is often a
sticking point in negotiating cooperative project agreements
with nations that insist on such claims sharing. The current
authority to share claims equitably has greatly facilitated
the negotiation of cooperative project agreements with other
nations, and has not proven to pose a financial burden on the
United States.
Sec. 805. Change of title of Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Technology to Principal Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Technology
Section 805 is necessary to distinguish the individual
responsible for exercising the powers of the Under Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition and Technology from the four other
Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense for Acquisition and
Technology when the Under Secretary is absent or disabled.
Adoption of this amendment will result in no direct
expenditures by the Federal Government.
Sec. 806. Change of title of Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy to Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
Section 806 distinguishes the individual responsible for
exercising the powers of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy, when the Under Secretary is absent or disabled, from
other Deputy Under Secretaries that are currently in the
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, or may
be established in the future. Enactment of this proposal will
not result in an increase in budgetary requirements for the
Department of Defense.
Sec. 807. Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Defense
Section 807 amends the provisions of section 135 of title
10, United States Code, relating to the duties of the
Comptroller of the Department of Defense by deleting the
provisions providing that he performs the additional duty of
the Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Defense. Its
purpose is to revise the structure of the Office of the
Comptroller to permit the assignment of the duties and
responsibilities of the Department of Defense Chief Financial
Officer to a position other than the Comptroller. In addition
to improving the structure for compliance with the Chief
Financial Officers Act, this proposal would permit the
Department to more effectively focus its resources on the
required actions to improve financial management in the
Department. It would also provide for a more consistent
alignment of the Chief Financial Officer organization within
the Department to that of other Federal Agencies. Consistent
with this amendment, the section amends section 5315 of title
5, United States Code to place the Chief Financial Officer at
level IV of the Executive Schedule. This is the level of all
other Chief Financial Officers.
Sec. 808. Change of title of Comptroller of the Department of Defense
to Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
Title IX of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160:107 Stat. 1547) made the
Comptroller of the Department of Defense the equivalent of an
Under Secretary of Defense by elevating that official to
Level III of the Executive Salary Schedule and placing the
Comptroller between the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
and the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness in the order of precedence. However, that
legislation did not formally designate the Comptroller as an
Under Secretary of Defense. By redesignating the Comptroller
of the Department of Defense as the Under Secretary of
Defense (Comptroller), this provision establishes consistency
in titles among senior Department of Defense officials and
removes all doubt concerning the Comptroller's stature within
the Department of Defense. Enactment of this provision will
not result in an increase in budgetary requirements for the
Department of Defense.
Subtitle B--Professional Military Education
Sec. 811. Authority to hire civilian faculty members for the
Information Resources Management College, National Defense University
The purpose of section 811 is to add the Information
Resources Management College to the list of National Defense
University components eligible to employ civilian professors,
instructors, and lecturers under the authority of section
1595(a) of title 10, United States Code. Because of the
unique structure of the National Defense University, the
wording of the current law failed to include all component
parts. This proposal would remedy current law by adding the
only missing component, the Information Resources Management
College.
The Information Resources Management College is an integral
component of the National Defense University. Public Law 101-
189, enacted in 1989 and codified at 10 U.S.C. 1595, gave the
National Defense University the authority to hire faculty in
order to permit the colleges to recruit highly qualified
faculty that might not otherwise be recruited under the
General Schedule in title 5. The law defined the National
Defense University as the National War College, the
Industrial College of the Armed Forces, and the Armed Forces
Staff College. The Information Resources Management College
became the fourth college of the National Defense University
in March 1990. The Institute for National Strategic Studies
was added to the definition of the National Defense
University in 1991 by Public Law 102-190. Thus, the
Information Resources Management College is the only
component now missing from the statutory definition of the
National Defense University.
Nationally recognized faculty are fundamental to the
intellectual development and mission of the Information
Resources Management College, as well as to maintain the
National Defense University's preeminence in educational
excellence. Thus, the flexibility and incentives associated
with title 10 are needed to attract nationally recognized
faculty.
Enactment of this proposal will not result in an increase
in the budgetary requirements of the Department of Defense.
Subtitle C--Education Matters
Sec. 821. Defense Department Overseas Teachers Pay and Personnel
Practices Act Amendments
Section 821 would amend the Overseas Teachers Pay and
Personnel Practices Act (Public Law 86-91, 20 U.S.C. 901-907)
to authorize the Secretary of Defense to bring the pay of
certain educator personnel employed by the Department of
Defense Dependents Schools into parity with their
counterparts in U.S. public schools and eliminate a pay
inequity between these employees and their classroom teacher
colleagues, and would make certain technical and conforming
amendments.
Section 521(1) and (2) would modify 20 U.S.C. Sec. 901 and
Sec. 903 to afford discretion to the Secretary of Defense to
redesignate certain General Schedule (GS) educational program
management positions as ``teaching positions'' (TPs)
administered under the TP pay provisions of the Overseas
Teachers Pay and Personnel Practices Act. Currently the TP
pay system applies only to positions ``performed on a school
year basis principally in a school'' (i.e., teaching
positions with a 10-month work year). Under the Overseas
Teachers Pay and Personnel Practices Act, the Secretary
determines base pay of TP employees by reference to an annual
wage survey of urban public school jurisdictions serving
populations of 100,000 or more. Consequently, base pay for
TPs under the TP pay system have risen faster than pay for
educational program manager personnel employed in the GS
(including educational coordinators and other educational
specialist holding positions generally classified at the GS-
11 or GS-12 level). The GS educational program management
employees work a 12-month work year and perform work that is
critical to the school level teacher, but their work is not
conducted ``principally in school.'' Section 521, if enacted
will eliminate the pay inequity that currently has certain GS
educational program management employees earning a lower
daily rate of pay (because of their longer work year) than
the classroom teacher they are required to coordinate. This
section of the bill would permit the Secretary to prescribe
which educational program manager personnel should be
classified as ``teaching positions'' and paid on the basis of
comparability with the salaries and personnel practices of
surveyed urban school jurisdictions. This section will bring
the pay of any redesignated educational program management
position overseas into parity with their counterparts in
surveyed urban school jurisdictions in the United States of
100,000 or more population. The redesignation if selected
overseas educator positions will facilitate the movement of
school level teachers into critical educational program
management positions.
Section 521(3)(A) would permit the Secretary of Defense to
prescribe regulations by which to increase leave from 10 days
for teachers who work the standard 190-day teacher work year
to 13 days of leave for educational program manager personnel
who would be converted by this bill to ``teaching positions''
under the Overseas Teachers Pay and Personnel Practices Act
and who would be employed for a longer work year. Personnel
who move from the GS to the TP pay system would be moving
from a system that authorizes up to 30 days of annual leave,
to a system that currently authorizes only 10 days,
predicated upon a standard 190-day teacher work year. The
positions that are converted to the TP system will typically
require more than 190 work days. This provision creates leave
equity between personnel on the TP pay system who would work
longer work years.
Sections 521(2) and (3)(B) conform the provisions of the
Overseas Teachers Pay and Personnel Practices Act to the
language of the subsequently enacted Public Law 95-561 (20
U.S.C. Sec. 921-932). These sections place pay and personnel
practices under the control of the Secretary of Defense,
consistent with the requirements of Public Law 95-561
(specifically 20 U.S.C. Sec. 222) which removes those duties
from the Military Department secretaries.
Sec. 822. Adjustment of pay of certain overseas educators
Section 822 amends Section 5334 of title 5, United States
Code, to permit a flexible, rather than a fixed, adjustment
of pay when an overseas educator employed on a school-year
basis under the provisions of the Defense Department Overseas
Teachers Pay and Personnel Practices Act moves to an educator
position established on a calendar-year basis under the
General Schedule (GS). Current law recognizes an increase of
approximately one-fifth in the work year of an educator
required to move from a 190 duty day Overseas Teachers Pay
and Personnel Practices Act position (about 180 actual work
days after adjustments for leave and holidays) to a 260-day
calendar year position (about 217 actual work days after
adjustments for accrued leave and paid holidays) by
authorizing the fixing of GS pay at a rate equal to the
Overseas Teachers Pay and Personnel Practices Act rate plus a
fixed 20 percent. The inflexibility of the current law
requires the same 20 percent increase when an educator, such
as a principal, with a 222 day work-year is appointed to a
260-day GS position. This section would bring flexibility to
the current law by permitting the Secretary to issue
regulations by which to equitably adjust pay for personnel
moving from the Overseas Teachers Pay and Personnel Practices
Act to the GS pay schedule by an amount not to exceed 20
percent.
Sec. 823. Reauthorization of United States Department of Defense
elementary and secondary schools for dependents
Section 823 would provide title 10 authority for the
Secretary of Defense in a similar manner as such authority
currently is resident in Section 6 of Public Law 81-874, as
amended (20 U.S.C. 241), and Section 505(c) of Public Law 97-
35 (20 U.S.C. 241 note). Public Law 81-874 and Public Law 97-
35 authorize establishment of Section 6 arrangements for the
purpose of providing public education for eligible federally-
connected children. The Department of Education has proposed
legislation, the ``Impact Aid Amendments of 1993'' that would
reauthorize the Impact Aid program while at the same time
repealing section 6 of Public Law 81-874 and 505(c) of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law 97-35).
The proposed section would continue the authority that
otherwise would be terminated by the enactment of the Impact
Aid Amendments of 1993.
The proposed section 823 substantially is the same as that
currently resident in the law. It contains one additional
authority--the authority to the Secretary of Defense to fix
the compensation of employees. Subsection (e)(3) of the
proposed section 2163 of title 10 would authorize the
Secretary of Defense to fix such compensation but only
after considering compensation for comparable employees at
educational institutions in the capitol of the state where
the school is located, the school district for the
governmental agency that provides public education to
students who live next door to the military installation
involved, and the average compensation for similar
positions in up to three other school districts in the
State where the installation is located.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
Sec. 831. Clarification and expansion of authority of the Department of
Defense to receive voluntary services
Section 831 amends section 1588 of title 10, United States
Code, to expand the areas in which volunteers can provide
services in military communities. Under the amendment,
volunteers are considered government employees for the
purposes of compensation for work related injuries, tort
liability, access to records, and conflict of interest
restrictions.
The section expands the current authority of the military
departments to receive voluntary services and permits
volunteers in medical treatment facilities, child development
centers, recreational facilities, schools, and other programs
and facilities where volunteers routinely provide services in
the civilian communities. The section provides the military
departments valuable services, while ensuring that the
volunteers are properly trained and supervised and are
protected from suit under the provisions of the Federal Tort
Claims Act and other applicable claims statutes.
Sec. 832. Repeal of prohibition of contracting for firefighting and
security guard functions at military facilities
The purpose of section 832 is to repeal section 2465 of
title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Department of
Defense to enter into contracts for firefighting and security
guard functions at military installations and facilities.
The Department of Defense has been prohibited from
contracting for security guards and firefighters since 1983.
This broad prohibition has three limited exceptions:
a. when the contract is to be performed overseas;
b. when the contract is to be performed on Government-owned
but privately operated installations; and
c. when the contract (or a renewal of the contract) is for
the performance of a function under contract on September 24,
1983.
Prior to 1983, firefighting and security guard functions
were successfully contracted out. The reason for the current
statutory restriction is unclear.
The prohibition against contracting for firefighting and
security guard functions prevents the Department of Defense
from realizing savings in circumstances where private firms
or state or local governments might provide the services at a
lower cost. It also prohibits commanders from obtaining
contract services for temporary requirements at remote
locations or at leased facilities outside military
installations.
The importance of repealing section 2465 is underscored by
the imminent closure or realignment of many installations.
The Department of Defense must maintain firefighting and
security guard functions at many installations which are
substantially closed. A study of the costs associated with
providing firefighters and security guards at Fort Wingate
Depot Activity (FWDA), New Mexico, provides an example of the
problem that section 2465 presents.
In 1993, FWDA will move into a ``caretaker'' status. Prior
to the disposition of the property, there will be a
requirement for firefighters and security guards. Surveys
indicate a number of firms are available to provide
firefighting and security guard protection for an estimated
$110,000 annually. The United States Army Material Command
estimates that contracting for these functions would save
$474,000 annually.
The repeal of section 2465 will not automatically result in
the elimination of civilian firefighters or security guards
from the Government workforce. Reductions in force may occur
as a result of commercial activities cost competitions
performed under chapter 146 of title 10 and OMB Circular A-
76. In accordance with existing procedures, the Department of
the Army provides Congressional notification of the intent to
study specific functions, and will continue to provide the
results of cost comparisons. Separations from Federal Service
may result from the development of the most efficient in-
house organization, an agreement to receive services from
another government instrumentality, or a contract with the
private sector when the costs are lower than that estimated
for in-house performance. The policy of requiring contractors
to offer displaced Government employees the right of first
refusal for comparable employment with the contractor will
continue to be enforced.
OMB Circular A-76 specifically recognizes that firefighting
and security functions are Government functions that can be
the subject of a cost comparison study and contracted out if
a contractor can provide services effectively and at a lower
cost than an in-house organization. Firefighting and security
functions with the Department of Defense are no different
than other similar functions in the Department and other
federal agencies. The Department of Defense is unaware of any
rationale for excluding firefighting and security functions
from the Government-wide process of determining the least
expensive method for performing Government work.
While exact savings across services are difficult to
assess, contracting for the estimated 6,500 civilian
firefighters and security guards within the Department of the
Army alone could potentially save an estimated $50 million
annually.
Sec. 833. Statute of limitations for claims under the Fair Labor
Standards Act
Section 833 specifies the statute of limitations period as
two years in order to comply with the Fair Labor Standards
Act two year limitation. This will end the conflict over the
general statute of limitations (6 years) versus the Fair
Labor Standards Act statute of limitation (2 years) and
assist us in limiting retroactive back pay claims to the 2
year period.
TITLE IX--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Financial Matters
Sec. 901. Exemption certain routine adjustments of pay from due process
provisions
The Debt Collection Act of 1982 (Public Law Number 97-365;
96 Stat. 1749) provides for due process safeguards prior to
salary offset under section 5514 of title 5 of the United
States Code. These rights include (1) a minimum of 30 days
written notice, (2) the opportunity to inspect and copy
Government records relating to the debt, (3) the opportunity
to enter into a written repayment agreement, and (4) the
right to a hearing. The proposed language amending section
5514 exempts from these procedures those routine intra-agency
adjustments of pay that are attributable to administrative or
clerical errors or delays in the processing of pay documents
that have accrued within the four pay periods preceding the
adjustment and to any adjustment that amounts to 50 dollars
or less. Substituted therefore is the requirement 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 and a point of
contact for questioning or contesting such adjustment.
The Department's employees are paid a wide number of
complex payroll benefits. The nature of these benefits and
entitlements is such that complex interpretations are
sometimes involved with the accurate and timely pay of the
work force. Examples of these types of transactions include
overtime pay conditions, environmental entitlements, leave
accruals and base pay changes under various changing
circumstances. Because of the rather complex rules, the large
numbers of employees involved, and a work force that is
located world wide, the need for clerical or administrative
adjustments each time a payroll is prepared is inevitable. As
a result even a very small percentage of these types of
adjustments could generate a significant workload subject to
the Debt Collection Act.
The Department is working towards the implementation of
modern business systems that will further minimize these type
of adjustments. However, since human nature is involved with
determining entitlements and calculating benefits,
adjustments of this type will probably always exist to some
extent. Although the amounts are every minimal, the
application of full due-process protection could impose a
substantial workload at a time when the Department is
attempting to scale back on its work force. The intent of the
Debt Collection Act is to provide safeguards for employees
where significant amounts are owed. Applying the provisions
of the Act to minimal amounts due as described above could
work to subvert the Administration's efforts in streamlining
government operations. This is not to say that the Department
of Defense advocates the elimination of all due process
safeguards when making such routine adjustments. It should be
noted that in its proposed amendment to 5 U.S.C., section
5514, the Department of Defense has provided for written
notice of the nature and amount of the adjustment and a point
of contact for questioning or contesting such adjustments.
In summary, although the legislative history of the Debt
Collection Act of 1982 indicates that its primary purpose was
to enhance the capability of federal agencies to collect
money or property owed to them, it also provides a number of
new procedures and safeguards designed to assure that alleged
debtors will be provided appropriate due process protections.
Applying the full panoply of such safeguards to routine
adjustments in pay, however, will actually frustrate the
Act's primary purpose because other cost of collecting such
overpayments will exceed recovery.
The enactment of this proposal will cause no apparent
increase and should, in fact, decrease the budgetary
requirements of the Department of Defense.
Sec. 902. Contract Disputes Act amendment relating to payment of
interest on contractor claims
Section 902 amends section 12 of the Contract Disputes Act
of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 611) by striking out the first sentence,
which provides that interest found due on a contractor's
claim shall be paid from the date the contracting officer
receives the claim, and inserting in lieu thereof a new
sentence providing that such time shall run from the date the
contracting officer receives the claim or the date payment
otherwise would be due, if that date is later, until the date
of payment.
Section 902 would overrule the case of Servidone
Construction Corp. v. United States, 931 F.2d 860 (Fed. Cir.
1991) and avoid the windfall created when interest on a claim
is charged for costs not yet incurred and thus not the
subject of a payment request to the Government. It would also
make the interest provision of the Contract Disputes Act of
1978 (P.L. 95-563) consistent with the Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR) 33.208 and the general concept of
prejudgment interest, as articulated by the Supreme Court.
Section 12 of the Contract Disputes Act provides that
interest found due on a contractor's claim shall be paid from
the date the contracting officer receives the claim. In the
case mentioned above the Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit recently interpreted this provision to require the
Government to pay interest on claimed costs from the date the
contracting officer received the claim, even though the
contractor had not yet incurred the costs at the time he
submitted the claim.
The current provision allows contractors to receive a
windfall payment of interest on claimed costs not yet
incurred. Apparently, this windfall was based on the desire
to have a ``single date'' for calculating interest on all
amounts due by a court decision without regard to when the
contractor actually incurred the costs.
If enacted, this proposal would not increase the budgetary
requirements of the Department of Defense.
Subtitle B--Civilian Employee Pay Matters
Sec. 911. Expiring authorities
Section 911 extends certain civilian personnel drawdown
authorities (special RIF notification rules, separation pay,
and continued health benefits) for two years in the outyears.
This would parallel the extension to certain military
drawdown authorities that was enacted in the FY 1994
Authorization Act. In addition, under current law, employees
at bases which close between October 1, 1992 and December 31,
1997 may carry over unlimited annual leave from one year to
the next. Some installations designated for closure by the
1993 Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) will not
close until 1998. This section extends the annual leave
carry-over provisions to employees at any installation closed
through the BRAC process.
The extension of RIF notification and leave restoration
will result in no cost. Congress appropriated $70 million in
FY 1993 and $100 million in FY 1994 for civilian separation
pay. We should be able to absorb the cost of extending
separation pay by avoiding the cost of severance pay, health
insurance, and unemployment compensation. Our estimate of the
cost of continued health benefits if $12 millin per year.
Sec. 912. Travel, Transportation, and Relocation Expenses of Employees
transferred for the Department of Defense to the Postal Service
Under title 5, Federal agencies may pay the cost of travel,
transportation and location for employees scheduled for
separation when the employee is selected for a position with
another Federal agency. The Postal Service is not considered
a Federal agency for this purpose. We have had several
instances where employees who were facing involuntary
separation because of reduction in force or base closure were
selected for positions with the Postal Service in a different
geographic location. Because we have no authority to pay
travel related expenses, and because the employees could not
afford the move, they were separated. As a result, the
Department incurred the cost of severance pay, unemployment
compensation, and continued health insurance. Allowing these
payments will offset the costs.
Sec. 913. Limitation of Severance Pay for Certain Civilian Employees
who are employed by Nonappropriated Funds
Section 913 is needed to prevent appropriated fund
employees from immediately receiving severance pay upon
movement to nonappropriated fund positions under the pay and
benefits protections of the Portability of Benefits for
Nonappropriated Fund Employees Act of 1990. These employees
continue to be employed with little or no loss in benefits.
Employees who are vested in a civil service retirement plan
are given the option to remain in that plan with a goal of
receiving a civil service retirement annuity. Under these
circumstances, immediate entitlement to severance pay is not
warranted and represents an unjust enrichment.
Under the proposed legislation, entitlement to appropriated
fund severance pay would be suspended until the employee is
involuntarily separated from nonappropriated fund employment.
If the employee involuntarily is separated from
nonappropriated fund employment, the original appropriated
fund severance pay entitlement would resume. Under the
proposed new section, eligibility for appropriated fund
severance pay would not resume if the employee is eligible
for an immediate annuity from a nonappropriated fund civil
service or military retirement system at the time of the
separation from nonappropriated fund employment. The
legislation also prevents an employee from receiving
appropriated fund and nonappropriated fund severance pay for
the same period of appropriated fund service, in the same
amounts. Regulations will be written by the Department of
Defense in consultation with the Department of Transportation
to implement the legislation upon enactment.
Subtitle C--Other Matters
Sec. 921. National Guard youth programs
The purpose of section 921 is to authorize the National
Guard to provide limited assistance to certain youth and
other organizations in conjunction with training. This
initiative would enhance the involvement of the National
Guard with youth in the local communities while contributing
to social needs for constructive activities for America's
young people.
This section would authorize members or units of the
National Guard to provide certain assistance to specified
youth and other organizations in conjunction with training if
the provision of such services does not degrade the quality
of the training or otherwise interfere with the ability of
any unit to perform its military functions; the services
provided are not commercially available or commercial
entities affected have agreed in writing not to object; and
the assistance does not materially increase the cost of the
training activities services which could be provided would
include ground transportation; limited air transportation in
support of the Special Olympics; administrative support;
technical training; emergency medical assistance;
communications; and security support.
This section will not result in an increase in the
budgetary outlays of the Department of Defense. The
activities authorized would be carried out within funding
appropriated for the public affairs and youth program
activities of the National Guard.
Sec. 922. Protection from unauthorized use of the name ``Defense
Mapping Agency''
As part of its mandated charter, the Defense Mapping Agency
provides accurate and inexpensive aids for navigators (10
U.S.C. 2791). Further, it prepares maps, charts and nautical
books (10 U.S.C. 2792). The authenticity of this material
must be protected.
Certain DMA mapping, charting and geodesy (MC&G) nautical
and aeronautical products are needed and used by the general
public. DMA accommodates this need through an extensive
public sale program. It is crucial that end users rely on
the most current and accurate products available to assure
safety of navigation. This currency and accuracy of
various publicly available products is increasingly
difficult in the digital data era since DMA's paper, or
``hard copy'' products can be obtained and easily
transformed into digital products or copied onto video or
laser disks for distribution, modification or alteration.
The section is modeled after section 202 of title 10,
United States Code, which provides similar protection for the
Defense Intelligence Agency, the initials ``DIA'' and the
official seal and emblem. No judicial, executive or
Administrative provisions would be overturned or affected by
this change.
Sec. 923. Limitation of liability for any navigational aid prepared or
disseminated by the Defense Mapping Agency
Section 923 amends chapter 147 of title 10, United States
Code, by adding a new section to grant the Defense Mapping
Agency an express exemption from liability associated with
the preparation or dissemination of its products, in whatever
form. This language would make clear that the activities of
the Defense Mapping Agency in the preparation and production
of maps, charts, aids to navigation, publications, products
and information are expressly exempt from any claim or
action.
DMA is a combat support agency of the Department of
Defense. Its mission is to produce topographic, aeronautical
and nautical maps, charts and other publications in hardcopy
and softcopy versions to support United States warfighters.
However, many of its products are used by mariners navigating
vessels around the world.
DMA relies heavily upon nautical and aeronautical products
and information of other countries. A tremendous quantity of
information is processed in preparing and distributing
thousands of maps and charts and related information. DMA
exercises great care to ensure the accuracy of all its
products. Since DMA cannot independently verify all the
information supplied by foreign sources it is unreasonable to
subject the United States to unlimited liability in the
production and distribution of these many products.
For example, in the case of Hyundai Merchant Marine Co.,
Ltd. at. al. v. United States, the HYUNDAI NEW WORLD, a
200,000 deadweight ton bulk cargo carrier, stranded in the
Bay of Sao Marcos, Brazil, on 31 March 1987, resulting in a
total loss of ship and cargo. The ship owner, cargo owners
and underwriters of same, sued the United States for
negligence alleging that the navigators of HYUNDAI NEW WORLD
were using DMA chart 2471 (A DMA facsimile of a Brazilian
chart) containing errors and omissions which were the cause
of the stranding. The potential damages to date are estimated
at $60 million.
This proposed statutory language would make it clear that
the activities of the Defense Mapping Agency in the
preparation and production of maps, charts, aids to
navigation, publications, products and information, in
whatever form, primarily for use of U.S. warfighters, are
expressly exempt from any claim or cause of action.
Sec. 924. Reorganization of the Air Force liaison with the Civil Air
Patrol
Section 924 amends section 9441 of title 10, United States
Code, to reorganize the Air Force liaison with the Civil Air
Patrol. The section adds a new paragraph (b)(12), which
authorizes the Secretary of the Air Force to reimburse the
Civil Air Patrol the cost of maintaining the staff at the
Civil Air Patrol National Headquarters. The section also adds
a new subsection (d), which authorizes the Secretary of the
Air Force to detail retired members as liaison or
administrators to the Civil Air Patrol and provides that
these retired members will receive as compensation not more
than the difference between their retired pay and the active
duty pay and allowances they would receive if ordered to
active duty in the grade and rank in which they retired. It
further provides that duty with the Civil Air Patrol by such
retired members is not to be considered active duty or
inactive duty training for any purpose.
Sec. 925. Informed consent of persons participating in human medical
research
Section 925 amends section 980 of title 10, United States
Code, concerning the use of humans in experimental research.
Currently, the subject must provide informed consent. In the
case of an incompetent person, a legal representative may
provide consent if the research is intended to be beneficial
to the subject. Section 925 permits an incompetent person's
representative to consent to research that is not
specifically intended to be beneficial to the subject, but
which would be of minimal or no risk and could be beneficial
to the subject or to others.
Sec. 926. Military-to-military contacts and comparable activities
This section amends Chapter 6 of title 10, United States
Code, by adding a new section providing permanent statutory
authority for the Secretary of Defense to conduct Military-
to-Military Contacts and Comparable Activities. The section
extends language in the Department of Defense FY 1994
Authorization Act which applies only to FY 1994. Currently,
Defense and Military Contacts also are authorized under the
Cooperative Threat Reduction (Nunn-Lugar) legislation solely
for States of the Former Soviet Union.
Funds appropriated under this new section may be provided
to a CINC on request, an officer designated by the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or to a Department of Defense
component implementing Military-to-Military Contact
activities. The new section identifies activities to be
supported in order to promote the democratic orientation of
the civilian defense establishments and military forces of
other countries. These activities are fully coordinated with
other US agencies and undertaken with the full support of
State Department representatives in host countries. The
legislation provides that activities may not be conducted
with any foreign country unless the Secretary of State
approves such activities. The legislation also provides for
funds appropriated for these activities to reimburse pay and
allowance accounts to fund National Guard and Reserve
personnel participating in regional and bilateral exchange
familiarization programs, such as the National Guard's
``Partnership State'' program. The program links the
National Guards of selected U.S. States to appropriate
military organizations within selected emerging
democracies in Central and Eastern Europe.
In FY 1994, Congress authorized and appropriated $10
million for Military-to-Military Contacts and Comparable
Activities. The Conferees, however, recognized that these
funds would only serve as a ``bridge until Congress can take
up the broader issue of the permanent level and scope of such
contacts''. The proposed legislation for FY 1995 is required
to continue this program annually.
This program recognizes that the Department of Defense has
unique skills to assist foreign defense establishments in
consolidating civilian control of their militaries, and
developing respect for and adherence to democratic principles
and practice. U.S. defense personnel dispatched to a host
nation can encourage these goals through working closely with
their counterparts in areas such as defense planning,
programming and budgeting, defense personnel and resource
management, civil-military relations, military justice and
legal systems, military medicine, and other related defense
issues. These activities generally will be undertaken through
Military Liaison Teams (MLT) stationed in the host countries,
supplemented by Traveling Contract Teams whose visits are
coordinated by the MLT. This approach was initiated in
Central and Eastern Europe in FY 1991-92 and is expected to
continue in this area through FY 1996. Thereafter, the
functions of these teams are expected to be absorbed into the
regular, ongoing activities of the Defense Attache Officers
and Security Assistance Officers.
A critical component of the Military-to-Military Contact
program in Central and Eastern Europe is the U.S. National
Guard and Reserve. These personnel bring essential skills
from both the military and civilian sectors to the tasks of
democratizing foreign defense establishments and their
militaries. Through Reserve contact programs, such as the
``Partnership State'' program, and other regional and
bilateral exchange and familiarization programs, these
citizen-soldiers link the military and civilian personnel of
the defense establishments of democratizing nations to grass
roots America at the State level in institutional and people-
to-people relationships. For FY 1994, no funds were
authorized to provide pay and allowances for Guard and
Reserve personnel in this program. In FY 1995, this proposal
will allow reimbursement from Military-to-Military Contact
program funds to military appropriations accounts for pay and
allowances for U.S. National Guard and Reserve participants.
Enactment of this proposal will support the
Administration's FY 1995 request for $46.3 million to support
Military-to-Military Contacts and Comparable Activities.
These funds will be managed by the Joint Staff with policy
direction and oversight by the Secretary of Defense through
the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
Sec. 927. Purchase of vessels for the Ready Reserve Force
The Ready Reserve Force (RRF) provided a vital strategic
sealift capability in the Persian Gulf War. Failure to fully
fund the RRF in FY 1995 could lead to loss of critical
strategic mobility capability required for future overseas
military interventions. It is essential to assure a high
degree of strategic mobility readiness, for the critical
force deployment requirements identified in the Bottom-Up
Review and the Mobility Requirements Study, by acquiring
additional shipping. The forthcoming update to the Mobility
Requirements Study will further substantiate the requirements
for these essential strategic mobility forces. The proposed
legislation is required to ensure that funding allocated for
RRF enhancement in FY 1995 can be obligated for purposes in
which it was intended.
Sec. 928. Technical Amendment to Authorize Implementation of Junior
Reserve Officers' Training Corps Program Expansion
This amendment is a technical amendment to permit the
Department of Defense to meet the Congressional intent of
section 533 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484, October 23, 1992; 106
Stat. 2315 at 2411). That section instituted a Junior Reserve
Officers' Training Corps which with funding authorizations in
Fiscal Years 1993 and 1994 necessitated increases
substantially in excess of the statutorily mandated
provisions of section 2031(a)(1) of title 10, United States
Code. Section 928 required an increase in the number of JROTC
units from 1,600 to 3,500. The 200 annual limitation on
additional units in section 2031 precludes the Department of
Defense from meeting the Congressional guidelines recently
imposed. This technical correction will enable the Department
of Defense to meet the congressional mandates in this area.
title x--matters relating to allies and other nations
Sec. 1001. Extension of authority to acquire logistic support for
forces deployed outside the United States to authority to acquire from
the United Nations or regional organizations of which the United States
is a member
This section extends the authority to acquire logistical
support from the United Nations or any regional organization
of which the United States is a member in support of
humanitarian or peacekeeping operations such as the United
Nations sanctioned operation in Somalia. Experience during
the U.S. led operation in Somalia, the blockade of Haiti and
the sea blockade of the former Yugoslavia has shown that the
U.S. needs more flexibility in obtaining support from the
United Nations and regional organizations. This authority is
not as critical in United Nations assessed operations where
all support is provided through the United Nations but is
critical to participation in voluntary operations in which
logistic support is a national responsibility. An example of
this requirement would have been the capability to obtain
support for various common support items such as water from
the United Nations during the initial stages of the U.S. led
operation in Somalia (UNITAF).
Sec. 1002. Extension of authority to enter into cross servicing
agreements to authority to enter into agreements with the United
Nations organization or any regional organizations of which the United
States is a member
This section is similar to Section 1001 except that it
allows the United States to provide support on a reciprocal
basis to the United Nations and other regional organizations.
This authority allows for the United Nations to designate
lead logistics support nations for various support
commodities, thereby reducing the requirement for each nation
to maintain duplicative force structure and reducing overall
costs through economies of scale.
Sec. 1003. Method of payment for acquisitions and transfers
This section requires modification to incorporate the
United Nations or regional international organizations of
which the United States as organizations to which the present
legal basis for the method of payment for acquisitions and
transfers applies. Technical change to incorporate extension
of acquisition and cross-servicing authority to those
organizations.
Sec. 1004. Limitation on amounts that may be obligated or accrued
This section has a dual purpose. The first reason is to
include the United Nations and other regional organizations
under the legal ceilings for obligations and accruals. The
second, and most important, purpose of this section is to
change the manner in which dollar ceilings are applied during
contingency operations. The current language states that
dollar limitations remain in place until the determination of
active hostilities. Application of these limitations to
extended military activities short of a state of declared
hostilities could prevent use of these authorities when they
are most needed. Therefore, it is proposed that the dollar
limitations be waived during contingency operations (as
defined in section 101(a)(13), chapter 1 of title 10, United
States Code). United States Armed Forces participating in
multinational operations, like Operation Desert Shield/Storm
and Operation Restore Hope, could benefit from this proposal
by taking advantage of available coalition resources during
activities conducted leading up to or that fall short of
active hostilities.
Sec. 1005. Definitions
This section permits deployed United States armed forces to
loan or borrow general purpose vehicles and other items of
military equipment which would not affect readiness. The
authority to temporarily exchange logistic support of this
nature with designated countries and international
organizations would facilitate greater cooperation during an
exercise or military operation. An example would be loaning
general purpose vehicles to a designated nation during a
joint exercise conducted at a U.S. military base. The section
also clarifies several points concerning the basic
legislation to include the provision of airlift services in
those cases where a Cooperative Airlift Agreement does not
exist and defines calibration services as an allowed logistic
support service.
Sec. 1006. Effective date
This section specifies the effective date for which any
acquisitions or transfers of logistic support, supplies and
services undertaken under the authority of this subchapter
shall be effective.
title xi--peacekeeping and related matters
Sec. 1101. Assistance to international peacekeeping and peace
enforcement activities
Section 1101 authorizes the President to provide
assistance including, but not limited to, personnel,
supplies, services, and equipment, in support of
international peacekeeping and peace enforcement activities.
The section further authorizes the President to pay
assessments on behalf of the United States to the United
Nations.
This authority is parallel to the peacekeeping authority in
the Foreign assistance Act and is the foundation for the
Department of Defense's responsibilities under ``shared
responsibility.'' under the ``shared responsibility'' model
as it is expected to be implemented by executive order, State
would have lead responsibility for managing and funding
traditional non-combat Chapter VI peacekeeping activities
that do not involve U.S. combat units. The Department of
Defense would have lead responsibility for managing and
funding all Chapter VII peace enforcement operations and
those traditional non-combat Chapter VI peacekeeping
operations with U.S. combat units. (In order for the
Department of Defense to have lead responsibility for
managing and funding these operations, the legislation
proposes a DOD CIPA account, as described below.)
Section 1101 provides that the President shall require
reimbursement to the United States for the agreed costs of
any peacekeeping assistance provided pursuant to this
authority. The legislation would, however, allow the
exception that the President may waive, in whole or in part,
reimbursement in exceptional circumstances and when it is in
the national interest. The legislation would provide further,
that reimbursements from the United Nations may be credited
against the United States Government's share of any
assessment due and owing after the Department of Defense has
been reimbursed for its incremental costs (subject to section
(c)(1)).
Section (c)(1) of the legislation outlines the order in
which agencies of the United States Government are to be
reimbursed for assistance provided to international
peacekeeping and peace enforcement activities. Any
reimbursement received shall first be used to reimburse the
appropriate department of the Department of Defense for any
incremental costs. At the option of the appropriate
department of the Department of Defense, the reimbursement
shall be credited either to the appropriation, fund, or
account from which the obligation was incurred or to a
currently available like account.
The legislation would create in the Treasury of the United
States an account, Contributions for International
Peacekeeping and Peace Enforcement Activities Fund, parallel
to the State CIPA account, which can be used only for purpose
of paying assessments on behalf of the United States for
United Nations operations made under this section.
Reimbursements in excess of the incremental costs may be
credited to this account. The legislation makes clear that
funds appropriated or deposited into this account shall
remain available until expended.
The legislation would require the President to submit to
Congress an annual report on international peacekeeping and
peace enforcement activities supported under the authority of
this section during the previous fiscal year. The report
would be due no later than 1 February of each year and would
include descriptions of each international peacekeeping and
peace enforcement activity supported under the authority of
this section, the type of assistance provided under the
authority of this section, and the dollar value, by activity
supported, of all assistance provided, reimbursements
received, reimbursements waived, credits taken, and
obligations incurred in the Contributions for International
Peacekeeping and Peace Enforcement Activities Fund under the
authority of this section.
Finally, this legislation authorizes the appropriation of
funds to the Department of Defense to pay assessments as
authorized under this section with the limitation that such
payments may be provided from the Contributions for
International Peacekeeping and Peace Enforcement Activities
Fund only for those activities for which the Secretary of
Defense has primary responsibility.
TITLE XIII--COUNTERPROLIFERATION
Sec. 1201. Extension and amendment of counterproliferation authorities
Section 1201(a) would permanently extend the International
Nonproliferation Initiative contained in Section 1505 of the
``Weapons of Mass Destruction of 1992 as amended.'' In
addition, it would broaden the Department's authority to work
with international organizations to ensure more effective
safeguards against proliferation and more aggressive
verification of compliance with international agreements on
nonproliferation. It would also authorize the Department to
participate in technical projects and information sharing
programs related to biological, chemical, and missile
proliferation. Current law permits participation in such
programs in the area of nuclear proliferation.
This section would also authorize the Department to provide
assistance and support in the destruction and elimination of
weapons of mass destruction. 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 1201(b) would permanently extend authority
contained in title XVI of the fiscal year 1994 National
Defense Authorization Act for the Department to initiate
Counterproliferation Policy research and proliferation
analysis programs to support the Department's
Counterproliferation activities.
Section 1201(c) would authorize in addition to funds
otherwise available, funding of $30,159,000 for fiscal year
1995 for the purposes of conducting Counterproliferation
activities.
TITLE XIII--ACQUISITION REFORM
Sec. 1301. Amendment to research authorities
This proposed language amends Section 2358 of title 10, as
amended by Section 827 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1994, essentially to delete ``other
transactions'' as a type of instrument that may be
unqualifiedly used for all research and development. The
Department believes that the unique authority to enter into
``other transactions,'' granted by Congress under 10 U.S.C.
Sec. 2371, was intended to provide a specialized authority
primarily for advanced research purposes. This authority
should not, at this time, be broadened to apply to
Department-wide development projects.
Other, clarifying language changes are also proposed. For
example, the authority of section 2371 would be extended to
apply to the Secretaries of the military departments and such
other elements of the Department of Defense as the Secretary
of Defense may designate. However, the authority of
subsection (d) to establish separate accounts on the Treasury
books has been deleted because, under the broadened statute,
it could lead to a proliferation of such accounts. Instead,
proposed subsection (b)(2) would provide authority to credit
such reimbursements to applicable appropriations.
This proposed language also makes a corresponding amendment
to section 2371 of title 10, United States Code, to reinstate
``other transactions'' and ``cooperative agreements'' as the
sole types of instruments that may be used to implement the
authority of section 2371, including its unique authority to
merge funds.
Sec. 1302. Amendment of acquisition laws relating to industrial
mobilization
Section 1302 amends a newly-created statue, section 2373 of
title 10, United States Code, relating to procurement for
experimental purposes, The newly-created statute had
consolidated and modernized previously existing Army and Air
Force unique authorities at sections 4504 and 9504 of title
10. Under those prior statutory sections, these services had
authority to procure limited items on a experimental basis,
with or without competitive bidding when not purchased in
quantity. When enacted in the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1994, however, this competition exception
was deleted. To ensure that the new, consolidated statute
remains coextensive with these prior, service-specific
authorities that were the basis for the new statute, the
proposed amendment reinstates the competition exception.
Section 2538 of title 19, United States Code, authorizes
the President, through the Secretary of Defense, to order the
production of necessary products or materials and to take
possession of plants required for the production of arms,
ammunition, or necessary supplies for the armed forces during
time of war or when war is imminent. Section 1302(b) would
amend a newly enacted authority to sell to add ``rent'' as a
method of disposition and to provide that the government
shall negotiate for the appropriate disposition of resultant
data when it makes available the use of test facilities to
private entities. Section 1302(d) would amend sections 2538
(a) and (c) to expand the President's authority to act
through the head of any department, including civilian
agencies.
Sec. 1303. Disposition of naval vessels
Current statutory provisions at 10 U.S.C. 7304, 7305, 7307,
7308, and 7309 provide authority for the disposition of naval
vessels. Specifically, under current law:
Section 7304 provides that the Secretary of the Navy shall
designate boards of naval officers to examine naval vessels
at least every three years, and recommend which, if any,
shall be found unfit for service and stricken from the Naval
Vessel Register.
Section 7305 provides that the Secretary of the Navy shall
appraise stricken vessels. When in the national interest, the
Secretary is directed to offer the vessel for sale. A
detailed advertisement and bid procedure is to be utilized
when offering such vessels for sale. That procedure requires
a three month advertisement period, a 10% of bid deposit,
other manner or for less than the appraised value unless the
President directs in writing. These provisions do not apply
to vessels whose disposition is authority by the federal
Property and Administrative Services Act.
Section 7306 provides that the Secretary of the Navy, with
presidential approval, may use any stricken vessel for
experimental purposes when in the best interests of the U.S.
The Secretary must carry out such stripping of the vessel as
is practicable before use for experimental purposes, with
stripping proceeds credited to applicable appropriations.
Section 7307 provides that notwithstanding any other
provision of law, no battleship aircraft carrier, cruiser,
destroyer or submarine may be sold, transferred, or otherwise
disposed of unless the chief of Naval Operations certifies
that it is not essential to the national defense. It further
provides that, after August 5, 1974, no vessel in excess of
3,000 tons or less than 20 years of age may be sold or
otherwise disposed of to another nation unless such
disposition has been approved by law. It also provides that,
after August 5, 1974, any other type of naval vessel may be
sold or otherwise disposed of to a foreign nation only after
notification to the Senate and House Armed Services
Committees and after expiration of 30 days continuous session
of the Congress.
Section 7308 provides that, subject to certain provision in
the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949,
the Secretary of the Navy may transfer by gift or under such
terms as the Secretary prescribes, any obsolete, condemned or
captured naval vessel to any State, Territory, Commonwealth
or U.S. possession, any municipal corporation or political
subdivision thereof, the District of Columbia or any non-
profit or not for profit entity. Each transfer agreement must
provide that the transfer shall be without cost to the
government and that the vessel will be maintained in a
condition satisfactory to the Navy. The section also contains
a 60 day congressional notice requirement.
Section 1303 consolidates these previously existing
authorities relating to disposition of naval vessels. With
the exception of a redundant congressional notification
period in 10 U.S.C. 7307 (the same notification is obtained
by numerous other statutes), the proposal retains the
substance of the prior authorities in their entirety. It also
adds an indemnification requirement.
Sec. 1304. Contract for fuel storage and management
This section makes a technical language change to an
authority to contract for the storage or management of liquid
fuels or natural gas. By making the authority disjunctive,
the agency may contract for either item separately.
______
By Mr. BUMPERS (by request):
S. 2060. A bill to amend the Small Business Act; to the Committee on
Small Business.
By Mr. BUMPERS (for himself and Mr. Hatfield) (by request):
S. 2061. A bill to amend the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to
permit prepayment of debentures issued by State and local development
companies; to the Committee on Small Business.
small business legislation
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, today I am introducing two
administration bills concerning Small Business Administration programs.
The first reauthorizes and significantly increases several SBA lending
programs and makes other changes to the Small Business Act to implement
the President's fiscal year 1995 budget request.
The second bill would permit borrowers who have been funded with the
proceeds of debentures guaranteed under section 503 of the Small
Business Investment Act to prepay principal and interest with a reduced
prepayment penalty. The section 503 program provides long term capital
for plant and equipment investments. The President's fiscal year 1995
budget contains $30 million for the purpose of relieving the prepayment
penalties of 503 borrowers.
I applaud the administration's efforts to strengthen SBA's programs,
and to relieve the onerous prepayment penalties on 503 borrowers.
However, the bills contain some provisions which warrant close
examination by the Committee on Small Business. One such example is the
proposal to return the funding of the 504 program to the Federal
Financing Bank. This proposal contradicts a policy which has been in
place legislatively since 1986 and which was enacted as a significant
cost-savings measure.
These bills provide an important step in the reauthorization process
of SBA's major programs, which provide financial, procurement and
business development assistance to the Nation's small businesses. The
committee has already held several hearings on some of SBA's key
programs. Later this month, the committee plans to hold a hearing on
the 504 program and the issue of 503 prepayment penalties.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bills be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2060
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this
Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Administration
Amendments of 1994.''
TITLE I
Section 101. Section 7(m)(1)(B) of the Small Business Act
is amended by adding the words ``, a lender or alliance of
lenders'' after the word ``Administration'', and by adding
after the word ``intermediaries'' in clause (i) thereof the
following phrase ``provided however, that the Administration
may make in its sole discretion up to 100 percent deferred
participation loans to ten intermediaries which will be
located in urban areas and ten intermediaries which will be
located in rural areas,''.
Sec. 102. Section 7(m)(7) of the Small Business Act is
amended by deleting the number ``50'' from subparagraph (B)
thereof, and replacing it with the number ``140'', and by
deleting the period at the end thereof and adding the phrase:
``provided that no more than 200 total microloan programs may
be funded'', and by deleting subparagraph (C) thereof and
inserting in lieu thereof: ``(C) In no case shall a State
receive more than $5 million to fund all microloan programs
conducted in the State.''
Sec. 103. Section 7(m)(3)(C) of the Small Business Act is
amended by replacing the number ``$1,250,000'' with the
number ``$1,750,000''.
Sec. 104. Section 7(m)(3)(F) of the Small Business Act is
amended by adding after the phrase ``10 years'' in clause (i)
the following: ``with the first five years of any deferred
participation loan being a revolving line of credit on which
only monthly payments of interest will be required and the
balance amortized over the second five year period, with
equal monthly payments of principal and interest''; and by
revising clause (ii) to read as follows: ``(ii) Applicable
interest rates--Exception as provided in clause (iii), loans
made by the Administration under this subsection to an
intermediary shall bear an interest rate equal to the rate of
interest on comparable five year obligations of the United
States Treasury.
TITLE II
Sec. 201. Section 7(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Small Business Act
is amended to read as follows:
``. . . (iv) not more than 90 percent of the financing
outstanding at the time of disbursement if such financing is
an extension or a revolving line of credit made under
paragraph (14) and not less than 90 percent of the financing
outstanding at the time of disbursement if such financing is
a loan under paragraph (16).''
Sec. 202. Section 7(a)(14) of the Small Business Act is
amended to read as follows:
``(14) (A) The Administration under this subsection may
provide extensions, specifically including guarantees of
standby letters of credit and revolving lines of credit for
export purposes, and financings to enable small business
concerns, including small business export trading companies
and small business export management companies, to develop
foreign markets. A bank or participating lending institution
may establish such rate of interest on extensions, revolving
lines of credit and financings made under this paragraph as
may be legal and reasonable.''
Sec. 203. Section 7(a)(3)(B) of the Small Business Act is
amended to read as follows:
``. . . if the total amount outstanding and committed (on a
deferred basis) solely for the purposes provided in paragraph
(16) to the borrower from the Business Guaranteed Loan
Financing Account established by this Act would exceed
$1,000,000 such amount to be in addition to any financing
solely for working capital, supplies, or revolving lines of
credit for export purposes up to a maximum of $750,000;
Provided, however that in no event my be aggregate amount
outstanding and committed by the Administration under this
subsection exceed $1,250,000 . . .''
TITLE III
Sec. 301. Section 8(b) (2), (3) and (4) of the Small
Business Act are amended by inserting the words ``and other''
after the word ``small'' wherever it appears.
TITLE IV
Sec. 401. Section 28[2](g) of the Small Business Act is
deleted and in its place the following is substituted:
``(g) There is established within the Administration an
Office of Women's Business Ownership which shall be
responsible for the administration under the supervision by
the Administration of all authority conferred by this
section. Such Office shall be headed by a director who shall
be appointed by the Administrator.''
TITLE V
Sec. 501. Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Small Business Act is
amended by adding at the end thereof the following sentence:
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the authority
provided by this subparagraph shall remain available until
expressly repealed.''
Sec. 502. Section 411(a)(3) of the Small Business
Investment Act of 1958 is amended by adding the following
sentence at the end thereof: ``Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the authority granted by this paragraph
shall remain available until expressly repealed.''
Sec. 503. Section 5(b)(8) of the Small Business Act is
amended by deleting the words ``not in excess of six
months''.
Sec. 504. The second sentence of Section 732 of Public Law
100--656 is repealed.
Sec. 505. Section 4(c) of the Small Business Act is amended
to read as follows:
``(c)(1) There is hereby established in the Treasury one
Loan Liquidation Fund. All repayment of loans and debentures,
payments of interest, and other receipts arising out of
transactions entered into by the Administration pursuant to
Sections 5(e), 5(g), 7(a), 7(b), 7(c)(2), 7(e), 7(h), 7(l),
7(m), and 8(a) of this Act, and Titles III, IV, and V of the
Small Business Investment Act of 1958, prior to October 1,
1991, shall be paid into such Loan Fund Liquidating Account.
Balances existing in those revolving funds, as in effect
immediately prior to the effective date of this paragraph,
shall be transferred into such Loan Liquidation Fund. This
Loan Liquidation Fund shall have available, without fiscal
year limitation, such funds as are necessary to finance its
operational needs.
(2) The Administration shall submit to the Committees on
Small Business and Appropriations of the Senate and the House
of Representatives, as soon as possible after the beginning
of each fiscal year, a full and complete report on the status
of the Loan Liquidation Fund established pursuant to
paragraph (1).''
Sec. 506. Section 4(c)(5)(B)(ii) of the Small Business Act
is amended to read as follows:
``(ii) The Administration shall pay into the miscellaneous
receipts of the Treasury following the close of each fiscal
year, the actual interest it collects during that fiscal year
on all financings made under the authority of this Act.''
Sec. 507. Section 3(a)(2) of the Small Business Act is
amended to read as follows:
``. . . (2) In addition to the criteria specified in
paragraph (1), the Administrator may specify detailed
definitions or standards for example, by number of employees
or dollar volume of business, by which a business concern is
to be recognized as a small business concern for the purposes
of this Act or any other Act. Unless specifically authorized
by statute, the Secretary of a department or the head of a
Federal agency, other than the Administrator of the Small
Business Administration, may not prescribe for the use of
such department or agency a size standard for categorizing a
business concern as a small business concern, unless such
proposed size standard--
(A) is being proposed after an opportunity for public
notice and comment;
(B) provides for determining, over a period of not less
than 3 years--
(i) the size of a manufacturing concern as measured by its
average employment based upon employment during each of the
concern's pay periods for the preceding completed twelve
calendar months; or
(ii) the size of a concern providing services on basis of
the annual average gross receipts of the concern over a
period of not less than three years; and
(C) is approved by the Administrator.
(3) When establishing or approving any size standard
pursuant to paragraph (2), the Administrator shall consider
variations in economic activity from industry to industry
unless the Administrator determines that size standards
should not vary in order to meet program needs.''
Sec. 508. Section 5(b) of the Small Business Act is amended
by deleting the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (10)
thereof, by removing the ``.'' at the end of paragraph (11)
thereof and replacing it with ``, and'' and (b) adding a new
paragraph (12) which reads as follows: ``. . . (12) to impose
reasonable fees to be charged in connection with applications
for assistance, and the provision of assistance under this
Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 and to
retain such fees to offset the costs of administration of
such assistance.''
Sec. 509. Section 8(b) of the Small Business Act is amended
by deleting the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (15), by
striking the period at the end of paragraph 8(b)(16) and
replacing it with ``; and'', and by adding a new paragraph
8(b)(17) which reads as follows:
``. . . (17) to charge and collect such fees as may be
necessary to cover all costs associated with the production
and dissemination of information of compilations of
information produced by the Administration under the
authority of the Small Business Act and the Small Business
Investment Act of 1958, and to retain such fees and utilize
such fees to offset the costs of production and dissemination
of such compilations of information.''
TITLE VI
Sec. 601. Sections 20(k) through 20(p) of the Small
Business Act are repealed and the following is substituted in
their place:
``(k) The following program levels are authorized for
fiscal year 1995:
(1) For the programs authorized by this Act, the
Administration is authorized to make $13,910,000,000 in
deferred participation loans and other financings; and of
such sum, the Administration is authorized to make
$11,500,000,000 in general business loans as provided in
section 7(a), $110,000,000 in loans as provided in section
7(m), and $2,300,000,000 in financings as provided in section
7(a)(13) and section 504 of the Small Business Investment Act
of 1958.
(2) For the programs authorized by title III of the Small
Business Investment Act of 1958, the Administration is
authorized to make $23,000,000 in purchases of preferred
stock, $275,000,000 in guarantees of debentures of which
$65,000,000 is authorized for guarantees of debentures of
companies operating pursuant to section 301(d) of such Act,
and $550,000,000 in guarantees of participating securities.
(3) For the programs authorized by part B of title IV of
the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, the Administration
is authorized to enter into guarantees not to exceed
$2,000,000,000.
(l) There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Administration for fiscal year 1995 such sums as may be
necessary to carry out subsection (k), including salaries and
expenses of the Administration.
(m) The following program levels are authorized for fiscal
year 1996:
(1) For the programs authorized by this Act, the
Administration is authorized to make $17,475,000,000 in
deferred participation loans and other financings; and of
such sum, the Administration is authorized to make
$13,500,000,000 in general business loans as provided in
section 7(a), $175,000,000 in loans as provided in section
7(m), and $3,800,000,000 in financings as provided in section
7(a)(13) and section 504 of the Small Business Investment Act
of 1958.
(2) For the programs authorized by title III of the Small
Business Investment Act of 1958, the Administration is
authorized to make $24,000,000 in purchases of preferred
stock, $320,000,000 in guarantees of debentures of which
$70,000,000 is authorized for guarantees of debentures of
companies operating pursuant to section 301(d) of such Act,
and $1,100,000,000 in guarantees of participating securities.
(3) For the programs authorized by part B of title IV of
the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, the Administration
is authorized to enter into guarantees not to exceed
$2,000,000,000.
(n) There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Administration for fiscal year 1996, such sums as may be
necessary to carry out subsection (m), including salaries and
expenses of the Administration.
(o) The following program levels are authorized for fiscal
year 1997:
(1) For the programs authorized by this Act, the
Administration is authorized to make $21,450,000,000 in
deferred participation loans and other financings; and of
such sum, the Administration is authorized to make
$15,500,000,000 in general business loans as provided in
section 7(a), $250,000,000 in loans as provided in section
7(m), and $5,700,000,000 in financings as provided in section
7(a)(13) and section 504 of the Small Business Investment Act
of 1958.
(2) For the programs authorized by title III of the Small
Business Investment Act of 1958, the Administration is
authorized to make $25,000,000 in purchases of deferred
stock, $385,000,000 in guarantees of debentures of which
$75,500,000 is authorized for guarantees of debentures of
companies operating pursuant to section 301(d) of such Act,
and $1,700,000,000 in guarantees of participating securities.
(3) For the programs authorized by part B of title IV of
the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, the Administration
is authorized to enter into guarantees not to exceed
$2,000,000,000.
(p) There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Administration for fiscal year 1997, such sums as may be
necessary to carry out subsection (o), including salaries and
expenses of the Administration.''
____
S. 2061
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PREPAYMENT OF DEVELOPMENT COMPANY DEBENTURES.
(a) In General.--Title V of the Small Business Investment
Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 695, et seq.), is amended by adding at
the end the following new section:
``SEC. 507. PREPAYMENT OF DEVELOPMENT COMPANY DEBENTURES.
``(a) In General.--(1) If the requirements of subsection
(b) are met and subject to the availability of
appropriations, the issuer of a debenture purchased by the
Federal Financing Bank and guaranteed by the Administration
under section 503 may, at the election of the borrower whose
loan secures such debenture and with the approval of the
Administration, prepay such debenture by paying to the
Federal Financing Bank, the amount that is equal to the sum
of the unpaid principal balance due on the debenture on the
date of the prepayment (plus accrued interest at the coupon
rate on the debenture) and the amount of the repurchase
premium described in paragraph (2)(A). The Administration
shall pay to the Federal Financing Bank the difference
between the repurchase premium paid by the issuer of the
debenture under this subsection and the repurchase premium
that the Federal Financing Bank would otherwise have
received.
``(2)(A) The amount of the repurchase premium described in
this paragraph is the product of--
(i) the unpaid principal balance due on the debenture on
the date of prepayment;
(ii) the interest rate of the debenture; and
(iii) the factor `P', as determined under subparagraph (B).
(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A) (iii), the factor `P'
means the applicable percent determined in accordance with
the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable percent
Year in which prepayment of ---------------------------------------
debenture is made (from date of 10-year 15-year 20-year 25-year
original issuance) term term term term
loan loan loan loan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
2............................... .80 .85 .90 .92
3............................... ,60 .70 .80 .84
4............................... .40 .55 .70 .76
5............................... .20 .40 .60 .68
6............................... 0 .25 .50 .60
7............................... 0 .10 .40 .52
8............................... 0 0 .30 .44
9............................... 0 0 .20 .36
10.............................. 0 0 .10 .28
11.............................. 0 0 0 .20
12.............................. 0 0 0 .12
13.............................. 0 0 0 .04
14 through 25................... 0 0 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``(b) Requirements.--The requirements of this subsection
are met if--
(1) the debenture is outstanding and neither the loan that
secures the debenture nor the debenture is in default on the
date the prepayment is made;
(2) state or personal funds, which may include refinancing
under the programs authorized by sections 504 and 505 of this
Act are used to prepay the debenture; and
(3) the issuer certifies that the benefits, net of fees and
expenses authorized herein, associated with prepayment of the
debenture are entirely passed through to the borrower.
(c) No fees or penalties other than those specified in this
section may be imposed as a condition of such prepayment
against the issuer or the borrower, or the Administration or
any fund or account administered by the Administration,
except as provided in this Act.
(d) The refinancing of debentures authorized by paragraph
(b)(2) of this section under section 504 of this Act shall be
limited to only such amounts as are needed to prepay existing
debentures and shall be subject to all of the other
provisions of sections 504 and 505 of this Act and the rules
and regulations of the Administration promulgated thereunder,
including, but not limited to, rules and regulations
government payment of authorized expenses and commissions,
fees and discounts to brokers and dealers in trust
certificates issued pursuant to section 505; provided,
however, that no applicant for refinancing under section 504
of this Act need demonstrate that a requisite number of jobs
will be created with the proceeds of such refinancing.''
Sec. 2. (a) The provisions of this Act are exercisable at
the option of the borrower.
(b) Any new credit or spending authority provided for in
this act is subject to amounts provided in advance in
appropriations Acts.
(c) There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as
may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.
(d) Within 30 days of the effective date of this Act, the
Administration shall promulgate such regulations as are
necessary, including establishing an order of priority to
accomplish the provisions of this Act.
(e) Subsection 504(b) of this Act is hereby repealed, and
subsection 504(a) is renumbered as section 504, and
paragraphs (1) through (3) of subsection 504(a) are
renumbered as subsections 504(a) through (c).
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the chairman
of the Small Business Committee, Senator Bumpers, in cosponsoring
important legislation that he is introducing today at the request of
the administration. Last year at this time, I introduced very similar
legislation, S. 737, to assist several thousand small businesses that
are unable to refinance high interest loans under the Small Business
Administration [SBA] Section 503 Loan Program because of the enormously
high prepayment penalties attached to these loans. I would like to
commend this administration for focusing on this issue and for offering
to work with those of us who have been pushing for a solution for the
past several years.
Because I have concerns about certain provisions of the bill we are
introducing today, my cosponsorship should not be construed as a total
endorsement of this proposal. However, I have confidence that these
issues will be closely examined both during a hearing that Chairman
Bumpers will hold in the Small Business Committee, and separately
during debate in the Appropriations Committee when we consider the
President's budget request for $30 million to begin fixing this
problem.
The vast majority of new job creation in the United States occurs in
our small businesses. The prepayment penalties of the 503 Program have
had the effect of blocking the ability of many companies to add to much
needed economic expansion in our country. These are businesses that are
already operating and ready to grow. We should take advantage of this
opportunity to allow them to grow by continuing to work in a bipartisan
manner to see this problem finally put to rest.
______
By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 2062. A bill to amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the
Poultry Products Inspection Act to permit the movement in interstate
commerce of meat, meat food products, and poultry products that satisfy
State inspection requirements that are at least equal to Federal
inspection standards, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
meat and poultry products inspection Amendments of 1994
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to
resolve an issue of fairness which has existed since 1967 and made more
egregious by passage of the North American Free-Trade Agreement.
In 1967, the Meat Inspection Act of 1906 was amended by the Wholesale
Meat Act and renamed the Federal Meat Inspection Act. In addition to
other changes, the State--Federal Cooperative Inspection Program was
established, which required State inspection programs to be at least
equal to the Federal Inspection Program, and that products receiving
State inspection are solely for distribution within such State. The
1968 Wholesome Poultry Product Act which amended the Poultry Products
Inspection Act, extended the same provisions to poultry inspection.
The acts, while stressing the need for cooperation between Federal
and State authorities, give the United States Department of Agriculture
[USDA] clear responsibility for setting a national standard for meat
and poultry inspection. USDA is required to monitor State programs and
to assume direct responsibility at State plants when a State fails to
develop or effectively enforce inspection requirements at least equal
to those under the acts.
USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service [FSIS] certifies that each
State inspection program is equal to Federal inspection requirements.
This is accomplished by FSIS review of State performance plans,
feedback from inspection operations field supervisors, and documents
submitted with annual reports. The annual State performance plan is
evaluated for equal to status and is very comprehensive. The plan
includes a review of State laws, State regulations, funding, and
financial accountability, resource management--staffing, training,
program operations--facilities and equipment, labels and standards, in-
plant reviews/enforcement, specialty programs, and laboratories.
FSIS has been conducting the equal to review since passage of the
acts in 1967 and 1968. Since that time, the agency has never found that
a State inspection program should be discontinued due to inadequacies
in its inspection program. In those instances where States have chosen
to discontinue their State inspection programs, they have cited
budgetary reasons rather than public health and safety reasons.
The mission of State meat and poultry programs is to provide the
consumer with a wholesome, unadulterated product that is properly
labeled and safe. The programs exist to protect the public's health.
That is why State inspection programs currently inspect nonamenable
products which are not regulated by the Federal inspection program.
Nonamenable products--such as deer, buffalo, squad, and pheasant--that
are inspected by a State-inspected facility are allowed to be
transported across State lines. These shipments have been allowed for
quite some time with little or no evidence of any risk to the consuming
public.
Food safety is clearly the major issue to be considered in any
discussion of an inspection system. Experience with interstate shipment
of State-inspected nonamenable products provides support for my view
that permitting interstate shipment of State-inspected meat and poultry
can be consistent with a high level of public health and food safety.
While the acts require all State meat and poultry inspection programs
to be at least equal to Federal standards, they prohibit the sale of
the product in interstate commerce. This prohibition is a matter of
fairness with domestic and foreign dimensions. First, most of the
State-inspected plants are small businesses who suffer the economic
consequences of prohibitions which provide an unfair marketing
advantage to larger firms with federally inspected plants. Consumers
often lose in these instances since the products inspected in State-
inspected facilities often are low-volume specialty products not
economically viable for larger operations.
Second, when Congress passed the North American Free-Trade Agreement
[NAFTA], Mexican-inspected meat and poultry products were permitted to
be shipped into the United States and move interstate as long as the
Mexican inspection program is equal to United States Federal standards.
It is only fair that the Congress now provide small businessowners in
the United States the same opportunity the Congress afforded to firms
from Mexico.
The prohibition of interstate shipment of State-inspected meat and
poultry is the only such prohibition of any State-inspected food
product. This prohibition disrupts that free flow of trade and
precludes the ability of American small businesses to compete with
larger domestic firms and Mexican exporters.
Mr. President, this legislation is supported by a number of
organizations including the American Farm Bureau Federation, the
American Association of Meat Processors, the Food Marketing Institute,
the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, the
National Association of State Meat and Food Inspection Directors, and
the National Grange.
I urge my colleagues to join me in correcting a gross inequity in the
interstate commerce of meat and poultry products.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and
a summary be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 2062
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 ``Meat and Poultry Products
Inspection Amendments of 1994''.
SEC. 2. FEDERAL AND STATE COOPERATION UNDER THE FEDERAL MEAT
INSPECTION ACT.
(a) Removal of Intrastate Distribution Limitation.--Section
301(a)(1) of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C.
661(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``solely for distribution
within such State''.
(b) Use of State Inspectors.--Section 301(a) of such Act
(21 U.S.C. 661(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(5) In addition to appointing inspectors under section
21, the Secretary may enter into an agreement with a State or
the District of Columbia to utilize an officer or employee of
the State or the District of Columbia to conduct any
examination, investigation, or inspection authorized under
this Act, if the Secretary determines that it is practicable
for the examination, investigation, or inspection to be so
conducted.''.
(c) Termination of Designation of State as Subject to
Federal Inspection for Intrastate Distribution.--Section
301(c)(3) of such Act (21 U.S.C. 661(c)(3)) is amended by
striking ``, with respect to the operations and transactions
within such State which are regulated under subparagraph (1),
he'' and inserting ``with respect to each establishment
within the jurisdiction of the State that does not operate
under Federal inspection under title I and at which any
cattle, sheep, swine, goat, or equine is slaughtered, or the
carcass of the animal, or a part or product of the carcass of
the animal, is prepared, for use as human food, and with
respect to the distribution of each carcass, part of a
carcass, meat, or meat food product of the animal within the
State, the Secretary''.
(d) Expansion of State Inspection Authority.--Section 301
of such Act (21 U.S.C. 661) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new
subsection:
``(d)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a carcass,
part of a carcass, meat, or meat food product of a cattle,
sheep, swine, goat, or equine prepared under State inspection
in a State (other than a State designated under subsection
(c)) in compliance with the meat inspection law of the State
shall be eligible for sale or transportation in interstate
commerce, and for entry into and use in the preparation of a
product in an establishment at which Federal inspection is
maintained under title I, in the same manner and to the same
extent as a product prepared at the establishment.
``(2) A State-inspected article described in paragraph (1),
and a federally inspected article prepared (in whole or in
part) from the State-inspected article--
``(A) shall not be eligible for sale or transportation in
foreign commerce; and
``(B) shall be separated at all times from all other
federally inspected articles in a federally inspected
establishment that engages in the preparation, sale, or
transportation of carcasses, parts of carcasses, meat, or
meat food products, for foreign commerce.
``(3) Each carcass, part of a carcass, meat, or meat food
product that is inspected in a program of inspection in a
State (other than a State designated under subsection (c))
pursuant to State law shall be identified as so inspected
only by an official mark that identifies the State and is of
such design as the State shall prescribe. A federally
inspected article prepared (in whole or in part) from the
State-inspected article shall be identified as so inspected
only by the same official mark as is prescribed by the
Secretary for an article slaughtered or prepared under title
I.
``(4) Except as provided in paragraph (5), the operator of
an establishment operated under Federal or State inspection
who wishes to transfer to State or Federal inspection, as the
case may be, may do so only as of October 1 of any year. The
transfer shall occur only if--
``(A) the operator provides written notice of the intention
to transfer to both inspection agencies at least 180 days in
advance of the date referred to in the preceding sentence;
and
``(B) the Secretary determines that the transfer will
effectuate the purposes set forth in section 2 and will not
adversely affect the stability of the total State and Federal
inspection systems.
``(5) The Secretary may permit the operator of an
establishment to transfer from State to Federal inspection at
any time if the operator presents clear and convincing
evidence to the Secretary that the establishment intends to,
and will be able to, engage in foreign commerce to a
substantial extent in a manner that would require Federal
inspection.
``(6) As used in this subsection, the term `interstate
commerce' means commerce between States or between a State
and the District of Columbia.''.
(e) Prohibition on Additional or Different State
Requirements.--Section 408 of such Act (21 U.S.C. 678) is
amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 408. PROHIBITION ON ADDITIONAL OR DIFFERENT STATE
REQUIREMENTS.
``(a) Requirements Relating to Establishments.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a
State or Territory or the District of Columbia may not impose
a requirement within the scope of this Act with respect to
the premises, facility, or operation of an establishment at
which inspection is provided under title I that is in
addition to, or different than, a requirement under this Act.
``(2) Recordkeeping requirements.--A State or Territory or
the District of Columbia may impose a recordkeeping or other
requirement within the scope of section 202, if the
requirement is consistent with such section, with respect to
an establishment.
``(b) Requirements Relating to Marking, Labeling,
Packaging, and Ingredients.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a
State or Territory or the District of Columbia may not impose
a marking, labeling, packaging, or ingredient requirement
that is in addition to, or different than, a requirement
under this Act with respect to an article prepared at an
establishment under Federal inspection in accordance with
title I or with respect to an article prepared for commerce
at a State-inspected establishment in accordance with section
301(d).
``(2) Concurrent jurisdiction.--A State or territory or the
District of Columbia may, consistent with this Act, exercise
concurrent jurisdiction with the Secretary over an article
distributed in commerce or otherwise subject to this Act, for
the purpose of preventing the distribution for use as human
food of an article that is not in compliance with this Act
and is outside of a federally or State-inspected
establishment, or in the case of an imported article, that is
not at such an establishment, after the entry of the article
into the United States.
``(c) Effect on Other Laws.--This Act shall not preclude a
State or Territory or the District of Columbia from imposing
a requirement or taking any other action, consistent with
this Act, with respect to an area regulated under this Act
that is not referred to in this section.''.
SEC. 3. FEDERAL AND STATE COOPERATION UNDER THE POULTRY
PRODUCTS INSPECTION ACT.
(a) Removal of Intrastate Distribution Limitation.--Section
5(a)(1) of the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C.
454(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``solely for distribution
within such State''.
(b) Use of State Inspectors.--Section 5(a) of such Act (21
U.S.C. 454(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(5) The Secretary may enter into an agreement with a
State or the District of Columbia to utilize an officer or
employee of the State or the District of Columbia to conduct
any examination, investigation, or inspection authorized
under this Act, if the Secretary determines that it is
practicable for the examination, investigation, or inspection
to be so conducted.''.
(c) Termination of Designation of State as Subject to
Federal Inspection for Intrastate Distribution.--Section
5(c)(3) of such Act (21 U.S.C. 454(c)(3)) is amended by
striking ``, with respect to the operations and transactions
within such State which are regulated under subparagraph (1)
of this paragraph (c), he'' and inserting ``with respect to
each establishment within the jurisdiction of the State that
does not operate under Federal inspection under this Act and
at which any poultry is slaughtered, or any poultry product
is processed, for use as human food, and with respect to the
distribution of each poultry product within the State, the
Secretary''.
(d) Expansion of State Inspection Authority.--Section 5 of
such Act (21 U.S.C. 454) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new
subsection:
``(d)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a poultry
product processed under State inspection in a State (other
than a State designated under subsection (c)) in compliance
with the poultry products inspection law of the State shall
be eligible for sale or transportation in interstate
commerce, and for entry into and use in the preparation of a
product in an establishment at which Federal inspection is
maintained under this Act, in the same manner and to the same
extent as a poultry product processed at the establishment. A
poultry product that complies with the poultry product
inspection laws of the State (other than a State designated
under subsection (c)) in which the product was processed
shall be considered to comply with this Act.
``(2) A State-inspected poultry product described in
paragraph (1), and a federally inspected poultry product
processed (in whole or in part) from the State-inspected
poultry product--
``(A) shall not be eligible for sale or transportation in
foreign commerce; and
``(B) shall be separated at all times from all other
federally inspected poultry products in a federally inspected
establishment that engages in the processing, sale, or
transportation of poultry products for foreign commerce.
``(3) A poultry product that is inspected in a program of
inspection in a State (other than a State designated under
subsection (c)) pursuant to State law shall be identified as
so inspected only by an official mark that identifies the
State and is of such design as the State shall prescribe. A
federally inspected poultry product processed (in whole or in
part) from a State-inspected poultry product shall be
identified as so inspected only by the same official mark as
is prescribed by the Secretary for a poultry product
processed under this Act (other than this section or section
11).
``(4) Except as provided in paragraph (5), the operator of
an establishment operated under Federal or State inspection
who wishes to transfer to State or Federal inspection, as the
case may be, may do so only as of October 1 of any year. The
transfer shall occur only if--
``(A) the operator provides written notice of the intention
to transfer to both inspection agencies at least 180 days in
advance of the date referred to in the preceding sentence;
and
``(B) the Secretary determines that the transfer will
effectuate the legislative policy set forth in section 3 and
will not adversely affect the stability of the total Federal
and State inspection systems.
``(5) The Secretary may permit the operator of an
establishment to transfer from State to Federal inspection at
any time if the operator presents clear and convincing
evidence to the Secretary that the establishment intends to,
and will be able to, engage in foreign commerce to a
substantial extent in a manner that would require Federal
inspection.
``(6) As used in this subsection, the term `interstate
commerce' means commerce between States or between a State
and the District of Columbia.''.
(e) Prohibition on Additional or Different State
Requirements.--Section 23 of such Act (21 U.S.C. 467e) is
amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 23. PROHIBITION ON ADDITIONAL OR DIFFERENT STATE
REQUIREMENTS.
``(a) Requirements Relating to Establishments.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a
State or territory or the District of Columbia may not impose
a requirement within the scope of this Act with respect to
the premises, facility, or operation of an official
establishment, that is in addition to, or different than, a
requirement under this Act.
``(2) Recordkeeping requirements.--A State or territory or
the District of Columbia may impose a recordkeeping or other
requirement within the scope of section 11(b), if the
requirement is consistent with such section, with respect to
an establishment.
``(b) Requirements Relating to Marking, Labeling,
Packaging, and Ingredients.--
``(1) In general.--A State or territory or the District of
Columbia may not impose--
``(A) except as provided in paragraph (2), a marking,
labeling, packaging, or ingredient requirement that is in
addition to, or different than, a requirement under this Act
with respect to an article prepared at an establishment under
Federal inspection in accordance with this Act or with
respect to an article prepared for commerce at a State-
inspected establishment in accordance with section 5(d); or
``(B) any other storage or handling requirement found by
the Secretary to unduly interfere with the free flow of any
poultry product in commerce.
``(2) Concurrent jurisdiction.--A State or territory or the
District of Columbia may, consistent with this Act, exercise
concurrent jurisdiction with the Secretary over an article
distributed in commerce or otherwise subject to this Act, for
the purpose of preventing the distribution for use as human
food of any article that is not in compliance with this Act
and is outside of a federally or State-inspected
establishment, or in the case of an imported article, that is
not at such an establishment, after the entry of the article
into the United States.
``(c) Effect on Other Laws.--This Act shall not preclude a
State or territory or the District of Columbia from imposing
a requirement or taking any other action, consistent with
this Act, with respect to an area regulated under this Act
that is not referred to in this section.''.
____
Summary of S. 2062
Section 1
Establishes the short title of the Act as the ``Meat and
Poultry Products Inspection Amendments of 1994.''
Section 2
Allows State inspected meat products to be sold or
transported in interstate commerce.
Allows State inspected meat products to be used in the
preparation of products processed in Federally inspected
facilities.
Continues the export prohibition of State inspected meat.
Provides that transferring from Federal or State inspection
to the other regulating body can only occur on October 1.
Prohibits different labeling requirements on State
inspected meat products which flow in interstate commerce
from Federal labeling requirements.
Section 3
Allows State inspected poultry products to be sold or
transported in interstate commerce.
Allows State inspected poultry products to be used in the
preparation of products proceed in Federally inspected
facilities.
Continues the export prohibition of State inspected
poultry.
Provides that transferring from Federal or State inspection
to the other regulating body can only occur on October 1.
Prohibits different labeling requirements on State
inspected poultry products which flow in interstate commerce
from Federal labeling requirements.
______
By Mr. GORTON:
S. 2063. A bill to amend the National Security Act of 1947 to provide
for improved coordination of national counterintelligence policy, and
for other purposes; to the Select Committee on Intelligence.
national counterintelligence reform act
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today
designed to improve significantly the framework for the coordination,
integration, and review of the United States effort to counteract a
continuing serious problem of espionage by Americans and others. I
believe that this legislation complements legislation already
introduced by the chairman and vice chairman of the Select Committee on
Intelligence, S. 1948, the Counterintelligence and Security
Enhancements Act of 1994.
In spite of a reordering of the world's balance of power, espionage
against the national security and industrial security interests of the
United States continues unabated. This espionage is being committed by
current and former hostile nations, by some nations, friendly to the
United States and by nongovernment entities operating in concert with
their respective governments.
In the past 3 months, the country has been focused on the arrest of
CIA employee Aldrich Ames and his wife as an indication that espionage
is alive and, unfortunately, well. While I do not intend to dwell on
that case, I will note that the damage done by Mr. Ames is serious. In
addition, efforts by the CIA and FBI to detect Mr. Ames have been
uneven, not as well coordinated as I believe were necessary and have
taken too long to bring this case to conclusion. Nine years is
unacceptable and reflects serious flaws in our counterintelligence and
security policies and capabilities. The Ames case is only one
indication of the lack of full and early cooperation and sharing among
the agencies most responsible for guarding the country against foreign
espionage.
During the 10-year period from 1974 to 1983, there were 23 arrests
for espionage against the United States. During the past 10 years,
however that number has more than doubled with 51 arrests, 45 of whom
were American citizens who volunteered to sell classified information
or who provided access to U.S. classified facilities for agents of
foreign governments. Nor was the Ames case the first time a current or
former CIA employee was arrested for espionage. In fact, Mr. Ames is
the fifth current or former CIA employee arrested in the 10 years.
The cooperation between the CIA and FBI on many of these was
excellent. On others, the failure of one agency to provide full and
early access to information or on establishing priorities delayed
arrest.
The overall increase in espionage arrests may be explained by more
aggressive counterespionage actions by the CIA and FBI. but the
increase may also identify the ineffectiveness of awareness efforts,
earlier detection and deterrence. What is not known is the number of
cases in which there was no arrest because of diplomatic immunity or
because the CIA or Defense Department succeeded in turning suspects
into double agents. Even more troubling is the number of Americans who
may still be selling out their country and have not been detected.
Director Woolsey recently gave us a hint of this problem when he stated
that there are several more cases or leads in the works.
During counterintelligence hearings before the Select Committee on
Intelligence, it became apparent that cooperation among the agencies--
especially the FBI and CIA--responsible for countering espionage, was
totally inadequate. In their ``Dear Colleague'' letter requesting
cosponsors for S. 1948, Senators DeConcini and Warner emphasized that
``there has been a problem between the CIA and the FBI in terms of
their cooperation on counterintelligence investigations.'' I would add
to that by noting that this inadequate cooperation on
counterintelligence matters extends to the Department of Defense as
well.
These problems stem in part from the fact that the
counterintelligence objectives and responsibilities of these respective
agencies differ. The Central Intelligence Agency has responsibility for
the development and protection of sources and methods to collect
foreign intelligence. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has
responsibility for law enforcement and for the investigation of
espionage cases for possible prosecution. The Department of Defense
Counterintelligence Program has responsibility for protecting DOD
installations, material, operations, information and personnel from
foreign intelligence and terrorist activities.
The lack of integration of these agencies and their variant
objectives and responsibilities into coherent and coordinated national
counterintelligence policies and programs is indicative of systemic
shortcomings.
On a national policymaking level, the Director of the FBI and the
Secretary of Defense report to the Director of Central Intelligence for
all counterintelligence matters. This has been traditionally the case
because counterintelligence and counterespionage has long been
considered an element of intelligence. In my view, we should carefully
reassess that notion: counterintelligence is also an important element
of law enforcement.
A vivid statistic illustrating the tail waging the dog is in the area
of counterintelligence budget. FBI's CI budget is 10 times that of the
CIA and DoD's is 3\1/2\ times that of the CIA. Yet, CIA has been
driving, or attempting to drive; national counterintelligence policy.
On the program level, the CIA runs a counterintelligence center [CIC]
to analyze and counteract foreign intelligence efforts against the
United States. The FBI has had only one officer located in the center
and he recently was removed by the FBI because he was underutilized.
This is hardly the reassurance of cooperation and coordination which we
expect of these agencies.
need for reform
The counterintelligence and counterespionage apparatus of this
country can and must be altered if it is to be effective. This is not
only my view, but also apparently the view of the administration. Mr.
President, I wish to submit for the Record a copy of a front page
article in the April 26, 1994 edition of the Washington Post. This
article cities a White House official and CIA's Director James Woosley
as sources for information that the administration is considering wide-
ranging reform of its counterintelligence policy and program structure.
The public and the Congress have not seen the shape of that
structure. What we do know is that in the words of one White House
official, it bears an amazing resemblance to the legislation I have
been working on for several weeks and am now introducing. On major
difference is that the administration wants to implement its reform
through an Executive order. I am in favor of the force of law.
Features of Reform
Mr. President, I shall summarize the principal features of this
legislation. It would:
First, create a national policy and program framework to ensure an
integrated and coordinated effort to counter espionage against the
United States.
Second, establish a senior policy decision board, the National
Counterintelligence Review Board [NCIRB] to review and approve United
States counterintelligence policies and programs. In addition, the
Board would serve as the final review authority for the proper and
timely disposition of counterintelligence cases.
Third, the Board would consist of the Attorney General of the United
States, who would serve as Chairman, the Secretary of Defense, the
Director of Central Intelligence and the Director of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation. The NCIRB would report to the President through the
National Security Council.
Fourth, establish a National Counterintelligence Program [NCIP] which
will be administered by the National Counterintelligence Center [NCC].
The NCC would be responsible for providing a focused and coordinated
national program to analyze and counter foreign intelligence efforts
against the United States. The NCC would also prepare an integrated
list of national counterintelligence threats for approval by the NCIRB.
Fifth, the NCC would consist of personnel from the Central
Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the
Department of Defense. The Directorship and the Assistant Directorship
of the NCC would rotate on a periodic basis between the Central
Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The NCC
would be located within the Department of Justice. It would also
provide staffing support to the NCIRB.
Sixth, the jurisdiction of the NCC would include foreign intelligence
threats against the United States both domestically and against U.S.
installations, personnel and information abroad.
Seventh, the Director of the NCC would be responsible for developing
Government-wide foreign counterintelligence policy and for approving
the allocation of resources to deal with the foreign intelligence
threat.
Eighth, it would require individual agencies to continue with their
counterintelligence responsibilities to protect agency information,
equipment, operations and personnel.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article from the
Washington Post be included in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Apr. 26, 1994]
Plan Shifts CIA Tasks To FBI Staff, Changes Intended To Speed Detection
of Foreign Spies
(By R. Jeffrey Smith and Pierre Thomas)
The White House, mediating a bitter dispute between the FBI
and CIA over control of counterintelligence, is considering a
plan that would transfer key spy-catching and policy-setting
responsibilities from the CIA to senior FBI officials,
according to administration officials.
A draft proposal worked out by the National Security
Council staff--and described by officials as ``broadly
agreed'' upon by representatives of the CIA, FBI and Justice
Department in meetings last week--would institute a series of
reforms meant to speed the early and efficient detection of
foreign spies who have penetrated the U.S. government.
The proposal also is intended to soothe FBI and
congressional anger over what senior U.S. officials have
described as the CIA's failure for several years to share
vital information with the FBI about the case of alleged spy
Aldrich H. Ames and other potential spy cases.
The plan ``would significantly alter the way
[counterintelligence] policy will be developed, the way
priorities would be decided, and establish a new structure
for integrating'' FBI and CIA operations to ensure that
information flows smoothly between them, a White House
official said.
The U.S. agencies involved in counterintelligence have been
asked to submit their final comments on the plan this week,
after which it will be presented to national security adviser
Anthony Lake and President Clinton for their review. Several
officials said an agreement in principle has been reached on
the proposal but certain details are still being worked out.
The proposal would establish a national ``center'' headed
by an FBI official to set overall policies on
counterintelligence operations, including the use of
polygraphs, the collection of information overseas and the
training of spy-catching experts, the officials said.
No such center now exists, resulting in widely varying
counterintelligence procedures at different federal agencies.
An advisory group recently concluded in a report to the
CIA and the Defense Department that the absence of uniform
policies was wasteful and inhibited successful spy-
catching operations.
The proposal also would require that the new policy-setting
center report through an advisory group of senior government
officials to the NSC staff at the White House, rather than to
the CIA director.
In addition, the plan would put a senior FBI official in
charge of investigating individual spy cases within the CIA's
existing counterintelligence center, ensuring early FBI
access to raw data--a primary FBI concern.
CIA Director R. James Woolsey said in an interview
yesterday that he supports the plan to appoint ``one or
more'' FBI agents to senior supervisory positions at the
CIA's center.
``I think it will be the best way to ensure the teamwork
that's essential'' to finding spies among U.S. government
employees, he said. ``It will help with the handoff'' to law
enforcement authorities by CIA personnel charged with
conducting an internal investigation of security leaks.
Officials said Woolsey's willingness to support the
proposal marked a shift for the CIA, which has generally
considered its counterintelligence center--and its case
files--off-limits to outsiders. FBI officials have told
lawmakers that an FBI agent appointed in 1991 to head the
center's Soviet and East European counterintelligence group
left in late 1993, before he had planned to, because he was
denied access to documents and had little to do.
A senior CIA official and a counterintelligence source
denied the allegation. But Woolsey confirmed that only three
FBI agents have worked at the center since it was created in
1988 to manage counterintelligence operations throughout the
government. Two of these agents worked solely on the Ames
case, he said.
By supporting the appointment of FBI officials to high-
ranking positions within the CIA center, Woolsey is trying to
head off Senate legislation that he saw as ceding virtually
all responsibility for counterintelligence enforcement
matters to the FBI, officials said.
Under the new plan, the CIA center would remain under
Woolsey's overall control. The CIA also would retain
responsibility for conducting routine investigations of its
own personnel, looking into internal security leaks and
developing key counterintelligence leads through its network
of officers and foreign agents stationed around the globe.
But the center's office in charge of investigating individual
spy cases would be run by an FBI agent.
During its month-long policy review, the NSC staff had to
sort through sharply conflicting tales by the FBI and the CIA
over the handling of past spy cases. One White House official
said of the two agencies that ``they are acting like two
teenagers and raising incidents that go way back into past
history.''
For example, in the case of Ames, who worked on
counterintelligence matters for the CIA, the FBI charged that
the CIA improperly withheld information about Ames'
difficulties with a 1991 polygraph exam, despite an agreement
that year that the agencies would work together in tracking
down any suspected mole inside the CIA.
Sen. Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.), chairman of the Senate
intelligence committee, told reporters last week that ``the
FBI had the right, the absolute right'' to see the polygraph
tracings that indicated deception in 1991, but instead did
not get access to them until 1993. He said the CIA's culture
of ``protectiveness and deniability'' had interfered with its
obligations to pursue the lead.
CIA officials blame the FBI for not asking earlier to see
the tracings. They also have defended their cautious approach
to counterintelligence cases by citing the need to maintain
confidentiality about their sources of information and to
avoid unfairly tarring employees with false accusations. FBI
officials say that this secrecy can be excessive and runs
counter to developing cases for criminal prosecution.
______
By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself and Mr. Dodd):
S. 2064. A bill to expand the boundary of the Weir Farm National
Historic Site in the State of Connecticut; to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.
weir farm expansion
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today I offer a bill to expand the
boundary of the Weir Farm National Historic Site in the State of
Connecticut. This language will authorize the National Park Service to
acquire the last two remaining undeveloped parcels of the historic Weir
Farm that remain in private ownership. It will not require additional
funding authority or appropriations to do so.
While these parcels were a part of the historic Weir Farm and were
identified as such when the State of Connecticut and the Trust for
Public Land began acquiring the land that eventually became the Weir
Farm National Historic Site, the Federal legislation that designated
the site moved more quickly than the negotiations between the owners of
the parcels in question, the State and the Trust for Public Land. Not
wanting to include land from an owner who was unwilling to be so
included within the boundaries of a National Park Site, the sponsors of
the enabling legislation removed these parcels from the boundary maps.
The legislation I introduce today was prompted by a recent agreement
between the owner of the land, the recent acquisition of the land by
the Trust for Public Land, and the expressed interest by the National
Park Service of acquiring the land. The funds to do so have already
been appropriated, so no new funding authority or appropriations would
be required.
Moving forward with this acquisition would preclude development of
these last remaining privately owned undeveloped parcels. Because these
parcels are directly in view of the most visited part of Weir Farm
their undeveloped state is necessary to preserve the aesthetic
integrity of the site. This will, in turn, ensure the continued
evocation of the landscape as it was in the late 19th and early 20th
century when it was painted by those--led by Weir--who became known
internationally as the American Impressionists.
The J. Alden Weir National Historic Site is the only site in the
National Park System to commemorate an American painter and it is
Connecticut's only national park.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2064
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 ``Weir Farm National Historic
Site Expansion Act of 1994''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to preserve the last remaining
undeveloped parcels of the historic Weir Farm that remain in
private ownership by including the parcels within the
boundary of the Weir Farm National Historic Site.
SEC. 3. BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.
(a) Adjustment.--Section 4(b) of the Weir Farm National
Historic Site Establishment Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 1171) is
amended--
(1) by striking out ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
(2) by striking out the flush material below paragraph (2);
and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) the approximately 2-acre parcel of land situated in
the town of Wilton, Connecticut, designated as lot 18 on a
map entitled `Revised Map of Section I, Thunder Lake at
Wilton, Connecticut, Scale 1''=100', October 27, 1978, Ryan
and Faulds Land Surveyors, Wilton, Connecticut', that is on
file in the office of the town clerk of the town of Wilton,
and therein numbered 3673; and
``(4) the approximately 0.6-acre western portion of a
parcel of land situated in the town of Wilton, Connecticut,
designated as Tall Oaks Road on the map referred to in
paragraph (3).''.
(b) General Depiction.--Section 4 of such Act, as amended
by subsection (a), is further amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(c) General Depiction.--The parcels referred to in
paragraphs (1) through (4) of subsection (b) are all as
generally depicted on a map entitled `Boundary Map, Weir Farm
National Historic Site', dated March 1994. Such map shall be
on file and available for public inspection in the
appropriate offices of the National Park Service.''.
______
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. Lugar):
S. 2065. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to
differentiate between fats, oils, and greases of animal, marine, or
vegetable origin, and other oils and greases, in issuing regulations
under the act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works.
animal fat and vegetable oils differentiation
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, along
with Senator Lugar, that will clarify congressional intent regarding
the regulation of animal fats and vegetable oils under provisions of
the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which amended the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act.
The interpretation of these provisions is of critical importance to
agriculture and to the entire food processing, transportation, and
distribution system. This legislation is necessary to ensure against
burdensome and unnecessary regulatory actions by Federal agencies based
on interpreting the Oil Pollution Act to impose on nontoxic and
relatively harmless animal fats and vegetable oils rules similar to the
stringent requirements applicable to toxic and hazardous petroleum oils
and products.
Congress enacted the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 in direct response to
several catastrophic petroleum oilspills in order to reduce the risk of
oilspills, improve oilspill response capabilities, and minimize the
impact of oilspills on the environment. That act requires owners and
operators of vessels and facilities handling oil posing a substantial
risk of harm to the environment in the event of a spill to prepare and
submit response plans to Federal agencies and establishes additional
requirements relating to the handling and transportation of oil.
Common sense tells us that the risk posed to the environment by
animal fats and vegetable oils--which are essential components of food
products we eat every day--is far less than that posed by petroleum oil
and products. The available scientific evidence shows that animal fats
and vegetable oils are not toxic to the environment, are essential
components of human and wildlife diets, are readily biodegradable, and
are not persistent in the environment.
Spills of animal fats and vegetable oils are also relatively
infrequent and small in quantity. Such spills accounted for less than 1
percent of oilspills in and around U.S. waters between 1986 and 1992,
and were generally very small in quantity, with only 13 spills of more
than 1,000 gallons in that period.
Moreover, the types of response actions appropriate to a petroleum
oilspill might well increase, rather than lessen, the impact of an
animal fat or vegetable oilspill on the environment. For example,
attempting to remove a typically small quantity of spilled animal fat
or vegetable oil from a wetland would likely cause more environmental
damage than the presence of the spilled substance in the environment
alone.
Nevertheless, last year the Department of Transportation's Research
and Special Projects Agency sought to classify animal fats and
vegetable oils as hazardous materials in the same manner as petroleum
oils. That approach was abandoned only after the affected industries
mounted a strong effort and after Members of Congress, including
Senator Lugar and me, wrote to the agency emphasizing that it was
never the intent of Congress to subject animal fats and vegetable oils
to the same regulations as apply to hazardous materials.
Despite this action in the Department of Transportation, there are
still pending before several Federal agencies regulations under the Oil
Pollution Act that would treat nontoxic, biodegradable oils, such as
corn and soybean oils, beef tallow, and fish oil similarly to highly
toxic petroleum oils. If these agencies proceed with regulations
imposing requirements on animal fats and vegetable oils similar to
those covering petroleum oils, processors, transporters, and users of
animal fats and vegetable oils will be forced to comply with costly,
burdensome, unnecessary--and indeed often counterproductive--
requirements that are appropriate only for toxic oils. Ultimately,
farmers, livestock producers, and consumers will bear the cost of such
overregulation.
Even if all of the agencies are eventually persuaded not to finalize
these pending regulations, a large amount of effort and resources are
likely to be expended in successive and duplicative appeals to reason
and common sense before each of the several agencies involved.
The legislation we are introducing today would reduce the potential
for burdensome and unnecessary regulatory actions by directing Federal
agencies to differentiate between animal fats, oils and greases, fish
and marine mammal oils, or oils of vegetable origin, and other oils and
greases, including petroleum. In differentiating between these classes,
agencies would be required to consider differences in the physical,
chemical, biological, and other properties, and in the environmental
effects, of the classes.
The legislation would not exempt animal fats, vegetable oils, or fish
oils from appropriate oilspill prevention and response regulations. It
would merely require that agencies develop any such regulations on the
basis of the particular physical, chemical, biological, and other
properties of these substances and their effects on the environment.
Again, the problem here is the threat of sweeping, undiscriminating
agency actions that would carelessly impose unnecessary regulatory
burdens by treating all of these substances in a manner similar to
petroleum. This legislation would simply require agencies to undertake
a reasonable, commonsense analysis before regulating. That is certainly
no more than we should expect of any agency.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I also
ask unanimous consent that the 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. 2065
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DIFFERENTIATION AMONG FATS, OILS, AND GREASES.
Section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1321) is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(t) Fats, Oils, and Greases.--
``(1) In general.--In issuing or enforcing any regulation,
or any interpretation or guideline, relating to a fat, oil,
or grease under this Act or any other Federal law, each of
the President, the Administrator, and the head of any Federal
agency shall differentiate between--
``(A)(i) animal fats and oils and greases, and fish and
marine mammal oils, within the meaning of paragraph (2) of
section 61(a) of title 13, United States Code; or
``(ii) oils of vegetable origin, including oils from the
seeds, nuts, and kernels referred to in paragraph (1)(A) of
such section; and
``(B) other oils and greases, including petroleum.
``(2) Considerations.--In differentiating between the class
of fats, oils, and greases described in paragraph (1)(A) and
the class of oils and greases described in paragraph (1)(B),
each of the President, the Administrator, and the head of the
Federal agency shall consider differences in the physical,
chemical, biological, and other properties, and in the
environmental effects, of the classes.''.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Harkin in
introducing legislation aimed at encouraging regulatory common sense. I
would like to give my colleagues a bit of background so they will
understand why it is needed.
In the spring of 1993, the Transportation Department proposed
regulations to guard against oilspills, and require response plans if
spills did occur. To the amazement of some of us, DOT proposed to treat
vegetable oils--that is, salad oils--in the same way as petroleum.
Among other things, salad oils would have been officially declared
hazardous materials, with all the regulatory requirements and extra
costs which that designation entails.
This was so classic an example of regulatory overreaching that it was
almost comic. Some of us pointed out that vegetable oil is not the same
thing as petroleum: You do not put vegetable oil in your car. We also
pointed out that vegetable oil processors thought it entirely
appropriate that they undertake response plans to guard against major
spills--the industry was not arguing that they should be exempt from
regulation.
The industry was, however, saying that regulators should take into
account the obvious differences--in toxicity, biodegradability,
environmental persistence, and other factors--between vegetable oils
and animal fats on the one hand, and petroleum oils on the other. It
made no sense for vegetable oils to be subject to a set of regulations
as stringent as those for petroleum oils.
Fortunately, Secretary Pena eventually agreed with us and DOT
modified its position. More recently, however, the industry has been
working with other agencies which also have a role in regulating oils
to prevent spills.
No one is any longer proposing to call salad oil hazardous material.
Some agencies are, however, requiring that spill response plans for
vegetable oils be quite similar in many respects to those for
petroleum.
In one case--that of the U.S. Coast Guard--the industry has been
debating an agency that reports to Secretary Pena. Mindful of his role
last year, 13 of my colleagues and I wrote the Secretary last month
asking him to resolve the situation.
The Secretary does not, however, have jurisdiction over all the
several agencies that have some role in regulating oilspills.
Therefore, the bill we introduce today will give all executive agencies
a common direction from Congress.
This bill does not tell the Coast Guard or any other agency what it
must put into regulations. That is not our business or our expertise.
The legislation simply says that in rulemaking under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act or the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, these agencies
must differentiate between vegetable oils and animal fats on one hand,
and other oils including petroleum on the other.
The bill specifies that the agencies should consider differences in
the physical, chemical, biological or other properties, and the
environmental effects of these oils. Again, it does not say exactly how
the agencies must differentiate among oils, merely that they should do
so.
Mr. President, let me say clearly that this bill does not exempt
vegetable oils from the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 or any other statute.
It is simply a modest effort to encourage common sense in an area of
regulation that has not always been marked by that characteristic. I
hope my colleagues will join Senator Harkin and me as cosponsors.
______
By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. Pressler):
S. 2066. A bill to expand the Mni Wiconi Rural Water Supply Project,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
mni wiconi rural water project legislation
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce legislation
to expand the Mni Wiconi rural water project to include the Rosebud and
Lower Brule Sioux Reservations. Water is a basic requirement of life.
For too long both Indian and non-Indian people in this region of the
State have suffered the public health risks that come from inadequate
and contaminated water supplies. It is my hope that, with the
construction of the Mni Wiconi rural water project, including those
areas that would be added with this legislation, many of the water
quality problems of the past can be solved, and the people relying on
this project can have their hopes for a better life fulfilled.
The Mni Wiconi project represents an important partnership between
Indian and non-Indian communities who share common needs. In
authorizing the project in 1988, Congress recognized that ``serious
problems in water quantity and water quality exist in the rural
counties of Haakon, Jackson, Jones, Lyman, Mallette, Pennington, and
Stanley Counties.'' Given those water quality problems, Congress
further noted in the act that the residents of these counties deserve
``the best available, reliable, and safe rural and municipal water
supply.''
For those counties, the Mni Wiconi project will accomplish that
purpose. It will provide a source of safe and clean water that is long
overdue in this region of the State.
It has become apparent, however, that all the drinking water needs of
this economically challenged region of South Dakota will not be met
under the existing project. Many residents of south-central South
Dakota will continue to lack safe and clean supplies of drinking water.
The lack of safe drinking water supplies in that part of South Dakota
continues to contribute to the transmission of hepatitis A, shigella,
impetigo, and other diseases. While the high incidence of these
diseases on the Pine Ridge Reservation have been well documented, that
reservation is not unique. The 1990 American Journal of Public Health
article, ``Hepatitis Transmission Among the Sioux Indians of South
Dakota,'' notes similar problems on the Rosebud Reservation and
concludes by stating that:
On Indian reservations, as well as in other parts of the
United States, hepatitis A has significant human and economic
impact, both in terms of morbidity and occasional mortality
and in diverting of public resources from other priorities
when outbreaks occur. For the immediate future, outbreaks
will probably continue to occur on the South Dakota and other
Indian reservations.
To help alleviate these health risks, it is crucial to ensure the
access to safe drinking water supplies to those living in this region
of South Dakota. The State and all those involved in the project
support the inclusion of the Rosebud and Lower Brule Tribes. I hope my
colleagues will join me supporting this well-deserved expansion of the
Mni Wiconi project.
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I am joining my colleague from
South Dakota, Senator Daschle, in introducing new authorization
language for the Mni Wiconi rural water system. The purpose of this
legislation is to include the Lower Brule and Rosebud Reservations in
the water system and to authorize the funds needed to complete the
project.
Last year was a milestone for the Mni Wiconi rural water system. In
Wall, SD, there was a groundbreaking ceremony for the Mni Wiconi water
system. That event represented yet another step toward achieving safe,
clean, drinking water in South Dakota. I commend the South Dakotans
working on this project for their hard work and dedication.
The Mni Wiconi water project will greatly improve the lives of more
than 40,000 South Dakotans. The Mni Wiconi rural water system is vital
to ensure the health and economic viability of those who will be served
by the project when it is completed.
I have supported this project since its inception. I will continue
working to ensure that Federal funding is made available to complete
the Mni Wiconi water project.
For my colleagues who are unaware of the conditions on these
reservations, I want to inform them that need is critical. In areas
that will be served, much of the drinking water is substandard. In many
of these areas there is simply no drinking water. It may be hard to
imagine, but thousands of South Dakotans must drive many miles for
bottled water and they must have their water transported by truck.
More importantly, several counties that are covered by the Mni Wiconi
rural water system are among the poorest counties in the Nation.
Shannon County on the Pine Ridge Reservation is the poorest county in
the country. Nearly two-thirds of all persons living on the Pine Ridge
Reservation have incomes below the poverty level.
Mr. President, the legislation being introduced today will provide
the authority needed to see that this system will become a reality. As
I stated earlier, it brings into the system another two reservations in
South Dakota. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this bill.
______
By Mr. PRESSLER (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Grassley, Mr.
Harkin, and Mr. Durenberger):
S. 2068. A bill to authorize the construction of the Lewis and Clark
rural water system and to authorize assistance to the Lewis and Clark
Rural Water System, Inc., a nonprofit corporation, for the planning and
construction of the water supply system, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
lewis and clark rural water sytem
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that
authorizes construction of the Lewis and Clark rural water system. This
system, when complete, will provide adequate quantities of safe
drinking water for hundreds of communities in southeastern South
Dakota, northwestern Iowa, and southwestern Minnesota.
Joining me in introducing this legislation are Senators Daschle,
Durenberger, Grassley, and Harkin.
Mr. President, water development is a health issue. Water development
is an economic development issue. Finally, it is a rural development
issue.
The ability of rural America to survive and grow is related directly
to its ability to provide safe and adequate supplies of drinking water.
Without a reliable supply of water, these areas cannot attract new
businesses and create jobs. The creation of jobs is a paramount issue
to a rural State like South Dakota. The Lewis and Clark rural water
system will help assure future job growth in the areas served.
Since first coming to Congress, I have fought continually for the
development of South Dakota water projects, particularly those
providing water for municipal and industrial uses. In return for the
sacrifices South Dakotans made for the construction of the dams and
reservoirs along the Missouri River, the Federal Government made a
commitment to South Dakota. That commitment was to support water
development in the State. Approval of this water project will help meet
this commitment.
I am proud of the citizens of South Dakota who have worked extremely
hard on this project. In fact, several South Dakotans were in
Washington last Wednesday to show their support for and commitment to
seeing this project become a reality. Although these South Dakotans are
not here today for the bill's introduction, the bill represents their
hard work. I commend them for these efforts.
Nothing is more important to the health of South Dakota's ranchers,
farmers, small businesses, and people living in towns and cities than
the availability of safe drinking water. This is important equally to
the millions of visitors and tourists who come to South Dakota each
year. The bill I am introducing today will see that future water needs
are met.
Mr. President, in this day and age of fiscal cutbacks, projects
promoting Public health and safety deserve special consideration. The
Lewis and Clark rural water system is the only feasible means of
ensuring that future supplies of good quality water will be available.
The system will serve over 180,500 people.
My goal is to see South Dakotans from border to border enjoy clean
safe drinking water. It becomes difficult for rural communities and
residents to maintain a healthy standards of living if they do not have
access to good quality drinking water. This bill is a major step toward
achievements of this goal.
Mr. President, the area that will be served by this project
represents the best of America. It is part of America's breadbasket.
Sioux Falls was rated recently as the No. 1 city in America. This water
project will help assure the future growth and prosperity of Sioux
Falls and the many other communities it will serve.
America and the world rely on U.S. farmers and ranchers to provide
the food we eat. Rural America must be able to grow and prosper. Rural
America must be able to maintain a standard of living comparable to
that enjoyed by urban America.
Working together we can ensure that every South Dakotan has access to
dependable, high-quality drinking water. For growth and prosperity, we
must be able to utilize our most precious natural resource--water.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Pressler, in
introducing legislation to authorize the Lewis and Clark rural water
system. The Lewis and Clark rural water system is seeking authorization
for the construction of a rural water system to provide clean water to
southeastern South Dakota, northwestern Iowa, and southwestern
Minnesota.
The need for this project is clear. In Sioux Falls, and in the rural
counties that rely on Sioux Falls as a center of economic growth, we
are now face to face with water shortages. Population growth is
outstripping existing supplies of clean water.
Despite heroic efforts by the city of Sioux Falls to conserve water,
supplies are not keeping up with demand. Sioux Falls has imposed water
restrictions every year since 1987. Water rights for the Big Sioux
aquifer, which supplies water to Sioux Falls, have been committed.
Therefore, Sioux Falls has been forced to explore other long-term
options. Similar problems exist in the nearby rural counties in
southeastern South Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota, areas where water use
restrictions are not uncommon. Unless the water supply problem is
resolved, it could affect the long-term growth and development of the
city.
Not only are there shortages of water, but much of the water that
currently supplies the area is contaminated with high levels of iron,
manganese, sulfate, and total dissolved solids. In many cases, drinking
water is at or above EPA limits, leading to concern over public health
in those areas.
There is a solution: The people of this region can tap the enormous
resources of the Missouri River to provide long-term public health and
economic development benefits. But they cannot do this alone. It will
require a partnership between local, State, and Federal Governments.
With the Missouri River carrying billions of gallons of water by this
area each year, I am reminded of the ironic line ``water, water
everywhere, but not a drop to drink.'' With the construction of the
Lewis and Clark system to convey Missouri River water to the people of
this region, that irony will cease. Impacts of this project on the flow
of the Missouri River will be negligible. Nearly all the water would be
returned to the Missouri River via the James, Vermillion, Big Sioux,
Little Sioux, Rock, and Floyd Rivers.
In conclusion, there is a strong need for this project throughout the
three-State area. The water supply shortages, the poor water quality,
and the need to allow this region to grow economically, all demand that
a solution be found that allows the people of this region access to
clean, safe drinking water. The Lewis and Clark project is a sensible
and timely answer to those needs. I encourage my colleagues to lend
their support to this project in hopes that Congress will authorize its
construction in the near future.
______
By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Cochran, and Mr.
Campbell):
S. 2067. A bill to elevate the position of Director of Indian Health
Service to Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services.
assistant secretary for indian health legislation
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to
designate the Director of the Indian Health Service to be an Assistant
Secretary for Indian Health at the Department of Health and Human
Services. I am pleased that Senators Stevens, Cochran, and Campbell
have joined with me as cosponsors of this legislation.
I am also pleased to note that this legislation has the support of
the Navajo Nation, the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, the Ely Shoshone
Tribe, the Makah Tribal Council, the Ramah Navajo School Board, the
Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, the All Indian
Pueblo Council, the Leech Lake Tribal Council, the Colorado River
Indian Tribe, the Seattle Indian Health Board, and the National Indian
Health Board.
Mr. President, when Louis Merriam issued his report in 1928
publicizing the deplorable living conditions on Indian reservations, he
stated that the ``promotion of health and the relief of the sick are
functions of such extreme importance that they always merit first
consideration * * *. But taken as a whole practically every activity
undertaken by the national government for the promotion of the health
of the Indians is below a reasonable standard of efficiency.''
Sadly, those words still haunt Indian people today. Unfortunately, it
doesn't seem to matter whether the administration is Democrat or
Republican, the attention given to Indian health care needs has been
nothing less than a national disgrace.
Like Indian leaders throughout the country, I am appalled at the
President's budget request for fiscal year 1995 for the Indian Health
Service [IHS]. The President's budget request calls for reducing the
IHS budget by $247 million. After the budge gimmicks are eliminated,
such as the ridiculous assumption that the IHS will be able to increase
third party collections by 463 percent, the budget cuts surpass $300
million. In addition, even though the IHS is already severely
understaffed, the president's budget calls for eliminating nearly 2,000
IHS staff positions over the next 2 years. I find it quite ironic that
this administration, which has emphasized the need for health care
reform and has repeatedly warned the American people that this country
is facing a health care crisis, has recommended a budget that would
literally devastate the ability of the IHS to address the health care
needs of native Americans.
Given the fact that American Indians and Alaska Natives continue to
bear an increased burden of illness and premature mortality compared to
other U.S. populations, how is it possible that the Public Health
Service [PHS], the Department of Health and Human Services [HHS], and
the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] could be so insensitive and
uncaring? I believe one of the reasons is that the department does not
have a senior policymaker who is knowledgeable about Indian health care
needs and concerns. As a result, more concern is placed on budget
numbers than on equipping IHS to meet the health care needs of Native
Americans.
The IHS is currently an agency under PHS within the Department. Under
the present organizational structure, the authority of the IHS director
is equivalent to that of a midlevel manager. The bureaucratic chain of
command requires the IHS director to report directly to the Assistant
Secretary for Health. Consequently, much of the director's time and
energy is spent fighting through layers of bureaucracy to simply
maintain existing levels of health care. Evidence of this is clearly
seen in the following budget chart which tracks the history of the
fiscal year 1995 budget request:
HISTORY OF FISCAL YEAR 1995 REQUEST--INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request to Request to Request to Request to
PHS DHHS OMB Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SERVICES
Fiscal year 1993 appropriation.............................. 1,524,990 1,524,990 1,524,990 1,524,990
Fiscal year 1994 President's budget......................... 1,600,851 1,600,851 0 0
Fiscal year 1994 House allowance............................ 0 0 1,652,394 0
Fiscal year 1994 appropriation.............................. 0 0 0 1,646,088
Fiscal year 1994 built-in increases......................... 83,002 68,499 70,851 82,742
Fiscal year 1994 annualization:
Belcourt, ND, Hospital.................................. 1,089 1,089 1,089 1,089
Crow, MT, Hospital...................................... 4,326 4,326 4,326 4,326
Tahatchi, NM Hlth Ctr................................... 3,354 3,354 3,354 3,354
Stilwell, OK, Hlth Ctr.................................. 2,742 2,742 2,742 2,742
---------------------------------------------------
Subtotal--annualization............................... 11,511 11,511 11,511 11,511
---------------------------------------------------
Subtotal built-in increases........................... 94,513 80,010 82,362 94,253
===================================================
FY 1995 program increases staffing new facilities:
Shiprock, NM Hospital................................... 7,812 7,812 5,956 0
Kotzebue, AK Hospital................................... 4,265 4,265 3,965 0
---------------------------------------------------
Subtotal--new facilities.............................. 12,077 12,077 10,921 0
===================================================
Population growth....................................... 23,831 14,874 0 0
Women health............................................ 10,000 10,000 0 0
Contract support cost shortfall......................... 8,000 8,000 0 0
Contract health care.................................... 9,000 9,000 0 0
Loan repayment.......................................... 5,000 10,000 0 0
Alcohol aftercare....................................... 3,000 11,000 0 0
Hard-core substance abuse............................... 0 0 0 10,400
Child abuse............................................. 2,500 0 0 0
Emergency medical services.............................. 1,500 0 0 0
Additional appeal items................................. ........... ........... ........... ...........
Population growth....................................... 12,335 0 0 0
Contract health care.................................... 30,483 0 0 0
Mental health........................................... 10,000 0 0 0
Hlth prevention disease prevention...................... 5,000 0 0 0
Public health nursing................................... 10,000 0 0 0
Dental.................................................. 10,000 0 0 0
Elder health............................................ 5,000 0 0 0
Tribal management....................................... 4,000 0 0 0
Unmet needs (H&HC)...................................... 48,700 0 0 0
Self governance......................................... 8,000 0 0 0
Nutrition............................................... 6,960 0 0 0
Health education........................................ 5,265 0 0 0
Direct operations....................................... 6,217 0 0 0
Contract health support costs........................... 26,000 0 0 0
Community health representatives........................ 3,700 0 0 0
Urban................................................... 1,300 0 0 0
Diabetes................................................ 0 5,000 0 0
National medical expenditure survey..................... 0 4,000 4,000 0
Absorption of built-in increases............................ 0 0 0 (90,094)
Administrative reduction.................................... 0 0 (9,319) (9,319)
Comparative transfer of facilities space (from facilities to 0 0 0 5,977
H&HC)......................................................
Program transfer to be funded by private insurance.......... 0 0 0 (86,000)
---------------------------------------------------
Total--services request................................. 1,963,232 1,764,812 1,740,358 1,571,305
===================================================
FACILITIES
Fiscal year 1994 appropriation.............................. 333,640 333,640 333,640 333,640
Fiscal year 1994 President's budget......................... 279,269 279,269 0 0
Fiscal year 1994 House allowance............................ 0 0 296,997 0
Fiscal year 1994 appropriation.............................. 0 0 0 296,982
Fiscal year 1994 built-in increases......................... 2,862 3,548 3,807 4,247
Fiscal year 1994 annualization:
Belcourt, ND, Hospital.................................. 131 131 131 131
---------------------------------------------------
Subtotal built-in increases........................... 2,993 3,679 3,938 4,378
===================================================
Fiscal year 1995 program increases:
Kotzebue quarters....................................... 16,400 16,400 ........... ...........
Ft. Belknap/Hays, MT, Clinic............................ 9,000 9,000 ........... ...........
Spokane YRTC............................................ 2,780 2,780 ........... ...........
Environmental assessment................................ 5,000 5,000 ........... ...........
Alaska Native Medical Center............................ ........... ........... 17,000 ...........
Maintenance and improvement............................. ........... ........... ........... 0
Population growth....................................... 1,169 745 ........... ...........
Injury prevention....................................... 1,117 10,000 ........... ...........
Additional appeal items:
Environmental assessments............................... 3,000 ........... ........... ...........
Ft. Belknap hlth. care fac's............................ 7,699 ........... ........... ...........
Alcohol rehab. facilities............................... 3,000 ........... ........... ...........
Injury prevention....................................... 3,883 ........... ........... ...........
Absorption of built-in increases............................ ........... ........... ........... (4,378)
Administrative reductions................................... ........... ........... (1,081) (1,081)
Deduct hlth. care fac's. constr............................. (75,000) (75,000) (78,676) (80,184)
Deduct sanitation facilities................................ ........... ........... ........... (85,051)
Facilities space transfer to H&C............................ ........... ........... ........... (5,977)
---------------------------------------------------
Total--Facilities request............................... 260,310 251,873 238,178 124,689
===================================================
Total--Indian Health Service............................ 2,223,542 2,016,685 1,978,536 1,695,994
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At a time when Indian leaders are asking that the deplorable health
conditions existing on Indian reservations today be recognized and made
the basis of policy and action, PHS, HHS, and OMB collectively
responded by reducing the budget level proposed by the IHS by over a
half billion dollars.
Mr. President, it's time PHS, HHS, and OMB get the message. Indian
people should not be treated as second-class citizens. In order to
ensure that Indian health care needs and concerns are given the
attention they deserve, I believe it has become necessary to designate
the IHS director as an Assistant Secretary of Indian Health at HHS. I
see four advantages to establishing the position of Assistant Secretary
for Indian Health.
First, an Assistant Secretary for Indian Health would provide better
representation during the budget process. Currently, the IHS director
reports directly to the Assistant Secretary for Health. As seen in the
chart above, the concern for Indian health care needs dramatically
decreased as the IHS budget was reviewed by the PHS, HHS, and OMB.
Second, an Assistant Secretary for Indian Health would eliminate
unnecessary bureaucracy and permit quicker decisionmaking on Indian
health care issues. In addition, the Assistant Secretary would have the
stature to communicate directly with the other operating divisions
within the department in requesting their expertise and assistance on
Indian health issues such as alcohol and substance abuse, HIV/AIDS, and
child abuse. Currently, the IHS director must forward such requests
through the Assistant Secretary for Health.
Third, an Assistant Secretary for Indian Health would have the
ability to call on private sector organizations that have not
traditionally focused on Indian health care needs and concerns, but who
have the expertise and resources that can enhance IHS' ability to
deliver the highest quality of health care, or to provide technical
assistance to Indian tribes who choose to operate their own health care
programs.
Fourth, an Assistant Secretary for Indian Health would reaffirm the
special relationship between Indian tribes and the United States. At a
time when the Nation is focused on health care reform, it is imperative
that we not lose focus on the health care needs and concerns of the
Indian people.
I also want to call attention to section 2 of the bill which provides
for the organizational independence of the IHS within HHS. This section
is necessary because the IHS is currently an agency of PHS which is
headed by the Assistant Secretary for Health. Creating an Assistant
Secretary for Indian Health will require relocating the IHS to the same
organizational level as the PHS.
Section 2 also makes it clear that this bill is not intended to
diminish the ability of the IHS to utilize the services of the U.S.
Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. While I do not believe HHS
would actually prohibit the IHS from continuing to utilize Commissioned
Corps personnel in the delivery of health care to the Indian people,
however in light of the serious budget and staff reductions recommended
by the administration I feel compelled to insert bill language clearly
stating the intent of Congress on this particular matter.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a letter from
Navajo Nation President Peterson Zah and the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 2067
Be it enacted in the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INDIAN HEALTH.
(a) Establishment.--There is established within the
Department of Health and Human Services the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Indian Health.
(b) Assistant Secretary of Indian Health.--In addition to
the functions performed on the date of enactment of this Act
by the Director of the Indian Health Service, the Assistant
Secretary for Indian Health shall perform such functions as
the Secretary of Health and Human Services may designate.
(c) References.--References in any other Federal law,
Executive order, rule, regulation, or delegation of
authority, or any document of or relating to the Director of
the Indian Health Service shall be deemed to refer the
Assistant Secretary for Indian Health.
(d) Rate of Pay.--(1) Section 5315 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by striking the following:
``Assistant Secretaries of Health and Human Services
(5).'';
and inserting the following:
``Assistant Secretaries of Health and Human Services
(6).''.
(2) Section 5316 of such title is amended by striking the
following:
``Director, Indian Health Service, Department of Health and
Human Services.''.
(e) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 601 of the Indian
Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1661) is amended--
(A) in the second sentence of subsection (a), by striking
``a Director,'' and inserting ``the Assistant Secretary for
Indian Health,'';
(B) in the fourth sentence of subsection (a), by striking
``the Director'' and inserting the Assistant Secretary for
Indian Health'';
(C) by striking out the fifth sentence of subsection (a);
and
(D) by striking ``Director of the Indian Health Service''
each place it appears and inserting ``Assistant Secretary for
Indian Health''.
(2) The following provisions are amended by striking
``Director of the Indian Health Service'' each place it
appears and inserting ``Assistant Secretary for Indian
Health'':
(A) Section 816(c)(1) of the Indian Health Care Improvement
Act (25 U.S.C. 1680f(c)(1)).
(B) Section 203(a)(1) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29
U.S.C. 761b(a)(1)).
(C) Subsections (b) and (e) of section 518 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1377(b), (e)).
(D) Section 803B(d)(1) of the Native American Programs Act
of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 2991b-2(d)(1)).
SEC. 2. ORGANIZATION OF INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE WITHIN
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES.
(a) Organization.--Section 601 of the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1661), as amended by section
1(e)(1), is further amended--
(1) by striking out ``within the Public Health Service of
the Department of Health and Human Services'' each place it
appears and inserting ``within the Department of Health and
Human Services''; and
(2) in the second sentence of subsection (a), by striking
out ``report to the Secretary through the Assistant Secretary
for Health of the Department of Health and Human Services''
and inserting ``report to the Secretary''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The section heading of such
section is amended by striking the following:
``establishment of the indian health service as an agency of the public
health service'';
and inserting the following:
``establishment of the indian health service as an agency of department
of health and human services''.
(c) Utilization of Public Health Service Personnel.--
Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as terminating
or otherwise modifying any authority providing for the
utilization by the Indian Health Service of officers or
employees of the Public Health Service for the purposes of
carrying out the responsibilities of the Indian Health
Service. Any officers or employees so utilized shall be
treated as officers or employees detailed to an executive
department under section 214(a) of the Public Health Service
(42 U.S.C. 215(a)).
____
The Navajo Nation,
Window Rock, AZ, April 29, 1994.
Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: In response to your letter dated March
8, 1994, the Navajo Nation endorses your proposal that would
elevate the Indian health Services Director to the level of
an Assistant Secretary of Health. By doing so, we believe
this measure would alleviate the Administration's many
misunderstandings of the Indian Health Service (IHS) and its
delivery of health care services to American Indians and
Alaska Natives. It would also extend the opportunity for the
IHS director to actively participate in developing the IHS
budget, thus, it would enlace dialogue between the
Administration and Indian tribes that would be more
responsive to tribal needs and concerns.
As you are aware, the Navajo Nation opposes the
Administration's proposed FY 1995 IHS budget. Current
examples of the lack of visibility and participation of IHS
abound in the concurrent budget.
The Navajo Nation recognizes the mounting pressures of
budget limits and government downsizing that would
potentially devastate the IHS and health care services to
Indian people. The Executive directives explicitly reduced
the Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) of IHS, which is less than two
percent of the entire Department of Health and Human Services
budget, yet IHS is absorbing almost 40 percent of the FTE
reductions. The FTE reductions come at an unfortunate time
because the IHS is scheduled to open two new health
facilities in Shiprock and Tohatchi, New Mexico. These health
facilities will be partially staffed and the Navajo people
will again be further underserved. Moreover, the FY 1994 and
1995 FTE reductions harshly impact Navajo employment, since
the IHS is one of the Major employers on the Navajo
Reservation. If the IHS director were at the policy making
level of the department to reaffirm tribal interests, we
believe these incidences could have been clarified and
analyzed from a realistic perspective.
I assure you that other American Indian leaders appreciate
and support your proposal. It can only contribute to the
health care of American Indians and Alaska Natives.
Sincerely,
Peterson Zah,
President.
____________________