[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 80 (Wednesday, June 22, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 22, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                          THE 1872 MINING LAW

  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, today the House and the Senate attempted 
to come together in a conference to resolve the issue of reform of the 
1872 mining law. As the Senate may remember, we passed legislation 
nearly a year ago to resolve that issue. The House dragged its feet for 
nearly 6 months and finally passed legislation early this year, and we 
have been attempting to get to conference with the House and the Senate 
appointing conferees. I think most of us in the West who have public 
lands and mining on public lands have been very anxious that we arrive 
at a compromise that resolves some of the contentious issues that have 
been here before this Senate on more than one occasion.
  In the last 2 weeks, I have brought to the chairman of the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee two different concepts of compromise. We 
have attempted to resolve the issue of royalties. I, and others, have 
moved from a net royalty to a gross royalty. While the industry is very 
concerned, they recognized it was very important to attempt to arrive 
at this compromise. We have also tried to deal with the issue of 
unsuitability. That is where we would give the Secretary of the 
Interior discretionary authority to make a determination on whether 
mining should occur on a certain property or it should not occur.
  Well, because of timing today, that conference did not meet. But I 
hope we can meet next week. I hope the Senate and the House and their 
conferees are dedicated to bringing about real change in the mining 
law, but change that will keep America's miners working, that will 
allow this country the continued interest of investing in the mining 
industry to produce the metals necessary to keep an industrial complex 
alive.
  I must tell you that I am terribly concerned that the House version 
does not do that, or that this administration, in the name of Secretary 
Bruce Babbitt, is not dedicated to that concept, for they have put up a 
bill that could well put thousands of people out of work. But I will 
tell you that Senators on both sides of this issue, the conferees 
appointed by the chairman of the Energy Committee, have met now for 
over 2 weeks trying to resolve our differences. While that has not yet 
been accomplished, I am still holding out hope that we can bring about 
the kind of compromise that I think all of us stand for--to recognize 
our environmental concerns, but to know that we cannot tax an industry 
into oblivion, that we must have a mining industry for this country, 
and that the Senate approach that we have been working so hard to bring 
about can, in fact, accomplish just that.
  So I hope that Senators, recognizing the importance of this issue, 
will encourage the House and the Senate to come together to look at the 
ideas we have put together in a meaningful way, to ensure that we can 
produce a reform of mining law that will recognize the importance of a 
mining industry to our country and the kinds of changes that will 
maintain balance for the environment, for the mining industry, and for 
the working men and women who find their lives in it. It is a billion-
dollar industry directly employing over 100,000 people. It is clearly a 
jobs issue, and I hope this administration will work with us in 
resolving that question.
  I ask unanimous consent that an article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                          Mining the Sagebrush

       The Western land wars continue, most notably of late over 
     mining. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and a gaggle of 
     Democratic congressmen are pushing a Green button that has 
     revived the Sagebrush Rebellion. The consequences already 
     have been felt in Mr. Babbitt's near-miss for the Supreme 
     Court and may extend into the 1996 election.
       The secretary is in no mood to retreat. He aggravated 
     tensions last month with a showy reference to the ``biggest 
     gold heist since the days of Butch Cassidy'' when a big 
     Nevada mining operation got out from under his thumb via a 
     land privatization. More recently he got into high gear an 
     effort to sell higher grazing fees to ranchers, while a 
     timber standoff in the Northwest continues despite Judge 
     Dwyer's dispensation. Meanwhile, environmentalists are 
     blasting into Mr. Babbitt's rear flank on a host of issues. 
     The political gains that Candidate Clinton made in this 
     region in 1992 may be evaporating.
       On mining and the other resource controversies, including 
     dams and water, the West is still coming to terms with a 
     changed federal government. The days of subsidized 
     development are over, and we have applauded that. What now 
     must be settled are the competing claims of those who've 
     relied on ``multiple use'' of federal land for their 
     livelihoods vs. those insisting on preservation. Private 
     property also is on the line thanks to ``wetlands'' and the 
     Endangered Species Act, whose listings Secretary Babbitt has 
     just proposed to make more inclusionary of affected parties.
       Consider mining. For well over a century, easy terms have 
     invited exploration and development of the West and a common-
     law order has been imposed, much as under the Homestead Act. 
     Now the politics have heated up around the disparities 
     between the few thousand dollars it costs to obtain a site 
     and potential billions of dollars' of mineral deposits. 
     Hence, charges of a ``gold heist'' when a unit of American 
     Barrick succeeded in forcing a patent (or land title) to its 
     lode in northern Nevada.
       Patents are extra protection for a company that fears that 
     changes in policy will jeopardize its basic claim on the 
     riches beneath federal lands. (Lenders thus insist on them 
     before putting big bucks into a project.) Secretary Babbitt 
     has made them hard to get.
       Privatizing the vast federal tracts in the West is nearly 
     always a good thing, and 3.2 million acres have been turned 
     over since the Mining Act of 1872 was adopted. The current 
     patent process is an inefficient and irrational way to go 
     about it, because it doesn't capture the true value of a 
     holding. Like so many other aspects of Western land policy, 
     it lacks an economic reference point in allocating scarcity 
     (i.e., a market price). Also, patents or some other form of 
     secure tenure should be extended for other resource 
     interests, including recreation.
       The House of Representatives is less creative. It wants to 
     keep the federal barony and thinks imposing an inflexible 8% 
     federal royalty on gross mining revenues would even things 
     out. The industry says that--on top of state taxes--would 
     break it. By comparison, hard-rock miners may pay more than 
     10% in royalties to private property owners, though that 
     usually involves surer discoveries than the speculation on 
     public lands.
       We wish we could be confident that the urban liberals who 
     make hay of the resource ``giveaways'' were really interested 
     in proper pricing, but their blanket opposition to a market 
     in federal land (the House measures would end patenting) 
     makes us doubters. At the same time, many Westerners also 
     want to keep their federal landlord--but the traditional one, 
     pre-Babbittry. Given the demographic shift in U.S. political 
     power, this is a position they ultimately will have to 
     abandon. Even if the West isn't turning liberal, it is being 
     urbanized along with the rest of the country, and the 
     resource interests can no longer expect to hold sway in 
     Washington.
       For all the uneconomic policies, however, the ``gold 
     heist'' imagery is misplaced. The billions' worth of 
     deposits--incentive enough to incur countless millions' worth 
     of exploratory and extractive costs--are a long time in the 
     digging. Average returns in the mining industry reportedly 
     are under 5%; if this really were a tax-funded bonanza, 
     investors would be clamoring for an equity position. As it 
     is, the recent market appeal of mining companies owes to 
     their finds abroad, not in the U.S. Thanks to lowered taxes 
     (or royalties) in nations such as Mexico, exploration abroad 
     now nearly equals that in the U.S., whereas in 1989 it was 
     less than half.
       Latin America is making a big pitch to the miners. Canada, 
     meanwhile, is showing alarm over its decline, with Anne 
     McClellan, its equivalent of Mr. Babbitt, stressing that 
     month her intent to ``improve the investment climate'' for 
     the domestic industry. The finance minister, Paul Martin, 
     says this means a minimum of taxes and regulation--the 
     opposite of the Babbitt approach.
       Environmental degradation plays a big part in this debate. 
     The past record of U.S. mining is no better than that of 
     other sectors, and bankruptcy law has shielded even some 
     recent malefactors from cleaning up their mess. But today's 
     laws apply to mining as to everything else, so what's 
     special? Stiffer bonding requirements can reinforce the reins 
     on mine pollution. Creation of tradable claims to other 
     resource use and enjoyment would enhance this protection.
       The minerals industry becomes more conscious of waste as 
     economics require. The property question needs to be figured 
     into that. But if Washington simply substitutes one arbitrary 
     set of prices and rules for another, it will end up with less 
     of a mining base on which to apply lessons of the past. 
     People who don't like to see soil turned would like that. 
     Others who do, for the jobs and wealth it brings, are again 
     stirring in the Sagebrush. When they act, it is likely to be 
     in 1996 against a Democratic Party that, for all the 
     reasonable talk, seems incapable of shaking free of its 
     reflexively liberal policy prescriptions.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, there will be no further rollcall 
votes this evening. I believe the chairman of the committee will 
continue with consideration of the bill to discuss amendments which do 
not require recorded votes.
  The Senate will return to session at 9 a.m. tomorrow and will return 
to consideration of this bill at 9:35 a.m., at which time an amendment 
by the distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania will be offered, 
and then there will be a number of amendments and recorded votes 
throughout the day tomorrow.
  Madam President, I now suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, in my opening remarks I noted that the 
defense bill is $400 million below the 1995 budget request by President 
Clinton in budget authority and $800 million dollars below the Clinton 
request in outlays.
  But I want to make it clear, if in my opening statement I did not 
make it clear, that this bill is already above the budget authority and 
the outlay level by a small amount, not much, but by a small amount of 
both the House and the Senate defense appropriations subcommittee's 
602(b) allocations.
  So this authorization bill already exceeds what the appropriators 
have allocated for defense in both budget authority and outlays not by 
much.
  But I want everybody to know that because it has to be cleared that 
any amendments to this bill that do not have offsets, that are not 
offset by reductions, will make the budget authority and the outlays 
significantly above appropriated funds.
  What that means is that if we push above the appropriated 602(b) 
level it will require the appropriators to make cuts in the fast 
spending accounts, which are personnel accounts and readiness accounts, 
and I do not think any of us want to see that.
  I did want everyone to know that even though this bill is under the 
Clinton budget request it is not under the appropriation reality of the 
602(b)'s, so there is no money here to be used up by amendments that do 
not have offsets.
  So I hope when Senators come to the floor they will understand that 
our committee will be looking very carefully to make sure there are 
offsets for any kind of add-ons here. Otherwise, the appropriators will 
be given an impossible task trying to sort out an excessive 
authorization.


 cbo cost estimate for s. 2182, the national defense authorization act 
                          for fiscal year 1995

  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, when the Armed Services Committee reported 
S. 2182, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995, 
to the Senate on June 14, the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] cost 
estimate on this bill was not available. The committee indicated in our 
report accompanying the bill that this cost estimate would be included 
in the material presented during the Senate floor debate.
  Madam President, the committee has received the CBO cost estimate on 
the bill, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                     Washington, DC, June 17, 1994
     Hon. Sam Nunn,
     Chairman Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
     prepared the attached cost estimate for S. 2182, the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995, as ordered 
     reported by the Senate Committee on Armed Services on June 9, 
     1994.
       The bill would affect direct spending and thus would be 
     subject to pay-as-you-go procedures under the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       Should the Committee so desire, we would be pleased to 
     provide further details on the attached cost estimate.
           Sincerely,
                                                      James L Blum
                                       (For Robert D. Reischauer).
       Enclosure:

               Congressional Budget Office--Cost Estimate

       1. Bill number: S. 2182.
       2. Bill title: National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1995.
       3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the Senate Committee 
     on Armed Services on June 9, 1994.
       4. Bill purpose: This bill would authorize appropriations 
     for 1995 for the military functions of the Department of 
     Defense (DoD) and the Department of Energy. This bill also 
     would prescribe authorized personnel strengths for each 
     active duty and selected reserve component.
       5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The costs of 
     this bill are shown in Table 1. Costs of the bill would fall 
     under function 050, National Defense, except for certain 
     items noted below.


                            direct spending

       The direct spending in this bill stems primarily from 
     provisions that would allow civil service retirement credit 
     for past service, direct DoD to make certain Medicare 
     payments, increase fees for the Armed Services Retirement 
     Home, change severance payments to certain former employees, 
     allow DoD to lease certain government property and spend the 
     proceeds, and increase military retirement and survivor 
     benefits.
       Retirement Benefits for Civilians.--Section 334 would allow 
     certain federal workers who were employed by non-appropriated 
     fund instrumentalities (NAFI) between 1966 and 1988, and who 
     are currently employed by the federal government in civil 
     service positions, to receive retirement credit for their 
     NAFI service. Employees would have to contribute to the 
     retirement trust fund for each year of service for which they 
     wish to receive credit. CBO estimates that approximately 
     20,000 employees would choose to purchase additional 
     retirement credit, increasing government receipts in 1995 and 
     1996 by $53 million and $225 million, respectively. These 
     receipts would outweigh higher spending for annuity payments 
     in 1995 and 1996 by $33 million and $183 million, 
     respectively. After 1996, however, the provision would raise 
     net spending by $78 million in 1997, rising to $138 million 
     in 1999.
       Coverage Under Medicare Part B.--Section 708 of the bill 
     effects certain retired military personnel who are eligible 
     for Medicare. When an individual attains Medicare eligible at 
     age 65, he or she must decide whether or not to purchase Part 
     B coverage. Part B is a voluntary program covering physician 
     services and other non-hospital costs. Those who do not 
     initially opt for Part B coverage can choose to do so at a 
     later date, but they must then pay a substantial penalty in 
     the form of a higher premium. This provision directs DoD to 
     pay the penalty for retired military personnel in this 
     situation if they live within 65 miles of a military 
     treatment facility that is slated for closure. CBO estimates 
     the cost of this provision to be $20 million in 1995, 
     increasing to $70 million by 1999.
       Armed Forces Retirement Home.--Section 343 would increase 
     the percentage charge for calculating resident fees for the 
     Armed Forces Retirement Home and would expand the types of 
     income on which such fees are calculated. By the year 2000, 
     all of the changes will have been phased in and resident fees 
     would be about double what they are today. This constitutes 
     negative direct spending because offsetting receipts would 
     increase while spending is expected to remain at baseline 
     levels. Savings would start in 1996 at $3 million and 
     increase to $12 million in 1999.
       Section 343 would also increase the maximum amount that 
     could be withheld from the pay of certain active-duty 
     personnel in order to finance the Armed Forces Retirement 
     Home Trust Fund. The provision would allow the Secretary of 
     Defense, beginning January 1, 1995, to increase gradually the 
     withholding rate from the current maximum of fifty cents per 
     month to two dollars per month, if the Secretary determines 
     that the trust fund requires this additional financing. While 
     we cannot know what discretionary action the Secretary of 
     Defense might take, CBO assumes that the current spending 
     levels are not high enough, relative to the expected balance 
     in the trust fund, to cause the Secretary to raise the 
     withholding rate over the next five years. Thus, this 
     provision would have no budgetary impact through 1999.
       Payments to Former Employees.--The bill would raise 
     payments from DoD's trust fund that makes severance payments 
     to former foreign national employees. Under current law, DoD 
     must take severance payments to a group of Dutch nationals 
     that it no longer expects to employ; but unlike payments to 
     other foreign national employees, these payments would come 
     from discretionary appropriations. Under the bill, these 
     payments would be made from the trust fund--a direct spending 
     account. CBO expects that about 80 employees in 1995 would 
     receive payments averaging $90,000, for a total cost of $7 
     million. Slightly more than 50 such employees would leave 
     service each year from 1996 to 1998 as well, at an annual 
     cost of $5 million.
       Property Transaction.--Section 2822 would authorize the 
     Secretary of the Navy to lease property at Port Hueneme, 
     California, and spend the proceeds received from the lease. 
     CBO estimates this provision would have no significant 
     budgetary impact as the estimated $300,000 in annual proceeds 
     would be spent on maintenance and construction of Naval 
     facilities.
       Section 2823 would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to 
     lease property at Coronado, California to the Young Men's 
     Christian Association of San Diego County. CBO estimates no 
     significant budgetary effect from this provision.
       Retired Pay and Survivor Benefits.--Section 503 would 
     codify current practice with respect to military retirement. 
     The provision would entitle limited duty officers with 18 or 
     more years of service to stay in service until they qualify 
     for military retirement at 20 years of service. CBO expects 
     no budgetary impact from this provision.
       Currently, certain reservists who leave military service 
     involuntarily are eligible to receive transition payments of 
     $1,950 annually for five years. Section 521 would require any 
     reservist who receives these payments to forfeit an equal 
     amount from their military retirement annuity. Direct 
     spending savings would equal $54,000 in 1995 and $250,000 
     over the five years.
       Section 531 would extend disability coverage to an officer 
     candidate who incurred a disability while on authorized leave 
     to attend classes. According to DoD, this provision would 
     extend benefits to only a couple of members each year and 
     would result in negligible costs.
       Section 631 would clarify the calculation of the retired 
     pay base for officers who retire in a grade lower than that 
     held at retirement. It states that a member's pay base may 
     not be based on a rate of basic pay for a grade higher than 
     that at which the member retired. According to DoD, this 
     provision would affect very few members, and would result in 
     negligible savings.
       Section 632 would credit the inactive service of active 
     duty enlisted members for computation of retired pay. 
     Currently, enlisted retirees are credited only for active 
     training, whereas officer retirees are credited for both 
     active and inactive training. According to DoD, approximately 
     750 enlisted members would be credited an additional 3 
     months. This provision would result in a five-year cost of 
     $1.5 million.
       Section 634 would prohibit an individual, or survivor, from 
     receiving retired pay or an annuity if the individual was 
     convicted of violating the espionage article of the Uniform 
     Code of Military Justice. According to DoD, based on 
     historical data this provision might affect one member and 
     would result in negligible savings.
       Section 641 would make reservists who leave service under 
     temporary early retirement authority eligible for enrollment 
     in the Servicemen's Groups Life Insurance (SGLI) program 
     (function 700.) The insurance premiums paid by policyholders 
     cover the anticipated costs of benefits paid by the program, 
     so the net cost of the increased participation would be zero.

  TABLE 1.--ESTIMATED COSTS OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT,  
    1995, AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE    
                [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Category              1995      1996     1997    1998    1999 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenues....................        53      225        0       0       0
                                                                        
       Direct Spending                                                  
                                                                        
Estimated budget authority..        47       84      130     156     196
Estimated outlays...........        47       84      130     156     196
                                                                        
         Asset Sales                                                    
                                                                        
Estimated budget authority..       -17      -17      -17     -17     -17
Estimated outlays...........       -17      -17      -17     -17     -17
                                                                        
      Authorizations of                                                 
       Appropriations                                                   
                                                                        
Specific authorizations.....   192,340        0        0       0       0
Estimated outlays...........   105,350   48,615   19,932   8,829   4,296
Estimated authorizations....    50,970      539    1,379   1,409   1,402
Estimated outlays...........    47,561    3,634    1,371   1,402   1,397
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              asset sales

       Section 3301 would authorize the disposal of both aluminum 
     and tungsten currently in the National Defense Stockpile. 
     Annual receipts would increase from these sales by about $8 
     million from aluminum sales and by about $9 million from 
     tungsten sales. Under current budgetary practices, these 
     receipts are considered to be assets sales that do not count 
     in meeting deficit reduction targets.
       Section 2826 would authorize the sale, at fair market 
     value, of the Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant in Hall 
     County, Nebraska, to the Board of Supervisors of Hall County. 
     CBO is unable to estimate the value of this asset sale.


                    authorizations of Appropriations

       The bill specifically authorizes appropriations of $192 
     billion for 1995 for operation and maintenance, procurement, 
     research, development, test and evaluation, nuclear weapons 
     programs, and other DoD programs; it also authorizes 
     emergency supplemental appropriations for 1994 in the amounts 
     already provided in Public Law 103-211. All stated 
     authorizations fall under National Defense (function 050.) 
     Related outlays are shown in Table 1.
       The bill contains both specific and implicit authorization 
     of appropriations extending beyond 1995 primarily for 
     military personnel costs; Table 2 contains estimates for the 
     amounts authorized and the related outlays. The following 
     sections describe the items shown in Table 2 and provide 
     information about CBO's cost estimates. All estimates assume 
     that funds will be appropriated for the full amount of the 
     authorization and will be available for obligation by October 
     1, 1994. Outlays are estimated based on historical outlay 
     rates.
       Endstrength.--The bill would authorize 1995 endstrengths 
     for active and reserve components of the Defense Department 
     that would cost almost $70 billion. Endstrengths authorized 
     for active-duty personnel would total about 1,526,000--the 
     same as the Administration's request and about 85,000 below 
     the level estimated for 1994.
       DoD's reserve endstrength would be authorized at about 
     987,300 for 1995--8,290 people, or about $27 million more 
     than the Administration's request, but about 37,500 people 
     less than the level estimated for 1994. Also, the bill would 
     authorize an endstrength of 8,000 in 1995 for the Coast Guard 
     Reserve, which is 1,000 more than the Administration 
     requested, but 2,000 less than 1994; this authorization would 
     cost $57 million and falls under budget function 400.
       Budget function 950--undistributed offsetting receipts--
     records the receipt of payments for function 050 for military 
     retirement, retirement for DoD's civilian employees, Social 
     Security, and Medicare. The total of about $20 billion shown 
     in Table 2 for function 950 relates to the costs of both 
     civilian and military personnel.
       Compensation and Benefits.--The bill would authorize a 2.6 
     percent pay raise in 1995 for military personnel, which is 
     one percentage point higher than the amount in the 
     Administration's request. This change would cost $448 million 
     in 1995 relative to the request and $1,165 million relative 
     to current rates of pay.
       The bill would also extend DoD's authority to pay certain 
     bonuses and special pay that would expire at the end of 1994 
     or 1995. Active duty enlistment and reenlistment bonuses 
     would be reauthorized at a cost of $112 million in 1996. The 
     aviation officer retention bonus would be extended at a cost 
     of $12 million in 1995, while special pay and bonuses for 
     personnel in nuclear career fields would be continued through 
     1996 at a cost of $25 million. Payments for nurses would be 
     extended for three years at a cost of $10 million in 1996. 
     Finally, authority for certain special payments to reservists 
     would be reauthorized at a cost of $38 million in 1996.
       Section 521 would change the amount and schedule for 
     severance payments to reserve personnel who leave military 
     service involuntarily. Currently, eligible reservists receive 
     as many as 5 annual payments of $1,950, until they reach 60 
     years of age including a full 12 month payment in the year 
     they actually turn 60. This provision would allow DoD to make 
     fewer than 5 payments and would reduce the last payment by 
     prorating it based on birth date. Savings in 1995 would be 
     small--about $14,000--but would total $34 million 1999.
       The bill would also increase the amount of incentive 
     special pay received by nurse anesthetists from $6,000 to 
     $15,000. This change would cost $5 million annually through 
     1998.
       Several sections of the bill would allow DoD to exceed 
     statutory limitations on the number of officers in particular 
     pay grades, without increasing overall end strength levels. 
     These changes would increase authorizations because some 
     individuals would receive higher rates of pay, but the total 
     amount would not exceed $500,000 in any year.
       Another provision of the bill explicitly authorizes 
     appropriations for military personnel of $70,790 million in 
     1995. Because the costs of other sections of the bill exceed 
     this level, this section has the effect of reducing the 
     authorization by $177 million.
       Military Health Programs.--Several provisions of the bill 
     deal with health care benefits provided to DoD beneficiaries. 
     Section 702 would direct the Secretary of Defense to 
     establish a dental benefits program for military family 
     members overseas. Currently, DoD provides dental benefits to 
     dependents of military members stationed in the United 
     States. Based on the costs of this program and the number of 
     overseas dependents, CBO estimates that this provision would 
     cost $36 million in 1995 and $45 million in 1999.
       Section 922 would prohibit the Department from closing the 
     Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences or even 
     presuming that it will be closed. Current plans call for the 
     school to admit its last class in 1994 and close by the end 
     of 1998. Relative to that plan, the provision would cost $12 
     million in 1995 and about $74 million in 1999.
       The bill would increase reimbursements to beneficiaries of 
     the DoD medical system who are also eligible for Medicare due 
     to disability. Under current law, individuals in this group 
     must first submit health insurance claims to Medicare. They 
     then turn to CHAMPUS for reimbursement of certain amounts not 
     covered by Medicare. This bill would expand the level of 
     reimbursement received under CHAMPUS so that beneficiaries 
     could receive payment from CHAMPUS for most items not covered 
     under Medicare, at a cost of $19 million in 1995. Payments 
     would increase to $24 million by 1999.
       The bill also directs DoD to establish a demonstration 
     project furnishing chiropractic care through military medical 
     facilities through 1997. Without knowing which facilities 
     might be selected for the demonstration project or how many 
     beneficiaries would be affected, CBO cannot estimate the 
     costs associated with this project. Another demonstration 
     project carried out between 1990 and 1992 provided coverage 
     of chiropractic care through CHAMPUS at a cost of 
     approximately $1 million annually; costs for this provision 
     ought be of a similar magnitude.
       Finally, the bill contains three provisions on health 
     matters that have a relatively small budgetary impact. 
     Section 701 would expand coverage under DoD's health care 
     system to children in the process of being adopted by former 
     or current military members. This provision would affect 
     rough 1,000 children and cost about $2 million annually 
     starting in 1996. Section 705 would allow the Department to 
     pay licensing fees for DoD health care providers employed in 
     the civilian sector. Reimbursements would be made up to $500 
     of the amount paid by the member at a cost of $250,000 
     annually. Section 703 would provide medical and dental care 
     for abused dependents to cover any treatment resulting from 
     the abuse. Costs would be small at about $10,000 per year.
       Other Authorizations.--Section 355 authorizes DoD to 
     provide funds to the American Red Cross for emergency 
     communication services for military members and their 
     families. This funding would not exceed $14.5 million in 1995 
     through 1997.
       Title XXXV would authorize the Panama Canal Commission to 
     spend any sums available from operating revenues of Treasury 
     borrowing for operation, maintenance, and improvements of the 
     canal in fiscal year 1995. This spending and the canal's 
     operating revenues are considered discretionary, because the 
     appropriation bill customarily establishes on an obligation 
     ceiling for this account. CBO estimates that 1995 collections 
     will be about $564 million and that collections will exceed 
     spending by about $7.5 million, resulting in net outlays of 
     -$7.5 million in budget function 400, Transportation.

     TABLE 2.--ESTIMATED AUTHORIZATIONS IN THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT, 1995, AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE     
                                                        [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Category                                       1995            1996            1997            1998            1999     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End strengths:                                                                                                                                          
    Function 050:                                                                                                                                       
      Estimated authorization...........................................         69,785                0               0               0               0
      Estimated outlays.................................................         66,435            3,140               0               0               0
    Function 400:                                                                                                                                       
      Estimated authorization level.....................................             57                0               0               0               0
      Estimated outlays.................................................             55                2               0               0               0
    Function 950:                                                                                                                                       
      Estimated authorization...........................................        -19,878           -1,308            -373            -381            -390
      Estimated outlays.................................................        -19,878           -1,308            -373            -381            -390
Compensiation and benefits:                                                                                                                             
    Military pay raise:                                                                                                                                 
      Estimated authorization...........................................          1,165            1,556           1,576           1,611           1,648
      Estimated outlays.................................................          1,109            1,534           1,571           1,606           1,643
    Expiring authorities:                                                                                                                               
      Estimated authorization level.....................................             12              183              47              61              33
      Estimated outlays.................................................             12              176              52              60              34
    Reserve severance payments:                                                                                                                         
      Estimated authorization level.....................................              0               -9             -16             -26             -34
      Estimated outlays.................................................              0               -8             -15             -26             -34
    Other compensation and benefits:                                                                                                                    
      Estimated authorization...........................................              5                5               5               5               0
      Estimated outlays.................................................              5                5               5               5               0
    Limit on military personnel appropriations:                                                                                                         
      Estimated authorization level.....................................           -177                0               0               0               0
      Estimated outlays.................................................           -170               -6               0               0               0
Military health programs:                                                                                                                               
    Dental benefits:                                                                                                                                    
      Estimated authorization level.....................................            (36)              38              40              42              45
      Estimated outlays.................................................            (27)              35              39              42              44
    Prohibition in closing USUHS:                                                                                                                       
      Estimated authorization level.....................................            (12)              36              61              72              74
      Estimated outlays.................................................             (9)              29              53              67              73
    Expanded CHAMPUS coverage:                                                                                                                          
      Estimated authorization level.....................................            (19)              20              21              23              24
      Estimated outlays.................................................            (14)              19              21              22              24
    Other military health programs:                                                                                                                     
      Estimated authorization level.....................................             (1)               3               3               3               3
      Estimated outlays.................................................             (1)               3               3               3               3
Services for the Red Cross:                                                                                                                             
      Estimated authorization level.....................................            (15)              15              15               0               0
      Estimated outlays.................................................            (11)              14              14               4               1
Panama Canal:                                                                                                                                           
      Estimated authorization level.....................................              0                0               0               0               0
      Estimated outlays.................................................             -7                0               0               0               0
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total estimated authorizations:                                                                                                                         
      Estimated authorization level.....................................         50,970              539           1,379           1,409           1,402
      Estimated outlays.................................................         47,561            3,634           1,371           1,402           1,397
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The estimates in parantheses are non-add entries. The 1995 costs of these provisions are counted among the authorizations specifically stated in  
  the bill.                                                                                                                                             

       6. Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 sets up pay-as-you-go 
     procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or 
     receipts through 1998. The direct spending costs of this bill 
     that are subject to the pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in 
     the following table.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        1995     1996     1997     1998 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in outlays...................       47       84      130      156
Change in receipts..................       53      225        0        0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       7. Estimated cost to State and local government: None.
       8. Estimate comparison: None.
       9. Previous CBO cost estimate: None.
       10. Estimate prepared by: Mark Booth, Wayne Boyington, 
     Elizabeth Chambers, Kent Christensen, Lori Housman, Amy 
     Plapp, Deborah Reis, Ruchi Saggar, K. W. Shepherd, Lisa 
     Siegel.
       11. Estimate approved by: C. G. Nuckols, Assistant Director 
     for Budget Analysis.
  Mr. NUNN. I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed 
as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? There being none, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Texas is recognized to proceed as if in morning 
business.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Madam President.

                          ____________________