[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 69 (Thursday, April 27, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5805-S5843]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

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


      the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 1996

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

                                            General Counsel of the


                                        Department of Defense,

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

        National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996


                      section-by-section analysis

                          Title I--Procurement

                    Authorization of Appropriations

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

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

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

                  Title III--Operation and Maintenance

              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

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

                     Subtitle B--Reserve Component

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

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

              Title IV--Military Personnel Authorizations

                       Subtitle A--Active Forces

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

                       Subtitle B--Reserve Forces

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

              Subtitle C--Military Training Student Loads

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

                   Title V--Military Personnel Policy

                  Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy

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

                 Subtitle B--Reserve Component Matters

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

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

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

                       Subtitle D--Other Matters

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

          Title VI--Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits

                     Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances

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

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

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

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

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

                     Subtitle B--Income Tax Matters

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

           Subtitle C--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays

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

                                                                        
[[Page S5816]]
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Community              
            Designator                Total       specific    Shortfall 
                                    inventory     billets               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1110.............................        1,317        1,406           89
1120.............................          635          819          184
6400.............................           62           67            5
6130.............................           55           73           18
6230.............................           25           24           -1
                                  --------------------------------------
    Total........................        2,094        2,389          295
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                       Subtitle G--Other Matters

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

                     Title VII--Civilian Employees

                 Subtitle A--Civilian Personnel Policy

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

         Subtitle B--Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits

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

                   Subtitle C--Separation Provisions

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

                   Title VIII--Health Care Provisions

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

                       Subtitle B--Other Matters

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

      Title IX--Department of Defense Organization and Management

                    Subtitle A--Secretarial Matters

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

              Subtitle B--Professional Military Education

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

                       Subtitle C--Other Matters

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

                      Title X--General Provisions

                     Subtitle A--Financial Matters

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

                       Subtitle C--Other Matters

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

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

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

                     Title XII--Acquisition Reform

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

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


    the military construction authorization act for fiscal year 1996

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

                                            General Counsel of the


                                        Department of Defense,

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

Department of Defense--Facility Programs Legislative Sectional Analysis


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

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


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

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


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

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


      expansion of authority for limited partnerships (sec. 2804)

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


      military construction cost notification reports (sec. 2805)

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


 clarification of unspecified minor construction authority (sec. 2806)

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


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

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


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

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


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


            contents of certain deeds and leases (sec. 2810)

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


                    Sale of electricity (sec. 2814)

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


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

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


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

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


          special operations land lease authority (sec. 2817)

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


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

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

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


                   TRUST FUND RESTORATION ACT OF 1995

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


                           highway trust fund

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


                               conclusion

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

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,
     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Trust Fund Restoration Act 
     of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

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

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

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

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

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

     ``Sec. 47130. Safeguards against deficit spending

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

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

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

     SEC. 6. ENFORCEMENT.

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

     SEC. 7. APPLICABILITY.

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

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

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

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


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

                                 S. 732

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

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

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

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


                     intercity rail investment act

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

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


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

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

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


              THE WELFARE TO SELF-SUFFICIENCY ACT OF 1995

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

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

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

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

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


                  title i--family investment agreement

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


             title ii--increasing work and self-sufficiency

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


                 title iii--improving state flexibility

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


                 title iv--combatting teenage pregnancy

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


              title v--improving child support collection

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


                          title vi--financing

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

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


                       antiterrorism legislation

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

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

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

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

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


                          ____________________