[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 48 (Tuesday, April 16, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3384-S3405]
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) (by request):
  S. 1672. A bill to make various changes to laws affecting the 
management and operations of the Department of Defense, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.


                   department of defense legislation

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, by request, for myself and the senior 
Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], I introduce, for appropriate 
reference, a bill to make various changes to laws affecting the 
management and operations of the Department of Defense, 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:


[[Page S3385]]


                                                General Counsel of


                                    the Department of Defense,

                                   Washington, DC, April 15, 1996.
     Hon. Albert Gore, Jr.,
     President of the Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: The Department of Defense proposes the 
     enclosed legislation, ``To make various changes to laws 
     affecting the management and operations of the Department of 
     Defense, and for other purposes.'' This proposal is part of 
     the Department of Defense legislative program for the 104th 
     Congress.
       The proposal would make changes in authorities relating to 
     use of Warsaw Initiative funds for the Regional Airspace 
     Initiative and the Partnership for Peace information 
     management system, limitations of grades of officers on 
     active duty in the military, the use of certain Reservists in 
     Presidential call-ups, the use of appropriated funds to 
     influence certain Federal contracting and financial 
     transactions, and refinements to third party collection and 
     CHAMPUS double coverage programs. It would address the tax 
     treatment of transfers of Department of Defense owned utility 
     systems. It also would authorize an increase in the penalties 
     for certain traffic offenses on Federal property. It would 
     streamline and simplify child support and alimony garnishment 
     processing. The bill has a provision that would authorize an 
     aviation and vessel war risk insurance program and an 
     extension authority for the Weapons of Mass Destruction Act 
     of 1992.
       The Department also requests that the Congress continue to 
     consider for enactment the proposed legislation transmitted 
     last year in the Administration's acquisition reform 
     proposals that would repeal the requirement for recoupment by 
     the Government of certain charges for products sold through 
     the Foreign Military Sales program.
       The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
     no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's 
     program, to the submission of this proposal to the Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Judith A. Miller.
       Enclosures.

                           Sectional Analysis

       Section 1. The Department of Defense lacks the legal 
     authority to use DoD funds to provide foreign assistance to 
     any foreign country unless such assistance is expressly 
     authorized by law. Therefore, funds appropriated to the 
     Department of Defense for PfP can only be used for activities 
     which DoD can legally perform under existing law, such as to 
     support Partner participation in exercises under the 
     authority of 10 U.S.C. 2010. Since the RAI and PIMS do not 
     fall within the narrow confines of exercise support, the 
     additional authority along the lines of the section above is 
     necessary to support the Regional Airspace Initiative and the 
     PfP Informanagement System.
       It is Department of Defense policy to assure mission 
     support utility service at the lowest life-cycle cost. This 
     could include the privatization of existing defense utility 
     systems. In many instances, the Department of Defense is 
     required to make an up-front cash contribution to the utility 
     company for upgraded environmental compliance or additional 
     capacity to effect the transfer of property title.
       Section 2. This section would modify section 523 of title 
     10 to raise the grade ceilings of active duty Army, Air Force 
     and Marine Corps majors, lieutenant colonels, and colonels, 
     and active duty Navy lieutenant commanders, commanders, and 
     captains relative to the total number of commissioned 
     officers on active duty. The revision is driven largely by 
     changes in officer requirements that have occurred since the 
     tables were implemented in 1980. Principal among these are 
     field grade requirements generated by the Goldwater-Nichols 
     and Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Acts. Further, 
     other DOPMA constraints on promotion timing and career 
     opportunity have, when coupled with the force reductions 
     since FY 1987, limited the Services' abilities to comply with 
     overall statutory requirements for officer career management.
       Section 3. This proposal will provide greater flexibility, 
     cost effectiveness, and efficiency in promoting the 
     acceptance of new technologies necessary to meet Department 
     of Defense (DoD) environmental requirements. The proposal 
     will reduce the frequency and variety of locations required 
     to demonstrate environmental technologies in order to 
     obtain regulatory approval. Early involvement of 
     regulatory agencies in a substantive manner will improve 
     efficiency and avoid repetitive data collection efforts.
       Section 4. Because Haiti no longer has a military, it is 
     not eligible under current law to purchase defense articles 
     and defense services from the Department of Defense under the 
     Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program. The proposed 
     legislation is designed to make Haiti eligible for such 
     assistance. FMS sales will facilitate U.S. assistance in 
     developing and equipping civilian-led law enforcement and 
     maritime institutions. Currently, Haiti is developing a 
     maritime law enforcement entity for refugee and contraband 
     control and would be hindered by a lack of spare parts and 
     equipment. FMS cash sales represent the most efficient manner 
     for the Government of Haiti to acquire the equipment needed 
     to support these missions and would complement IMET training 
     the U.S. Government intends to provide Haiti in maritime 
     skills. It would extend the United States' ability to exert a 
     positive influence over the Haitian National Police and Coast 
     Guard.
       Section 5. This section would authorize the Secretary of 
     Defense to participate in the Foundation Geneva Centre for 
     Security Policy, established in 1986, whose purpose is to 
     actively promote the building and keeping of peace, security 
     and stability in Europe and in the world. To this end, the 
     Centre (1) conducts international training courses in 
     security policy, (2) carries out research in security policy 
     and stability and (3) organizes conferences and seminars 
     concerning security issues. Unlike the Marshall Center, an 
     institution chartered by the Secretary of Defense and 
     operated under the direction of the Commander-in-Chief 
     European Command, the Foundation Geneva Centre for Security 
     Policy was established by the Federal Military Department of 
     Switzerland. Consequently, the role of the United States will 
     be participatory, limited to attendance by DoD personnel at 
     conferences and seminars and the making available of an 
     instructor as well as liaison personnel to help organize the 
     various activities of the Centre.
       Section 6. This proposal would repeal section 1352 of title 
     31, United States Code, entitled ``Limitation on Use of 
     Appropriated Funds to Influence Certain Federal 
     Contracting and Financial Transactions'' in its entirety. 
     This section was originally established to prevent the use 
     of appropriated funds for lobbying and requires extensive 
     reporting and certifications by contractors and grantees 
     of covered lobbying activities of the Executive Branch and 
     Congress.
       The provisions contained in section 1352 have been rendered 
     duplicative by the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Public 
     Law 104-65). This new Act requires reporting of lobbying 
     activities directly to Congress and additionally requires the 
     registration of lobbyists. The primary reporting requirements 
     of section 1352 were rescinded by section 10 of the Lobbying 
     Disclosure Act of 1995. The sole reporting requirement which 
     remains is of no practical use. In addition, the restriction 
     against the use of appropriated funds in section 1352 is 
     unnecessary insofar as sections 911 and 1534 of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for FY 1986 will remain in effect 
     if section 1352 is repealed.
       Retention of Section 1352 places an unreasonable dual 
     burden on contractors and grantees and is contrary to the 
     goals of acquisition reform and simplification. Section 1352 
     no longer serves a useful purpose for contracting and grants 
     officers and represents extra unnecessary costs of compliance 
     for both government and industry.
       Section 7. This provision would adopt several refinements 
     to the Third Party Collection Program under which military 
     medical facilities collect from third party payers for health 
     care services provided to beneficiaries who are also covered 
     by the third party payers' plans, and to the related CHAMPUS 
     Double Coverage Program, under which CHAMPUS is secondary 
     payer to other health plans that also cover CHAMPUS 
     beneficiaries.
       For the Third Party Collection Program, the section would 
     make three changes. First it would clarify that the rule 
     under which receipts are credited to the appropriation 
     supporting the facility also applies in connection with 
     services provided through the facility, in addition to 
     services provided ``by'' the facility. This conforms the 
     receipts provision to the overall scope of the Third Party 
     Collection authority. Second, it would clarify that workers' 
     compensation programs and plans are included as third 
     party payers under the program. These plans should not 
     enjoy a windfall in cases in which their beneficiaries, 
     for whom they have collected premiums, happen to receive 
     care in military facilities. Third, it would codify a 
     provision in the DoD Third Party Collection Program 
     regulation (32 CFR 220.12(i)) that, similar to other no-
     fault automobile coverage, the program includes personal 
     injury protection or medical payments benefits in cases 
     involving personal injuries resulting from operation of a 
     motor vehicle.
       For the CHAMPUS Double Coverage Program, the section would 
     integrate the scope of third party payer coverage between the 
     Third Party Collection Program and the CHAMPUS Double 
     Coverage Program. This will assure consistency in third party 
     payer responsibilities relating to the Military Health 
     Services System, regardless of whether their insured or 
     covered beneficiaries receive care in military treatment 
     facilities or under CHAMPUS.
       These refinements are consistent with the long-standing 
     Congressional policy of containing health care spending by 
     assuring that third party payers, who generally have 
     collected full premiums for coverage of insured persons who 
     are also DoD beneficiaries, do not shift their costs on to 
     the Federal taxpayers.
       Section 8. Under section 118(b) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code, these transfers are a contribution-in-aid of 
     construction (CIAC), and subject to a tax based on their fair 
     market values. By rulings of the Public Utility Commissions 
     in the various States, this tax must be paid by the utility 
     customer, in this case the Department of Defense, which 
     created the tax liability and which cannot be built into the 
     general rate base for all utility customers.
       To effect the transfer of Department of Defense owned 
     utility systems, a utility company is obligated to impose a 
     charge on the Department of Defense equal to the CIAC tax 
     which must be paid from Defense Appropriations for Base 
     Operations and Maintenance.

[[Page S3386]]

     In summary, the consideration of Department of Defense cash 
     or real property transfers as a CIAC to a utility and subject 
     to federal tax merely results in a ``pass-through'' from 
     Department of Defense appropriations through the utility 
     company to the United States Treasury with no-net-revenue-
     gain to the Federal Government.
       The proposed exemption will conserve scarce Department of 
     Defense Base Operation and Maintenance funds, eliminate a no-
     net-revenue-gain to the Federal Treasury, and reduce the 
     administrative burden of enforcing this section of the 
     Federal Tax Code.
       The proposal would permit the Department of Defense to 
     implement its privatization policy of divesting itself from 
     ownership and operation of utility systems without distorting 
     the economic analyses by unnecessary ``added costs'' to the 
     government. The Department of Defense would get out of the 
     utility business in its entirety when it is proven to be cost 
     effective to do so, and concentrate its shrinking resources 
     on its training and war fighting mission. The proposal 
     further would prevent the government from taxing itself when 
     transferring Department of Defense property or paying a 
     connection fee to a utility entity by a Department of Defense 
     installation. It would relieve local utility companies of the 
     burden of having to account for a CIAC and re-bill the 
     Department of Defense for taxes on CIAC. Finally, it would 
     eliminate the need to the Department of Defense to program 
     and budget for the payment of this tax which results in no-
     net revenue-gain to the Federal Treasury.
       Section 9. This provision would amend the Act of June 1, 
     1948 (40 U.S.C. 318c) which authorizes the Federal 
     prosecution of a person who violates a regulation to control 
     Federal property promulgated by the Administrator of the 
     General Services Administration. Section 4 of the Act 
     provides for a fine of not more than $50 or imprisonment for 
     not more than 30 days, or both. The penalties have not been 
     revised since enactment. This section would amend such 
     section 4 to make the penalties in title 18, United States 
     Code, applicable to violations of regulations promulgated 
     pursuant to the Act. For example, section 3571 of title 18 
     would establish the applicable fines.
       Section 10. This section amends section 659(b) of title 42, 
     United States Code, to delete the requirement for service 
     by certified mail, to require additional information to 
     identify the individual whose pay is subject to legal 
     process.
       The current language of section 659(b) requires the use of 
     certified or registered mail or personal service. Personal 
     service, as a practical matter, is rarely used. Requiring 
     that service be made by certified or registered mail 
     increases the likelihood the process will be rejected because 
     many agencies often forget to send the orders by certified 
     mail. This results in increased cost to the government, 
     extensive rework, and further delays the implementation of a 
     support order. The amending language expands the existing 
     language to include facsimile or electronic transmission, 
     mail, and personal service.
       The amendment also amends section 659(b) by adding the word 
     ``obligor'' after the word ``individual'' in the sentence to 
     clarify the intent of the statutory language and further 
     designate the person the process must identify, and requires 
     the obligor's Social Security Number, whenever available, as 
     an identifier in order to assist the Government in correctly 
     identifying the proper person. Because of limitations in 
     records that are accessed to process these orders, the name, 
     address, date of birth, and place of birth are generally 
     insufficient to identify an individual. Addresses can change 
     virtually overnight. A Social Security Number is the one 
     identifier that is unique and permanent. Requiring use of the 
     Social Security Number will enhance the ability of an agency 
     to make a correct identification of the person responsible 
     for support payments and expedite the processing of the 
     order.
       Section 11. Section 334 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 requires 
     that draft final remedial investigations and feasibility 
     studies (RI/FS) be completed within 24 months (for BRAC 88 
     installations) or 36 months (for BRAC 91 installations) for 
     installations on the NPL unless the Secretary of Defense 
     grants a deadline extension The Secretary may grant such 
     extension only after consulting with the Environmental 
     Protection Agency (EPA) and notifying Congress.
       The provision does not help speed cleanups or base closure 
     or encourage greater involvement by EPA and is of no value to 
     the Department. The provision directs project management 
     resources for the periodic notification and formal 
     consultation requirements. The formal consultation is 
     unnecessary because Federal Facility Agreements (FFAs) 
     between DoD and EPA contain cleanup schedules negotiated 
     and agreed to by both parties based on base closure and 
     cleanup goals and priorities.
       The provision requires burdensome information gathering, 
     coordination, and reporting that is of no value to the 
     Department. Elimination of the provision would result in 
     reduced red tape thereby expediting the cleanup and transfer 
     of closing bases.
       Budget Impact: The amendment does not impact environmental 
     restoration budgeting requirements.
       Section 12. (1) Fort Riley: The U.S. Environmental 
     Protection Agency (EPA) Region VII, assessed a $65,000 
     penalty against Fort Riley pursuant to the March 4, 1991, 
     Federal Facilities Agreement which governs cleanup activities 
     at the installation. The penalty was due to the failure to 
     submit the draft final Remedial Investigation (RI) report for 
     the pesticide storage facility. The draft final RI was due on 
     June 3, 1993, and was not submitted until July 19, 1993. On 
     January 26, 1994, Ft. Riley and EPA Region VII agreed to a 
     settlement wherein the Army would pay $34,000 as a cash 
     penalty and $31,000 was mitigated through completion by April 
     9, 1994 of the following three on-site response actions 
     (removals):
       (1) excavation of pesticide and metal contaminated soils at 
     Pesticide Storage Facility,
       (2) excavation of lead contaminated soils from Colyer Manor 
     Housing site, and
       (3) placement of rock revetment along the Kansas River bank 
     at the Southwest Funston Landfill site.
       The $31,000 cleanup project at the pesticide storage 
     facility has been completed. However, enabling legislation is 
     required to pay the $34,000 cash penalty.
       The Army has included the $34,000 as part of the FY 1997 
     budget request. Because it is already included in the budget 
     request, no adverse budget impact is anticipated by use of 
     the $34,000 to pay this penalty.
       (2) Massachusetts Military Reservation: The Military 
     Reservation violated the CERCLA-mandated Interagency 
     Agreement (42 U.S.C. 9620) with EPA Region I and the 
     Commonwealth of Massachusetts by failing to submit cleanup 
     studies to EPA and Massachusetts according to an agreed-
     upon time schedule.
       (3)F.E. Warren Air Force Base: The Air Base violated the 
     CERCLA-mandated Interagency Agreement (42 U.S.C. 9620) with 
     EPA Region VIII and the State of Wyoming by failing to 
     adequately test potentially contaminated soil at a cleanup 
     site, and by failing to properly containerize such soil.
       (4) Naval Education and Training Center Newport, Rhode 
     Island: The EPA Region I assessed a $260,000 penalty for non-
     compliance with the March, 1992 Federal Facility Agreement 
     (FFA) for Naval Education and Training Center, Newport, Rhode 
     Island. The penalty was for failure to submit complete draft 
     Remedial Investigation (RI) reports for McAllister Point 
     Landfill and Old Fire Fighting Training Area. The reports, as 
     submitted to EPA, were incomplete, because they did not 
     contain ecological risk assessments. The draft RI report for 
     McAllister Point Landfill was submitted February 14, 1994 and 
     the draft RI report for Old Fire Fighting Training Area was 
     submitted March 31, 1994. These dates were in accordance with 
     the FFA schedules. A draft report containing ecological risk 
     assessments for both sites was submitted May 30, 1994. On 
     June 26, 1995, the Navy, EPA Region I and the State of Rhode 
     Island agreed to a settlement wherein the Navy would pay 
     $30,000 as a cash penalty and also accomplish the following 
     actions:
       (1) arrange for a partnering session among the parties and 
     contribute $10,000 to such an endeavor (completed August, 
     1995).
       (2) removal of sandblast grit at the Derecktor Shipyard 
     site at NETC; cost of the removal to be not less than $90,000 
     (completed September, 1995).
       The Navy has included the $30,000 as part of the FY 1997 
     budget request. Because it is already included in the budget 
     request, no adverse budget impact is anticipated by use of 
     the $30,000 to pay this penalty, but enabling legislation is 
     required.
       (5) Lake City Army Ammunition Plant: The Army violated a 
     CERCLA-mandated Interagency Agreement with EPA Region VII and 
     the State of Missouri for failing to submit Area 18 and 
     Northeast Corner Operable Unit Remedial Investigation 
     Reports to EPA and Missouri according to an agreed-upon 
     time schedule.
       Section 13. 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

[[Page S3387]]

     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 within 
     which the Secretary of Defense must pay claims and 
     reimburse the Federal Aviation Administration. 
     Notification to Congress and the 30 day delay before 
     transfer required in other statutes is waived. The most 
     important issue for the air carriers is the replace 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 interest.
       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 (c).
       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 in 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 14. This proposal would modify section 12304 of 
     title 10, United States Code, to provide authority to include 
     up to 30,000 members of the Individual Ready Reserve as part 
     of the 200,000 Reserve component members ordered to active 
     duty involuntarily. This would be done only when the 
     President determines that it is necessary to augment the 
     active forces for any operational mission. This change would 
     ensure the timely availability of certain trained members 
     of the Individual Ready Reserve [IRR] to fill requirements 
     for selected skills in early mobilizing or deploying 
     active and reserve units. This would preclude the need for 
     cross-leveling of personnel from later deploying units to 
     fill shortages in early deploying units. Currently, 
     members of the IRR cannot be ordered to active duty 
     involuntarily until a national emergency has been 
     declared.
       Every military unit has vacancies caused by individual 
     schooling requirements, hospitalizations, and transitioning 
     personnel. Additional vacancies occur upon deployment due to 
     personal hardships, medical reasons, and differences between 
     peacetime and wartime manning. In the past, upon deployment, 
     those vacancies have been filled by taking trained personnel 
     from later deploying units or individual volunteers from the 
     IRR. This approach of fixing early deploying units at the 
     expense of units scheduled for later deployment can create a 
     risk with regard to readiness of the later deploying units, 
     should their deployment be required. As the force becomes 
     smaller, every unit in the Reserve components becomes 
     increasingly important. Borrowing personnel from later 
     deploying units is no longer an acceptable option.
       The Army has documented the need for early access to 
     members with specific skills, in specific grades, in the IRR 
     to accommodate full-strength deployment of first-to-fight 
     units. Since members of the IRR are in the Ready Reserve but 
     not the Selected Reserve, currently they are not subject to 
     involuntary call-up under the provisions of the section 12304 
     being amended (Presidential Selected Reserve Call-up) and are 
     therefore not available for filling early deploying unit 
     shortfalls.
       This legislative proposal would provide the authority to 
     use a limited number of IRR members who possess specific 
     specialties and grades, and who meet certain criteria, to 
     fill early deploying unit shortfalls, thus lessening the 
     potential impact on the readiness and cohesion of units 
     scheduled for later deployment.
       Section 15. This provision would extend, through the end of 
     Fiscal Year 1998, the Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 
     1992, which is slated to expire at the end of Fiscal Year 
     1996. The provision would revise funding restrictions in a 
     manner consistent with the original legislation. Such 
     authority especially is important given ongoing concerns over 
     Iraq's continued possession of weapons of mass destruction 
     and missile delivery systems. The Department of Defense, 
     including its Executive Agent for matters regarding the 
     United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (POTPOR.SECUNSCOM), 
     the On-Site Inspection Agency, requires the authority to 
     continue much of its current activities in support of UNSCOM.
                                 ______

      By Mr. THURMOND (for himself and Mr. Nunn) (by request):
  S. 1673. A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1997 for 
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military 
personnel strengths for fiscal year 1997, to authorize certain 
construction at military installations for fiscal year 1997, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.


      the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 1997

  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 1997 
for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe 
military personnel strength for fiscal year 1997, to authorize certain 
construction at military installations for fiscal year 1997, 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 by 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 5, 1996.
     Hon. Albert Gore, Jr.,
     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 1997 for military activities of the 
     Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel 
     strengths for Fiscal Year 1997, 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 the President's budget plans for Fiscal 
     Year 1997. 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 1997 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.
       Enclosures.

                           Sectional Analysis


                       procurement--Other Matters

       Section 110 clarifies that the prohibition in the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 does 
     not apply to funds authorized and appropriated in the 
     Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1996 and the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 
     (Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 186). The prohibition was 
     against obligating funds for procuring additional F-15 
     aircraft. This proposal is similar to previous exceptions at 
     section 137 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1992 (Public Law 102-190; 105 Stat. 1312) which 
     permitted the obligation of funds to replace and support F-15 
     aircraft that had been sold to Saudi Arabia. Without this 
     clarification the Department of Air Force will be unable to

[[Page S3388]]

     obligate appropriated funds for this program. The proposal 
     also would obviate the prohibition for Fiscal Year 1997 
     departmental authorizations and appropriations. The 
     President's Budget includes assumptions that the waiver will 
     apply in Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997.
       Section 111 updates the cost basis for the definition of 
     the term ``major system'' to fiscal year 1990 constant 
     dollars from fiscal year 1980 constant dollars. It also 
     allows the Secretary of Defense to further adjust these costs 
     after notification of the Congressional defense committees. 
     This language parallels the language in the definition of 
     ``major defense acquisition program'' found in section 2430 
     of title 10.
       The purpose of section 112 is to streamline and simplify 
     the notification process for defense contract workers who are 
     displaced because of termination or substantial reduction in 
     defense contract funding. The current law creates an 
     elaborate process of such a complex and cumbersome nature 
     that it actually prevents prompt notification. The revision 
     places notifications directly at the contract administration 
     level. Additionally, a redundant Federal Register reporting 
     requirement is eliminated.
       The proposal would continue the intent of the original 
     legislation--to make displaced defense contract workers 
     eligible for employment services under the Job Training 
     Partnership Act (JTPA).
       It would require DOD notifications to contractors upon 
     actual contract terminations or substantial reductions in 
     funding. The original law, on the other hand, had 
     notification triggered by the budget process at the program 
     level when the President's budget was first submitted to 
     Congress. It included provision for withdrawals of 
     notification if Congress provided funding for a program 
     proposed to be eliminated or reduced by the President's 
     budget. The original law also included a provision for 
     notifications based on funding cuts, still at the 
     program level, in the Defense Appropriations Act. This 
     proposal eliminates the necessity of withdrawals of 
     notices by focusing the process on actual contract impacts 
     (instead of ``pending'' terminations or substantial 
     reductions, and relates to obligated funds on a contract 
     by contract basis. Additionally, notifications/withdrawals 
     in the original legislation, at the program level, did not 
     identify which specific contracts under a particular major 
     defense program would be reduced or eliminated.
       The proposal also eliminates reporting in the Federal 
     Register of notifications and withdrawals as redundant to the 
     public availability of both budget submissions and enacted 
     defense appropriations legislation.
       The proposal retains the following provisions of the 
     original law:
       Notification to contractors by DoD within 60 days after 
     enactment of a Defense Appropriations Act; contractor's 
     obligations to inform adversely affected employees, its 
     subcontractors, State Employment Services' dislocated workers 
     units, and the chief elected local government official within 
     two weeks after the contractor receives notification.
       Continued requirement to give notice to the Department of 
     Labor.
       Notification of contract termination or substantial 
     reduction to enable displaced defense contractor employees to 
     be eligible for JTPA employment benefits.
       Continued notifications to affected subcontractors at 
     identified tiers.
       Loss of eligibility for JTPA benefits if funding is 
     restored to a contract after notification.
       Continued connection to major defense system.
       Section 113 would incorporate improvements in the 
     acquisition reporting process of major defense acquisition 
     programs. These improvements reflect recommendations from the 
     Defense Authorization and Appropriation Committees, 
     Congressional Budget Office, and Department of Defense 
     staffs. Briefly, this proposal includes revisions to the 
     section of the law that is related to Selected Acquisition 
     Reporting (SAR).
       This provision would replace ``program acquisition unit 
     cost'' with ``procurement unit cost'' as a more meaningful 
     measure of recurring unit cost. Program acquisition unit cost 
     includes Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation 
     (RAT&E),  a nonrecurring portion of acquisition costs. 
     Management oversight of unit cost should focus on 
     procurement unit cost, the recurring portion of 
     acquisition costs.
       The provision also would delete the currently reported 
     completion status for a program, that is, percent program 
     completed and percent program cost appropriated. These 
     calculations of program status can be misleading, 
     particularly in the early development stage of a program. The 
     Department plans to substitute percent program delivered and 
     percent program expended as more accurate measures of program 
     status. These measures also represent the statutory criteria 
     for SAR termination.

         TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

       Section 202. Section 2366, title 10, United States Code, 
     requires realistic survivability testing on a covered system 
     before the system may proceed beyond low-rate initial 
     production. The law authorizes the Secretary of Defense to 
     waive realistic survivability testing before the system 
     enters into engineering and manufacturing development if a 
     certification is made to Congress that testing would be 
     unreasonably expensive and impractical, and requires a report 
     assessing realistic survivability testing. The V-22 program 
     entered full-scale engineering development (the previous term 
     for engineering and manufacturing development) prior to 
     enactment of the legislation.
       This section allows the Secretary of Defense to exercise 
     the waiver authority of section 2366(c), notwithstanding the 
     fact that the V-22 program has already entered engineering 
     and manufacturing development. Such a waiver requires the 
     Secretary of Defense to certify to Congress that live-fire 
     testing of the V-22 would be unreasonably expensive and 
     impractical. The section also provides alternative 
     survivability test requirements for the conduct of any 
     alternative live-fire test program.
       Section 203 would amend section 2366(c) of title 10, United 
     States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
     exercise the waiver authority in such section, with respect 
     to the application of survivability tests of that section to 
     the F-22 aircraft, notwithstanding that such a program has 
     entered full-scale engineering development.
       Section 254 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1995 directed the Secretary of Defense to request 
     the National Research Council to study the desirability of 
     waiving the live fire tests that are required by law for the 
     F-22. The Committee on the Study of Live Fire Survivability 
     Testing of the F-22 Aircraft was formed by the 
     National Research Council (NRC) to conduct the study.
       The NRC committee began its work in December 1994. Several 
     data gathering meetings were held to expose the committee to 
     the full spectrum of views involving live fire testing of 
     fighter aircraft. A final report entitled ``Live Fire Testing 
     of the F-22'' was published in 1995. The principal 
     recommendation of this report is stated below:
       ``Principal Recommendation. Permit a waiver of the full-up, 
     full-scale live fire tests required by law for the F-22. The 
     committee believes that such tests are impractical and offer 
     low benefits for the costs.''
       The NRC report contains four pages of recommendations. The 
     F-22 System Program Office (SPO) is preparing a detailed 
     response to each of the NRC recommendations. The F-22 SPO 
     will coordinate these additional RDT&E activities with the 
     responsible Air Force and OSD offices.
       Given the above NRC recommendation, the Department of 
     Defense is submitting legislation to authorize a retroactive 
     waiver of the survivability and lethality testing procedures 
     that apply to the F-22 Program.
       This law change avoids the purchase ($181M in FY90$, $250M 
     in TY$) of an additional F-22 aircraft for full-up, full-
     scale destructive live fire testing.
       Section 204 would clarify and, to the extent necessary, 
     override the provisions of section 1701 of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994, or other 
     laws, which indicate that the basic and applied research and 
     advanced technology development activities of the Defense 
     Advanced Research Projects Agency are to be subordinated to 
     other research organizations or entities within the 
     Department. This would restore the agency to its traditional 
     function within the Department.

                  TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

       Section 310 would expand the remedies available to 
     contractor employees who are wrongfully terminated because 
     they reported wrongdoing.
       This legislation would also amend the law to provide that 
     the investigative costs may be assessed against a contractor 
     when the allegation of reprisal is substantiated.
       Any additional costs required by this proposal will be 
     absorbed in departmental operation and maintenance accounts.
       Section 311 would repeal 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 312 would amend section 4105 of title 5, United 
     States Code, by adding a new sentence to authorize the 
     utilization by military personnel of arrangements and 
     agreements developed for training civilian employees. Current 
     authorities do not provide a streamlined procedure for the 
     acquisition of commercial courses for military personnel, 
     whereby the Government Employees Training Act of 1954 
     authorized procuring such courses without regard to 
     acquisition practices contained in part 5 of title 41 and the 
     prohibition against paying in advance of receipt of services 
     now contained in section 3324 of title 31. Allowing military 
     personnel to utilize these procedures will streamline 
     acquisition of these courses, enabling utilization of 
     commercial credit cards and electronic funds transfer, where 
     appropriate, to parallel practices in commercial industry.

[[Page S3389]]

       If enacted, this proposal will not increase the budgetary 
     requirements of the Department of Defense. By amending this 
     section, monetary savings may be realized by decreasing their 
     intensive procurement methods and authorizing training 
     personnel to procure such training for military personnel in 
     addition to civilian personnel training rather than have 
     contracting personnel involved in the acquisition of what 
     were basically commercial services.
       Section 313 provides authority to Department of Defense 
     (DoD) to retain proceeds from the sale of Clean Air Act 
     emission reduction credits, allowances, offsets, or 
     compatible economic incentives.
       Federal fiscal law and regulations generally 
     require proceeds from the sale of government property to 
     be deposited in the treasury. These regulations preclude 
     an agency from keeping the funds generated by reducing air 
     emissions and selling the credits as does private 
     industry. This inhibits the investment of those funds to 
     purchase needed air credits in other areas, and eliminates 
     any incentive for installations to spend the money 
     required to generate the credits in order to sell them.
       The Clean Air Act (CAA) mandates that states establish 
     state implementation plans (SIPs) to attain and maintain the 
     national ambient air quality standards (NAAQs), which are 
     health based standards established for certain criteria air 
     pollutants, e.g., ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide. 
     To further this mandate, the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments 
     provided language encouraging the states to include 
     ``economic incentive'' programs in their SIPs. Such programs 
     encourage industry to reduce air pollution by offering 
     monetary incentives for the reduction of emissions of 
     criteria air pollutants. CAA Sec. 110(a)(2)(A) provides that 
     SIPs ``shall include enforceable emission limitations and 
     other control measures, means or techniques (including 
     economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and 
     auctions of emission rights) . . . as may be necessary or 
     appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this 
     chapter.'' See also CAA Sec. 176(c)(6) (similar language 
     specifically directed toward SIPs for nonattainment areas for 
     NAAQs).
       A number of state and local air quality districts have 
     already established various types of emission trading systems 
     (see Brownstein, ``Report on Select Emissions Trading 
     Programs,'' prepared for the Virginia Department of 
     Environmental Quality by the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air 
     Management Association (1995), examining 11 state trading and 
     banking programs). However, the military services presently 
     lack clear authority to sell Clean Air Act economic 
     incentives and, if such incentives were sold, would have to 
     remit the proceeds to the U.S. Treasury. Assuming sale 
     authority is granted, this authority needs to be coupled with 
     the right to retain the proceeds at the installation level in 
     order to create a local economic incentive to reduce air 
     pollution above and beyond legal requirements and thereby 
     create a marketable commodity. Retention and use of proceeds 
     at the installation level is a key component of the proposed 
     bill. Because this new authority would be similar in concept 
     to existing authority for the sale of recyclable materials 
     and retention of proceeds from the sale for use by the local 
     military installation, the proposed bill is patterned on that 
     authority.
       In 1982, Congress passed Public Law 97-214, 10 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 2577, Disposal of Recyclable Materials, to provide 
     greater economic incentives for military departments to 
     develop aggressive recycling programs at the installation 
     level to reduce the volume of materials going into the 
     waste stream. The statute gave the Secretary of Defense 
     authority to prescribe regulations for the sale of 
     recyclable materials held by a military department or 
     defense agency. All sales of recyclable materials by the 
     Secretary of Defense or a Secretary of a military 
     department must be in accordance with the procedures of 
     section 203 of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 484) for the sale of 
     surplus property. The important feature of the statute 
     which provides a significant local economic incentive is 
     that net proceeds from the installation's sale of 
     recyclable materials remain at the installation, available 
     for use in local programs (i.e., pollution abatement, 
     energy conservation, and the moral and welfare account) 
     rather than having to be forwarded to the U.S. Treasury, 
     the standard requirement. When a ``profit'' can be 
     realized and applied in support of local operations, the 
     installation commander has a definite incentive to develop 
     and implement a successful program.
       Proceeds from the sale of recyclable materials in the DoD 
     program had increased from $1.5 million in FY 1983 to $37 
     million in FY 1992. The success of the DoD recycling 
     incentive program clearly demonstrates that there can be 
     significant benefits to the environment, such as reduction of 
     waste streams going to landfills, that also make sense 
     economically when direct economic incentives are created to 
     reduce pollution.
       Budget Impact: This provision will not result in increased 
     cost to the military. Military installations will develop 
     tradable credits only when economically beneficial for future 
     use at the same or other installations, or for selling on the 
     private market. Only installations located in areas where an 
     emissions credit program has been implemented can utilize 
     this provision. Currently only a few states have developed 
     such programs, with several states in the process of the 
     necessary rulemaking. With the number of installations able 
     to participate being unknown; no cumulative cost-benefit 
     analysis can be presented.
       However, an example demonstrating the potential cost/
     savings benefits of the proposed legislation is the RECLAIM 
     air emission trading program in the South Coast Air Quality 
     Management District (SCAQMD), California. The RECLAIM program 
     is an allowance type market program for NOx (Nitrogen 
     oxides) and SOx (sulfur oxides) sources. RECLAIM Trading 
     Credits (RTCs) are issued annually, upon payment of a fee, to 
     a facility at the start of its compliance cycle (one year). 
     The number of RTCs issued to a facility decline each year. If 
     a facility has RTCs that it does not require for its own 
     use, it may sell those RTCs to other RECLAIM facilities. 
     Several military installations are required to participate 
     in the NOX RECLAIM program including March Air Force 
     Base, Long Beach Naval Shipyard, and Naval Auxiliary 
     Landing Field San Clemente Island. These military 
     facilities will also be included in the RECLAIM program 
     for VOCs once it is approved.
       RECLAIM was effective January 1, 1994. By December 1994, at 
     the conclusion of the first year of the program, March AFB 
     held 69,246 pounds of surplus NOX RTCs which, if the 
     proposed legislation was in effect, it could have sold/traded 
     to other RECLAIM facilities. March AFB could have potentially 
     recouped half its investment having paid $00.10 per pound or 
     $7,051 for the unused credits. In 1995, March paid $12,415.00 
     for 110,458 NOX RTCs; it expects to use 90,000. However, 
     since March is closing, once the active duty forces have left 
     on April 1, 1996, March will have a significant decrease in 
     NOX emissions meaning it will then have a significant 
     number of RTCs to trade/sell.
       A report on RECLAIM trading provides interesting market 
     data (see Margolis, ``In the RECLAIM Trading Pit--Progress, 
     Problems, and Prospects,'' Dames & Moore Air Trade Services, 
     Air & Waste Management Association, 88th Annual Meeting 
     (1995)). At least 30 trades have occurred involving about 5.5 
     million pounds of NOX. The largest trade to date was 
     between Union Carbide Corporation (RTC seller) and Anchor 
     Glass Container Corporation (RTC buyer) involved a stream of 
     1994 through 2010 NOX RTCs equaling about 1,700 tons. 
     The price was $1.2 million for the entire stream, or about 
     $700 per ton of RTCs (in 1994 dollars). The first RECLAIM 
     auction, held in July, 1994, drew 17 sellers and 6 buyers; 
     48,700 pounds of 1995 NOX RTCs sold for $334 per ton and 
     2,500 pounds of 1996 NOX RTCs sold for $574 per ton. The 
     1995 RTCs that March projects to have this year, by 
     interpolation, could then be sold for $3,340.00, not a large 
     sum, but, as noted above the sales price will increase in 
     succeeding years as all facility allocations decline. The 
     sale reduces compliance costs and proceeds offset fees 
     incurred by the military facility. Recent trading in the 
     RECLAIM program showed that the cost for RTCs useable in the 
     years 2010/11 had risen to $1706/ton.
       We anticipate that many other areas of the country will be 
     implementing ``RECLAIM'' type programs that require military 
     installations to purchase credits or allowances based on 
     estimated allocations rather than actual emissions. In time, 
     the new CAA Title V Operating Permit Programs will include 
     trading components and Title V is based on ``potential to 
     emit'' rather than actual emissions. It is therefore 
     necessary to give the military services the required 
     authority and flexibility to fully participate in these new 
     emission trading programs.
       Section 314 would revise subsection 2216(i)(1) of title 10, 
     United States Code, to reestablish compatible capital asset 
     thresholds for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) funded 
     activities and DBOF funded activities. Historically DBOF 
     business areas have used the same capital asset threshold as 
     used by O&M funded activities to ensure application of 
     consistent accounting policies throughout the Department and 
     to simplify training and management requirements. The raising 
     of the O&M capital asset threshold to $100,000 reflects the 
     impact of inflation on the cost of equipment and software and 
     the recognition that $50,000 is no longer a reasonable 
     threshold for the additional management requirements 
     associated with capital purchases.

              TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS

       Section 402 would amend section 115(d) of title 10, United 
     States Code, by adding a new subsection (8), which would 
     exclude a limited number of Reserve component members, who 
     are serving on active duty for special work for more than 180 
     days, from counting against the end strength for each of the 
     armed forces (other than the Coast Guard) authorized for 
     active duty personnel who are to be paid from funds 
     appropriated for active duty personnel. This proposed 
     amendment would increase accessibility to Reserve component 
     members and provide for greater continuity in the use of 
     Reservists to support CINC and other active force OPTEMPO 
     requirements. The number of Reserve component members serving 
     on active duty for more than 180 days, excluded under this 
     provision, could not exceed two-tenths of one percent of the 
     authorized active duty end strength for each military 
     service.

                   TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

           Subtitle A--Matters Relating to Reserve Components

       Section 501 would amend section 14514, chapter 1407, of 
     title 10 of the United States

[[Page S3390]]

     Code to authorize the Service Secretaries to separate 
     administratively members in an inactive status for years of 
     service or after selective removal without convening a 
     discharge board.
       Enactment of this technical change closes a loophole that 
     allows retention of non-participating members in the Standby 
     Reserve with no benefit to the government. The majority of 
     these members are retirement eligible and have not applied 
     for transfer to the Retired Reserve. Assignment of these 
     Reserve members to the Retired Reserve benefits the 
     government as they are available for use much earlier in a 
     contingency due to a higher DOD mobilization priority 
     selection. Congressional authority is required to recall 
     the Standby Reserve. World War II was the last time 
     Congress recalled the Standby Reserve. Presidential 
     authority is required to recall Retired Reserve members. 
     The last time the President recalled the Retired Reserve 
     was during DESERT SHIELD/STORM.
       Another benefit is reduced administrative cost to the 
     government due to selective removal of members from the 
     inactive status. Presently, in order to separate these 
     members an Administrative Discharge Board must be convened by 
     the responsible agency and this board must be comprised of 
     personnel who are senior in grade to the member being 
     considered for discharge. Convening a board involves travel 
     expenses, per diem, pay and allowances, commissary and base 
     exchange privileges and the administrative costs of the 
     board. Approval of this change allows the Service Secretaries 
     to be more efficient and cost effective in managing their 
     inactive reserves.
       Any additional administrative costs in the enactment of 
     this proposal will be accomplished within available 
     operational and maintenance funds.
       Section 502 would amend section 12205 of title 10, United 
     States Code, relating to the ability of members of the Naval 
     Reserve to be promoted. The amendment would authorize naval 
     service members who are selected for service as commissioned 
     officers under the Seaman to Admiral program to be promoted 
     above the grade of lieutenant (junior grade) even though they 
     might not have completed baccalaureate degree requirements at 
     the time they are considered by the lieutenant (0-3) 
     selection board. Section 12205 restricts the promotion of 
     officers of the Naval Reserve who do not have baccalaureate 
     degrees to no higher than the grade of lieutenant (junior 
     grade), with exceptions for limited duty officers and members 
     commissioned under the Naval Aviation Cadet (NAVCAD) program. 
     This section would simply add an exception for members 
     commissioned under the Seaman to Admiral program.
       The Seaman to Admiral program was designed to provide 
     commissions to outstanding enlisted members of the Navy even 
     if they do not have a college degree. This program provides 
     an excellent opportunity for up to 50 truly outstanding Navy 
     enlisted personnel per year. After selection to the program 
     and commissioning as ensigns in the Naval Reserve, the Seaman 
     to Admiral selectees attend from 16 weeks to 2 years of 
     warfare training. These officers then serve in their wartime 
     communities in initial operational tours of duty. Later, they 
     are afforded the opportunity to earn college degrees 
     at Government expense. Attendance at college would 
     commence when they have approximately 3-4 years of 
     commissioned service, coinciding with the promotion flow 
     point to lieutenant. Under current law, the Seaman to 
     Admiral program selectees will not be eligible for 
     promotion above 0-2 at that flow point, as most will not 
     have earned college degrees. At their ``second look'' for 
     promotion to lieutenant, approximately the 5-year mark, 
     current law would require officers who have not yet 
     completed degrees to be passed over a second time. Under 
     current law, members passed over twice must be separated 
     from the service.
       This section is needed to remove the unintended consequence 
     of forcing failure of selection for promotion, without regard 
     to performance. This amendment will allow Seaman to Admiral 
     program selectees to become commissioned officers with full 
     career opportunity according to merit, including promotions 
     at the normal flow points.
       In the first 2 years of this program, 58% of the selectees 
     in an intensely competitive selection process had already 
     completed a portion of their college education prior to 
     selection. This bill is intended to ensure these outstanding 
     junior officers retain the ability to complete for promotion 
     based on their performance.
       The proposed legislation would result in no additional 
     Department of Defense costs or budget requirements.
       Section 503 would direct the Secretary of Defense to 
     conduct a regionalized test of unlimited commissary 
     privileges for members of the reserve component of the Armed 
     Forces who are currently eligible for limited use of the 
     commissary. Currently, eligible members of the Ready Reserve 
     and Retired Reserve as authorized 12 days of commissary 
     shopping in a calendar year. The test would provide a means 
     of evaluating the extent to which an expansion of commissary 
     privileges for currently authorized Reservists might impact 
     on commissary operations.
       Section 504 would amend section 12868 of title 10, United 
     States Code, as added by the National Defense Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 
     2998), to provide discretionary authority to the Secretaries 
     of the Military Departments and the Secretary of 
     Transportation to except certain members of the reserve 
     component, who serve on active duty (other than for training) 
     from the limitations on separation contained in that section. 
     Under section 12868, a member of a reserve component who is 
     serving 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 may 
     not be involuntarily released from active duty without the 
     approval of the Secretary concerned. The amendment would 
     provide that reservists who volunteer to serve on active 
     duty (other than for training) for a period of 180 
     consecutive days or less could be excepted from the 
     general prohibition on involuntary release even though 
     they complete 18 or more years of service. This exception 
     would apply only if the member is informed of and consents 
     to such exception prior to entry on active duty. This 
     exception would not apply to reservists involuntarily 
     ordered to active duty. There are no costs associated with 
     the provision.
       Section 505 would change the number of years that the 
     Department of Defense could recognize a baccalaureate degree 
     awarded by a qualifying educational institution from three 
     years to eight years. The typical promotion opportunity to 
     the rank of Captain in the Army Reserve, Army National Guard, 
     Air Force Reserve, Air National Guard, and Marine Corps 
     Reserve, and Lieutenant in the Naval Reserve occurs at 
     approximately three and one half years of service. Officers 
     typically remain eligible for promotion through approximately 
     seven and one half years of service before mandatory 
     separation processing occurs for failure to select for 
     promotion. The current three year statutory limitation for 
     recognizing a baccalaureate degree from a qualifying 
     educational institution effectively precludes an officer who 
     holds such a degree from meeting the educational requirements 
     for promotion, even at the first promotion opportunity, 
     unless the officer earned the degree sometime after receiving 
     a commission. By changing the period that the Department can 
     recognize a degree from a qualifying educational institution 
     to eight years, we provide these officers every opportunity 
     to be appointed or federally recognized in the grade of O-3 
     based on their overall performance and qualifications for 
     promotion, to include necessary post-secondary educational 
     requirements.
       This proposal has no budgetary effects to the Department of 
     Defense.
       Section 506 would amend subsection 418(c) of title 37, 
     United States Code, to correct an erroneous reference. 
     Section 1038(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) amended section 418 of 
     title 37, U.S.C. to prohibit paying a uniform allowance or 
     furnishing uniforms under section 1593 of title 10, U.S.C., 
     or section 5901 of title 5, U.S.C., to enlisted members of 
     the National Guard employed as technicians under section 709 
     of title 32, U.S.C. for periods of employment ``for which a 
     uniform allowance is paid under section 415 or 416'' of title 
     37. The intent of this legislation is to prevent technicians 
     from receiving uniform benefits from two different sources. 
     However, because sections 415 and 416 of title 37, U.S.C. 
     only apply to uniform allowances for officers, this reference 
     is incorrect. The legislation should have referred to 
     section 418 of title 37 (itself) because this is the 
     authority for providing uniform benefits to enlisted 
     members. The amendment correct the erroneous reference.
       Section 507 would amend section 12310 of title 10, United 
     States Code to provide that certain reserve personnel serving 
     in composite organizations which support both the active and 
     reserve components, reserve personnel on duty for peacetime 
     standby air defense and ballistic missile defense operations 
     within the territory of the United States, and reserve 
     personnel on duty in reserve component organizations which 
     have been assigned the responsibility for the conduct of 
     activities of the service Secretaries in support of any part 
     of a military department, may be counted against the end 
     strengths for reserve personnel on active duty or full-time 
     National Guard duty for the purpose of organizing, 
     administering, recruiting, instructing or training the 
     reserve components.
       Subsection (c)(1) would supplement 10 U.S.C. 2571, which 
     permits any department or organization of the Department of 
     Defense to perform work and services for any other department 
     and organization without reimbursement, by treating as AGRs 
     reserve personnel who perform any function of a secretary of 
     a Department which has been assigned by that secretary to a 
     reserve component organization for execution, with the 
     consent of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau or the 
     chief of such reserve component. A reserve component 
     organization, for purposes of this section, would be an 
     organization under the control of the Chief of the National 
     Guard Bureau or any of the chiefs of the reserve components.
       Subsection (c)(2) would provide that peacetime standby air 
     defense and ballistic missile defense of the territory of the 
     United States would be included within the scope of functions 
     for which reserve personnel would be accountable against 
     reserve component end strengths. Thus Air National Guard 
     personnel of the First Air Force would be accounted for as 
     Active Guard and Reserve personnel while instructing and 
     training for and performing standby air defense activities 
     and Army National Guard personnel would be similarly treated 
     when conducting standby ballistic missile defense activities 
     for the

[[Page S3391]]

     Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. Section * * * of 
     title 10 would permit these AGRs to conduct air defense and 
     missile defense after a mobilization.
       Subsection (d) would provide that Reserve personnel be 
     authorized to supervise and command active component 
     personnel in a composite organization which conducts 
     activities in support of both active and reserve components.

                 Subtitle B--Officer Education Programs

       Section 510 would modify title 10 to set the maximum age 
     for ROTC scholarships at age 27, vice age 25 (10 U.S.C., 
     Sec. 2107); would concurrently modify the age standard for 
     Service academies (10 U.S.C., Sec. Sec. 4346, 6958, 9346) to 
     ensure that academy entrants also would be appointed as 
     commissioned officers by age 27. Specifically, this would add 
     two years for ROTC scholarship students and a single year for 
     the academies. The change is driven by a need reported by all 
     Services--to relax the ROTC age standard as a means of 
     expanding the recruiting pool, while accommodating promising 
     students who otherwise would be ineligible. The Service 
     academy change flows from a recognition that the controlling 
     criterion (a youthful and vigorous officer corps) should bear 
     equally on both sources of commission.
       This provision would apply to classes entering the service 
     academies of 1997 and thereafter.
       Section 511 would modify current law (10 U.S.C. 2107) to 
     permit initial award of ROTC scholarships to those who 
     already have received a baccalaureate degree, provided the 
     recipient executes contractual commitments, including 
     enrollment in the ROTC advance course. Today, Services cannot 
     recruit a 22 year-old electrical engineer with bachelors 
     degree, who (never before an ROTC participant) could earn a 
     masters degree in two years while completing the ROTC 
     advanced course, qualifying for commission. This exclusion 
     also penalizes top performers who graduate from high school 
     or enter ROTC with advanced college credit, since the 
     scholarship is terminated when they complete the 
     undergraduate degree, yet they must remain in college to 
     complete ROTC commissioning requirements. No additional costs 
     would be incurred, since this simply would permit more-
     efficient channeling of existing scholarships.

                       Subtitle C--Other Matters

       Section 515 would expand the definition of the term 
     ``active status'' in section 101(d) (4) of title 10, United 
     States Code, to include both officers and enlisted members of 
     the reserve components, who are not in the Inactive National 
     Guard, on an inactive status list, or in the Retired Reserve. 
     This change is consistent with Section 10141(b) of title 10 
     which addresses the status of reserve component members and 
     which states that all Reserve members who are not in an 
     inactive status or a retired status are in an ``active 
     status.''
       Section 516 would amend 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.
       These changes would increase the size of the group under 
     consideration for promotion but would not authorize any 
     additional numbers of total promotions from that larger 
     group. As a result, this proposal would not result in any 
     increased cost to the Department of the Navy, other services, 
     or the Department of Defense.
       Section 517. The FY-96 National Defense Authorization Act 
     (Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 186) amended title 10, United 
     States Code, by adding Chapter 76--Missing Persons. While the 
     Department supported the Senate version of the act, the 
     compromise version adopted into law contains several 
     provisions which will have a negative impact on efforts to 
     account for missing personnel, the well being of their 
     families, and the people who are charged with the accounting 
     effort. The proposed repeals and amendments are intended to 
     ensure that the process of determining the fate and 
     accounting for America's missing are not inadvertently 
     hindered, and that the families get the answers, rights and 
     benefits they deserve without placing additional financial 
     and emotional burdens on them.
       (a) Repeal.--
       (1) Section 1508 (Judicial Review).--The section provides 
     the primary next of kin or previously designated person(s) 
     the right to appeal a finding of death on the basis of a 
     subjective opinion that proper weight was not accorded to 
     available information.
       This provision will create an undue delay in the final 
     resolution of a missing person's status and subsequently 
     benefits to the beneficiaries. This right to challenge the 
     finding becomes even more disruptive when the beneficiaries 
     are not a party to the appeal. In addition, the court is not 
     being asked to judge whether a person's rights have been 
     violated, but rather to render a subjective opinion on the 
     strength and validity of information related to the case, a 
     role military experts and peers of the missing person have 
     already performed.
       (2) Section 1509 (Preenactment, Special Interest Cases).--
     The section requires the establishment of boards of inquiry 
     for Cold War (dating back to Sept. 2, 45), Korean and Vietnam 
     War unaccounted for cases if new information, from any 
     source, becomes available that may result in a change of 
     status.
       This provision will at best consume a significant amount of 
     time and money, and at worse produce a lose-lose situation--
     given the age of these cases and the possible inability to 
     locate all relevant evidence or witnesses. The Secretary 
     concerned already has the ability under chapter 10, title 37 
     U.S.C. to review cases if evidence arises that indicates that 
     a service member previously declared dead may be alive. To 
     date, the findings of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA 
     Affairs and the current work being conducted by the Defense 
     POW/MIA Office, USCINCPAC's Joint Task Force-Full Accounting, 
     U.S.-Russia Joint Commission, and the central Identification 
     Laboratory, Hawaii, to account for American service personnel 
     have been unable to uncover any credible evidence that there 
     are unaccounted for service members still alive from the Cold 
     War, Korean War, or the Vietnam War.
       (b) Transmission Through Theater Component Commander.--
     Requires the theater component commander to review all 
     missing person's recommendations from the unit commanders, in 
     the field, and then certify that all necessary actions are 
     being taken and all appropriate assets are being used to 
     resolve the status of the missing person. In addition the 
     provision provides the missing person's unit commander only 
     48 hours to complete an initial investigation and forward a 
     missing recommendation to the theater component commander.
       The review and certification requirements by the combatant 
     commander work under the assumption that all future conflicts 
     will be small in scope and casualties limited in number. In a 
     major conflict, with heavy losses, the volume of 
     certification requirements will severely tax the Component 
     Commanders, and their staffs, and divert their attention at a 
     time when they are charged with the grave responsibility 
     of directing the CINC's military efforts in the theater 
     and leading soldiers, sailors, and airmen in battle. The 
     unit commander, grade 0-5 or above, who conducts the 
     investigation under section 1502 is more than capable of 
     conducting

[[Page S3392]]

     a full search and rescue effort, and a thorough 
     investigation of the loss. A minimum of 10 days is 
     required, rather than 48 hours, to conduct a thorough and 
     complete investigation and provide a fully informed 
     recommendation.
       (c) Counsel for Missing Person.--Requires the Secretary to 
     assign a missing person's counsel to represent each missing 
     or unaccounted for person. Counsel is tasked with reviewing 
     each piece of new evidence that may affect the missing 
     person's status to determine if it is significant enough to 
     recommend that the Secretary appoint a review board. In 
     addition, the counsel is directed to review all information, 
     attend board deliberations, and provide a written report as a 
     companion to the review boards report.
       This provision presupposes that the U.S. government does 
     not hold the interest of the missing person as the compelling 
     factor in determining their status. It also creates an 
     adverserial environment that, as shown by experience in other 
     similar types of investigations, may ultimately have a 
     negative impact on the investigative process. The requirement 
     for a lawyer to attend deliberations and then comment on the 
     findings may have a chilling effect on the board's 
     deliberations--nowhere else in our system are lawyers 
     representing an affected party allowed to sit in on the 
     deliberations of a deliberative panel. This effect is 
     exaggerated for multiple loss cases where the provision 
     requires one counsel for ``each'' mission person; i.e., if 20 
     servicemen are lost in a plane crash, 20 lawyers must be 
     assigned to the case. Finally, the requirement to have a 
     lawyer review every new piece of information, creates an 
     administrative and financial burden on the Department by 
     requiring the Office of Missing Persons to maintain a full 
     time cadre of lawyers to conduct such reviews alongside the 
     intelligence analysts who already have this responsibility. 
     There have already been 17,000+ live sighting or dogtag 
     reports from the Vietnam War alone.
       (d) Three Year Reviews.--Requires that the Secretary 
     appoint a review board every three years, for 10 years, for 
     persons in a missing status who are last known alive or last 
     suspected of being alive.
       This requirement will only cause undue pain and financial 
     hardship on families by requiring a status review when no new 
     information on which to base a change in status exists. It 
     works under the assumption that the Department will not 
     pursue a case unless a formal board is established every 
     three years to look into the case. Section 1505 already 
     requires the Secretary concerned to convene a board if new 
     information becomes available that may result in a change 
     of status. Section 1506 requires all new information to be 
     placed in the missing person's record, or notice thereof, 
     and that the information or knowledge of its existence be 
     forwarded to the family. In addition, the Government 
     creates a double standard in that the three year review is 
     only applied to a select number of cases. The Department 
     feels every case/family deserves equal treatment.
       (e) Wrongful Withholding.--The provision makes it a 
     criminal act for a person to knowingly and willfully withhold 
     from a missing person's file any information relating to the 
     disappearance or whereabouts and status of the missing 
     person. It provides for a fine under title 18 or imprisonment 
     of not more than 1 year, or both.
       The investigative and legal burden that this criminal 
     provision will create for the analysts and other members of 
     the Office of Missing Persons will have a debilitating effect 
     on the pace of POW/MIA work and the quality of personnel the 
     office is able to recruit. The Defense POW/MIA Office is 
     often accused by a select group of families and activists 
     with withholding documents and information from the case 
     files of unaccounted for service members. Justice has 
     reviewed several such allegations in the past and has found 
     them baseless, however attaching criminal liability to such 
     charges will create a working environment where DPMO staff 
     ends up spending scarce time and resources aggressively 
     defending their conduct rather than working to resolve the 
     fate of the missing.
       (f) Recommendation on Status of Death.--Requires that a 
     review board recommending a status of death provide 
     information on the date and place of death, and if remains 
     are recovered, a description of the location where it was 
     recovered and certification of identification by a forensic 
     scientist, if visual identification was not possible.
       Under section 1501(e), the provisions of the chapter 76 
     cease to apply when a person is accounted for, as defined in 
     section 1513(3)(B), recovery and identification of the 
     person's remains by a forensic scientist of identification, 
     if visual identification was not possible.
       (g) Department of Defense Civilian Employees.--The law 
     applies equal coverage to Department of Defense civilian and 
     contractor employees who accompany forces in the field, and 
     members of the Armed Forces. The FY-96 Defense Authorization 
     Act calls on the Secretary of State to conduct a one year 
     study on how best to apply similar coverage to all government 
     civilian and contractor employees who accompany forces in 
     the field.
       Until the Secretary of State reports to Congress the 
     results of his study on how best to cover government 
     civilians and contractor employees, the Government risks 
     inadvertently harming the people it is trying to protect by 
     failing to address in chapter 76 the impact this measure may 
     have on:
       (1) provisions of title 5 U.S.C. and other civil service 
     guidelines;
       (2) the fact that such individuals may not fall under UCMJ 
     authority;
       (3) pay and promotion issues; and,
       (4) other nuances that need to be examined in the 
     Secretary's study.
       While the Department agrees that there is a need for 
     legislation covering Department of Defense civilian and 
     contractor employees, at this point it would be better to 
     wait until the study is complete and then address all U.S. 
     Government and contractor employees who accompany the armed 
     forces in hostile environments under a separate piece of 
     legislation.
       Section 518 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 law 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 over 
     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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Community 
            Designator              Inventory      Total       specific 
                                                  billets     shortfall 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,110............................        1,317        1,406           89
1,120............................          635          819          184
6,400............................           62           67            5
6,130............................           55           73           18
6,230............................           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              Inventory      Total       specific 
                                                  billets     shortfall 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,110............................        1,095        1,406          311
1,120............................          436          819          383
6,400............................           62           67            5
6,130............................           55           73           18
6,230............................           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 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.
       Section 519 would modify title 10, United States Code, 
     (Sec. 513) to permit extension in the Delayed Entry Program 
     (DEP), for meritorious cases as determined by the Secretary 
     concerned, beyond the 365-day time limit currently 
     established by the statute. Notably, applicants who enter the 
     DEP in June or July are within a few weeks of that ceiling 
     when they graduate from high school; consequently, a delay 
     would force discharge and re-accomplishment of enlistment, 
     with associated challenge and expense. In the past, natural 
     and manmade disasters have forced delays in shipping 
     schedules, and this change simply would permit, on a 
     selective basis, the avoidance of discharge/enlistment 
     paperwork drills.
       Section 520. 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

[[Page S3393]]

     costs that occur as a consequence of the requirement to 
     reenlist continually senior enlisted members.
       Under the proposal, 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, 
     in 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 521. As a result of the demise of communism and a 
     reduction in the size of military forces in many nations, 
     including the U.S., it is important that allied and other 
     friendly countries work together to standardize doctrine, 
     procedures and tactics and share responsibility in the 
     development and production of military systems to promote 
     standardization and interoperability at reduced costs. The 
     exchange of military and civilian personnel between defense 
     establishments is one of the efficient and cost effective 
     means that can be used to promote these objectives. Under the 
     proposed exchanges, costs would be borne by the government of 
     the exchange personnel except for activities that are 
     directed by the host party or where orientation or 
     familiarization training is made necessary by the unique 
     qualifications of the assignment. The proposal further 
     stipulates that the benefit to each government must be 
     substantially equal which ensures that each government 
     benefits from the exchanges.

          TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS

                     Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances

       Section 601 would waive the adjustment required by section 
     1009 of title 37, United States Code and increase the rates 
     of basic pay, basic allowance for subsistence, and basic 
     allowance for quarters by three percent. This is what the 
     President submitted in his budget for Fiscal Year 1997.
       Section 602 amends subsection 403(a) of title 37, United 
     States Code, by adding a provision that would eliminate the 
     entitlement to Basic Allowance for Quarters (BAQ) for members 
     of the Ready Reserve who occupy government quarters during 
     short periods of active duty, fifteen days or less, and who 
     are not accompanied by their dependents. This legislative 
     proposal is a National Performance Review initiative. It 
     would eliminate the requirement to provide BAQ to Reserve 
     component members performing annual active duty for training 
     when government berthing/housing is provided. Reserve 
     component members performing active duty when government 
     quarters are not provided or when members are accompanied by 
     their dependents would not be subject to this limitation. The 
     five year cost saving associated with this proposal is 
     estimated at $913 million and is distributed as follows:

                        [In millions of dollars]

Fiscal year:
  1997..............................................................178
  1998..............................................................180
  1999..............................................................184
  2000..............................................................187
  2001..............................................................184
                                                               ________

      Total.........................................................913

       Section 603 would amend section 403(c)(2) of title 37, 
     United States Code. This provision prohibits the payment of 
     the basic allowance for quarters to all members below the pay 
     grade of E-6 without dependents, while assigned to sea duty. 
     Amending this section will remove the prohibition against 
     single E-5 members and authorize them to receive either 
     quarters ashore (adequate or inadequate) or the payment of 
     the basic allowance for quarters.
       In the words of Master Chief of the Navy, John Hagan, 
     amending section 403(c)(2) is ``well past time for E-5 
     Sailors to get (this) benefit'' calling this shortcoming 
     ``the most compelling inequity in our entire compensation 
     system.''
       This section also would amend 37 U.S.C. $403(c)(2) to 
     remove the monetary penalty for joint military couples, below 
     the pay grade of E-6, serving simultaneous shipboard duty. 
     Currently, those military couples who serve onboard ships at 
     the same time lose all of the entitlement to BAQ/VHA. Law 
     would be amended to state that a couple's combined BAQ/VHA 
     entitlement be equal to BAQ (with-dependents rate) or VHA 
     (with-dependents rate) calculated for the senior member's pay 
     grade only.
       Section 604 would strike out paragraph (2) of section 
     203(c) of title 37. Section 203(c)(1) stipulates the specific 
     rate of cadet and midshipmen pay as determined by the 
     Congress. Paragraph (2) is inconsistent with the adjustment 
     called for in the section. Making an adjustment under the 
     seldom used section 1009 would result in a level of pay 
     different than the exact rate specified by the Congress in 
     section 203(c)(1). The inconsistent provision accordingly is 
     recommended for deletion.

            Subtitle B--Extension of Bonus and Special Pays

       Section 605 would extend the authority to employ accession 
     and retention incentives, ensuring that adequate manning is 
     provided for hard-to-retain skills, including occupations 
     that are arduous or that feature extremely high training 
     costs (e.g. aviators, health care professionals, and 
     incumbents of billets requiring nuclear qualification). 
     Experience shows that retention in those skills would be 
     unacceptably low without these incentives, which in turn 
     would generate the substantially greater costs associated 
     with recruiting and developing a replacement. The Department 
     and the Congress have long recognized the cost-effectiveness 
     of these incentives in supporting effective manning in these 
     occupations.
       Section 606 would extend the authority to employ recruiting 
     and retention incentives to support effective manning in the 
     Reserve Components, ensuring that adequate manning is 
     provided for hard-to-retain skills. These bonuses also 
     stimulate the flow of manning to undersubscribed Reserve 
     units. Experience shows that retention in those skills, or in 
     those units, would be unacceptably low without these 
     incentives. The Department and the Congress have long 
     recognized the cost-effectiveness of these incentives in 
     supporting effective manning in such occupations and units.
       Section 607 would extend the authority to employ accession 
     and retention incentives to support manning for nurse billets 
     that have been chronically undersubscribed. Experience shows 
     that retention in the nursing field would be unacceptably low 
     without these incentives, and the Department and Congress 
     have long recognized the cost-effectiveness of these 
     incentives in supporting effective manning levels within the 
     nursing field.

            Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances

       Section 610 would amend title 37, United States Code, to 
     authorize round-trip travel allowances for transporting motor 
     vehicles at government expense. The bill amends section 406 
     (b)(1)(B)(i)(I) and 406 (b)(2)(B)(i)(II) of title 37, United 
     States Code, to authorize round-trip travel allowances when a 
     member transports a motor vehicle to and from the port, in 
     conjunction with a permanent change of station move between 
     OCONUS and CONUS locations. The provision also provides that 
     the amendment made by section I shall take effect on July 1, 
     1997.
       Section 611 would allow the Department of Defense to 
     reimburse non-Federal civilians, who serve as school board 
     members, for approved training and eliminate the disparate 
     treatment of school board members serving pursuant to section 
     2164(d) of title 10, United States Code. Currently, only 
     school board members are employees of the Armed Services of 
     Federal Government are authorized reimbursement for approved 
     training under both the Federal Training Act, title 5, United 
     States Code, section 4109, and the Joint Federal Travel 
     Regulations, Volume 2, Paragraph C 4502. Since non-Federal 
     civilian board members cannot be reimbursed for training, 
     they are not sent to training.
       Section 612 modifies section 2634 of title 10, United 
     States Code, by authorizing the Government-funded storage, in 
     lieu of transportation, of a service member's motor vehicle 
     when that service member is ordered to make a permanent 
     change of station to a location which precludes entry of 
     or requires extensive modification to the motor vehicle. 
     Subsection (b) of the provision would modify section 406 
     of title 37, United States Code, to authorize the storage 
     of a motor vehicle as provided for in section 1 of this 
     bill. Subsection (c) would provide that the amendments 
     would take effect on July 1, 1997.
       Section 613 would 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-

[[Page S3394]]

     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.

    Subtitle D--Retired Pay, Survivor Benefits, and Related Matters

       Section 615 would repeal the delay of the military retired 
     pay Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) that currently is 
     scheduled for Fiscal Year 1998 and that prohibits payment of 
     such increase for months before September 1998. This section 
     also would repeal the conditional provision that provides 
     that the Fiscal Year 1997 COLA will not be payable any later 
     than the COLA for retired Federal civilian employees. 
     Accordingly, under this section, the Fiscal Year 1998 
     military retired pay COLA will be payable for all months in 
     which it is effective.
       Section 616 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 members who retired 
     after serving on active duty for 20 years or more. 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 617 amends subsection (d) of section 501 of title 
     37, United States Code, to authorize survivors of members of 
     the uniformed services to receive a payment upon death of a 
     member for all leave accrued. It would take effect on October 
     1, 1996.

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters

       Section 620(a) amends section 1201 of title 10, United 
     States Code; subsection 620(b) amends section 1202 of title 
     10; and subsection 620(c) amends section 1203 of title 10. 
     The purpose of this amendment is to extend disability 
     coverage for persons granted excess leave under section 502 
     of title 37, United States Code. Subsection (d) provides that 
     this amendment will take effect on the date of its enactment.
       The purpose of section 620 is to provide members of the 
     United States Marine Corps who are participating in an 
     educational program leading to designation as a judge 
     advocate while in an excess leave status under section 502(b) 
     of title 37 the disability benefits under sections 1201, 
     1202, and 1203 of title 10 that accrue to servicemembers who 
     are entitled to basic pay. Servicemembers on active duty for 
     30 days or more are entitled to disability benefits under 
     those sections of law only if disabled while entitled to 
     basic pay. Except as provided in section 502(b) of title 37, 
     an individual who is granted excess leave by the Secretary of 
     the military department concerned under section 502(b) of 
     that title is not entitled to basic pay as long as the member 
     is in that status. If such an individual were to incur any 
     disability while on excess leave, he or she would not be 
     entitled to any of the benefits provided under the provisions 
     of sections 2101, 1202, and 1203 of title 10.
       Currently, the only members of the Department of Defense 
     that would be affected by the proposed legislation are those 
     enrolled in the Marine Corps Excess Leave (Law) Program. The 
     U.S. Marine Corps has used this program as an accession 
     source for judge advocates since 1967. Selected regular 
     officers having between two and eight years of commissioned 
     service are authorized by the Secretary of the Navy to be 
     placed on excess leave under section 502(b) of title 37 for 
     the purpose of obtaining a law degree from an accredited law 
     school and designation as a Marine Corps judge advocate. 
     While on excess leave, the officer receives no pay and 
     allowances and must bear all costs associated with 
     subsistence, housing, and tuition. However, the member may 
     use the G.I. Bill and Veterans Educational Assistance Program 
     (VEAP) to defray tuition costs. The U.S. Marine Corps now has 
     twenty-three officers participating in the program and 
     expects to assign an average of six to eight officers during 
     each of the next five years. Officers incur a three-year 
     active duty obligation upon designation as a Marine Corps 
     judge advocate. Retention of these officers on active duty 
     beyond that time is over ninety percent. Officers who fail to 
     complete a law degree and are disenrolled from the program 
     must serve a year on active duty for each year or portion of 
     a year spend in excess leave. However, no one who was 
     selected to participate in this program during the past nine 
     years has been disenrolled.
       Officers participating in the Excess Leave Program are 
     still on active duty and maintain their precedence on the 
     active-duty list. They must maintain the high standards 
     expected of commissioned officers. Although no officer has 
     ever been permanently or temporarily disabled while 
     participating in the program, the possibility always exists 
     that such an event may occur. Any officer who might 
     become disabled while participating in this program should 
     be protected in the same manner as members entitled to 
     basic pay are protected as mentioned above.
       Although the Excess Leave Program is the only program that 
     now exists in the Department of Defense under the authority 
     of section 502(b) of title 37, this provision of law permits 
     the Secretaries of the military departments to grant excess 
     leave to individuals who might participate in other 
     educational programs. Accordingly, the proposed legislation 
     would provide members of the armed forces enrolled in such 
     programs the same disability benefits that it would provide 
     members enrolled in the Excess Leave Program.
       The category of individuals for whom the legislation is 
     intended is clearly distinguishable from those individuals 
     who are not entitled to disability benefits under sections 
     1201, 1202, and 1203 of title 10 because they are not 
     entitled to basic pay for such reasons as court-martial 
     sentence or placement on excess leave to await administrative 
     discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. Since an 
     individual who would be protected by the legislation probably 
     will serve a full career on active duty in the armed forces, 
     enactment of the legislation would be in the best interests 
     of both the individual and the Government.
       Since the proposed legislation is intended to provide 
     protection to individuals who might become disabled in the 
     future, cost and budget data cannot be determined.
       Section 621 would simplify, standardize, and facilitate the 
     processing of orders under the Uniformed Services Former 
     Spouses' Protection Act (10 U.S.C. Sec. 1408) and to ensure 
     equitable treatment to all members and former spouses who are 
     subject to the provisions of this law.
       The section amends subsection 1408(b)(1)(A) of title 10, 
     United States Code, to allow for service of court orders by 
     facsimile or electronic transmission, ordinary mail, or by 
     personal service. The current law requires personal service 
     by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested. 
     Deleting this requirement and providing for facsimile or 
     electronic transmission will expedite processing of 
     applications by reducing the number of applications that must 
     be returned to the sender for the sole reason that it was not 
     personally served or mailed by certified or registered mail, 
     return receipt requested.
       Subsection 1408(e) of title 10 is amended to clarify the 
     jurisdictional requirements relative to court orders issued 
     by states other than the state issuing the original court 
     order and modifying or clarifying the original court orders 
     on which payments under the Act were based. The amendment 
     provides that the court must have jurisdiction over both 
     the member and the former spouse under the same guidelines 
     applicable to members under subsection (c)(4) of section 
     1408.
       Subsection 1408(h)(10)(A) of title 10 is amended to provide 
     an alternative method of determining retirement eligibility 
     in cases where dependents are victims of abuse by members who 
     lose their right to retired pay. The purpose of the amendment 
     is to allow a former spouse, who may not qualify under the 
     current provisions due to the member not yet being retirement 
     eligible on the date the convening authority approves the 
     sentence, to have the option of having the member's 
     retirement eligibility determined at the later point of the 
     member's discharge.
       Section 622 would change section 1151, chapter 10 of title 
     10, United States Code. The changes would revise the 
     legislation to make it more compatible with lessons learned 
     from program implementation and operation. It would eliminate 
     the restriction on providing a stipend to ``early retirees''. 
     Full retirees are authorized to receive the stipend, but 
     because the decision to offer early retirement came after 
     Troops to Teachers legislation, they were inadvertently 
     omitted as being eligible. It also aligns the obligation to 
     teach for two years vice five years with the revised formula 
     for reimbursement which goes from five years to two years. 
     Finally, this proposal reduces the incentive grant from five 
     years with a maximum of $50K to two years and a maximum of 
     $25K.
       Section 623. Section 37 USC 411b(a)(1) provides for travel 
     and transportation expenses for members and their dependents 
     who have been ordered to consecutive overseas tours for the 
     purpose of taking consecutive overseas tour (COT) leave. 
     These expenses are reimbursed for an amount not to exceed 
     what it would cost the government to send the member to his/
     her home of record. This is an important quality of life 
     benefit. It allows members the opportunity to visit relatives 
     and loved ones near their home of record in the continental 
     us before commencing an additional three year tour. This 
     program has a very positive impact on members. It enhances 
     retention, improves morale, and reduces the stress of long 
     separations for members who are serving on the front lines in 
     defense of their country. Few members could afford to make 
     such a trip on their own. This

[[Page S3395]]

     program also saves money because it reduces the number of 
     overseas moves that the Government has to fund.
       Section 37 USC 411b(a)(2) allows a member to defer this 
     travel for up to one year. The one year limitation 
     is beneficial under normal circumstances because it 
     ensures that commanders cannot indefinitely postpone COT 
     leave. However, this limitation becomes a problem for 
     members participating in critical operational missions 
     such as contingencies and humanitarian missions because 
     commanders have the authority to deny leave for 
     operational necessity. Currently, Service members 
     participating in Operation Joint Endeavor will lose their 
     COT leave due to the one year limitation on eligibility. 
     This provision will cure this problem.
       Also, with the increased number of contingencies and 
     humanitarian missions that the Department has been conducting 
     since the end of the ``Cold War'' and is expected to conduct 
     in the future, this legislation will have a much broader and 
     beneficial impact. Deferring the one year limitation while 
     members participate in major operational missions will 
     enhance morale, reduce overseas moving costs, and provide 
     commanders with the flexibility they need to conduct major 
     operational missions.
       Enactment of the legislative proposal will not cause an 
     increase in the budgetary requirements of the Department.
       Section 624 would authorize the Secretary of Defense, in 
     certain situations, to pay civilian personnel of the 
     Department of Defense stationed outside the United States 
     allowances and benefits comparable to those paid to members 
     of the Foreign Service or other government agencies which 
     routinely place personnel in foreign location assignments.
       This section remedies an on-going problem experienced by 
     DoD civilian personnel and their families when on overseas 
     assignment. The issues addressed include: travel for medical 
     care when no suitable facility exists to provide medical care 
     at the duty location, travel of an attendant for the employee 
     or family member who is too ill or too young to travel alone, 
     rest and recuperation travel for employees and their families 
     stationed at locations designated by the Secretary of State 
     for such travel, round trip travel in emergency situations 
     involving personal hardship. These benefits are detailed at 
     title 22 U.S.C. Sec. 4081.
       This provision also authorizes the Secretary to designate 
     DoD employees stationed overseas as eligible for 
     participation in the State Department health care program 
     described at title 22 U.S.C. Sec. 4084.
       The enactment of this Bill will affect the current 
     administrative guidance contained in the State Department 
     Foreign Affairs Manual (3 FAM 680 and 681.1). No judicial, 
     executive or Administrative provisions would be overturned or 
     affected by this change. Minor modifications may have to 
     be made to the State Department Foreign Affairs Manual as 
     stated above.

                   TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS

       Section 701 would revise the amendment made by section 731 
     of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     1996 to section 1079(h) of title 10, United States Code. The 
     proposed revision is needed to permit health care providers 
     who are not participating in the TRICARE network to be paid 
     higher amounts than now permitted by section 1079(h) in the 
     limited circumstances in which they might provide care to 
     TRICARE Prime enrollees. This revision would have the 
     important effect of protecting TRICARE Prime enrollees from 
     ``balance billing'' by such providers. As is standard for 
     Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs), enrollees receive 
     most care from network providers, but in limited 
     circumstances receive covered services from nonparticipating 
     providers (for example, emergency care). The proposed 
     revision provides authority that would also apply in another 
     limited circumstance: when enrollees are referred to a non-
     network provider in cases in which no network provider is 
     available (for example, for specialties in limited supply in 
     certain areas).
       Section 702 would establish new alternatives in cases of 
     members of the Health Professions Scholarship and Financial 
     Assistance Program who do not or cannot complete their active 
     duty service obligations. Under current law (10 U.S.C. 
     2123(e)), the only available alternative is ``assignment to a 
     health professional shortage area designated by the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services.'' This alternative has never 
     been used because neither DoD nor the Department of Health 
     and Human Services has an effective mechanism to administer 
     such an alternative obligation. Under the proposed section, 
     there would be four options for alternative obligations for 
     the member: (1) a reserve component assignment of a duration 
     twice as long as the remaining active duty obligation; (2) 
     service as a health professional civil service employee in a 
     facility of the uniformed services; (3) transfer of the 
     active duty service obligation to an equal obligation under 
     the National Health Services Corps (similar to the probable 
     intent of the current authority); or (4) repayment of a 
     percentage of the total cost incurred by DoD under the 
     program equal to the percentage of the member's total active 
     duty service obligation being relieved, plus interest. 
     Subsection (b) of the proposed provision would amend current 
     law (10 U.S.C. 2114) to establish extended service in the 
     Selected Reserve or as a civil service employee as 
     alternatives to active duty service for graduates of the 
     Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences who do 
     not or cannot complete their active duty service obligations.
       Subsection (c) of the proposed section 703 would provide 
     that the provision take effect with respect to individuals 
     who first become members of the program or students of the 
     University on or after October 1, 1996. Subsection (d) would 
     provide for a transition under which, member already 
     receiving (as of October 1, 1996) a scholarship or financial 
     assistance or individuals who already are students of the 
     University, or for those already serving an active duty 
     obligation under the program or as a graduate of the 
     University, the applicable alternative obligations would be 
     available, but only with the agreement of the member.
       Section 703 would facilitate a continuation of the long-
     standing practice of assignment of a number of Public Health 
     Service (PHS) officers to duty in the Department of Defense 
     (DoD). Such officers have served with distinction in DoD, 
     including with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of 
     Defense (Health Affairs) and the Joint Staff. However, 
     tightening PHS officer end-strength limitations now 
     jeopardize these arrangements. The provision would permit the 
     exclusion from PHS end-strength limitation of the PHS 
     officers assigned to DoD. This provision is modeled after 42 
     U.S.C. section 207(e), which excepts up to three flag 
     officers assigned to DoD from the PHS flag officer 
     limitation.
       Section 704 would repeal 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. This section also would repeal the provision 
     enacted by section 738 of the National Defense Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106, February 10, 
     1996) that generally prohibits prepaid abortions in overseas 
     facilities.
       Section 705 would replace section 1074a of title 10, United 
     States Code, in order clarify the medical and dental care 
     members of the Reserve are entitled to while in a duty status 
     or traveling directly to and from their duty location. The 
     amendment defines the entitlement to medical and dental care 
     for Reserve component members in a specific military duty 
     status and the authority to continue such care until the 
     member is returned to full military duty, or if unable to 
     return to military duty, the member is processed for 
     disability separation in accordance with chapter 61 of title 
     10 U.S.C. It further clarifies that Reserve component members 
     on active duty, active duty for training, annual training, 
     full-time National Guard Duty or traveling directly to or 
     from such duty may request continuation on Active duty while 
     hospitalized and that all members receiving care are eligible 
     to apply to receive pay and allowances in accordance with 
     subsection 204 (g) and (h) of title 37 U.S.C.
       Section 706 would amend sections 1074a, 1204 and 1481 of 
     title 10, United States Code, and sections 204 and 206 of 
     title 37, United States Code 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 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.

              TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION AND RELATED MATTERS

       Section 801. Repeal of chapter 142 of title 10, United 
     States Code, would end the requirement that the Department of 
     Defense, through the Defense Logistics Agency, administer the 
     Procurement Technical Assistance Cooperative Agreement 
     Program. Currently, Procurement Technical Assistance centers 
     are providing services to many of the same clients served by 
     the Small Business Administration's Small Business 
     Development Centers. This has occurred because Small Business 
     Development Centers were offering procurement assistance to 
     clients before the Defense Logistics Agency began the 
     Procurement Technical Assistance Cooperative Agreement 
     Program in 1985 and there is no restriction on awarding 
     Procurement Technical Assistance Cooperative Agreement 
     Program funding to Small Business Development Centers. Since 
     1985, the Procurement Technical Assistance Cooperative 
     Agreement Program has evolved from a Department of Defense-
     only program to one that encourages Procurement Technical 
     Assistance centers to assist businesses desiring knowledge on 
     the methods for selling to any federal, state or local 
     government agency, which is clearly a Small Business 
     Development Center function. As a result, the Defense 
     Logistics Agency has incurred staffing costs to award and 
     administer cooperative agreements for a service that is 
     already, or could easily be, provided and managed by the 
     existing Small Business Development Center organization of 
     more than 900 offices operating in all 50 states.
       A key goal of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 
     1994 and other acquisition reform initiatives is to resolve 
     the differences between Department of Defense acquisition 
     procedures and other federal agency procedures and commercial 
     procedures.

[[Page S3396]]

     At this time, the descriptions of Procurement Technical 
     Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program functions are 
     essentially the same as procurement-related Small Business 
     Development Center functions. If the Small Business 
     Administration is funded by Congress, the programs may 
     be merged and acquisition streamlining may be achieved 
     without a loss of services to businesses in need of 
     assistance or advice on marketing of their services. 
     Additionally, cost savings would be realized due to the 
     decreased administrative and oversight costs.
       The Department of Defense Inspector General is scheduled to 
     issue a report which will recommend that program 
     responsibility for the Procurement Technical Assistance 
     Cooperative Agreement Program be moved from the Department of 
     Defense to the Small Business Administration. This report 
     will also recommend that Congress not fund the Defense 
     Logistics Agency for administration of the Procurement 
     Technical Assistance Cooperative Agreement program, but 
     instead, add sufficient funding to the Small Business 
     Administration's budget to ensure that continuation of 
     procurement assistance at Small Business Development Centers 
     in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, especially in 
     counties with high rates of unemployment.
       We have conferred with the Director of Small and 
     Disadvantaged Business Utilization, who strongly supports 
     this initiative. He has discussed the issues with and 
     received favorable reaction from appropriate officials within 
     the Small Business Administration.
       Section 802 clarifies the authority for requestioning 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 803 would conform the period established for 
     mentors to provide developmental assistance under the program 
     to the revised period established for new admissions into the 
     program.
       Section 824 of the FY 1996 Defense Authorization Act 
     provided a one year extension to the period for eligible 
     businesses under the Mentor-Protege Program to enter into new 
     agreements. This was the second extension to the entry 
     period, a prior one year extension having been provided in 
     the FY 1994 Defense Authorization Act. The current ending 
     date for entry into the program is 30 September 1996.
       While the period for entry into the program has been 
     extended, no similar revision has been made to the date 
     established for ending the period during which mentors 
     may incur costs furnishing developmental assistance under 
     the program, currently also 30 September 1996. For the 
     objectives of entry period extensions to be met, a 
     conforming two year revision to the period authorized for 
     mentors to incur costs is also required. This revision is 
     needed to allow for the establishment and execution of 
     meaningful agreements between the potential mentors and 
     proteges. Likewise, without this revision, the extension 
     of the period for entry into the program is of little 
     value to potential mentor-protege agreements, if the 
     period of time the mentor can incur costs is also not 
     extended.
       The Department has budgeted and allocated $30 million to 
     spend on costs incurred through September 30, 1996, but the 
     full amount of these costs will not be incurred until 
     September 30, 1998. The costs incurred by this initiative 
     will not exceed the amount already allocated.
       Section 804 would extend the authority to enter into 
     prototype projects under section 845 until September 30, 
     1999. It would expand use of the authority to the Military 
     Departments and other defense components designated by the 
     Secretary of Defense. It would authorize the Secretary of 
     Defense to determine procedures for determining whether to 
     conduct a follow-on production program to a prototype project 
     and prescribe the acquisition procedures applicable to such 
     follow-on acquisition. It would clarify that use of this 
     authority is for the conduct of acquisition experiments and 
     vest maximum flexibility in the component exercising the 
     authority. These changes do not authorize any new programs 
     but impact the procedures under which approved prototype 
     projects and follow-on acquisition programs may be executed. 
     While the flexibility provided by these programs may result 
     in budget savings they cannot be determined at this time.
       Section 805 would repeal the Congressional reporting 
     requirements applicable to agreements entered into under the 
     authority of section 2371, title 10, United States Code. 
     Section 2371 is reorganized by removing authority concerning 
     cooperative research and development agreements entered into 
     by federally funded research and development centers and 
     reenacting such authority in a separate section. Business and 
     technical information submitted to the Department on a 
     confidential basis in order to obtain or perform a 
     cooperative agreement or other transaction will be exempted 
     from public disclosure for five years. Deletion of the 
     reporting requirement will result in a small but undetermined 
     budgetary savings.
       Section 806 would correct a technical flaw in the law that 
     prevents payment of valid contractor invoices properly 
     chargeable to line-item appropriations canceled by the 
     Account Closing Law when the Corresponding line-item is 
     discontinued in subsequent current appropriations acts. 
     For example, the Department currently lacks the legal 
     authority to pay such invoices incurred for the FFG ship 
     program because of the line-item nature of the 
     Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN) account and the 
     absence of a current FFG line item. Existing law at 31 
     U.S.C. 1553 (b)(1) states;
       ``. . .  after the closing of an account under section 
     1552(a) of 1555 of this title, obligations and adjustments to 
     obligations that would have been properly chargeable to that 
     account, both as to purpose and in amount, before closing and 
     that are not otherwise chargeable to any current 
     appropriation account of the agency may be charged to any 
     current appropriation account of the agency available for the 
     same purpose.'' (Emphasis added)
       For line-item appropriation accounts like SCN, this means 
     that payments from a canceled account may only be charged to 
     the corresponding ship line-item account currently available 
     for new obligations. If a current shipbuilding program no 
     longer exists, there is no longer a source of funds 
     ``available for the same purpose.''
       Section 807 restates the policy of 10 U.S.C. 2462 to rely 
     on the private sector for supplies and services necessary to 
     accomplish the functions of the Department of Defense. The 
     provision authorizes the Secretary of Defense, 
     notwithstanding any provision of title 10, United States 
     Code, or any statute authorizing appropriations for or making 
     appropriations for, the Department of Defense, to acquire by 
     contract from the private sector or any non-federal 
     government entities, commercial or industrial type supplies 
     and services to accomplish the authorized functions of the 
     Department. The Secretary shall use the procurement 
     procedures of chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, in 
     carrying out this authority, but in the procurement of such 
     supplies and services the Secretary may limit the place of 
     performance to the location where such supplies or services 
     are being provided by federal government personnel. This 
     proposal would overcome existing statutory encumbrances on 
     privatization. It also would facilitate privatization in 
     place, thereby reducing the impact on affected federal 
     government employees.

      TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

                      Subtitle A--General Matters

       Section 901 is a technical amendment to reflect the proper 
     title of the United States Element, North American Aerospace 
     Defense Command. It is consistent with the 1991 amendment to 
     section 166a(f) of title 10, United States Code. 
     Subsection (a) of the amended provision states the name of 
     the command as the North American Air Defense Command in 
     each of its three paragraphs. It is noted once in each 
     paragraph. If enacted, the proposal will not increase the 
     budgetary requirements of the Department of Defense.
       Section 902 would amend section 172(a) of title 10, United 
     States Code, to permit qualified civilian employees of the 
     Federal government to serve as board members on the 
     ammunition storage board which is currently named the 
     Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board. Section 172(a) 
     currently limits the board membership to ``officers'' who, in 
     accordance with the definition set forth in section 
     101(b)(1), must be commissioned or warrant officers and not 
     civilian employees. This limitation restricts the Secretaries 
     of the military departments from selecting the most qualified 
     person available to represent their departments. In the area 
     of explosive safety, expertise and corporate continuity 
     invariably reside in Department of Defense civilian 
     personnel. To ensure the Secretaries of the military 
     departments have the flexibility to be represented by the 
     most qualified professional available, the option to select 
     civilian board members is imperative.
       Section 903 would remove the Secretary of the Army from 
     membership on the Foreign Trade Zone Board. The Department of 
     the Army has been involved in the Foreign Trade Zone Board 
     since passage of the Foreign Trade Zone Act in 1934. At that 
     time, most import-export trade was through waterborne 
     commerce, and, because of the Corps of Engineers navigation 
     role in harbor development, the Secretary of the Army was 
     made a member of the Board.
       Although there may have been good rationale for Army 
     involvement in 1934, the nature of the zone activities has 
     since changed. More frequently, foreign trade zones (FTZ) are 
     being established away from deep water ports in favor of land 
     border crossings and airports. In addition, current FTZ 
     issues usually involve trade policy, customs collection, 
     competition among domestic industries, and the impact of 
     proposed zones on existing businesses, rather than matters of 
     interest to the Corps of Engineers, such as engineering, 
     construction, and environmental impacts.
       While this proposal would minimize involvement of the 
     Department of the Army and the Corps in routine FTZ 
     activities, the Corps would still be available to lend its 
     expertise in engineering, construction, and environmental 
     related issues on a case-by-case basis.

                    Subtitle B--Financial Management

       Section 910 would modify the authorization and 
     appropriation of the Environmental Restoration, Defense 
     Account. As proposed, the

[[Page S3397]]

     legislation would change the existing authorization of one 
     central transfer account by providing additional transfer 
     accounts for each of the Military Departments. The 
     legislation would also provide for the direct appropriation 
     of Environmental Restoration funds into these newly 
     established transfer accounts.
       The proposed legislation is required to implement the 
     Department's decision to devolve the Environmental 
     Restoration Program to the Military Departments. Devolving 
     the account to the Military Departments will involve them 
     more directly in validating the cleanup efforts and balancing 
     the cleanup program with other military requirements in the 
     budget preparation.
       Section 911 would amend chapter 31 of title 10, United 
     States Code, to authorize the expenditure of appropriated 
     funds to provide small meals and snacks at recruiting 
     functions for members of the Delayed Entry Program, others 
     who are the subject of recruiting efforts for the reserve 
     components, influential persons in communities who assist the 
     military departments in their recruiting efforts, military 
     and civilian personnel whose attendance at such functions is 
     mandatory, and other persons whose presence at such functions 
     will contribute to recruiting efforts. The primary persons 
     who will attend recruiting functions where small meals and 
     snacks will be provided are persons in the Delayed Entry 
     Program and reserve component recruiting programs. The 
     authority will be used sparingly and the cost is neglegible. 
     These recruiting functions result in more motivated recruits, 
     decreased attrition in the programs while recruits finish 
     school, and referral sources for future recruits.

                      TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                     Subtitle A--Financial Matters

       Section 1002. Section 2608 of title 10, United States Code, 
     (the Defense Cooperation Account) currently authorizes the 
     acceptance of contribution of money and real or personal 
     property for any defense purpose. The amendment would allow 
     the United States to accept housing or other services on the 
     same basis that real or personal property now can be 
     accepted.
       Section 1003 would amend section 101(b) of the Sikes Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 670a) to authorize the transfer of fees collected 
     on a military installation for hunting and fishing permits. 
     Under the Act, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to 
     carry out a program involving wildlife, fish, game 
     conservation and rehabilitation for each military 
     reservation in accordance with a cooperative plan mutually 
     agreed upon by the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of 
     Interior, and the appropriate state agency. The plan may 
     authorize commanding officers of reservations to act as 
     agents of the state concerning and collect fees for state 
     hunting and fishing permits. The fees would be retained 
     locally and used only for conservation and rehabilitation 
     programs agreed to under the plan. Subsection (b)(4)(B) of 
     the Sikes Act provides that the fees collected may not be 
     expended except for the installation on which the fees 
     were collected. Many military installations are now being 
     closed and the Act does not address the disposition of 
     fees that have been collected for these installations. 
     This section would authorize the transfer of those fees to 
     another open installation for the conservation and 
     rehabilitation purposes expressed in the Act. The section 
     would impact on Treasury receipts. The funds are modest 
     but valuable on individual military installations.
       Section 1004 would amend section 3342 of title 31, United 
     States Code, to allow DoD disbursing officials to cash checks 
     for U.S. Federal credit unions operating at DoD invitation in 
     foreign countries where contractor-operated military banking 
     facilities are not available.
       Italy and Spain historically have not permitted U.S. 
     military banking facilities to operate within their borders. 
     Although certain U.S.-chartered Federal credit unions have 
     been allowed to operate branches in those countries at the 
     invitation of the DoD, often they have obtained operating 
     cash through DoD disbursing officials. That practice must be 
     discontinued because it has been determined to be beyond the 
     scope of the disbursing official's authority under title 31 
     of the United States Code.
       U.S.-chartered Federal Credit union branches in Italy and 
     Spain currently provide the most comprehensive and accessible 
     U.S.-style retail financial services for military 
     installations in those countries. Without these credit 
     unions, military and civilian personnel assigned in Italy and 
     Spain might be denied U.S.-style retain financial services. 
     Accordingly, this is a significant and urgent quality-of-life 
     issue. Although title 31 currently authorizes disbursing 
     officials to cash checks and provide exchange services for 
     Government personnel, those services do not approach the 
     range of services the credit unions can provide. Furthermore, 
     Service resources already are stretched to such an extent 
     that generally it is not feasible to devote disbursing 
     officials to the enormous task of cashing checks for 
     individuals. It is more efficient simply to sell cash to the 
     credit unions and allow them to provide retail financial 
     services.
       This amendment is of equal import to each of the services 
     in order to maintain accessible banking services on all 
     installations overseas.
       Section 1005. Subsection (a) of this section amends section 
     204(b)(4) of the Defense Authorization Amendments and Base 
     Closure and Realignment Act (title II of Public Law 100-526, 
     as amended; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) by replacing the reserve 
     account established in the United States Treasury with the 
     Commissary Surcharge Fund or a Department of Defense 
     nonappropriated fund account designated by the Secretary of 
     Defense, as applicable. It also eliminates the requirement 
     for an advance appropriation before funds placed in this 
     account are expended.
       Subsection (b) of this section makes conforming amendments 
     to section 2906 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment 
     Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510, as 
     amended; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).
       Subsection (c) of this section makes conforming amendments 
     to section 2921 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510, as amended; 10 U.S.C. 
     2678 note).
       Subsection (d) of this section defines the term 
     ``proceeds'' to be consistent with the amount currently 
     available for expenditure for the Base Closure and 
     Realignment account without further appropriations action.

                     Subtitle B--Civilian Personnel

       Section 1010 would amend section 1595(c) of Title 10, 
     United States Code, to add a new paragraph (4) to include the 
     English Language Center of the Defense Language Institute. 
     This would have the effect of correcting an earlier omission 
     (the English Language Center should have been added with the 
     Foreign Language Center) and allowing the Secretary of 
     Defense to employ civilians and prescribe faculty 
     compensation. The English Language Center currently is 
     severely restricted in classifying job positions and 
     providing appropriate faculty compensation. This is having an 
     adverse impact upon our ability to recruit, develop and 
     retain English-as-a-second-language instructors in 
     fulfillment of the DoD security assistance mission, to 
     include the key English language training component of the 
     Partnership for Peace program. By revising the authority of 
     section 1595, the English Language Center will be allowed, as 
     the Foreign Language Center, National Defense University, and 
     George Marshall Center currently are allowed, to establish a 
     personnel system that truly meets their need to establish job 
     series that correspond with their mission and to 
     compensate faculty accordingly.
       There are no cost implications with this amendment.
       Section 1011 would amend section 1595, title 10, United 
     States Code, to authorize the Asia-Pacific Center for 
     Security Studies to employ and compensate its civilian 
     faculty, including the Director and Deputy Director.
       The proposal would authorize the Secretary of the Defense 
     to appoint, administer and compensate the civilian faculty of 
     the 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, U.S. Pacific Command. The center's mission is to 
     facilitate broader understanding of the U.S. 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 U.S. 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 legislation and authority available to the 
     Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Command, civilian faculty 
     for the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies must be 
     appointed, administered and compensated under title 5, United 
     States Code. This means 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 does not allow the center to hire non-U.S. citizen 
     academics from international institutions. Legislation is 
     required for the Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Command to 
     utilize title 10 excepted service authority to appoint, 
     administer and compensate the center's civilian faculty.
       Section 1595, title 10, United States Code 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.
       Enactment of this legislation will not increase the 
     budgetary requirements of the Department of Defense.
       Section 1012. Currently, article 143(c) of the Uniform Code 
     of Military Justice (10 U.S.C.

[[Page S3398]]

     943(c)) authorizes the United States Court of Appeals of the 
     Armed Forces to make excepted service appointments to 
     attorney positions in the same manner as appointments are 
     made to other executive branch positions of a confidential or 
     policy-determining character. This proposal would extend the 
     authority to cover appointments to non-attorney positions 
     established in a judge's chambers which presently are made 
     under the Schedule C, excepted service authority of 5 C.F.R. 
     213.3301 for positions of a confidential or policy-
     determining character. This would consolidate the court's 
     appointing authorities and eliminate the administrative 
     efforts currently required to obtain U.S. Office of Personnel 
     Management approval for any new or changed position in a 
     judge's chambers. As a note, Schedule C authority is 
     automatically revoked upon vacancy, thereby requiring 
     approval of both the position establishment and appointment.
       Under this proposal, the United States Court of Appeals for 
     the Armed Forces could make appointments to attorney 
     positions established in the court and to non-attorney 
     positions established in a judge's chambers. The non-attorney 
     positions established in a judge's chambers would include 
     such positions as personal and confidential assistant, 
     secretary, paralegal, and law student intern which provide 
     direct, confidential support to a judge These positions are 
     relatively small in number (i.e., typically would not include 
     other non-attorney positions outside a judge's chambers for 
     which employment in the competitive service remains 
     appropriate. The proposal is cost neutral since the 
     administrative paperwork in terms of the number of positions 
     envisioned is not significant; however, a more timely 
     and streamlined process will result.
       Section 1013. Section 1032 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106; 
     110 Stat. 429) requires the Secretary of Defense to convert 
     10,000 military positions within the Department of Defense to 
     civilian positions. A military position is one noted as being 
     authorized to be filled by a member of the Armed Forces on 
     active duty.
       The Secretary of Defense is cognizant of his management 
     requirements and of the costs of military personnel vis a vis 
     civilian personnel. Because of the unique activities and 
     operations of the Department of Defense, many positions 
     require the skills, experience, and knowledge of members of 
     the Armed Forces. The Department has an optimum balance of 
     military and civilian manpower in its current structure, and 
     any non-programmatic numerical adjustment will only serve to 
     upset that balance.

             Subtitle Miscellaneous Reporting Requirements

       Section 1020 would amend Section 10541(b)(5)(A) of Title 
     10, United States Code, to delete the requirement to break 
     out the full war-time requirement of each item of equipment 
     over successive 30-day periods following mobilization. The 
     requirement to show the full war-time requirement and 
     inventories of each item of equipment will remain in law. 
     Under current war planning methodology to respond to multiple 
     major regional contingencies, a fixed approach employing 30-
     day increments is no longer applicable. In the post-Cold War 
     environment, the requirement for flexible design and 
     employment of responses renders rigid 30-day increment 
     planning out of date.
       Section 1021. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to 
     amend the statutory requirement for an Annual Report on 
     Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) programs to reflect the 
     current Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) mission.
       The Annual Report to Congress provides congressional 
     committees with an assessment of the progress of the 
     Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) in fielding a 
     ballistic missile defense and a road map that BMDO intends to 
     follow for the future. The statutory provision, which 
     prescribes an Annual Report, requires the BMDO to report on 
     actions that are no longer pertinent to the direction of the 
     BMD program and the current world situation. This proposed 
     legislation would amend those requirements to reflect the 
     current mission of BMDO.
       Sections 224(b)(3) and 224(b)(4) require that the Annual 
     Report to Congress detail objectives for the planned 
     deployment phases and the relationships of the programs 
     and projects to the deployment phases. The deployment 
     phases were germane when the SDI was developing a system 
     to be fielded in phases, with each phase (after phase 1), 
     designed to offset expected Soviet countermeasure and add 
     to U.S. ballistic missile defensive capabilities. The 
     current focus of the BMDO program is to field improve 
     theater missile defense systems and maintain a technology 
     readiness program for contingency fielding of a national 
     missile defense. The concept of phased additions to offset 
     Soviet countermeasures and provide large incremental 
     improvements to U.S. ballistic missile defense 
     capabilities no longer exists.
       Section 224(b)(7) requires an assessment of the possible 
     Soviet countermeasures to the SDI programs. With the demise 
     of the Soviet Union and the shift in focus of the BMD program 
     to fielding theater missile defense systems, this requirement 
     is no longer applicable.
       Section 224(b)(9) and 224(b)(10) require details on the 
     applicability of SDI technologies to other military missions. 
     The missions addressed have largely become the primary focus 
     of BMDO and reporting how SDI technologies could be applied 
     to other military missions is no longer relevant. These two 
     subparagraphs should be repealed, as they are redundant with 
     reporting the status of today's BMD.
       Enactment of the proposed legislation will not result in 
     any increase in budgetary requirements. Our analysis of the 
     costs incurred and the benefits derived is that this 
     legislation is budget neutral.
       Section 1022 would repeal the requirement at 10 U.S.C. 
     2706(c) for the Department to submit an annual report to 
     Congress on its reimbursement of environmental response 
     action costs for the top 100 defense contractors, as well as 
     on the amount and status of any pending requests for such 
     reimbursement by those same firms.
       The Department recommends repeal of this statutory 
     reporting requirement because the data collected are not 
     necessary, or even helpful, for properly determining the 
     allowableness of environmental response action costs on 
     Government contracts. Moreover, the Department does not 
     routinely collect data on any other categories of contractor 
     overhead costs. As a minimum, if repeal is not feasible, the 
     law should be amended to limit data collection to the top 20 
     defense contractors, which would still capture most 
     environmental response action cost reimbursements by DoD.
       This reporting requirement is very burdensome on both DoD 
     and contractors, diverting limited resources for data 
     collection efforts that do not benefit the procurement 
     process. Not only are there 100 different firms involved, 
     but for most of these contractors, data must be collected 
     for multiple locations in order to get an accurate 
     company-wide total. Contractor personnel at these numerous 
     locations must collect the required data (which is not 
     normally categorized in this fashion in contractor 
     accounting systems); the cognizant DoD administrative 
     contracting officers must request, review, assemble, and 
     forward these data through their respective chains of 
     command; the Defense Contract Audit Agency must validate 
     the data submitted; and the Secretary of Defense's staff 
     must consolidate this large amount of data into the 
     summary report provided to Congress. We estimate that more 
     than 20,000 hours of contractor and DoD effort were 
     required to prepare the Department's February 6, 1995 
     report.
       In addition, the summary data provided to Congress in the 
     February 6, 1995 report did not show large amounts of 
     contractor environmental response action costs being 
     reimbursed on DoD contracts. For overhead rate proposals 
     settled in FY93, the DoD share of such costs was 
     approximately $6 million for that year's top 100 defense 
     contractors; while for FY94 settlements, the comparable 
     figure was approximately $23.6 million--with $17.9 million of 
     that being attributable to the settlement of a single long-
     standing, multi year dispute at one contractor location.
       Section 1023 would repeal the requirement at 10 U.S.C. 2391 
     note (Section 4101 of Public Law 101-510) that the heads of 
     appropriate Federal agencies promptly notify the appropriate 
     official or other person or party that may be substantially 
     and seriously affected as a result of defense downsizing.
       This provision requires that notices be sent to a long list 
     of officials, persons or other parties if: (1) the annual 
     budget of the President submitted to Congress, or long-term 
     guidance documents, or (2) public announcements of base or 
     facility closures or realignments, or (3) cancellation or 
     curtailment of a major contract will have a serious and 
     substantial affect. Determining every community, business and 
     union that may be significantly adversely affected by any of 
     these actions is almost impossible to accomplish. The 
     information does not exist to determine every city, county, 
     state, company and union that may be significantly adversely 
     affected by any action taken under one of the three 
     categories listed in the law. In addition, recipients may be 
     unnecessarily confused by potentially incorrect notices 
     because the budget of the Department that is passed by the 
     Congress is very different from the budget that the President 
     submits. Also, the Department can not predict the 
     actions that every company or community may take in 
     response to Congressional funding decisions. One budget 
     action may have offsetting affects of another budget 
     action and only the community or the company will be able 
     to determine a best course of action. The decision not to 
     fund military construction in one community versus another 
     may have an adverse employment affect. Attempting to make 
     these determinations means that some notices may be sent 
     incorrectly for events that never happen and some places 
     and groups will be left out--both events causing 
     considerable unnecessary stress and disruption to the 
     cities, towns, companies, families and individuals that 
     receive them. The intent to provide places and people with 
     advance notice and information about Defense-prompted 
     employment declines can not be accomplished fairly and 
     equitably by this requirement and therefore, should be 
     repealed.
       This section would also repeal the notification requirement 
     (section 4201 of Public Law 101-510) that the Secretary of 
     Defense provide the Secretary of Labor information on any 
     proposed installation closure or substantial reduction, any 
     proposed cancellation of or reduction in any contract for the 
     production of goods or services for the Department of Defense 
     if the proposed cancellation, closure, or reduction will have 
     a substantial impact on employment. The current requirement 
     is that large prime or subcontractors

[[Page S3399]]

     notify the Department of Defense whenever a downsizing action 
     of the Department will have a substantial and serious adverse 
     employment impact. This is a burden to the Department and its 
     contractors.
       Since the requirement to implement this provision has been 
     in place in the Federal Acquisition Regulations in 1992, 
     there have been only four notifications made by contractors. 
     The requirements of the law are confusing, overlapping, and 
     narrowly defined. Many worker reductions are not in response 
     to Department of Defense actions but rather are as a result 
     of the overall downsizing of the defense industry. Many 
     contractors have multiple contracts with the Department of 
     Defense. Although some contracts may be canceled, others may 
     be increasing thereby offsetting the adverse affects of a 
     particular cancellation. Only the company can make the 
     decisions about necessary work force requirements. Such 
     decisions often are not tied to a specific action such as a 
     particular cancellation. The statutory requirement is not 
     resulting in the advance notice requirements being made 
     regarding layoffs.

             Subtitle D--Matters Relating to Other Nations

       Section 1025 would change section 401 of title 10, United 
     States Code, to authorize the Department of Defense to:
       To use funds appropriated for Overseas Humanitarian, 
     Disaster, and Civic Aid to cover the costs of travel, 
     transportation and subsistence expenses of personnel 
     participating in such activities and to procure equipment, 
     supplies and services in support of or in connection with 
     such activities.
       To transfer to foreign countries or other organizations 
     equipment, supplies, and services for carrying out or 
     supporting such activities.
       Such changes would allow the Department of Defense to 
     continue to carry out its humanitarian demining program, one 
     of the unified commanders' most visible and cost-effective 
     peacetime activities. The program is particularly important 
     given the worldwide attention that has been focused on 
     landmines and the need to remedy their effect on civilian 
     populations in affected countries.

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters

       Section 1030. The Department strongly supports the policy 
     objectives of Chapter 148, National Defense Technology and 
     Industrial Base, Defense Reinvestment, and Defense 
     Conversion. As noted in Industrial Capabilities for Defense, 
     forwarded to Congress on September 29, 1994, the Department 
     has initiated a coordinated effort to identify and analyze 
     industrial concerns, and ensure technology and industrial 
     issues are effectively integrated into its key budget, 
     acquisition, and logistics processes. However, the Department 
     believes that the objectives of Chapter 148 would best be met 
     by performing the analyses and establishing only the 
     organizations necessary to support the Department's key 
     budget, acquisition, and logistics processes. Therefore, the 
     Department is proposing the following changes.
       Subsection (a) amends section 2502 of title 10 by revising 
     the responsibilities of the National Defense Technology and 
     Industrial Base Council (NDTIBC) to conform to our proposed 
     amendments to section 2505 below.
       Subsection (b) amends section 2503 of title 10 by deleting 
     various references to the National Defense Technology and 
     Industrial Base Council and section 2506 periodic plans; (2) 
     deleting subsections (a)(2), (a)(3) and (a)(4) dealing with 
     administration of the National Defense Program for Analysis 
     of the Technology and Industrial Base and coordination 
     requirements; and (3) deleting subsection (b) dealing with 
     supervision of the program.
       Subsection (c) amends section 2505 of title 10, 
     establishing specific requirements for Department of 
     Defense technology and industrial capability assessments. 
     In particular, it requires the Secretary of Defense to 
     prepare selected assessments through fiscal year 1998 to 
     attain national security requirements, and describes the 
     scope of the required assessments. This subsection also 
     requires that such assessments be fully integrated into 
     the Department's resource planning guidance.
       Subsection (d) amends section 2506 of title 10 to 
     substitute revised language which requires the Secretary of 
     Defense to issue guidance to achieve national security 
     requirements. It also requires Departmental senior-level 
     oversight to ensure technological and industrial issues are 
     integrated into key budget decisions. Finally, it requires a 
     Department report to Congress on its implementation of 
     industrial base policy.
       Subsection (e) adds a new section 2508 to title 10 which 
     requires an annual report to Congress, for 2 years commencing 
     March 1997 to enable Congress to monitor technology and 
     industrial issues. The report would include descriptions of 
     the Department's policy guidance, the methods and analysis 
     used to address technological and industrial concerns, and 
     assessments used to develop the Department of Defense's 
     annual budget; it would also identify any programs designed 
     to sustain essential technology.
       Subsection (f) amends section 2514 of title 10 to remove 
     the requirement for the Secretary of Defense to coordinate 
     the program to encourage diversification of defense 
     laboratories with the National Defense Technology and 
     Industrial Base Council.
       Subsection (g) amends section 2516 of title 10 to place the 
     responsibility with the Secretary of Defense for establishing 
     the Military-Civilian Integration and Technology Advisory 
     Board.
       Subsection (h) amends section 2521 of title 10 by removing 
     subsection (b) which refers to the relationship of the 
     National Defense Manufacturing Technology Program to the 
     National Defense Technology and Industrial Base Plan.
       Subsection (i) makes conforming repeals of sections 4218, 
     4219, and 4220 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484; 106 Stat. 2315).
       Subsection (j) makes clerical amendments.
       Section 1031 would amend Title II, Section 204(b) of the 
     Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and 
     Realignment Act of 1988 (Title II of Public Law 100-
     526, U.S.C. 2687 note), as amended by Title XXIX of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994, 
     Public Law 103-160 by restoring inadvertently eliminated 
     provisions of then-subparagraph (3), which in considerably 
     more extended language provided the Defense Department the 
     basic authority for inter Service and similar transfers of 
     real and personal property. The 1994 deletion from the 
     1988 Act was an inadvertent technical legislative drafting 
     error.
       Section 1032. A primate research complex has existed at 
     Holloman Air Force Base for several decades. It originated as 
     an Air Force laboratory supporting the named space program 
     which is what generated the requirement for chimpanzees. It 
     was later operated under contract. The complex consists of a 
     number of buildings and facilities located generally on two 
     separate but relatively close sites on the base. The main 
     structure and the center of the complex is the recently 
     completed facility constructed with $10,000,000.00 in federal 
     grant money provided through the General Services 
     Administration. Virtually all the chimpanzees are housed in 
     the new facility. Because the facility is only a few years 
     old, and because there is no other available facility to 
     house the Air Force owned chimpanzees, it is impractical to 
     remove the laboratory from the base at this time.
       The Air Force has not had a requirement for its chimpanzees 
     for at least two decades but has had no significant expenses 
     in maintaining them because they were maintained by the 
     operating contractor at no cost to the Air Force. The 
     contractor used them for scientific and medical research and 
     as part of the National Institutes of Health breeding program 
     for chimpanzees. The breeding program is responsible for the 
     growth in the Air Force owned population over the years.
       The current lease provides that any chimpanzees born to Air 
     Force owned animals will become the property of the lessee, 
     not the Air Force. Consequently the Air Force population will 
     not grow; however, the long life of chimpanzees will 
     guarantee the colony will survive for decades to come. The 
     legislation will remove a substantial liability to the 
     Government. The chimpanzees, because of their general age and 
     past use in research, have no significant value as a colony. 
     Estimates the Air Force has received indicate that the only 
     alternative to continuing their current use is to retire them 
     presumably at Government expense. The cost of such retirement 
     has been estimated from tens of millions of dollars up to 
     $100,000,000.00. Nevertheless, if a qualified and capable 
     offeror is willing to assume the care and maintenance of the 
     chimpanzees and the facilities, at no cost to the Air Force, 
     there is no reason to refuse such an entity the option to 
     compete for the facilities and chimpanzees.
       Subsection (a) of this section authorizes the Secretary of 
     the Air Force, on a competitive basis and without regard to 
     the requirements of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949, to dispose of, at not cost, all 
     interests the Government has in the primate research complex 
     and Air Force owned chimpanzees located at or managed from 
     Holloman Air Force Base. The underlying real property is 
     excluded from transfer. The laboratory was largely built with 
     Government grant funds. The current lessee and operator of 
     the laboratory is the Coulston, Foundation, a not-for-profit 
     entity. The laboratory's location within the Base makes it 
     impractical to create a privately owned enclave inside the 
     Base boundaries by excessing the underlying real property.
       Subsection (b) conditions the conveyance by requiring the 
     recipient to utilize the chimpanzees for scientific research, 
     medical research, or retirement of the chimpanzees and 
     provide adequate care for the chimpanzees. The Air Force 
     owned chimpanzees were originally obtained and later bred for 
     scientific and medical research and the new facility was 
     funded for continuation of these purposes.
       Subsection (c) provides standard language for a survey to 
     establish the legal description of the property conveyed.
       Subsection (d) provides the standard language that the 
     Secretary may require such additional terms as necessary to 
     protect the interests of the United States.
       Section 1033 would amend section 172 of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993. Section 172 
     requires the Secretary of the Army to establish a Chemical 
     Demilitarization Citizens Advisory Commission for each State 
     in which there is a low-volume chemical weapons storage site 
     and for any State with a chemical storage site other than a 
     low-volume site, if the establishment of such a commission is 
     requested by the Governor of the State. The Secretary must 
     provide a representative to meet with the commissions to 
     receive citizen and State concerns regarding the Army's 
     program to dispose of lethal chemical agents and munitions.

[[Page S3400]]

       Currently, section 172 requires the representatives to be 
     from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army 
     (Installations, Logistics and Environment). However, that 
     office no longer has the responsibility for this program. 
     That amendment will allow the Secretary of the Army to 
     designate the representative to meet with the commissions 
     from the office with current responsibility for the program, 
     the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, 
     Development and Acquisition).
       Section 1034 would amend section 172 of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993. Section 172 
     requires the Secretary of the Army to establish a Chemical 
     Demilitarization Citizens Advisory Commission for each State 
     in which there is a low-volume chemical weapons storage site 
     and for any State with a chemical weapons storage site other 
     than a low-volume site, if the establishment of such a 
     commission is requested by the Governor of the State. The 
     Secretary must provide a representative to meet with the 
     commissions to receive citizen and State concerns regarding 
     the Army's program to dispose of lethal chemical agents and 
     munitions.
       Currently, section 172 requires the representative to be 
     from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army 
     (Installations, Logistics and Environment). However, that 
     office no longer has the responsibility for this program. 
     This amendment will allow the Secretary of the Army to 
     designate the representative to meet with the commissions 
     from the office with current responsibility for the program, 
     the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, 
     Development and Acquisition).
       Section 1035 would amend section 1044a of title 10, United 
     States Code, to authorize all judge advocates of the Armed 
     Forces, adjutants, assistant adjutants, and personnel 
     adjutants, and all other members of the Armed Forces 
     designated by regulations of the Armed Forces, to include 
     members of the Coast Guard, to have the same notary public 
     authority without regard to whether they are on active duty 
     or performing inactive duty for training. All law specialists 
     of the Coast Guard are lawyers. Under the current law, 
     National Guard judge advocates and other otherwise authorized 
     personnel do not have the general powers of a notary public 
     while serving on annual training or on Active Guard and 
     Reserve duty in a full-time National Guard duty status, nor 
     do National Guard and Reserve judge advocates, adjutants, and 
     others have such powers when not in a formal duty status. 
     This amendment would authorize such powers regardless of duty 
     status.
       Reserve and National Guard judge advocates and Coast Guard 
     law specialists are asked to perform notarial acts, both on 
     and off duty, and to assist members of the Guard and reserves 
     in preparing for mobilization and deployment. These judge 
     advocates and law specialists are often in a position to 
     prepare and execute Powers of Attorney and Wills at their 
     private offices or at the command where the soldier is 
     located, which may be distant from a military facility. Under 
     the present statute they may not do so unless on active duty 
     or performing inactive-duty for training.
       Under the present law, civilians question the 
     notary authority and request verification of duty status 
     in order to assure compliance with section 1044a before 
     accepting the Power of Attorney or other notarized 
     document. The service member often has no way of 
     reasonably discovering the whereabouts of the judge 
     advocate or law specialist and cannot provide such 
     information, resulting in rejection of the document. This 
     proposal will bring uniformity and flexibility among the 
     services in this area and be less confusing to the 
     civilian community. It will eliminate litigation, 
     especially in cases involving wills.
       Subsection (b) would ratify notarial acts performed prior 
     to the date of enactment of this section by persons 
     authorized notarial powers under this amendment, provided 
     such acts have not been challenged or negated in a formal 
     proceeding prior to the date of enactment.
       Section 1036 would shift the office of primary 
     responsibility for all systems of transportation during time 
     of war from the Secretaries of the Army and the Air Force to 
     the Secretary of Defense. Such a change is in keeping with 
     the integration of transportation systems in the commercial 
     sector to intermodal methods of shipment. DoD, for efficiency 
     purposes, has established a single manager for 
     transportation, the United States Transportation Command. 
     Activation of the Civil Reserve Fleet in time of war is from 
     the President to the Secretary of Defense to the Commander, 
     United States Transportation Command. The need for the Army 
     or the Air Force independently to assume control of 
     transportation systems for its members, munitions, and 
     equipment, especially to the exclusion of the other services 
     can no longer be justified.
       If enacted, this proposal will not increase the budgetary 
     requirements of the Department of Defense. By amending this 
     section, monetary savings may be realized by authorizing more 
     centralized control of the DoD transportation system.
       Section 1037 would clarify that the period of limitations 
     for the filing of claims before the various Boards of the 
     Military Departments for the corrections of service records 
     (10 U.S.C. 1552(b) of three years, that can be waived by the 
     board ``in the interest of justice'') is not tolled by 
     section 205 of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 
     1940. Section 205 of such Act was amended by the Soldiers' 
     and Sailors' Civil Relief Act Amendments of 1942 (section 5 
     of such Act (56 Stat. 770); 50 U.S.C. App. 525). It 
     prescribes that military service is not to be computed in any 
     period limited by law for the bringing of any action or 
     proceeding before a court, board, etc. The recent judicial 
     decision of Detweiler v. Pena, 38 F. 3d 591 (D.C. Cir. 1994) 
     applied the tolling provision to the limitation of section 
     1552(b).
       This provision would overturn that court decision and 
     direct the military correction boards to consider the 
     travails of military service in their findings ``in the 
     interest of justice'' in waiving the limitation period. This 
     result is necessary considering that the boards are examining 
     military records. It underscores the need for a prompt 
     resolution of requests for corrections, especially to avoid 
     multiple successive corrections in the examination of records 
     20 to 30 years after a complained of error.
       Section 1038 would update the statutory reference to the 
     name upon which the Navy's central historical activity has 
     operated for more than two decades. The original term was 
     used in 1949 when the trust fund initially was started. 
     Subsequently, the fund has evolved to include, among other 
     things, the Navy Museum and Navy Art Gallery. This is a 
     technical change conforming the statutory reference to the 
     common title.
       Section 1039. The George C. Marshall Center was established 
     in 1993 to respond to the new security challenges which 
     emerged at the end of the Cold War: e.g., promoting stability 
     in Europe by helping the nations of Central Europe and the 
     former Soviet Union to develop democratic institutions. The 
     Center's formal mission is to foster the development of 
     defense institutions and security structures compatible with 
     democratic processes and civilian control. As its directive 
     mandates, it does this by (1) providing appropriate defense 
     education; (2) conducting research on security issues 
     relevant to the task; (3) holding conferences and seminars on 
     appropriate issues; (4) providing Foreign Area Officer (FAO) 
     and language training; and (5) supporting NATO activities 
     which are directed toward the same end.
       To execute its mission, the Marshall Center conducted 
     programs through three operational components: the College of 
     Strategic Studies and Defense Economics (CSSDE); the Research 
     and Conference Center (RCC); and the Institute for Eurasian 
     Studies (IES). The CSSDE teaches a 19 week in-depth course in 
     English, Russian, and German to future national security 
     leaders in mid-level civilian and military positions from the 
     nations of CE/FSU twice a year. The RCC holds conferences and 
     seminars and sponsors research on issues of importance to 
     current leaders at the ministerial and parliamentarian level 
     from the North Atlantic Community, the nations of the NATO 
     and PfP signatories. The IES trains US and NATO personnel 
     (FAO and language students) who will work in and with these 
     nations in the future. Each element synergistically 
     reinforces the Center's overall objective of reinforcing and 
     accelerating the democratization processes of the security 
     establishments in the CE/FSU nations.
       The work of the Marshall Center continues to receive 
     international recognition. The innovative and ground breaking 
     curriculum that teaches about many forms of democracy and 
     looks at the principles that govern defense organization and 
     management, in both western and the emerging democracies in 
     the Central European and Former Soviet Union nations, is 
     being used as a model for other schools. The Marshall Center, 
     in promoting democratic principles and serving as a forum for 
     promoting democratic principles and serving as a forum for 
     European and Eurasian security and stability issues, clearly 
     provides a service that benefits not only NATO countries but 
     also neutral European nations. Both NATO and neutral nations, 
     recognizing the importance and effectiveness of the Marshall 
     Center, have expressed an interest in contributing to the 
     program. From the Marshall Center academic perspective, the 
     more view points that can be offered, the richer and better 
     the program.
       In 1994, the Marshall Center was given special permission 
     by Congress to accept contributions from the German 
     government under a formal; ``Memorandum of Agreement''. This 
     arrangement is a tremendous success story. The German 
     contribution of both funding and manpower enhances the 
     conferences and research program and hence the prestige and 
     effectiveness of the Marshall Center. Enabling the Marshall 
     Center to accept contributions from other nations would only 
     serve to further enhance the breadth and quality of the 
     Marshall Center program as it works to strengthen U.S. 
     interests and spread democratic values in the Central and 
     Eastern European and Former Soviet Union nations.
       As addressed above, the Marshall Center is an educational 
     institution. In accordance with U.S. strategic interests, it 
     is dedicated to stabilizing and thereby strengthening Post-
     Cold War Europe. Specifically, the Marshall Center provides 
     education to defense and foreign ministries' officials to 
     develop their knowledge of how national security 
     organizations and systems operate under democratic 
     principles. The Marshal Center program recognizes that even 
     peaceful, democratic governments require effective national 
     defenses; that regional stability will be enhanced when 
     legitimate defense and that a network of compatible 
     democratic security structure will enhance the continent's 
     prospects for harmony and stability.

[[Page S3401]]

       The Marshall Center additionally seeks to create an 
     enduring and ever expanding network of national security 
     officials who understand defense planning in democratic 
     societies with market economies and to provide those 
     officials with ever greater opportunities to share their 
     perspectives on current and future security issues. The 
     Marshall Center, with its international faculty and students 
     from over 26 nations, and it active conference program serves 
     as an important forum for discussion of European and Eurasian 
     security and stability issues.
       Unfortunately, the very nations that can be viewed as 
     perhaps the most in need of what the Marshall Center offers, 
     in both education and as a forum for defense cooperation 
     contacts, are excluded from participation. Inviting national 
     security officials from nations such as Bosnia, Yugoslavia, 
     and Azerbaijan to Marshall Center programs would expose them 
     to the very ideas and changes the U.S. is seeking to 
     influence and promote.
       If the U.S. strategic goals of promoting stability through 
     defense cooperation are to be achieved, all the newly 
     emerging governments of the Central and Eastern and States of 
     the Former Soviet Union (CE/FSU) nations must be allowed, 
     even encouraged, to attend and participate in the Marshall 
     Center program. Participation of all CE/FSU nations in the 
     Marshall Center program can only enhance the U.S. objective 
     of increasing the continent's prospects for harmony and 
     stability.
       The Secretary of Defense has requested that a Board of 
     Visitors be established to advise him on Marshall Center 
     programs. Distinguished citizens from both the United States 
     and other nations are being asked to participate without 
     compensation other than remuneration for their travel expense 
     to serve on the Board twice a year. Having to make financial 
     disclosures or foreign registration will discourage their 
     participation and make it extremely difficult in recruiting 
     volunteers with exceptional diplomatic experience.
       Section 1040 would direct the transfer and exchange of 
     lands between the Departments of Army and Interior, which 
     will allow those departments to more efficiently manage their 
     property and also will provide for the orderly development of 
     additional lands for the benefit of Arlington National 
     Cemetery, which currently is slated for closure to initial 
     interments by 2025.
       Subsection (a) of this provision directs the Secretary of 
     the Interior to transfer to the Secretary of the Army lands 
     that are currently under the jurisdiction of the National 
     Park Service (NPS) to the Army for the use of Arlington 
     National Cemetery. On February 22, 1995, the Army and the 
     Department of the Interior entered into an Interagency 
     Agreement for the purpose of ultimately effecting a transfer 
     of these lands. These lands are part of what is known as 
     ``Section 29,'' an area that became part of the National Park 
     System in 1975 when the Army reported the property as excess 
     and transferred it to the NPS pursuant to the Federal 
     Property and Administrative Services Act, subject to a 1964 
     Order by the Secretary of the Army that it be set aside in 
     perpetuity to preserve an appropriate setting for the 
     Custis-Lee Mansion (subsequently renamed the Arlington 
     House, The Robert E. Lee Memorial) and be maintained in a 
     parklike manner.
       Section 29 includes approximately 24.44 acres that are 
     divided into two zones, the approximately 12.5-acre Robert E. 
     Lee Memorial Preservation Zone and the approximately 12-acre 
     Arlington National Cemetery Interment Zone. Because it is 
     unnecessary for the Interment Zone, and possibly portions of 
     the Preservation Zone as well, to be maintained in a parklike 
     manner for the NPS to provide a proper setting for Arlington 
     House, or for the proper administration and maintenance of it 
     and its adjacent buildings as a national memorial, this 
     property may be transferred to the Army for use as part of 
     Arlington National Cemetery.
       Under the Interagency Agreement signed on February 22, 
     1995, the NPS agreed to allow the Army to use the lands in 
     the the Preservation Zone that are suitable for transfer and 
     all lands in the Interment Zone until the transfer is 
     effected, for the purpose of studying and surveying the 
     property and planning for its use as a cemetery.
       Subsection (a) directs the Secretary of the Interior to 
     transfer these lands directly to the Secretary of the Army in 
     accordance with the Interagency Agreement.
       Subsection (b) of this provision directs the exchange of 
     specific parcels of land located in and adjacent to Arlington 
     National Cemetery between the Departments of Army and 
     Interior. This transfer is designed to meet the respective 
     agencies' needs and will provide for the optimum use of these 
     Federal lands.
       Section 1041. The existing language of section 2643, title 
     10, United States Code, subverts the Department of Defense 
     consolidated contracting for overseas transportation and may 
     result in higher overall costs, with less flexibility and 
     control.
       Section 1042. The Sikes Act (P.L. 99-561) permits the use 
     of cooperative agreements to ``provide for the maintenance 
     and improvement of natural resources'' on DoD installations. 
     Similar language is not available to support DoD's cultural 
     resources program.
       Cooperative agreements are an essential instrument used to 
     enter into partnerships with other Federal, State, and local 
     governments, and with nongovernmental organizations to share 
     personnel and fiscal resources for the mutual benefit of all 
     participating parties. Partnership opportunities have been 
     lost or deferred because the Military Departments do not 
     feel they can enter into such agreements for cultural 
     resources management, except for Legacy Resource 
     Management Program-funded projects. Furthermore, the 
     Legacy program was established as a short-term enhancement 
     initiative. A broader, more permanent fix is required to 
     ensure stability and inclusiveness of such efforts for 
     DoD's cultural resources management program.
       New partnership oppportunities would be available with this 
     legislative change. Resource stewardship on DoD lands would 
     be enhanced. This proposal has no fiscal or budgetary impact 
     to the Department of Defense.
       Section 1043 would authorize the President to award the 
     Medal of Honor to seven named African American soldiers who 
     served in the United States Army during World War II. It 
     would authorize the award notwithstanding the time 
     restrictions in section 3744 of title 10, United States Code. 
     Those restrictions require that the award be made within 
     three years of the act justifying the award and that a 
     statement setting forth the distinguished service and 
     recommending official recognition of the service be made 
     within two years after the distinguished service. The Army 
     recently conducted a study of the awarding of the Medal of 
     Honor to African American soldiers during World War II. The 
     waiver of the time limitations for the presentation of the 
     Medal of Honor to the named former soldiers is a result of 
     that study.
       Section 1044 would amend section 2543 of title 10, United 
     States Code, to make permanent the temporary authority the 
     Secretary of Defense had during fiscal years 1992 and 1993 to 
     provide assistance to the Presidential Inaugural Committee 
     and to the joint committee of the Senate and House appointed 
     to make the necessary arrangements for the Inauguration of 
     the President-elect and the Vice President-elect. Section 307 
     of the National Defense Authorization Act for 1992 and 1993 
     authorized the Secetary of Defense to lend materials and 
     supplies, and to provide materials, supplies, and services of 
     personnel, during that period to the Inaugural Committee and 
     joint committee.
       Section 1045 cites a continuing need for military use of 
     the affected lands and sets forth certain definitions.
       Subsection (b) withdraws certain federal lands in Imperial 
     County generally known as the East Mesa and West Mesa ranges 
     from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws, 
     subject to existing rights and certain conditions. The lands 
     would be reserved for use by the Navy in accordance with the 
     current memorandum of understanding between the Bureau of 
     Land Management and the Department of the Navy, and for 
     other defense-related purposes consistent with the 
     memorandum.
       The provision requires the publication and filing of maps 
     and descriptions of the affected lands, gives those maps and 
     descriptions the same effect as if they were included in the 
     Act, and provides for public inspection.
       It would require management of the withdrawn lands by the 
     Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the Federal Land Policy 
     and Management Act and other applicable law, with the 
     concurrence of the Secretary of the Navy. The lands could be 
     managed to permit wildlife protection and management, fire 
     suppression, geothermal leasing by the Department of the Navy 
     and power production and continued grazing. Nonmilitary use 
     could not interfere with military use consistent with the 
     Act. The Secretary of the Interior could issue a lease, 
     easement, right of way, or otherwise authorize nonmilitary 
     use of the lands, with the concurrence of the Secretary of 
     the Navy and under the terms of the cooperative agreement. 
     The Secretary of the Navy would close the withdrawn lands to 
     the public if required by military operations, national 
     security of public safety. Withdrawn lands would be used for 
     purposes other than those specified in the memorandum of 
     understanding, however, the Secretary of the Navy would be 
     required to notify the Secretary of the Interior. Withdrawn 
     lands and minerals within them would be managed in accordance 
     with the existing cooperative agreement, which would be 
     revised as soon as practicable after the enactment of this 
     legislation to implement the provision of the section.
                                 ______

      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Pressler, and Mr. Baucus):
  S. 1674. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 
the applicability of the first-time farmer exception; to the Committee 
on Finance.


                     the aggie bond improvement act

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as you might expect, as I so often do on 
the floor of the Senate, I rise to speak about agriculture because it 
is a very important industry in my State. The legislation that I am 
introducing today, with Senators Pressler and Baucus, is bipartisan in 
sponsorship and changes the treatment of what are referred to as the 
aggie bond provisions of our tax statutes. We call this the Aggie Bond 
Improvement Act.

  This legislation is important because of the changing scene of 
agriculture,

[[Page S3402]]

the inability of young farmers to get started in farming, and 
particularly because today the average age of farmers. In my State of 
Iowa, and I think in most agricultural States, farmers average in their 
upper fifties. In 5 to 6 years we will have 25 percent of the farmers 
retiring. Hence, the necessity for improving programs to encourage 
young people to go into farming is clear. We introduce this bill today 
for with this purpose in mind.
  This legislation will recondition and strengthen the popular first-
time farmer programs administered by various State authorities. These 
authorities issue tax-exempt bonds to finance first-time farmers' 
loans. This combined agriculture and tax legislation enjoys the company 
of a companion bill in the House to be introduced by my colleagues from 
Iowa, Congressman Lightfoot and Congressman Ganske and the remainder of 
the Iowa House delegation. Joining me in our efforts in the Senate, as 
I have already said, are Senators Pressler of South Dakota and Senator 
Baucus of Montana. These two Senators are very interested in the 
problems of agriculture. The problems in their States are similar to 
those in mine.
  We encourage all of our colleagues in the Senate to join us as 
sponsors in this Aggie Bond Improvement Act. Many beginning farmers and 
ranchers utilize low-interest loans authorized by aggie bonds to get 
started in farming and ranching. With the help of State authorities, 
these usually younger farmers must secure a participating private 
lender. This is a Government-private sector partnership. This private 
lender assumes all of the loan risk.
  A Federal law limits the use of aggie bonds for first-time farmer 
purchases and restricts them to a maximum of $250,000 per family, per 
lifetime. I know that sounds like a lot of money to people that do not 
understand agriculture, but with that sort of loan you create one job. 
We are not talking about a massive farming operation with a massive 
amount of hired help. It takes that much capital to create one job in 
agriculture because of the nature of the investment.
  State laws usually impose additional restrictions in addition to 
those that we do in the Federal Government. They might do this from the 
standpoint of net worth, material participation, and residence 
requirements--all very legitimate requirements. Therefore, there is no 
risk of any misappropriation of any underlying tax benefit.
  These State programs present American taxpayers with a new generation 
of farmers to ensure that our grocery stores continue to stock the 
greatest food bargains in the world. However, to fully succeed, the 
States need the improvements offered by this legislation.
  First, cosponsors to this bill will help family members purchase the 
family farm by changing the current rule prohibiting aggie bond 
financing for family member transactions.
  Senators from agriculture States know that the high startup costs for 
farming and the unique expertise required of farmers, cooperate to 
ensure that only the children and family members of present farmers can 
themselves become farmers. Therefore, disallowing aggie bond financing 
for family member transactions has operated as an unintended obstacle 
to the success of aggie bond programs.
  Second, cosponsors to this bill will help more first-time farmers 
become lifetime farmers by allowing more young people to qualify for 
aggie bond financing. Present law disqualifies beginning farmers who 
have previously owned and farmed any parcel of land that is 15 percent 
or more of the median-size of a farm in the same county. Depending on 
the size of other farms in the county, many young farmers cannot 
utilize beginning farmer loans because of this restriction. Therefore, 
this legislation would qualify a beginning farmer who had previously 
owned and operated any farm that is no more than 30 percent of the 
average size of a farm in the same county. In Iowa, this means where 
present law disqualifies an average beginning farmer for having farmed 
only 35 acres, with this legislation, average beginning farmers can 
farm up to 100 acres and still qualify for aggie bond financing.
  Having been a farmer all of my adult life, I can attest that no 
farmer can make a living to support even himself on 100 acres, not to 
mention supporting a family. These persons truly are just starting out 
in the farming trade and desperately need the first-time farmer's loans 
financed by these aggie bonds.
  Mr. President, farm State Senators know the average age of farmers is 
increasing. Presently, our farmers in Iowa average in their late 
fifties. This aging trend is common in every State in this country. 
Last year, the Iowa Agriculture Development Authority--the authority 
that issues these aggie bonds in my State along with comparable 
agencies in about 20-some other States--issued 177 of these loans in my 
State, and nearly 80 percent of the applicants were under 35 years of 
age.
  Truly, there is an aging generation of farmers still on the land who 
would like to retire and there is a younger generation of farmers who 
want to begin. This legislation to improve the State aggie bonds 
programs simply makes the necessary transactions possible. Seeing these 
possibilities, the National Counsel of State Agriculture Finance 
Programs, and a farming organization called Communicating for 
Agriculture, strongly endorse this legislation. It is also important to 
note that the Federal Government shoulders absolutely no financial risk 
in aggie bonds, and their cost, after these improvements, will be 
minimal.
  I urge my colleagues to join me and the other cosponsors of this bill 
in supporting America's beginning farmers.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the legislation.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1674

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

     SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF FIRST-TIME FARMER EXCEPTION.

       (a) Acquisition From Related Person Allowed.--Section 
     147(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     exception for first-time farmers) is amended by adding at the 
     end of the following new subparagraph:
       ``(G) Acquisition from related person.--For purposes of 
     this paragraph and section 144(a), the acquisition by a 
     first-time farmer of land or personal property from a related 
     person (within the meaning of section 144(a)(3)) shall not be 
     treated as an acquisition from a related person.''
       (b) Substantial Farmland Definition Modified.--Clause (i) 
     of section 147(c)(2)(E) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (defining substantial farmland) is amended by striking ``15 
     percent of the median'' and inserting ``30 percent of the 
     average''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to bonds issued after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.
                                 ______

      By Mr. FAIRCLOTH (for himself and Mr. Helms):
  S. 1676. A bill to permit the current refunding of certain tax-exempt 
bonds; to the Committee on Finance.


            the eastern band of cherokee indians act of 1996

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
for the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians in my home State of North 
Carolina.
  In 1982, the Congress passed legislation that would allow Indian 
tribes to issue tax exempt bonds just like other units of governments, 
such as States, counties, and cities. The 1982 act acknowledged that 
Indian tribes are in fact legitimate units of government with wide 
ranging responsibilities.
  Using the act, the Cherokee Indians in my State issued $31 million in 
tax-exempt bonds to purchase the Carolina Mirror Co. The tribal 
leadership viewed the purchase of Carolina Mirror Co. as a means to 
promote jobs and economic development for their tribe and its members.
  In 1986, however, the Congress passed new legislation that narrowed 
the interpretation of the original act so that tax exempt bonds could 
only be used to finance ``essential governmental functions.''
  Mr. President, the Cherokee Tribe in my State would like to take 
advantage of lower interest rates and refinance the bonds. Under a 
``green eye shade'' view of the law, the IRS has ruled that a 
refinancing would be a reissue, and the tribe could not issue tax 
exempt bonds again. By reissuing bonds at a lower rate, the company 
could save nearly $1 million a year--or nearly half of its annual 
profit.
  In my view, this is as great a savings that can be attained for this 
company,

[[Page S3403]]

but for this narrow interpretation of the law.
  The legislation that I am introducing today is a technical bill that 
would allow Indian tribes to refinance tax-exempt bonds issued on or 
before October 13, 1987. This bill has safeguards to ensure that the 
temporary tax-exempt status of the bonds are not taken advantage of. 
Most importantly, this bill would be revenue neutral.
  It is my hope that the Senate could consider this legislation.
                                 ______

      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 1677. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
establish the United States Citizenship Promotion Agency within the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


                 THE CITIZENSHIP PROMOTION ACT OF 1996

 Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, what do Saul Bellow, Itzhak 
Perlman, Elie Wiesel, Elizabeth Taylor, Mikhail Baryishnikov, Alistair 
Cooke, I. M. Pei, Hakeem Olajuwan, Patrick Ewing, and General John 
Shalikashvili have in common? They're all naturalized Americans, people 
who came to our country as immigrants and made major contributions to 
American life after receiving the precious gift of American 
citizenship.
  Naturalization--the process by which a legal immigrant is granted the 
full rights and responsibilities of citizenship--represents the final 
step in a journey toward the American dream, a journey played by the 
rules.
  As a firm believer in the American dream, and as a U.S. Senator whose 
mother became a naturalized citizen, I am pleased to introduce the 
Citizenship Promotion Act of 1996 which will put the ``N'' back in INS. 
This much-needed legislation will reform our current system of 
naturalization so that it can better serve those who want to follow the 
rules and become full participants in American society.
  California has much at stake in improving the current delivery of 
naturalization services due to the high number of immigrants in the 
State who wish to naturalize. The latest surge in naturalization 
applications submitted is nowhere more evident than here. In fiscal 
year 1995, an estimated 1 million people applied for naturalization in 
the United States; over 380,000 of them live in the State of 
California. This is a 500-percent increase over the totals for fiscal 
year 1991.
  Although Doris Meissner, the Commissioner of INS, is actively 
addressing the naturalization backlog, the wait for a naturalization 
application to be processed is still a year or longer in cities such as 
San Francisco and San Jose. Efforts by INS to cut waiting periods in 
heavily impacted cities continue to be delayed by lack of funding and 
outdated agency structures. We owe it to those who patiently follow the 
rules to do better. That is why my legislation is needed.
  The first component of the legislation will create a citizenship 
promotion agency within INS. Headed by a new associate commissioner for 
citizenship, the citizenship promotion agency [CPA] will be responsible 
for carrying out all of the naturalization activities of the INS.
  Currently, the INS lumps responsibility for naturalization with their 
other responsibilities. A separate agency for naturalization within INS 
will not only elevate the importance of the function but it will clear 
up the backlog of applications. The naturalization fees will be used to 
fund the naturalization process only, as they should be.
  My legislation further provides for funds in the naturalization 
examinations fee account to be used for English language instruction. 
Today, there is an overwhelming need for more English language classes 
catering to immigrants trying to naturalize. The current availability 
of such classes is inadequate to meet the growing need for this type of 
instruction. In Los Angeles, for example, more than 20,000 people are 
now on waiting lists for English classes.
  My legislation recognizes that learning English is not only an 
important component of naturalization, but also the key to opening all 
of America's opportunities to our new citizens.
  The CPA will be encouraged to enter into cooperative agreements with 
other Government entities as well as private and nonprofit 
organizations to help carry out its naturalization outreach 
responsibilities. This will help maximize the capabilities of 
organizations that perform valuable naturalization outreach services at 
the local level.
  My legislation also creates a citizenship advisory board to work with 
the Citizenship Promotion Agency. This board will give INS the benefit 
of advice and assistance from people with diverse experiences and 
perspectives on the naturalization process through the issuance of two 
reports a year.
  Many of our most acclaimed Americans have been naturalized citizens. 
This is particularly true in San Francisco and the bay area. For 
instance, Lofti Mansouri, director of the San Francisco Opera is a 
naturalized citizen. Helgi Tommason, the director and choreographer for 
the San Francisco Ballet, is in the process of becoming one. Leo 
McCarthy is a naturalized citizen.
  The last four Nobel Prize winners at UC Berkeley as well as UC 
Berkeley Chancellor Chang Lin-Tien and UC Santa Barbara Chancellor 
Henry T. Yang are all great thinkers and naturalized Americans. Our 
Nation has bestowed the gift of citizenship on them; they have repaid 
our culture and society with the priceless gifts of their knowledge and 
creativity.
  These individuals are not only the leading lights in the bay area; 
they have received accolades the world over for their talents and 
contributions.
  From the people we have invited today, you will hear the stories of 
what they have been through and what naturalization means to them. And 
while all of our naturalized citizens are not famous, many of them 
embody the best of America's traditions and values.

  Take the example of Joyce Cheng, a naturalized citizen who came from 
Hong Kong in 1965 to settle in California's central valley. Ms. Cheng 
worked at her family's restaurant and two other jobs in order to pay 
for her education at the University of California at Berkeley. After 
receiving her degree in sociology, she worked in community service 
agencies and counseled other newcomers in employment and adjustment to 
American life.
  Later Ms. Cheng joined the financial industry and was credited with 
building her bank's net worth tenfold in less than 2 years. In 1988 she 
founded her own successful mortgage loan and financial planning company 
in Oakland which generates millions of dollars in revenues each year
  Ever since she naturalized in 1970, Ms. Cheng has participated in 
every election and helped encourage her community to be active 
participants in the democratic process. She serves on over 20 civic and 
professional boards and organizations.
  Or take Eliana Osorio, who immigrated to the United States from Chile 
in 1963. She overcome the cultural barriers most newcomers face, such 
as unfamiliarity with English, and raised four very successful American 
children. Patricia is a graduate of UC Berkeley and will be attending 
the University of Chicago in the fall to pursue a masters degree in 
public policy. Mrs. Osorio's son is a photographer for the Chicago 
Tribune and a graduate of San Francisco State University.
  Much like Mrs. Osorio, Felisa Lam came to the United States many 
years ago to begin a new life. She came to study accounting and 
remained in America as a legal resident. She founded a printing shop in 
1979, after attending a start-up business conference. After 17 years, 
her San Francisco business, Trans Bay Printing, has grown dramatically. 
Her clients range from major corporations to local community groups. 
Her efforts have not only allowed her to claim a piece of the American 
dream, they have enabled her two children to claim a piece of their own 
by attending Yale University.
  These are only a few short examples of the kind of new citizens who 
enrich our communities throughout the country. They not only 
demonstrate the strong work ethic and family values inherent in most of 
our foreign-born citizens, but also a firm commitment to their civic 
responsibilities as American citizens.
  I am a strong supporter of efforts to regain control of illegal 
immigration. It must be done at the border and in the workplace. But 
that effort should not overshadow other responsibilities of the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service.
  My bill will make needed improvements to the often-neglected function

[[Page S3404]]

of naturalization, acting as an important balance to proposed 
immigration reform and remaining true to the promise of the American 
dream.
  Many of us have directly witnessed the contributions of naturalized 
citizens in our communities and our families. I was fortunate to see in 
my own home, with my own mother, how much a naturalized American 
treasured her U.S. citizenship.
  After my mother passed away in 1991, I found a very special pouch 
that she had left for me. In it were this wedding band and a one-page 
document wrapped in cellophane. It was her naturalization certificate. 
America was her land, her home. Her papers were all in order--but that 
one paper in that separate pouch with her wedding band was the one she 
wanted me to have, and I have saved it to share with her great-
grandchildren.
                                 ______

      By Mr. GRAMS (for himself, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Abraham, and Mr. 
        Stevens):
  S. 1678. A bill to abolish the Department of Energy, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


            THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ABOLISHMENT ACT OF 1996

 Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing the 
Department of Energy Abolishment Act of 1996. I do this on behalf of 
the ratepayers and taxpayers in my home State of Minnesota and across 
America who have handed over their hard-earned dollars for years in 
exchange for a bloated bureaucracy. It is for their sake that we embark 
on this journey to bring real accountability to the Federal 
Government--the first step is the elimination of the Energy Department.
  In 1977, the U.S. Department of Energy, or DOE, was created to 
address the energy crisis which had paralyzed our Nation throughout 
that decade. It was assumed then that the creation of a Cabinet-level 
Energy Department would serve as a preemptive strike against future 
energy emergencies. But I'm sure that no one who served in Congress at 
that time envisioned the problems that DOE would create, rather than 
solve.
  I do not doubt that the DOE was established with good intentions, but 
like many of the relics of the seventies, it has outlived its 
usefulness and public support. And like many of the outdated and 
wasteful taxpayer-funded programs of that era, the DOE should come to 
an end.
  In my opinion, there are three main reasons for eliminating the DOE.
  First, the DOE serves no real mission.
  The DOE was created in response to the energy crisis and to protect 
us from similar emergencies in the future, a noble cause. Yet, the 
problems for which the DOE was established to address never 
materialized. Oil supplies eventually rose while prices dropped. The 
need for a national energy department became less apparent. Even so, 
the DOE continued to grow, with its bureaucrats working overtime to 
justify the Department's existence by branching out into areas only 
marginally related to national energy policy.
  Their effort is readily apparent when you realize that 85 percent of 
the DOE's budget is spent on activities with no direct relation to 
energy resources. The bulk of those dollars go toward the cleanup of 
radioactive waste from nuclear weapons facilities and for overseeing 
storage of our Nation's nuclear waste--programs better suited 
respectively for the Defense Department and the Army Corps of 
Engineers.
  I share the sentiments expressed by former Defense Secretary Caspar 
Weinberger who says: ``The Department of Defense, today, with the 
appropriate leadership and management, is the best place for 
responsibility for the nuclear weapons stockpile in all its aspects, to 
be vested, including clean-up activities. Maintaining a separate chain-
of-command, and all associated overhead in DOE is a costly and 
cumbersome arrangement that we can no longer afford.''
  The DOE is also responsible for national energy research--such as the 
development of alternative energy; promoting energy conservation; and 
ensuring affordable power and access to it by consumers. But after 
nearly 20 years and hundreds of billions of tax dollars, the DOE has 
little to show for it, except a few porkbarrel programs and a lot of 
excuses.
  Second, the DOE has failed to carry out the duties it has been 
handed.
  Perhaps the best example of this failure is the DOE's refusal to 
address the responsibility to accept and store our Nation's nuclear 
waste. There are 34 States, including my home State of Minnesota, with 
nuclear facilities in danger of running out of storage space for their 
spent nuclear fuel. In spite of this impending crisis and the DOE's 
legally mandated deadline of accepting nuclear waste by 1998, it has 
taken no real action in addressing the problem.
  Worse yet, through a surcharge on their monthly energy bills, 
electric utility customers have already contributed $11 billion to a 
nuclear waste trust fund established to create a permanent storage 
facility, nearly half of which the DOE has already spent. But as we 
approach 15 years of inaction on the part of the DOE, the waste still 
sits, posing a potential environmental risk to the people of Minnesota 
and across the country.
  Finally, the DOE is an affront to the taxpayers who are forced to 
watch nearly $16 billion of their hard-earned dollars go each year to 
feed this bureaucratic monstrosity.
  It currently takes 20,000 Federal bureaucrats and another 150,000 
contract workers to carry out the DOE's agenda. Even in the absence of 
another energy crisis like that which led to its creation, the DOE's 
budget has grown by 235 percent since 1977--a particularly alarming 
figure given our current national debt of over $5 trillion.
  In his State of the Union Address, President Clinton declared that 
``the era of big government is over.'' And I agree. What better way to 
carry out this pledge than to start dismantling an agency with no 
mission, no purpose and no legitimate future? That is exactly what the 
Department of Energy Abolishment Act does.
  As this chart shows, our legislation would dismantle the DOE, while 
transferring the legitimate functions of government to other agencies 
and departments. In doing so, it will eliminate DOE's upper-level 
bureaucracy, saving taxpayers an estimated $19 to $23 billion over 5 
years and $5 to $7 billion annually thereafter--a refreshing change for 
the millions of Americans who filed their tax returns yesterday.
  At the same time, it will peel away another level of Federal 
bureaucracy which has grown at the expense, not benefit, of the 
taxpayers, while addressing the future energy needs of this Nation.
  Most importantly, it will send a clear signal to the American people 
that Congress heard their message in the elections of 1994 and is 
prepared to protect the taxpayers by giving them a smaller, more 
effective Government.
  First, the Department of Energy Abolishment Act accomplish these 
goals by immediately eliminating the Cabinet-level status of the DOE 
and creating a 3-year resolution agency to oversee the transfer, 
privatization and elimination of the various DOE programs and 
functions. Then, the legislation sets about dismantling the DOE 
structure.
  Under title I of the bill, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
[FERC] is transformed into an independent agency. This is similar to 
the FERC status prior to the creation of the DOE.
  The pending cases before the Energy Regulatory Administration [ERA] 
are transferred to the Department of Justice with a 1-year resolution 
deadline. Furthermore, the DOJ is instructed to utilize alternative 
dispute resolution whenever possible.
  The activities of the Energy Information Administration [EIA] are 
transferred to the Department of Interior [DOI], which will have the 
discretion of maintaining or privatizing EIA activities.
  The basic science and energy programs within the DOE structure are 
handled in two ways. Those activities not being conducted by the DOE 
laboratory facilities are transferred immediately to the DOI. Once at 
the DOI, the Secretary of Interior has the discretion of determining 
which functions or programs constitute basic research and can recommend 
transfer to the National Science Foundation [NSF] for further study and 
recommendation by an independent science commission which is also 
established to look at the DOE labs.

[[Page S3405]]

  For those activities which are more commercial in nature, the 
Secretary has 1 year to recommend to the Congress a plan for permanent 
disposition of these functions. These activities can then be assumed by 
the private sector, focusing Government dollars toward fundamental 
research initiatives.
  Under title II of the bill, the three defense labs--Sandia, Lawrence 
Livermore, and Los Alamos--are all transferred to the Department of 
Defense under the civilian management and control of a new defense 
nuclear programs agency. The remaining nondefense laboratories are 
transferred to the NSF for review by a non-defense energy laboratory 
commission. The Commission can recommend restructuring, privatization 
or concur with the bills closure language.
  Furthermore, if the commission identifies additional labs or 
functions which are national security related, the commission can 
recommend a transfer of functions to one of the defense labs or a 
transfer of those facilities to the DOD.
  Once the commission has submitted its recommendations, Congress has 
fast-track authority to consider the report and enact the 
recommendations. Failure by Congress to act will result in closure of 
facilities within 18 months of the reports issuance.
  Under title III of the bill, the Power Marketing Administrations 
[PMA's]--Bonneville, Southeastern, Southwestern, and Western--are 
transferred to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The General Accounting 
Office is then instructed to conduct an inventory of the PMA assets and 
liabilities. The GAO is then instructed to perform a study of the 
options available which protect the interests of the current customers 
and taxpayers and submit it to the Congress.
  The Strategic Petroleum Reserve [SPR] and the Naval Petroleum Reserve 
are addressed under title IV of the bill. The SPR is transferred to the 
DOD where a GAO study is ordered to determine alternatives to 
maintaining the reserves. Once complete, the Secretary of DOD has the 
discretion to determine the amount to maintain or sell. The Naval 
Petroleum Reserve, however, is ordered to be sold within 3 years under 
the direction of the resolution administrator. If the sale is not 
completed within this timeframe, the Secretary of Interior is 
instructed to administer the balance of the sale.
  The largest portion of the DOE's budget, defense-related provisions, 
are addressed under titles V & VI of the legislation. All national 
security and environmental management programs are transferred to a 
newly created, civilian-controlled Defense Nuclear Programs Agency 
[DNPA]. This includes stewardship of the weapons production facilities 
and the stockpile.
  The environmental restoration activities at the defense nuclear 
facilities are also transferred to the new DNPA to coordinate ongoing 
DOD cleanup activities. DOE's current cleanup programs have wasted 
billions of dollars with little progress in their efforts at sites such 
as Hanford. This transfer is aimed at refocusing taxpayer dollars to 
cleanup, rather than duplicative bureaucracies.
  Title VII of the legislation transfers the civilian waste program to 
the Army Corps of Engineers. Site characterization activities continue 
at the Yucca Mountain site, and Area 25 of the Nevada Test Site is 
named as the interim storage site. This temporary site is consistent 
with legislation currently pending before the U.S. Senate. Also, the 
GAO is instructed to conduct a study of options for program 
privatization initiatives. These changes to the civilian waste program 
represent the best way to ensure the Federal Government meets its 
obligation to begin accepting waste by 1998.
  The merits and importance of this legislation have been recognized 
not only by Secretary Weinberger, but also by two men who know the DOE 
inside and out--former Energy Secretaries Donald Hodel and John 
Herrington. I am delighted that our legislation has their support, as 
well as the support of the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise 
Institute, and Citizens Against Government Waste.
  I would like to close by quoting Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton 
Friedman who in 1977 likened a national energy agency to a Trojan 
Horse, saying ``[I]t enthrones a bureaucracy that would have a self-
interest in expanding in size and power and would have the means to do 
so.''
  Over the years, we have witnessed Dr. Friedman's prediction come 
true--and all at the cost of hundreds of billions of wasted taxpayers' 
dollars. As a result, the DOE has managed to see its 19th anniversary 
this year. It should not be around for its 20th. It is time to put this 
Trojan Horse out to pasture. 

                          ____________________