[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.
____________________