[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 86 (Thursday, June 19, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H3945-H4069]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 169 and rule
[[Page H3946]]
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1119.
{time} 1424
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 1119) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1998 and 1999
for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe
military personnel strengths for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and for
other purposes, with Mr. Young of Florida in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] and
the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] each will control 1 hour.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence).
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, once again the Committee on National
Security has reported a bipartisan bill that attempts to address many
of the problems facing our Nation's military. H.R. 1119 also reflects
the committee's deep concern over the difficulty in managing the risks
posed by continued forced downsizing and budget reductions.
The fundamental dilemma facing the Department of Defense remains the
same: how to maintain a viable all-volunteer force in an environment
where the number, scope, and duration of military missions, especially
peacekeeping and humanitarian missions, continue to grow while military
forces and defense budgets continue to decline. A long-standing gap
between the U.S. military strategy and resources persists. In fact, it
is widening.
In looking at the challenges to our national security interests over
the past year, the committee has continued to focus on China, an
emerging power, and Russia, a once and perhaps future power. While
neither nation is currently an enemy of the United States, they do
represent the nations most likely and able to amass military power
sufficient to challenge our vital interests.
I support efforts to bolster the democratic process in Russia.
However, Russia's future will be shaped less by our policy than by its
own internal decisionmaking over whether to remain independent and
driven by its own history and character or to form working partnerships
with the United States and the West.
But history has demonstrated that the transition to democracy is
often tumultuous and violent. Russia is a vast yet collapsed empire,
governed by a weak central authority, and armed with an arsenal of
nuclear weaponry. It provides cause for both concern and caution.
China is an emerging power and poses a different problem. I agree
with the Department of Defense's recent report concluding that China's
goal is to become one of the world's great powers. Whether or not an
emerging China becomes an enemy of our country remains to be seen, but
China's strategic goals would appear to be at odds with our Nation's
role and influence in East Asia.
Yet, I believe that the surest way to optimize the chances of an
American strategic partnership with either Russia or China is for us to
continue to be the world's most powerful force for peace and stability
in the world. It would be dangerous and shortsighted to base the United
States' security strategy on the assumption that either Russia or China
will acquiesce to American global leadership indefinitely.
In the post-cold war environment of shrinking military forces and
constrained defense budgets, the imperative to maintain strategic
priorities grows while the margin for error gets smaller. The Committee
on National Security's efforts to begin revitalizing our military
forces will take longer and will involve acceptance of higher risk in
light of constrained resources.
But in truth, the making of strategy has always been a process of
managing risk. The projected real decline in future defense budgets,
assumed by the Quadrennial Defense Review and ratified in the defense
budget agreement, adds to this risk. The QDR has not eased my
skepticism regarding the administration's commitment to a defense
program that properly prioritizes and balances the critical elements of
readiness, quality of life, and modernization.
Secretary Cohen has admitted that the defense posture outlined in the
QDR will allow United States' forces to execute the national military
strategy, but at increased risk. And I pause for emphasis. But at
increased risk. The Secretary also quantified the budgetary risk, the
amount of defense spending required to close the strategy-resources
gap, at approximately $15 billion per year.
While I believe that the annual shortfall is greater than $15 billion
a year, what is most striking to me is the relatively small size of the
shortfall in comparison to the tremendous strategic risk associated
with a failure to address it; $15 billion represents one-tenth of 1
percent of the Federal budget, yet the military's strategic and
political risk of not addressing it are monumental. The risk of
inaction or failure far outweigh the cost of addressing such budgetary
shortfalls.
The Nation's military strategy demands that we maintain forces
sufficient to fight and win two major regional conflicts nearly
simultaneously, for instance, a Persian Gulf-like conflict and a
conflict on the Korean peninsula.
{time} 1430
Yet while the Nation maintains an expansive military strategy, we
continue to cut back on our force structure and reduce our defense
budgets to the point where I personally doubt that we could today
execute another operation like Desert Storm as quickly, effectively, or
with the relatively small loss of life as we did just 6 short years
ago.
We have cut from an 18-Army division since then down to 10, from 57
reserve component brigades down to 42, from 546 naval battle force
ships down to 346, from 16 aircraft carriers down to 12, and from 36
Air Force fighter wings down to 20.
In 1990, the Nation built 20 more ships, while this year we will
build only 4. In 1990 we bought 511 tactical aircraft, but we will buy
only 53 this year. And 7 years ago we approved construction of 448
tanks, while today we are authorizing zero, none.
We will not always be able to count on the backing of allied
coalitions as we did in the gulf when it comes to protecting our vital
national interests, nor should we assume that our next adversary will
allow us time to build up our forces in a benign environment for 6
months before the outbreak of hostilities.
As our forces and resources decline, the Nation's risk still grows.
We would all prefer to be raising and maintaining military forces
capable of an unquestioned response to challenges anywhere in the
world, rather than struggling to manage budgetary, military, and
strategic risk with no margin for error. In this context, H.R. 1119
reflects the attempt of the Committee on National Security to address
serious shortfalls in the effort to mitigate risk in a resource-
constrained environment.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1119 provides $268.2 billion in budget authority
for Department of Defense and Energy programs for fiscal year 1998.
This figure is consistent with the fiscal year 1998 budget resolution
and represents an increase of $2.6 billion over the President's
request. The bill provides $3.3 billion more than the current fiscal
year 1997 spending which, when adjusted for inflation, represents a
real decline of 1.3 percent. This is not an increase in spending.
I will leave discussion of the many important initiatives in the bill
to my colleagues on the Committee on National Security, who have worked
hard since February to get us to this point in the process.
In particular, I would like to recognize the hard work of the
subcommittee and panel chairmen and ranking members. Putting this bill
together requires a lot of coordination and teamwork, which I have
consistently been able to rely on.
I would like to also personally thank the gentleman from California
[Mr.
[[Page H3947]]
Dellums], the committee's ranking Democrat, for his contributions. He
is a strong advocate not only for his personal position, but for the
role of the minority in a process that continues to produce a
bipartisan bill.
Mr. Chairman, this bill, I might add, was reported out of the
committee by a bipartisan vote, 51 to 3.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the staff. We have a
small staff relative to the size of the committee and the magnitude of
our oversight responsibilities. The work gets done only through great
expertise, dedication, and effort.
Mr. Chairman, I urge strong bipartisan support for this bipartisan
bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, as the ranking Democrat of the
House Committee on National Security, I rise to offer the following
observations on the bill, H.R. 1119, and the process that brought this
bill to the floor for consideration today.
First, Mr. Chairman, let me congratulate the distinguished gentleman
from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], the chairman, who returned the
committee to its bipartisan moorings. Not only did he and I work
cooperatively on a number of issues within the committee, but the staff
that serves the minority party were included in much more deliberative
deliberations that led to the crafting of the committee consideration
and recommendation and the report.
I have appreciated the gentleman's openness to my discussions, both
substantive and procedural, Mr. Chairman, as well as the receptivity of
the majority staff to inputs that our side made on important issues
contained in this bill and in this report.
Despite, Mr. Chairman, the successful resolution this morning on the
question of the rule, and for that I would like to thank the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Solomon] and the leadership for working with this
gentleman and this side of the aisle, I remain concerned that we are
moving forward much too rapidly on the consideration of the bill, H.R.
1119.
There are numerous issues, Mr. Chairman, in this bill, ones deserving
much more study before we proceed to consideration, and ones deserving
of more time for debate than the rule has provided. Given the time,
this gentleman will work as diligently as possible to ensure that as
much explanation and illumination of these issues as is possible will
indeed occur.
On procedure, Mr. Chairman, let me also note for the Record, and it
is not unusual, that I did not and cannot support the committee report.
As the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] noted, a broad
bipartisan vote reports this bill from the Committee on National
Security. Therefore, I do not claim at this moment to speak for all the
Members on our side of the aisle regarding their support of this bill.
Despite this caveat, we will have the opportunity to hear from my
colleagues on this side of the aisle, the ranking members of the
subcommittees, on their views as to what transpired within their
subcommittee jurisdiction that led to the bill being reported from the
full committee.
Mr. Chairman, some Members may have read my dissenting views in the
committee report. For those who have not, let me offer my thoughts in
an effort to frame the debate from the perspective of those who think
we have failed, Mr. Chairman, to completely align our military
structure and its operations with the new requirements and
opportunities that are emerging into the next century.
I have said on more than one occasion, Mr. Chairman, that we are now
in a new era, an era so special that we have no real name for it. We
call it the post-cold war era, an era fraught with the need for changes
and transition and uncertainty, fraught with great challenges but yet
with great opportunities.
One of my frustrations with the rule was its failure to include my
amendment proposing that the Congress express its sense that the
national security strategy of the United States contains elements far
beyond and equally important to the funding of the departments charged
with executing the military portion of this strategy.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that this post-cold-war era has ushered in an
opportunity for us to redefine a new national security agenda. Let me
propose the following question: If we took whatever resources necessary
to develop the most powerful military force that the human mind could
conceive, and our society simultaneously was deteriorating culturally,
socially, politically and economically, question: What are we
defending?
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, one of the extraordinarily vital national
security interests must be a healthy, vibrant economy and a well-
educated, well-informed, well-trained citizenry capable of engaging the
economic and social institutions of our society. That has implications
for what we spend to educate our children, retrain our dislocated
people, house our people, protect and preserve the environment, provide
for health care.
If our Nation is not a vital national security interest, what are we
out there building this extraordinary military apparatus for? This is a
moment in the context of change and challenge that we can redefine.
That is one element.
A second element, Mr. Chairman, is an engaged foreign policy. Martin
Luther King probably said it best when he said that peace is more than
simply the absence of war; it is the absence of conditions that create
war, that give rise to war.
And what gives rise to war? It is hunger, malnutrition, violation of
human rights, denial of democratic principles, lack of sustainable
economics, regional instability, brought on by man's inhumanity to man.
So, our foreign policy must engage the world. We are a major
superpower. We are the last superpower standing, and our foreign policy
should engage the world, commit it to democratic principles, human
rights, economic development, stability in regions around the world. We
should stand for something. And our foreign policy and our foreign
assistance act should engage, and that account should be adequately
funded.
Third, we should have a properly sized, properly trained, properly
equipped military to meet the realities of a changing world as we move
into the next millennium. All I have argued for is that there be
balance in these accounts. Let the debate go forward. What should be
the investment in our society as a vital national security interest?
What goes into creating a healthy, well-educated, well-trained
citizenry? What goes into creating a vibrant economy? How much money
should we invest and engage in foreign policy that ends up precluding
war, which at the end of the day, Mr. Chairman, is much more cost-
effective in terms of human life and economic resources than waging
war. Preventing war.
And fourth, we ought to have an honest debate over what is a properly
sized, properly trained, properly equipped military. I did not come
here to guarantee that my point of view should necessarily prevail, but
this is the people's house. This is a place where we should debate and
deliberate openly, so we should have a discussion over these matters.
These are significant issues here.
The American people are saying the world has changed. They know
viscerally that the cold war is over. They know instinctively that
there is no more Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact. They know intuitively
that in this changing world we do not need to spend as much money on
our military. But we need to be honest and open with them, not engage
in 30-second scare tactics, but use the brilliance and the genius of
our minds to talk about these issues substantively.
I do not have to win, but let us just make it all fair. But rushing
this bill to the floor that spends $260-plus billion, that is an
incredible amount of money at an extraordinary time when we can say to
our children and our children's children that there is need to go in a
different direction.
Some may agree or disagree with me, but I think we stand on the
threshold much less of waging major war in the world than we are of
engaging in peacekeeping, peacemaking, peace enforcement, humanitarian
assistance, low-intensity conflicts.
But I have no locks on truth. Other people may have different points
of
[[Page H3948]]
view, but let us engage each other in a debate that is dignified and
respectful and thoughtful. But we rush to judgment.
{time} 1445
``Let me buy your weapons system. You buy mine.''
Billions of dollars buying yesterday's technology, mortgaging into
the future. We had a great discussion about mortgaging the children's
future.
We will have an opportunity in the course of this debate, for
example, to look at the B-2 bomber, a program that was not contemplated
in this 5-year budget agreement that we marched to the microphones and
told America we balanced the budget. In the 5-year budget agreement, we
established the parameters of the budget for 5 years. Now people want
to walk into that budget what the Congressional Budget Office has
defined as a $27 billion program, of which nearly $14 billion will be
spent in the 5 years.
One does not have to be a Ph.D. in economics to understand that if we
signed onto a 5-year budget deal that did not contemplate a $27 billion
weapons system and we are going to put that $27 billion dollar weapons
system within the context of that 5-year budget agreement, something
has got to go out. One does not have to be brilliant, no great genius.
One can be a fool or a knave and come to that determination. We need to
grapple over what is proper and what is appropriate.
I have been here now in my 27th year. It is fascinating, Mr.
Chairman. This is the first time that my colleagues are going to be
forced to have to choose which weapons system, which direction, what
policy shall guide us at this moment. But in the past, you scratch my
back, I scratch yours, I buy your plane, you buy my ship, you buy my
this, you buy my that. Now the world is different, Mr. Chairman. I have
been waiting almost 27 years for this moment to come when everybody has
got to get honest, everybody has got to walk up to the table, and we
have got to start looking at each other eyeball to eyeball to talk
about where we are going. I am saying this is an opportunity for a new
national security agenda and that ought to frame the nature of this
debate. The only thing that is framing the debate now is the 5-year
budget agreement. But we are charged with the opportunity of developing
a new national security agenda.
Mr. Chairman, I applaud the committee in its retreat from an ABM
Treaty busting approach to missile defenses. The last several years
many of our colleagues were hell-bent to develop a national missile
defense system that challenged the ABM system, the ABM Treaty. I have
always argued that any time one moved to abrogate a treaty, when we are
holding the public trust, when we have fiduciary responsibility for our
children and our children's children, we ought to walk in a very
fragile manner when we start to talk about moving beyond treaties. In
this bill, I am pleased that we have sort of retreated from that.
I believe that it is implicit embraced, this bill, of the
administration's beefed up 3-plus-3 missile program, seeks to
accelerate a program for which the requirements, and, Mr. Chairman, as
my colleagues well knows, and its capabilities have yet to be
demonstrated. We have spent billions. Requirements have not been
demonstrated. Capabilities have not been demonstrated. We stand on the
verge of spending too much too fast in a quest for defenses against
threats that remain remote and manageable by other strategies in the
near future. If that is true, slow down the train and let us start to
talk about these matters before we spend so much money.
How often do we go home in our town meetings and talk about wasting
money, moving too fast, not throwing money after a problem? This bill
is a classic example of this. We need to stop and America needs to
pause from whatever it is doing and look at this and see what it is we
are doing and become informed and engaged in a discussion that affects
their lives and the lives of their children and their children's
children. This is not just this gentleman. It is far beyond that.
Mr. Chairman, the committee report also raids environmental cleanup
accounts in the Department of Energy designed for use to clean up the
most critically contaminated sites in the United States. Do my
colleagues know why? To finance the acquisition of this additional
hardware. What a shortsighted approach. There is broad alarm at what
this portends, as the additional views of the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. Spratt] illuminate eloquently in the committee report.
We cut $2.6 billion from the Department of Energy request, a big
chunk of that the environmental cleanup. For what reason? To buy more
hardware, to buy more planes, to have more money for more
modernization, rather than grappling with what are the realities. Do my
colleagues think the American people do not want these sites cleaned up
that were contaminated with goodness knows what? But we took money from
there. ``Well, that's enough. We're going to build more weapons
systems.''
America needs to know that. We need to discuss this out in the open.
And if the people want that, this is democracy, I stand with democracy,
but at least let us have an open discussion on it. The reductions in
the cooperative threat reduction funding, the whole pot of which is now
threatened by the Solomon amendment made in order by the rule, pursue a
strategy of being penny wise and pound foolish.
Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, the cooperative threat reduction
funding program, euphemistically known as Nunn-Lugar funds, to date
what has transpired as a result of spending these few dollars on
cooperative threat reduction? The safe removal to secure facilities of
more than 3,300 strategic nuclear warheads from missiles. Three
thousand three hundred nuclear warheads in the context of the former
Soviet Union have now been moved to safe facilities. We were spending
$300 billion per year prepared to wage war with the Soviet Union. Yet
for a handful of dollars with the Nunn-Lugar program we have removed
3,300 nuclear warheads.
I daresay most of our children do not know this. Many of the American
people do not know this. In darkness and in areas where there is lack
of knowledge, then we can do these things, we can make reductions,
because people do not know. But maybe if they knew, they would say,
``Wait a minute. If there is one program you ought to fund fully, it is
this program.'' If it is that cheap to remove nuclear weapons that
threaten the lives of our children, then why would we want to cut that?
For what reason? Build some more weapons.
Mr. Chairman, finally, I want to urge all of my freshman colleagues
and my sophomore colleagues who make up a huge percentage of this
institution, a big number, the freshman and sophomore Members, come,
pay attention to this debate, engage. Because they are the future, the
new Members of Congress here. Many of us old heads, Mr. Chairman, we
have been knocking heads with each other for over a quarter of a
century. Many of us know these issues backwards and forwards. We can
say ditto to your last year's speech and vice versa. But the new
Members must engage this process so that there is some healthy new
energy into this debate.
I am prepared to be a man of change. The cold war is over. Let us
move on and get ourselves out of the narrow confines of ideology and
viewing the world through the narrow prism of ideology. Take off old
paradigms, think fresh, think anew, think real, think young, think
change. New people, engage. You have not had the repeated opportunities
enjoyed by many of us to discuss and debate these issues.
These should be viewed as challenging matters because we are getting
ready to commit half of the discretionary resources of the U.S.
Government to programs that will be stabilizing or destabilizing,
wasteful or required, redundant or critical. These are the decisions we
have to make. Engage this process. Knowing the issues and voting in the
best interests of all of the elements of our national security strategy
will hopefully be the hallmark of the debate and votes yet to come.
A final comment. Out of all of these things I have said, Mr.
Chairman, first I appreciate the work of my distinguished colleague,
the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence]. We have now returned to
a sense of bipartisanship. We sort of lost our way there for a while. I
appreciate that. We have worked together. There are politics that
divide us, but as long as there is
[[Page H3949]]
an atmosphere that our national security agenda ought to be bipartisan,
let us fight out the issues.
The second point that I simply make is that I think there is a rush
to judgment to bring this bill to the floor to the tune of $260 some
odd billion. If we cannot slow down when we are getting ready to spend
$263 billion, what will make us slow down? $270 billion? $300 billion?
$1.5 trillion? What makes you stop and think? We have had more debate
on bills that contain a microscopic amount of money, but the issue was
so controversial we talked for days. But when it comes to an issue that
has such dramatic and profound impact, we move with great alacrity and
great speed. Why? Because the faster we run it through, the less it
gets looked at. And the less it gets looked at, the easier it can get
worked on.
I get paid to be right here. I have been frustrated all year, Mr.
Chairman. This is my one time when we can stop. I will take my vitamins
and drink my tea and we can have at it and stay here for several days
and debate this matter. Hopefully, the American people will turn off
the drama programs, what have you, and the talk shows and focus in on
the real talk show, the real drama, the real educational channel, the
real place where we make life-and-death decisions, right here.
Sometimes it is even the comedy station because we can get funny around
here, too.
But this is a serious set of issues. Maybe if we took enough time and
the American people started to focus, we could do it in such a manner
that we could be educative.
Mr. Chairman, with those remarks, it is my hope that we can open this
discussion with vitality and energy.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Hunter], chairman of the Subcommittee on Military
Procurement.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. Spence], the great chairman of our full committee, for
his wonderful leadership. I want to compliment the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dellums], the ranking member, for his tireless energy
on the other side and his great attendance at our marathon hearings
that went in some cases into 7, 8 o'clock at night. He had good
endurance. And to my great friend the gentleman from Missouri from [Mr.
Skelton], I thank the gentleman for working as a partner on this very
important committee and to all of my colleagues who are a part of this
committee, I think it is the most bipartisan committee in the House,
and I think we did good work.
Mr. Chairman, I want to engage with some of the propositions that the
previous speaker put out. Let us review the bidding. Where are we on
the big scale? This century we have undertaken a series of cycles that
America, this great democracy, tends to go through.
After World War I, we referred to that war as the war to end all
wars. We hear that phrase recurring now after the cold war is over. We
call it the post cold war period. The implication is there is not going
to be any more wars. But my colleague, the gentleman from California
[Mr. Dellums], mentioned something that I think hits the heart of the
matter. He said, ``These are uncertain times.'' If we follow history,
we should meet uncertain times with preparedness.
It has been mentioned that every capital ship that was used in World
War II had the keel laid before World War II, before the attack on
Pearl Harbor. That means that we have to be prepared for war, and the
best way to deter war is to be prepared for it, and the best way to win
one when we have it is to be prepared for it. I do not think we are any
smarter today in terms of intelligence than we were in the 1920's when
we did not see World War II coming, than we were right after World War
II, we had an army of 9.8 million people, and a few years later on the
Korean peninsula we were pushed down the peninsula by a third-rate
military. That is because we did not know what was going to happen.
I have reviewed the words of Louis Johnson, then Secretary of
Defense, and they sound a lot like President Clinton's leadership in
the military now. They talked about a small core, changing fat into
muscle, getting people out of their desk jobs and into the field. Only
Omar Bradley really told it like it was in 1950, 4 months before the
Korean war started when he said that we could not win a major war with
what we have right now.
Here is what we have done, Mr. Chairman. We have cut the Army since
Desert Storm from 18 Army divisions to 10. We have cut our Air Force
from 24 fighter air wings to 13. We have cut our air power almost in
half. And we have cut the Navy from 546 Navy ships to 346 ships.
Even President Clinton says we have to modernize and increase the
modernization budget to $60 billion. That is not the gentleman from
South Carolina [Mr. Spence], the chairman, that is not me, that is not
other members of the committee. That is the President of the United
States.
{time} 1500
And he had that on his blueprint; this year we were going to spend
$60 billion giving good equipment to our troops. But we did not go into
it.
As we walked down and got closer to and closer this fiscal year we
went from $60 billion to about $55 billion. Then it was $48 billion,
then $46, and when the rubber meets the road it is $42 billion, meaning
that our men and women in the military do not have the right equipment,
they do not have the best equipment they could possibly have because we
have short changed them.
And, Mr. Chairman, let me tell my colleagues in 1985 we spent $404
billion in today's dollars, in 1997 dollars, on defense. Today we are
spending about $258 billion. That means we have cut on an annual basis
$140 billion out of the defense budget. That is where most of the cuts
have come for the Clinton administration.
But we did the best we could do with very little resources to try to
bolster the military. We asked military leaders, we asked President
Clinton's leaders to come in and tell us what their unfunded priorities
were. They used to tell us that in private sessions in back rooms, but
our great chairman, our great chairman, said we are not going to do
that any more, we are not going to let editors call this pork and say
it is stuff that the military did not want because it is not on the
record. So he made them go on the record. He said ``You come tell us
what you need in written form that's not funded,'' and they did that to
the tune, this year, in excess of $10 billion that the President did
not put in the budget for them and that the budget deal did not
include.
So in fixed wing aircraft and helicopters and track vehicles and
ammunition, in small arms, we have tried to provide more, about $2.9
billion more in the procurement budget, $3.9 billion more in the
procurement budget than the President had. I think we did a pretty good
job with limited resources, and our motto should be, be strong, be
prepared, these are uncertain times.
This is a good bill, and I hope everybody will support it.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguish
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton].
Mr. SKELTON. I thank my friend and colleague from California for
yielding me this time. First let me compliment him on two fronts. The
first is the framing of the debate so well regarding the three aspects
of national security: domestic, foreign policy and the properly sized
military, and, second, I would be remiss if I did not complement the
gentleman on his eloquence because this Chamber through the years has
seldom heard such persuasive and eloquent words as we hear from our
friend from California, and I salute him for that.
Let us look at these elements very briefly in the time that we have.
I think it is absolutely right; what are we defending?
Then, on the domestic front, we have the grandest civilization ever
known in the history of mankind. That is what we are defending, and we
have interests all over this world, whether they be moral interests, or
whether they be trade interests or other economic interests. So we must
maintain a strong domestic pattern in our life.
Second, the foreign policy. As my friend from California says, we
must be engaging in the world, and we engaging in the world. I think we
are doing a fair job of that, whether it be by diplomacy, or whether it
be by military,
[[Page H3950]]
whether it be by economics, whether it be by trade. We are the sole
surviving superpower, and our foreign policy has brought us to that
point.
I might say that regarding diplomacy the need for the third element
is very apparent. To back up diplomacy from time to time it is
necessary to have an adequate and strong military. Otherwise the words
spoken are empty.
Third, and this is the primary reason we are here today, on having a
proper sized military. Now of course everyone looks at it, I suppose,
through our own individual eyes and through the eyes of the people we
represent. Maybe the installations are the factories that we have in
our own part of the country. But it is a broader issue than that. We
must have a properly sized military that is capable of protecting this
country and capable of protecting our interests throughout the world.
Our interests throughout the world, of course, include precluding
war, keeping the peace, because we know so full and well that small
conflicts develop into major conflicts. I think the QDR, the
quadrennial defense review, has the strategy right, and it looks at
shaping and responding and preparing. Actually it is a broader strategy
than that put forth by our late friend, Les Aspin, which was limited to
two major regional contingencies. This one, I think, is more on
balance.
So I suggest in using the words of my California colleague, let the
debate go forward.
Had this debate taken place in this Chamber, had this debate taken
place in the French Parliament, had this debate taken place in the
Parliament of the United Kingdom in the 1920's, the second world war
might well have been averted because we know from history that all
three of those countries, particularly the United Kingdom and France,
allowed their military to slip drastically. It was the late George C.
Marshal as a major in the Army, gave a speech here in Washington to a
small education group one day, 1923 when he decried the doing and
undoing of those things for national defense, and he put the finger
right on the Congress of the United States. And, my colleagues, under
the constitution the buck stops with us in Harry Truman's words. We
under article I section 8 are charged with raising and maintaining the
military and charged with establishing the rules by which they shall
live. That is our job.
So I welcome this debate, and I compliment my friend for engaging in
it. Looking into the future is like a kaleidoscope, we do not know what
the next pattern is going to be, but we know the pieces of which it is
made. I think our major challenge in the military is keeping good
people. We have operational tempo that is high on keeping families
happy and keeping a stability. A stability means a stable budget. We
are blessed with the weapons systems that others do not have when they
be satellite GPS's, global positioning systems, smart weapons or
stealth technology which is so very important as reflected by the B-2
bomber and by the F-117 which did so well in the gulf war.
We must look to the future in the light of what our friend has said,
to protect the grandest civilization we have, to develop and keep that
engaging foreign policy that is successful and to have a properly sized
military that George Marshal did not have, that France did not have,
that Great Britain did not have. So in the days ahead we will have a
more peaceful and a better opportunity for those young people who grow
and follow in our footsteps.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Bateman].
Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on
National Security for yielding this time to me and appreciate the
tremendous job that he has been doing.
I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1119, the National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 1998. After an extensive series of
hearings here in Washington and in field, the Committee on National
Security has reached the conclusion that positive action must be taken
to arrest what we believe to be a decline in the readiness of our
military forces. These concerns were also highlighted in a readiness
report issued by Chairman Spence a few weeks ago, and then in the
interests of time I will not go into specific details of the many
readiness issues that we have brought to light by the committee's
investigation and the chairman's report, but I would urge everyone to
pay close attention to these concerns.
H.R. 1119 begins the process by which we address these readiness
problems. To address many of the issues that I believe have a direct
impact on readiness, H.R. 1119 includes several provisions that get to
the heart of the problem which is how our military leaders report on
readiness conditions of our forces and how our military leaders spend
the funds Congress provides for readiness. To get at the problem of
reporting on the readiness condition of the forces there is a provision
that will expand the number of readiness indicators that must be
reported on to give us a more accurate readiness picture.
To address our current concerns on how readiness funds are used there
is a provision that will require the Department of Defense to report to
Congress before large amounts of money is moved from critical readiness
accounts to other accounts. I believe these and other provisions found
in H.R. 1119 will provide the necessary information so that the
situation continues to decline, we should be in a position to take
action before the system breaks down.
Over the past 2 years this committee identified several areas for
priority attention and provided additional funding. These areas
included real property maintenance, maintenance, depot maintenance,
base operation support and reserve readiness. For the second year in a
row the President's fiscal year 1998 budget request cuts funding in all
these areas to a level below what was provided last year. H.R. 1119
provides additional resources in these and other areas where the
Department of Defense has failed to provide sufficient adequate
funding.
Unlike the previous 2 years, the committee has not received any
additional funding. Therefore to accomplish increases in the
traditional readiness sensitive areas we will have to make some
reductions in the budget request, particularly the accounts that
reflect program growth in excess administrative support. I am convinced
these reductions will not directly affect the readiness capabilities of
our combat forces but will directly affect and improve the day to day
readiness and quality of life for our service men and women.
I would like to thank the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Military Readiness, my colleague the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Sisisky], for his outstanding cooperation, his knowledge, ability, and
leadership through the years. The Subcommittee on Military Readiness
has had to deal with several difficult issues that have transcended
political lines which would have been more difficult if it were not for
his expertise and assistance.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1119 is a responsible, meaningful bill that
appropriately allocates limited resources for the continued readiness
of our military forces. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the
bill.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished
colleague the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Sisisky].
Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my ranking member, and adviser and
other things. Although we do not agree ail the time, I do agree with
his opinions; at least not agree with them, but I do respect all of his
opinions, and I want to thank the chairman of the committee for the
many courtesies that he has shown me and other Members of the minority.
Of course, the chairman of the subcommittee, not many people realize
it, but the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman] has control over some
$90 billion. That is a lot of money for a subcommittee, and I do
respect what he is do doing.
The ranking member, Mr. Dellums, talked about the new national
security agenda, and it just dawned on me, and right after him the
gentleman from California talked about preparedness and talked about
Secretary Lewis Johnson living in the Korean thing. Let me tell my
colleagues an interesting story about myself:
I joined the Navy when I was 17, 1 day before I was 18, and I had
lived through the depression, had not traveled very much, and I wanted
to see the world, and that is why I joined the Navy. I went to a
separation center in Bainbridge, MD. This was in the summer of 1946,
and getting ready to get out of
[[Page H3951]]
boot camp and scheduled to go on a destroyer escort someplace in
California and very excited. Guess what?
The war ended. V-J Day happened. I did not see the world. They put me
back in the separation center at Bainbridge, discharged members who had
come back from the Pacific, 4 and 5 years in the Pacific.
And what was my job and another group of us? Our job was to sign up
these people for the inactive naval reserve, and we, as my colleagues
know, I was a young guy. They just fed me information.
I said, ``We've fought the war to end all wars.'' We were the only
one at that time with the atom bomb, we had almost 10 million people in
uniform, all the equipment, the world is a disaster, do not worry about
it, never be called up, inactive naval reserve.
{time} 1515
I did not sign up, I did not sell myself. But I can assure my
colleagues, in 4\1/2\ years, a lot of people that I signed up went back
to a country that I did not even know existed, to be very honest, and
that was Korea; and for a while we really got beat there.
The point I am making is, even though the agenda, and the gentleman
is absolutely right, the agenda may be different, the agenda is still
the same in the world, and that is be prepared and have insurance.
Now, having said that, in light of the many challenges facing this
Congress, it really is exciting for those of us who have been focusing
on military readiness and quality of life concerns, we had the
opportunity to hear firsthand the views of the personnel who will be
carrying out our military strategy. We received input from general flag
officers, enlisted personnel and in some cases, from family members.
Their responses were as diverse as the population they represented.
I have no doubt that they all had sincere interest in readiness and
quality of life matters and expressed what they thought would be in the
best interests of this Nation and the forces. The Congress and those
military personnel and family members who shared their concerns with us
can be assured that H.R. 1119 reflects their input to the degree that
we could afford.
There is no doubt that our military forces are ready today to face
the challenges that may confront them in the many parts of the world
where the U.S. national interests might be threatened. But I remain
concerned about tomorrow. What will they look like in 18 months or 2
years?
I also remained concerned about the readiness, believe it or not, of
our civilian workers, those dedicated employees who have superbly
served this Nation during times of crisis over the years while enduring
personnel drawdowns and, even worse, continuous rumors about
reductions. Simply stated, the department and we here in Congress have
not given them the attention they deserve.
Notwithstanding their dedication, I am uncertain at this time about
our ability to mobilize a crisis based on how we are managing them
today. My feedback indicates that our civilian employees frequently
feel abandoned because of the absence of security and, yes,
predictability in their status.
Mr. Chairman, we all recognize the difficulty in addressing the
readiness and associate quality of life issues and making tough choices
in this severely budget-constrained environment. And we will talk about
the other parts of the budget constraint with the other amendments, but
we address a number of difficult issues; but in our subcommittee we
could not solve them all. I wish we could have done more.
What we did, Mr. Chairman, was to begin to lay the foundation to
sustain the military readiness we all agree is necessary for today and
tomorrow.
I again express my support for H.R. 1119 and urge my colleagues to do
the same.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], the chairman of our Subcommittee on Military
Research and Development.
(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
the legislation and applaud both the Chairman and the ranking member
for their leadership and the cooperation of our subcommittee chairs and
the ranking members.
There are those in this country who think that we have mistakenly
increased defense spending dramatically. The facts are, if we compare
to what we are spending today to John Kennedy's tenure, and I raise
that point in time because we had relative peace, it was after Korea
and before Vietnam; we were spending 9 percent of our country's gross
national product in the military. We were spending 52 cents of every
Federal tax dollar on defense.
In this year's budget, we are spending less than 3 percent of the GNP
on the military. We are spending 16 cents of the Federal taxpayer
dollar on the military.
Now, in spite of that dramatic decrease, we have to consider the fact
that in John Kennedy's era we had a draft. All of our young people were
drafted out of high school, they were paid less than the minimum wage,
they served for 2 years, they were not married, they did not have
higher education; and therefore, we did not have the quality of life
costs that we have today.
Our troops today are all volunteer. They get better pay. Many of them
are married. They have advanced degrees, they have children, we have
housing, education, quality of life costs that we never had before. So
in spite of reducing defense spending to this lower level, a much
larger percentage of this smaller amount of money is going for quality
of life issues. It is not going for sophisticated systems. And in fact,
I have publicly said that we should cancel some major weapons systems.
But the facts are that the bulk of our money is going to pay for the
troops to take care of the family members who serve this country.
We are hurting right now, because on top of the increased quality of
life costs, the fastest growing portion of our defense budget is in,
guess what? Environmental mitigation. Almost $12 billion this year to
clean up the environment. And on top of that, we have an OPTEMPO
deployment rate that we have not seen for the last 50 years.
We have an internationalist foreign policy with an isolationist
defense budget. We are committing our troops to more locations at
higher costs and not planning for those expenditures, so are taking the
money to pay for those operations out of the accounts to modernize our
forces and to take care of our quality of life issues. And in fact, to
add insult on top of injury, we are even paying the cost of our allies
who come into these operations.
Mr. Chairman, we had a very difficult process. In my subcommittee we
focused on three major 21st century threats that we see emerging, and
we plussed up funding in each area above what the administration
requested. First of all, dealing with weapons of mass destruction,
missile proliferation is our No. 1 concern. In a bipartisan vote, we
plussed it up significantly. We never wanted to see an incident occur
like we saw over in Saudi Arabia where in 1991 we lost a number of our
young kids to a low-class Scud missile.
Second, we increased significantly funds for antiterrorism. So yes,
we can locate those attempts to bring in weapons, not necessarily from
missiles, but sneaking them through our ports. Our committee increased
funding for the third consecutive year in antiterrorism, both in
technology and, more importantly this year, in training first
responders all across the Nation.
Third, we put a new focus on information warfare. When a foreign
adversary can electronically transfer illegally $100 million from one
of our banks, when they can potentially shut down the information
systems of this Nation, we as a Committee on National Security are
coming to the forefront and saying yes, we want our military prepared
for that eventuality as well.
We put $90 million of additional funding in this year's bill over
what the President asked for so that we can help address the issues of
encryption and protection of information systems that could bring down
the economy of our country.
Mr. Chairman, we have done it all. We have done the best that we
could with an impossible budget number. Unfortunately, it is not
enough. I would have liked to have seen us had more money to meet these
threats in a more robust manner. We talk about the cost-effectiveness
of acquisition reform; and
[[Page H3952]]
while the administration talks about that, we drive up the costs of our
program dramatically. But I ask our colleagues to vote in the
affirmative on this very important bill.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished
colleague from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and to my colleague from South Carolina and my good friend, the
gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], I commend the gentleman on the
work product he brought to the floor.
I want to address in the time allotted to me a common misperception
now out in the public and a misstatement that is likely to be made a
number of times before this debate is over, and that is that the reason
this budget is stretched so tight that it is so difficult to come up
with extra funds to do things we would like to do is that the Clinton
administration has not asked for more money for national defense. In
fact, the facts tell a different story.
Last year's budget resolution in the last Congress was the last
blueprint we received from the Republicans on what they would spend on
national defense. That resolution spelled out, budget function by
budget function, what every different function would be funded at. And
for the function we call 050, which is national defense
comprehensively, the Pentagon and the Department of Energy both, the
requests over 5 years, the amount of money allotted to national defense
over 5 years in that budget resolution was $1 trillion 371 billion.
That was the Republican budget resolution which passed the House last
year, 1 trillion 371 billion for the period 1998 through 2002.
When the President sent his budget up this year for that same period
of time, 1998 through 2002, the President requested and proposed
spending $1 trillion 383 billion on national defense comprehensively
over that same 5-year period of time. This is $12 billion more than the
amount of money that was provided in the last budget resolution passed
by the House, which was a Republican-sponsored plan.
This year, this was $12 billion ahead of where we left off. We then
entered into negotiations which the administration fully supported, and
as a result of those budget negotiations, we added $4.4 billion to
function 050, national defense comprehensively.
So through this bipartisan budget resolution, which the Democrats and
Republicans both have supported and the President has blessed and
supported himself, we have added $17 billion more to defense spending
than the Republican budget provided when we adjourned in the last
Congress. That is a significant increment in spending.
The committee, and this is a matter of concern to me also, the
committee has gone beyond that budget agreement and has taken $2.6
billion which were specifically provided for function 053, the
Department of Energy, specifically earmarked to certain programs there
that are necessary for cleaning up the environmental mess that was left
over from 40 to 50 years of building nuclear weapons, taken that $2.6
billion and put it in the Department of Defense instead of the
Department of Energy.
Now, I would be one of the last to say that the money is misspent. It
is being spent on some good programs, on O&M, operations and
maintenance, and on procuring some things that I think add to our
national defense. But in fact, the requirement for these funds, this
$2.6 billion in DOE, will not go away simply because we do not fund it
this year. It is still there. It will come back next year. We have
simply pushed it into the future.
In the meantime, by adding $2.6 billion to the procurement budget and
to an R&D budget, we have started up programs which will not be fully
completed and will not be fully sustained by that $2.6 billion. So we
have generated more demands for funds to complete what we started this
year in the outyears, and that is going to create fiscal problems in
the outyears, as $2.6 billion that we moved out of DOE into DOD.
Frank Raines, the very distinguished and able Director of the Office
of Management and Budget, warned the House in a letter on June 5 that
this funding, taken from DOE and shifted to DOD, violates the
bipartisan budget agreement. And it is bound to come up again in the
conference that we will go to when this bill comes to the floor and in
reconciliation, because we have not settled the problem of what to do
in the future for the problems that are not addressed with this $2.6
billion.
So I say to my colleagues who have participated in bringing this to
the floor, I think on the whole it is a job well done. I commend the
Chairman and I commend the ranking member for working together, but not
every problem has been resolved and some of the rabbits we have pulled
out of the hat to satisfy all of our demands this year will not be
there next year when we try to do the same thing.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado [Mr. Hefley], the chairman of our Subcommittee on Military
Installations and Facilities.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
legislation, the National Defense Authorization Act. In the brief time
that I have available, I want to discuss the key parts of this bill as
they relate to the military construction and military family housing
programs of the Department of Defense.
The Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities, which I
have the honor of chairing, continues to be concerned about the serious
shortfalls in basic infrastructure, military housing, and other
facilities that affect the readiness of the armed forces and the
quality of life of military personnel and their families.
{time} 1530
The budget requested by the administration for fiscal year 1998
continued a pattern of significant deterioration in the funding program
by the Department of Defense for military construction, in spite of the
very clear and obvious shortfalls. The budget request submitted in
February was 16 percent below current spending levels and, in constant
dollars, the administration requested 25 percent less in funding for
military construction for the coming fiscal year than it sought just 2
years ago.
More significant, despite all of the rhetoric we hear from the
administration about the importance of improving the quality of life
for military personnel and military families, the budget request again
this year cut construction funding that directly affects the living
conditions of the very soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines that the
President professes to support.
Military family housing construction, for example, would have been
cut by one-third, $326 million, from current levels in spite of the
fact that 64 percent of the housing is classified as unsuitable.
Barracks construction would have been cut by over $130 million, or 17
percent.
We owe the young Americans and the young families who volunteer to
serve the Nation and defend our freedoms more than that. Just a few
months ago the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs testified before the
Committee on National Security that with regard to housing for the
troops and military families, no one can be satisfied with where we are
today, no one, he said. He asked us to keep the pressure on, and in
this legislation that is exactly what we are trying to do.
This bill puts an additional $750 million toward military
construction. That amount would restore less than half of the
administration's cut to the MILCON top line, but with those funds we
have brought back nearly all of the President's cuts to quality of life
construction.
This bill would authorize funding for 50 new barracks and
dormitories, the construction or improvement of 8,400 family housing
units, six new child development centers, and other quality of life
improvements. It improves public safety and working conditions. This
bill also provides additional funding for important operational
readiness and training facilities for the active and the reserve
components.
The House has always responded to the clear and compelling need of
the military services. This bill reflects a bipartisan consensus on
military construction. I urge the House to keep the faith with the men
and women in uniform, and continue our efforts to improve their living
and working conditions. I ask for the Members' support of this bill.
[[Page H3953]]
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the
gentleman from Missouri for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to encourage my fellow Members to support this
measure. As many other people have pointed out, it does not do
everything that we would like to do. But in a budget environment where,
unfortunately, the only committee in Congress that has had its budget
reduced in real dollars is the Department of Defense, I do believe that
we have done as much good as we could with what we have.
There are certain disappointments that I would like to articulate,
things that I hope that we can address during this session. I will
start by talking about health care for military retirees. Since most of
those people have spent at least 20 years serving their country in the
military, I think they, better than most, understand the chain of
command, who is responsible for what.
Unfortunately, this was not a decision that could be made alone by
the Committee on Armed Services. Unfortunately, the funding for the
program that they have told me they had the most interest in, which is
Medicare subvention, flows through the Committee on Ways and Means,
because the funding for that will have to come out of the Medicare
budget. I am sorry that as of today that committee has chosen not to
act upon this. What I mean by ``acting upon this'' is to create a
program that would allow military retirees over 65 years of age to
continue going to the base hospitals, and then have the base hospital
bill Medicare for that service.
We will get a chance this year. I want to assure the retirees that
when the Medicare portion of reconciliation reaches the House floor,
this will be an effort that I will be a part of to see to it that
Medicare subvention becomes the law of the land. I would hope the
leadership would allow a straight up-or-down vote on this, it is that
important. Because quite honestly, they were the only people in America
who were promised health care, and they are the only people in America
in that age group who are not getting it. That is simply not fair.
One of the other disappointments of this session, but something I
hope we can address in future years, is the inequity of the way pay
raises are granted. For about the past 25 years pay raises have been
granted on a percentage basis, which, if you are a general or a colonel
or an admiral is not so bad, because after all, 2.8 percent of a
general or an admiral or colonel's pay is pretty good pay. If you
happen to be an E-1, an E-2, an E-3, an E-4, and in particular one with
a family, then 2.8 percent of your pay, even as a raise, amounts to
only about $20 or $30 a month. That is not much money, and as a matter
of fact, it would barely buy one box of Pampers for one of your
children each month.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope in the future that we will, as a
committee, seriously study an alternative to give those people at the
lower ranks who occupy better than one-half of the U.S. Marine Corps a
flat rate on the lower scale, to allow them to make a little bit more
money and make a life in the military, a career in the military, a more
attractive option.
Something I am very proud of, we were able to balance the budget this
year in the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, and it was a bipartisan
effort and could not even have been done without the help of many of my
Republican colleagues, was the passage and retention of a very good
program, in fact, the opportunity to expand a program, called Youth
Challenge.
It is a program where at-risk youth, high school dropouts, people
between the ages of 16 and 18 who have dropped out of school, and in
many if not most instances have gotten into some trouble with the law,
but have not yet been convicted of anything, where they are given the
opportunity to get drug-free. They go through a boot camp type
environment for 22 weeks. It is run, I believe, in 15 States, and it
has a 96-percent success ratio.
That means that 96 percent of the over 8,000 young people who
participated in this program have gotten their GED and have gone on to
go to work, further their education, or have joined the military. Some
of them are doing all three by joining the National Guard, continuing
their education, and getting a part-time job to help with their
expenses.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot think of another program in the United States
of America that has a 96-percent success ratio. We have funded this
program at $50 million this year. We have called for an increased
participation on the part of the States, with the understanding that
this allows the Federal dollars to go further, and it is my hope that
every single State in the Union will participate in this great program.
I want to compliment our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Buyer], for taking some steps to lessen the financial blow
to people who are on active duty who are sent away from their families
for training. There have been a number of measures included in this
bill that will lessen the financial blow that they have when they are
separated from their families, because the last thing we want people to
do is actually lose money while they are away from their families.
Mr. Chairman, I would close by saying I would encourage every Member
to support this bill. I think it is the best we can do with the
resources available.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Utah [Mr. Hansen], a very valuable member of our committee who would
probably be a subcommittee chairman, were he not chairman of the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
(Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina
for his courtesy in yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, years ago I walked into this place, and every 2 years I
put my arm in the air and I take an oath to obey the law of the land. I
did that as a city councilman, I did that as a State legislator, and I
notice even the President of the United States has to do that.
In the 1980's we passed a particular law and we called it the base
closing law. In that particular law we said there would be certain
rounds, and how that works is first the people in uniform say what they
need to defend this Nation. Then they turn it over to the Secretary. He
can add or take away. Then he turns that over to a base closing
commission. They have from March to July to look at it. Then they turn
their work over to the President of the United States. The President of
the United States has 15 days.
What does the law say the President of the United States can do? He
can say yes, I accept, or no, I do not accept. If he does not accept,
it goes back to the BRAC Commission.
In this particular instance, in the last round of base closings in
1995, our President, it does not matter if it was Republican or
Democrat, our President elected to add something that is not in the
law. He added a provision that said, however, in two very popular
States with a lot of votes, I will privatize in place. That is not in
the law. In 45 days Congress then has the same right as the President,
accept or reject. I am talking about what happened in the last go-
around.
I have asked for a legal opinion from the Pentagon, tell us if the
President can do that. The chairman signed a letter with me. So far,
Secretary Perry neglected to do that. Secretary Cohen has neglected to
do that. It is amazing, though, that last year Secretary Cohen talked
in great, dramatic terms about how important it was that they do it
right and they follow the law. Now he is in the funny building across
the river, and we will hope that he will obey the law.
What do we have in the chairman's markup this time? We have
provisions and language that will make the President of the United
States obey the law. What is so wrong with obeying the law? I think we
all have to do it.
That language, let me tell the Members briefly what that does. The
language, contrary to what has been floating around this floor and in
these halls of Congress, does not affect any current private contracts.
It does not require work to be moved into the public sector. The
language does not require any service to increase the percentage of
depot workload. The language does not define which weapon systems and
[[Page H3954]]
equipment are core. The language does not preclude further downsizing.
What does it ask them to do? It asks that they bring the bases that
are now operating at this low capacity, that are costing these big
dollars up to the percent and capacity they should have. We asked the
GAO, we said, let us know what this is costing the American taxpayers,
all you folks in America, by this disobeying of the law.
The GAO came back with a figure of $468 million. Then we went to the
Air Force and asked, what does it cost because a certain group of folks
are disobeying the law? They came up with a figure of $689 million
because they are not following the law.
Do we have to downsize? You bet we do, but when we close bases and we
cannot because of political expediency, let us keep this one in
California open, let us keep this one in Texas open, we have to come
down and say, look, everybody has to square their shoulders and do this
right.
The Navy had six depots, they closed three, and they lived with it.
The Air Force should do the same thing, and so should the Army. But for
political reasons, I think it is abhorrent to the American people that
we do this.
Let me say, the people who will be arguing for a certain amendment
around here are in effect saying, it is okay to obey the law if the
benefits inure to me, but if they do not inure to me, you cannot. I
think it is just a wee bit on the greedy side and extremely parochial
when we all say we obey the law.
Let me say it one time, in the base that I represent, and
incidentally I had four and three are closed now, but the last one, I
stood in front of our committee and said, if we come out very last on
the COBRA formula, I will stand up and say, close that base. I mean
that from the bottom of my heart. Yet, when they came out number one,
how come the people who are last now will not say the same thing? That
really bothers me.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Harman].
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I note that the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums]
is temporarily off the floor, but would like to take a second to
commend his opening remarks and him. He always shows incredible
professionalism, passion, and poetry which I believe are unmatched in
this body.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1119, the National Defense
Authorization Act of 1997. I support better defense forces prepared to
fight the next war, not the last one. Unlike some colleagues, I think
we can provide that for less money. We can do this if we make tough
choices to fund weapons that make sense, and to cut weapons, forces,
and infrastructure that do not make sense.
I am proud to have been part of the bipartisan effort to draft this
bill, and want to publicly commend the leadership of the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dellums] and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr.
Spence], the staff, and my committee colleagues.
Mr. Chairman, this bill does much to restore the balance between the
readiness of America's forces, the quality of life of America's service
men and women, and the need to modernize America's forces to deal with
future threats. It supports our commitments to our allies, especially
through joint programs such as the tactical high energy laser program
they have with Israel, programs which are mutually beneficial, reduce
the time required to develop systems, and conserve resources.
It encourages innovative approaches in R&D by rewarding partnerships
between military and commercial enterprises which leverage cutting edge
technologies and save scarce dollars.
{time} 1545
Such cost-sharing partnerships are now routine in the private sector
but the Pentagon, used to the cold war way of doing business, has been
slow to utilize them.
As a member of the task force investigating sexual misconduct, I am
pleased to note that the bill mandates serious study of improvements in
the selection, training and on-the job assessment of all drill
sergeants.
True, the bill does not go far enough in some areas such as
instituting best business practices throughout the department to reduce
infrastructure, ensuring the rights of service women to equal health
care overseas or providing long lead funding for nine more B-2s.
If we are to have a revolution in military affairs that brings to the
Pentagon the best technology, we must first have a revolution in
business affairs to reduce the bloated overhead and help pay for
recapitalization.
We owe it to our service women and the women who are dependents of
service members to ensure that they have access to the same health care
services that are available to CONUS civilian and military
counterparts.
And, Mr. Chairman, we cannot achieve the objectives of the QDR to
shape, respond and prepare without three wings or 30 B-2s, the only
system that can fly great distances, penetrate hostile air space and
deliver massive amounts of munitions on key targets with acceptable,
even minimal risk. Amendments are going to be offered to correct these
deficiencies. I will be offering one and will be supporting the others.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is the bridge between cold war military
forces, cold war ways of doing business and the military of the future.
This bill helps build a military that is less expensive, more effective
and ready for the next war. I urge its support.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Buyer], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military
Personnel.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, let me congratulate the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. Spence] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums]
again for their fine work on this bill.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 1119, the National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 1998. My support stems in no small
part to the fact that the bill addresses major personnel issues like
manpower, pay, compensation, and health care that confront the military
today.
Moreover, H.R. 1119's military personnel titles represent a
bipartisan consensus and commitment to ensuring that the needs of the
military members are addressed directly and effectively.
As the committee began looking at the needs of the people and quality
of life in the fiscal year 1998 defense bill, several major challenges
dominated our focus. Among those challenges were, insufficient military
manpower for the required range of missions and a Quadrennial Defense
Review that prescribed a cut of another 155,000 uniformed personnel; an
enduring picture of distressing financial need being experienced by
military men and women; also increasing difficulties by DOD in
recruiting sufficient manpower of the requisite quality; the
termination of military leave for more than 120,000 Federal employees
who also have volunteered to serve as members of the Reserve
components; and, for a second year in a row, a budget request that
significantly underfunded defense health care programs.
To address these and other issues in this bill, we are working on the
growing gap between military and civilian pay by mandating that
military pay raises be based on a full employment cost index [ECI], and
not the ECI minus a half percent.
We also are requiring the Secretary of Defense to implement a system
of pay and allowance that would prevent the loss of income for military
personnel when they are deployed and authorize $50 million to
facilitate the initiative.
We also are increasing the housing allowance in high cost areas to
ensure that military personnel experience the same amount of out-of-
pocket costs regardless of location.
We also want to continue reducing the out-of-pocket housing costs
toward the goal of having military personnel absorb no more than 15
percent of the cost of adequate housing.
We are retaining the statutory floors on end strength for each of the
services and are also temporarily taking away the 15-year retirement
for one year. We are increasing the funding for military recruiting and
direct a series of reforms to improve recruiter performance and reduce
recruit attrition.
We retain military leave for Federal civilians in the Selected
Reserve and restore the $85 million cut by the President's budget from
the Reserve component budgets. We restore $274
[[Page H3955]]
million to the Defense Health Program, and I appreciate the cooperation
of the Comptroller of Defense on that issue.
We also direct the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on the
feasibility of extending a mail-order pharmacy program to all Medicare
eligible beneficiaries who do not live near a military medical
treatment facility.
In addition, we restore the POW-MIA provisions to the Missing Persons
Act. We also address a range of issues that have emerged during the
subcommittee's and full committee's examination of sexual misconduct in
the military by providing a review of the ability of the military
criminal investigative services to investigate crimes of sexual
misconduct and mandate a series of reforms to drill sergeant selection
and training.
H.R. 1119 would also require an independent panel to assess reforms
to military basic training, including a determination of the merits of
gender-integrated or gender-segregated basic training as a method to
attain the training objectives established by each service.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1119 does many good things for the people who
serve our Nation in uniform. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to
support its adoption.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Ortiz].
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Military Construction, I rise in support of the military construction
provision in the national defense authorization bill, and I would like
to express thanks for the leadership of the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. Spence] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums]
that they have provided throughout the course of these hearings that we
have held.
The bill has $267 million more for military family housing, a
significant increase for the quality of life issues. Despite the fact
that the military has seen significant downsizing, we are still very
concerned about the men and women who serve us in the armed services.
It also contains $117 million more for barracks and dormitories to
house the men and women who protect our Nation including those
stationed overseas.
We all take seriously the obligation to address the quality of life
concerns of our military personnel. How and where they live has a
direct effect on their lives and missions. In fact, of the $750 million
that we added to the administration's numbers, 63 percent is to be
spent on quality of life facilities.
Further funding of $88 million will be spent on facilities like child
development centers, fitness centers and items of that nature.
I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley], chairman of
the subcommittee, who is one of the finest men in this Congress, and
again the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], and the gentleman
from California [Mr. Dellums], thank them for their support. I urge
support of the military construction authorization.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. McHugh], the chairman of our Special Oversight Panel on
Morale, Welfare and Recreation.
Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, let me begin my adding my words of deep
appreciation both to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence],
the chairman of the full committee, and the gentleman from California
[Mr. Dellums], the ranking member, for their very diligent work on this
particular piece of legislation.
As we have heard already, a matter as complex as this brings about
some disagreement. I think it is a tribute to these two gentlemen
particularly but also the entire committee that we have been able to
craft such, I think, a fair and balanced piece of legislation in this
particular bill.
I would like to spend my time, Mr. Chairman, on a portion of the bill
on which I think and I hope we can all agree. That is the provision
relating to morale, welfare, and recreation activities of the
Department of Defense. Let me also add my words of appreciation to all
of the members of the MWR panel, Democrat and Republican alike,
particularly to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan], the
ranking member, for their constructive and always, always bipartisan
participation in the panel's work on H.R. 1119.
The Special Oversight Panel on Morale, Welfare, and Recreation of the
Committee on National Security considered several issues that year that
have significant implications for the military resale system, for
service MWR activities, and, most importantly, for service members and
their families. The panel's goal this year, as it has been in the past,
has been to ensure the health of the military resale system, the
commissaries and exchanges, in such a way that we preserve the benefit
and quality of life for our service men and women who make such great
sacrifices in order to serve us and to serve our country.
Perhaps just as important at a time when we are, as we all know,
under increased pressure to do more with less, the panel has tried to
make the MWR system more efficient and at the same time more cost-
effective. I believe the provisions in this particular bill represent a
significant step in achieving these objectives. I certainly urge my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill for that
reason.
Let me highlight, Mr. Chairman, very briefly some of the more
significant MWR provisions in the bill. First, in partial response to
some of the actions of the department over the last year, we have
included a provision that would tighten up existing merchandise and
pricing requirements at commissaries. Other provisions in the bill make
more rigorous the requirements for brand-name commercial items sold at
commissaries to be acquired noncompetitively and transfer
administrative responsibility for MWR programs to the office of the
Comptroller of the Department of Defense.
We have also increased the financial management flexibility of the
Defense Commissary Agency by expanding the categories of revenues that
may be deposited in that organization's operational account. Finally,
Mr. Chairman, we have included provision giving the department the
authority to go forward with public-private ventures as long as those
activities will benefit MWR activities and its patrons.
By supporting this initiative, Mr. Chairman, all Members of this
House can clearly demonstrate our commitment to the men and women in
uniform. It is a good bill, good provisions. I strongly urge its
acceptance.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
(Mr. PALLONE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the committee for producing what is
an excellent bipartisan effort.
I share the committee's concern regarding the state of Nation's
military infrastructure. The Committee's report on the fiscal year 1998
Defense Authorization bill, expressed concern that military
construction projects at bases across the Nation have been underfunded.
Indeed, the committee was right to add an additional $750 million on
top of the administration's request for military construction.
The committee has done an excellent job in making do with the limited
resources. At Fort Monmouth in Monmouth County, NJ, for instance, the
committee recognized the serious need to rebuild the fort's firehouse.
The existing firehouse, Mr. Chairman, was severely damaged by fire in
1994. Currently, the firefighters who protect the fort's childcare
center, family housing, and high-technology research centers. Live in
and operate out of a housetrailer that does not provide minimum
essential operational and living requirements.
The committee also recognized the need to upgrade some housing
facilities at Fort Monmouth that had not, other than roof and window
replacements, had any major modernizations in 50 years. The importance
of such improvements really cannot be underestimated. Modernizing and
preserving infrastructure must be done not only to ensure our military
personnel live in safe environments, but to ensure they receive, in
exchange for their service, the finest possible quality of life
benefits--and along those lines I am pleased to see the committee
included a 2.8-percent pay raise for military personnel.
Mr. Chairman, like the military construction and personnel sections,
the other parts of the bill were well thought out and developed.
Funding for the operations and maintenance section is at an appropriate
level--a fact I know to be of importance to Fort Monmouth, where
CECOM--the Communications and Electronics Command--the Army's leader in
communications and electronics research, continues to do cutting edge
work.
[[Page H3956]]
Mr. Chairman, I intend to vote for this bill and urge my colleagues
to do the same.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. McKeon], a very valuable member of our committee.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1119, the
National Defense Authorization Act. I thank the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. Spence], the chairman, and the gentleman from California
[Mr. Dellums], the ranking member, for their work in bringing this
product to the floor.
I would like to use my time to discuss an issue of vital importance
that we will be considering as part of this bill. This issue involves
future production of the B-2 Stealth bomber. A lot of people think I am
supportive of the B-2 because it is built in my district and simply is
my responsibility to provide jobs for my constituents. While we all
know that jobs are important, this is not my motivation. At one time it
was, but the more I have learned about the B-2 and its importance to
our defense, the more supportive I have become of this plane.
I think we need to look beyond the short term, beyond the issue of
jobs in our districts, beyond the next election. We need to look down
the road 30 or 40 years from now. What kind of world will our children
and our grandchildren live in during the year 2020 or 2030? Who will
our adversaries be? We can speculate on the answer to these questions,
but we must also be prepared to defend our national security against
whatever happens in the future.
The B-2 bomber is cutting-edge technology that is one of the
cornerstones of our future national defense strategy. Could our future
leaders depend on 70- or 80-year-old B-52's to defend our interests 30
years from now? I do not think so. Since World War I, every time we cut
the defense budget, every time we cut back, we have had to rebuild
again at a cost both financial and at great loss of human life. While
the B-2 was conceived during the cold war, it is not a cold war weapon.
Instead, it is a deterrent. And it is deterrence that helped us win the
cold war and guard our Nation from the threat of outside aggression.
We will have ample opportunity to debate the B-2 as this bill is
considered. We must remember, however, that we have already cut 18 Army
divisions down to 10 and 24 fighter wings down to 13 since Desert
Storm, and we are reducing the presence of U.S. forces overseas.
Authorizing the production of additional B-2's will allow the United
States to compensate for these and other reductions and deter future
aggression.
I respectfully urge defeat of the Dellums amendment and passage of
this Defense Authorization Act.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas [Mr. Ryun], world record holder in the mile event.
(Mr. RYUN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RYUN. Mr. Chairman, as a freshman member of the Committee on
National Security, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1119, the fiscal
year 1998 National Defense Authorization Act. Although hampered by a
limited budget, this bill funds quality of life initiatives,
modernization efforts and reforms to increase efficiency, and cut waste
in the Defense Department.
Unfortunately, the President's request for military construction,
which includes family housing, was 16 percent below current spending
levels. This bill, however, adds $750 million to his request. Fort
Riley and Fort Leavenworth, which are in the Second District of Kansas,
are historic posts that were built over 100 years ago to help open and
expand the American frontier.
{time} 1600
Unfortunately, many of the buildings at the post date from the era
when General Custer left Fort Riley to ride off to the Little Big Horn
battle. Corroding pipes, lead paint, aging plumbing and electrical
systems are some of the problems plaguing these structures. It is
simply not right to require our service men and women to live and work
in these conditions. The Committee on National Security recognizes this
situation and has made military construction a priority in the bill
before us today.
Finally, the committee addressed an issue that I believe in, a very
important one, and that is the issue of active duty end strength. It
maintains our current force levels, and I believe these levels are
necessary to carry out our national security requirements and to be
able to fight two nearly simultaneous major theater wars.
I am strongly opposed to further cuts in the military personnel. Why
am I so concerned about the number of soldiers in today's Army? Well, I
hope these facts will have the impact on my colleagues that they have
had on me.
Today's Army is the smallest active force since 1939. It is at the
highest operations tempo since the Vietnam war. From 1950 through 1989
the United States has engaged in 10 deployments. Since 1990 we have
deployed 27 times just in the Army.
We have asked the Army to do more with less over these past 7 years
and their performance has been exceptional, but as deployments continue
to go up and the size and funding continues to go down, I am concerned
that we will reach a breaking point and that our readiness and
retention will suffer.
I urge support. I believe this is a great measure for the country and
I hope all my colleagues will vote for it.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas, [Ms. Granger], a new Member of this body, the former mayor of
Fort Worth, who is doing a great job.
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
1119, the defense authorization bill. My support comes primarily
because H.R. 1119 reverses the dangerous decline in defense spending
that past Congresses have imposed on America's soldiers, sailors,
airmen, and marines in recent years.
The United States still boasts the finest Armed Forces in the world,
but in recent years we have made our military the bill payer for every
other function of government. Over the past decade, domestic
discretionary spending and entitlement spending have increased over 20
percent in today's dollars. Our Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines have
paid the price for this expansion.
As measured in 1998 dollars, defense spending has declined every year
since 1985, so that we are spending 37 percent less on defense than we
did that year. As measured as a percentage of gross domestic product,
defense spending has fallen to its lowest level since Pearl Harbor.
This decrease in defense spending has also endangered vital
procurement needs. We, as a nation, are spending only one third the
amount on procurement as we did a decade ago. As our military has had
to endure this forced procurement holiday, much-needed modernization
has been constantly delayed.
The Air Force, for example, has been forced to rely on an air
superiority fighter, the F-15, which features technology developed in
the 1960's and 1970's. The rest of the world has been able to catch up
with American air superiority, and the price which will ultimately be
paid if we do not recapture our overwhelming edge, is the lives of our
men and women in uniform, lives which will be spared if we in Congress
make the courageous decision to invest in state-of-the-art technology.
I am a strong supporter of H.R. 1119 because it does begin to reverse
the dangerous decline in military spending. H.R. 1119 recognizes that
we need to continue to invest in state-of-the-art technology which will
keep our superiority on the battlefield alive, state-of-the-art
technology like the F-22 Raptor. Slated to replace the aging F-15, this
fighter combines stealth, supercruise and advanced avionics into its
design and will help preserve our overwhelming edge in the skies, an
edge that has prevented the death by enemy aircraft of our ground
troops.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Jones].
Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank the gentleman
from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] and the gentleman from California [Mr.
Dellums] for their leadership on H.R. 1119.
Mr. Chairman, I have the privilege of representing four military
bases in eastern North Carolina. As a member of the Committee on
National Security, I feel doubly responsible to make sure that our
service men and women are well equipped and trained to fight the right
fight.
[[Page H3957]]
But, Mr. Chairman, I have to question if after 3 years of United
States troop involvement in Bosnia, if it is not time to bring our
troops home. I do not believe that the fall of the Berlin Wall meant
that the United States had to become the world's police force.
We have spent, Mr. Chairman, $7.5 billion to put out the fires of
Bosnia. Our job is done, yet each time an exit strategy is planned,
someone in the administration cries foul.
Mr. Chairman, enough is enough. The Constitution states that Congress
alone shall raise and maintain the Nation's Armed Forces. Later today
we will be debating the Hilleary amendment. By supporting the Hilleary
amendment, Congress can finally take action to assure the safe and
orderly withdrawal of United States troops from Bosnia.
America has met its commitment to Bosnia. It is time to bring our
troops home.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California, [Mr. Cunningham], our Top Gun fighter pilot.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, it was very difficult to leave the
Committee on National Security to go on the Committee on
Appropriations. While I served there, even though we differed in great
amounts, I think there was only one time we came to clash, when I
thought I was being dealt with unfairly, but we have since resolved
that with my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], and
the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], a great chairman, and I
think they have done just about everything they can do with a budget in
a bipartisan way.
But I would say, Mr. Chairman, this budget today, we are going to get
American men and women killed. Men and women are going to die on the
battlefield. They will not be trained and they are not equipped
properly because of this budget.
I am going to support this budget because I feel they have done
everything they can with every ounce and every dollar that they can.
Are they well equipped? No. Let me give my colleagues some examples.
Before we trained to go to Vietnam and Desert Storm we had F-16's to
train us against Mig 29's, Mig 31's, SU-27's, SU-35's. We do not have
those anymore. We do not have the dollars to invest in our adversary
programs. They are gone.
We have post Vietnam A-4's and F-5's to compete with.
Captain O'Grady, when we talk about training, Captain O'Grady that
was shot down in Bosnia, Mr. Chairman, he was not even trained in ACM,
that is air combat maneuvering, because the money was not available to
do that. That is a crime. We send our men and women to war and we do
not even have the dollars to qualify them and train them.
When we say the cold war is over, look what the threat is. The SU-27
is far superior to our F-14's and F-15's. True. We do not have parity.
Our last airplanes we bought, the F-14 and 15, are 25 years old. The
AA-12 missile that the SU-27 carries is far superior to our AMRAAM.
That puts our kids behind the power curve and is going to mean their
death. The F-22, which is stealthy, the F-18, and, yes, the B-2 which
is stealthy, will keep our men and women alive, but yet there are
amendments to cut that.
We need to do more, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Pickett], my distinguished colleague.
Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in support of the bill.
The bill that is reported by the Committee on National Security is
one that does a good job in balancing recognized necessary
modernization, end strength and quality of life issues for our people.
As a member of the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development,
I was very concerned about the technological effort that we are making
to make sure that our forces have a technological edge in any battle
that they might be called into. I think I can reassure everyone here
that the investment accounts that we maintain to ensure those basic
research and development activities have been fully funded.
We must remember that in this budget we are not providing money for
any contingencies. So if our forces are called to go and carry out any
activities outside of their normal training routine, then this has to
come out of their training funds, and an unlevel funding stream is one
of the things that is very disruptive for our military. I hope we can
avoid this in the future, because we find that our military is taking
money out of the maintenance and training accounts to do contingency
operations, and they are not getting these monies reimbursed in time to
keep a level stream of funding for their regular activities.
In the research and development area, Mr. Chairman, I believe that a
great deal has been done in the missile defense program, particularly
with the theater missile defense and also in bringing on line the
required funding for our national missile defense.
Recapitalizing our forces is an absolute necessity. We have to
modernize our weapon systems and make sure that we are prepared for the
events of the future. Capital items like ships and submarines are
expensive, but they are long-lead items. It takes a long time to get
them repaired, built, and operational. We have to make certain that
these are available and that we have the very latest models so that our
forces can be successful on the field of battle in the future.
The tactical Air Force program is one that I believe we have done a
great deal to straighten out in this bill, and I think that it will
ensure air performance and air superiority for our forces.
Mr. Chairman, the most important thing that we have to think about
are our people, and the people are the key to a successful military.
There has been an undue amount of turbulence among our people in the
military. They are concerned about health care, they are concerned
about housing, they are concerned about other benefits like the
military resale system. And with the increasing operations tempo and
personnel tempo, we know that they are being called upon to do more and
more with less and less.
So I think of all the things that we do here today, trying to make
certain that we have adequate provision to make sure that our military
people and their families are taken care of is one of the most
important things that we will be doing.
I believe that the health care issue is one that we have to make
certain that we fulfill our commitments on. The housing issue for our
families is one that we may need to ensure that they have housing that
is adequate and decent in the communities where they are required to
live. And we should maintain all the other programs that are set up to
supplement the income of our military members and to make their lives
as nearly normal as can be with those of our other government
employees.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is one that I think we can all live with in
the future, one that will be a step in the right direction in providing
a balanced program for our military, and I look forward to the other
Members of our body here supporting this very reasonable bill that I
think does a good job for our military people.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, it is difficult in times of peace, or what people
perceive as a time of peace, to prepare for war. During the cold war
and other times it was not difficult to point out to our people the
perils we faced in a very hostile world, and so, therefore, it was not
difficult to sustain a robust defense budget.
In times of peace, people naturally ask, what is the threat? Why do
we need a robust? We need it because, as someone said a long time ago,
if we fail to prepare, we prepare to fail. I think it was Benjamin
Franklin.
History has shown that we continue to commit the same sins. After
every war we always say, this is the end of conflict. The gentleman
from Virginia [Mr. Sisisky] referred to it in his remarks earlier
today. Around the end of World War II, we disbanded in a headlong way
the greatest military that the world has ever known. We came back home,
and tried to get on with our Nation's business.
But we cannot control conflict. Who would have predicted Korea at the
end of World War II? We were caught unprepared for Korea. We were, as
the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] said, pushed all over the
Korean peninsula.
[[Page H3958]]
And, incidentally, we did not win in Korea. We had an armistice. We
drew a line and tried to recoup and let it go at that.
{time} 1615
Then the same thing again, in Vietnam. It is not a matter of if we
will have another war, it is just when it is going to be and where it
is going to be. And our peril and the peril of all our citizens is
great.
I might say that I believe the primary duty of any central Federal
Government is to do those things for people they cannot do for
themselves or that local government cannot do. And national defense is
the Federal Government's primary responsibility. If we are not strong
and do not have a defense that can protect our freedoms and they can be
plundered away.
I am reminded of the gospel according to Mark, when Jesus admonished
the crowd, that ``no one can enter a strong man's house and plunder his
property without first tying up the strong man that indeed the house
can be plundered.''
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished
colleague from Florida, [Mrs. Thurman].
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California
[Mr. Dellums] for yielding me the time.
I really stand here today because, Mr. Chairman, I really want to
highlight and commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] and
the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] for including in this
committee bill a study of a proposal that I introduced to expand the
national mail-order pharmacy program to all Medicare-eligible military
retirees. This mail-order program would ensure the availability of an
eligible pharmacy benefit for all eligible beneficiaries regardless of
their geographic location.
Unfortunately, the program today does not include the vast majority
of our Nation's Medicare-eligible military retirees. That is why on
June 3, I introduced legislation H.R. 1773 to expand the mail-order
program to all our Nation's Medicare-eligible military retirees. This
measure is supported by both the Air Force Sergeants Association and
the Army Retirement Council.
Mr. Chairman, one of the greatest hardships Medicare-eligible
military retirees face is the inability to obtain prescription drugs at
reasonable prices. While Congress has authorized a mail-order pharmacy
program and allowed retirees near designated base closure areas to
participate, hundreds of thousands of other brave retired servicemen
and women will be locked out unless action is taken.
In 1993, Congress unanimously affirmed in the National Defense
Authorization Act that members and former members of the uniformed
services should have access under the health care delivery system of
the uniformed services regardless of age. I could not agree more. The
DOD has an implied moral commitment to provide this care to all
military beneficiaries.
Mr. Chairman, let us not just make this a study; let us make it a
reality. By supporting the expansion of the mail-order program, we can
send a clear message that the passage of time does not erase either the
service that our military retirees gave nor our Government's obligation
to their well-being.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, just to continue to emphasize what I spoke
to earlier, and that is that we have got young Americans in over 40
countries of the world housed, in many occasions, in quarters that are
Third World conditions or in some cases worse than Third World
conditions.
Now, we can say that we understand that when we deploy people in 40
nations of the world, when they are employed, it may not be the best
living conditions. But when we have them in the United States, it is
shameful, shameful for us not to provide decent living conditions for
our young men and women in the services.
My colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] was a
marine. The Marine Corps is 40 years behind in modernizing their living
facilities, their dormitories, their barracks, and their family
housing. Forty years. They are the worst of any of the services.
In fact, I had lunch the other day with the Commandant of the
Marines; and I said, ``What is the matter with you guys? Don't you care
about that aspect of this?'' And he said, ``Of course we do. But they
struggle to get through the process over in the Pentagon.''
What we try to do in this bill is take care of this shame. What we
try to do in this bill is to provide, and about 60 percent of all the
money that we are putting into the adds that we are putting into this
bill in military construction go to take care of the shamefulness of
the way we are making some of these people live. We cannot get there
from here just with MILCON dollars. We use maintenance dollars. We use
initiative force, privatization, and all kinds of things. But if we do
not have the MILCON dollars too, we never get there from here.
Mr. Chairman, the ranking member and the chairman have been awfully
good to help us toward this goal because I think they see this as an
important goal, too. But let us not forget this when we are dealing
with this bill.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished
colleague, the gentleman form Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
I have been listening to this debate for about 1 hour and 45 minutes
here on the floor, and I have some specifics that I can reference and I
will revise and extend and include those.
But I rise, Mr. Chairman, because we talk about specific items. I
want to follow up on the comments of the gentleman from South Carolina
[Mr. Spence].
I am one of those who believes that both sides of the aisle are
putting at risk defense. One side of the aisle argues that we need tax
cuts. I would like to have tax cuts. The other side, my side, argues
that we must pay attention to domestic priorities. My view is that our
Nation will not be strong no matter how much defense we have if we do
not pay attention to domestic priorities.
This Nation is the wealthiest nation on the face of the Earth. Yet, I
tell my friends on both sides of the aisle that we are reducing the
portion of our GDP that we spend on both defense and domestic
priorities since the 1950's. I say to my friends that they ought to
listen to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt]. It is not the
Democrats who are trying to undermine defense and, in my opinion, not
the Republicans. But other priorities are driving us to not pay
attention to one of the primary responsibilities the Nation has, and
that is ensuring the defense of its people.
All of us know that the United States is unique in the world in that
the rest of the world looks to us to maintain international security.
Is that fair? Perhaps not. Is it reality? Quite obviously.
We will have some debates on withdrawing from Bosnia. I was one of
those, as so many of my colleagues know, for deploying troops to
Bosnia. Why? Because genocide was occurring in Bosnia. And we stood
silent in the 1930's and we did not in the 1980's and the 1990's, and
for that America is a better place and there is more security in the
world.
I say to the chairman and I say to the ranking member that their
priorities are right for America, both domestic and defense, we need to
pursue those and stand up for those.
I rise in support of this bill to authorize $268 billion for critical
defense needs in fiscal 1998.
The spending level in this bill mirrors the budget resolution. As a
co-chair of the National Security Caucus, I believe this represents the
minimum we should spend on our national defense.
I believe Chairman Spence was correct in his statement to the press
that ``This bill maintains the committee's long-standing sense of
urgency over restoring a proper balance among readiness, quality of
life, modernization, innovation, and reform.''
I will speak later in opposition to the additional reform package
that the committee leadership hopes to add that contains a misguided
40-percent cut in our acquisition work force.
But, at this time, I want to commend them for what is in the bill
before us:
A 2.8-percent military pay raise.
The $1.3 billion for procurement of 12 FA-18 E/F's and $425 million
for continued R and
[[Page H3959]]
D--however, I regret that the President's request for $2.1 billion for
20 planes was not fully funded.
The $2.6 billion for the first of four new attack submarines and $154
million to complete the third Seawolf submarine.
The $661 million for procurement of seven V-22 Ospreys.
Advance procurement funds for LPD-18, the second in this new class of
amphibious ships.
As a member of the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee,
I also want to commend Chairman Hefley for his work on authorizing $9.1
billion for military construction.
I commend the committee for funding these DOD and Navy priorities and
for addressing important Maryland needs.
I hope that we will pass the bill without unwise amendments like the
acquisition work force cut.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon].
(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise again to pay tribute
to both the chairman and the ranking member and the appropriate
subcommittee leaders and also to follow up on the comments of my good
friend, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
My colleague makes a good statement that defense has always been a
bipartisan issue in this city, and it still is today. We have all
acknowledged that the success of enduring what has been a very
difficult pattern of cuts over the past 5 years has basically been
provided by both Democrats and Republicans. It is not something that we
on the Republican side take credit for. In fact, I think many of our
disagreements are more between this institution and the White House
than it is between Republicans and Democrats in this body.
Now we are criticized the last several years for our add-ons. We are
told that we were putting money that was not needed by the troops, by
the chiefs. What we heard this year, Mr. Chairman, were requests by the
chiefs for $20 billion of additional program needs that were not
requested by the administration.
Every one of us who serves as a chairman of a subcommittee or ranking
member was visited by all the services saying these are absolute
priorities. But Mr. Chairman, it was not limited to the service chiefs.
We had the administration come back to us, the President, after
criticizing us for increasing funding for national missile defense for
3 straight years, and say to us this year, we made a mistake, we want
you to provide $2.3 billion of additional money for national missile
defense.
We had to find $474 million this year above what the President asked
for because the President said we need more money for missile defense.
The President said we had needed to fund a high energy laser program
for Israel's protection called THEL. Yet the President never gave us a
dollar amount.
We had to beg the Army on the day of the markup to give us a figure.
We are finally able to arrive at a $38 million figure even though the
administration had told us last year it was their No. 1 priority when,
in fact, the facts did not bear out the rhetoric.
Mr. Chairman, our bill is based on the threat. We are not saying we
want to recreate the cold war, but we know what is happening in Russia.
We see the demise of the conventional forces in Russia; and with that
demise, we see a heightened reliance on strategic offensive weapons.
Just a year ago, in January, the Russian long-range ICBM's were out
on full alert. Boris Yeltsin himself announced publicly that he had
activated the black box because of a Norwegian rocket launch to detect
weather conditions.
Now, Mr. Chairman, that is reality. There have been numerous records
of threats from Russia of missile material. We have the evidence of
accelerometers and gyroscopes going from Russia to Iraq which were used
for long-range ICBM's. We were told by the intelligence community that
no one would deploy a system that would threaten our troops because we
would see it tested first.
Yet just 1 month ago, as reported in every major international media,
North Korea fully deployed the No Dong missile system after one test.
That No Dong missile system, with the range of 1,300 kilometers, now
poses a real risk that we cannot defend against to every one of our
troops in Japan, South Korea, and Okinawa. That is what this bill is
about.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, we come to the end of general debate on a
very important and substantive matter, the defense authorization for
fiscal year 1998. I listened carefully during the general debate, and I
would like to make a couple of comments, first to my distinguished
colleague from South Carolina, [Mr. Spence]. I listened very carefully
to his most recent remarks.
I would suggest that, Mr. Chairman, when one argues that our national
defense is the most important or the only responsibility of the Federal
Government, I would challenge that assertion. My reading of the
Preamble to the Constitution is as follows:
We, the people of the United States, in order to form a
more perfect Union, establish justice, ensure domestic
tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the
general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for
ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.
{time} 1600
My read of that is that the founding persons of this country
establishing this Constitution did not say national defense was the No.
1 or most important. It gave equal weight to all of these functions,
which is precisely why I argue that in the context of this post cold
war environment, we must now begin to shape the parameters of the
debate to move us to a new national security agenda that brings equal
weight to what the founding persons envisioned and established in the
Constitution.
That is why a vibrant and healthy economy is important. We do not
fight battles simply with military capability. We fight battles also
with our economy. The extent to which it is healthy and vibrant is an
integral part of our national security strategy.
An enlightened and informed, well-trained, well-educated citizenry
capable of engaging the economic and civic institutions of our Nation
is what makes us different, is what makes us a democracy. Informed and
enlightened citizens who can engage makes this country a democracy. It
is not just about national defense as part of the national security
strategy. The people and the children and the children's children are
an integral part of that.
Mr. Chairman, when I talked about an engaged foreign policy, an
enlightened society should be attempting to prevent war. Only a fool
wants to march off to war if it is not necessary. The way we prevent
war is to address the issues that create war. People become violent and
angry when we violate their personhood, when we violate their capacity
to function, impact their Government, when they are victims of human
rights violations, when they are hungry and malnourished, when there is
no economic development. That is what generates wars.
So our foreign policy is also a part of our national security
strategy.
A number of times I heard the quote, ``If you don't understand the
past, you're doomed to repeat the failures of the past.''
Mr. Chairman, as we downsize this budget in the context of the post
cold war, I would assert that we have learned from the past. Our
military fighters who come before the committee are not asserting that
we have a hollow force. We learned from the past. We are now gradually
downsizing. None of the CINCs who came before us, none of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, none of the Secretaries of Defense have suggested that
we have a hollow force. I would suggest that no person credibly can
assert that at this moment.
Every one of our military people have come before us and said we have
the greatest fighting force in history on the Planet Earth. When this
country went to war in the context of the Persian Gulf, what did the
President of the United States then say? We were going to fight the
fourth largest army on the face of the Earth, and within hours we
annihilated them with our incredible military and technological
superiority and capability. The American
[[Page H3960]]
people watched us wage war on CNN with smart missiles and smart bombs
that went down Broadway, turned left and dropped into 1052. People may
not know it, but we have even greater technology at this moment than we
had when we fought in the Persian Gulf.
When we talk about history, that sounds good as a 30-second
soundbite, but the reality is we are not in a hollow force, we are not
repeating the past. Remembering the past in World War I, World War II,
we failed in the League of Nations, we failed in the international
arena, but at this point, the last times we have gone to war, how did
we go to war? We went to war with coalitions, we went to war with
alliances. We have learned from the past. It is counterintuitive to
everything we know that we will go it alone in the world. The world has
changed, Mr. Chairman, and that is the reality.
I just wanted to assert that, to put it in the Record. Maybe over the
next 4 days we can elaborate. I look forward to a vigorous and
intelligent and informed debate.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, it never ceases to amaze me that our Maker
endowed us as human beings with minds that can look at the same set of
facts or view history and arrive at conclusions 180 degrees apart from
one another. As a fact of life, I guess people have been debating since
the very beginning of time. This is one of the most amazing things that
we deal with, here, and it makes our interchanges back and forth here
all the more interesting every day.
I happen to be a person with a more conservative viewpoint on life.
Those of more liberal mind come to much different conclusions on many
issues than this gentleman. The fact is that this country of ours has
provided our people with more of the material things in life and other
freedoms in life, too, than any nation in the history of mankind.
People in other parts of the world cannot believe what we have. That is
why we see other people around the world now shedding their shackles
and trying to adopt our way of life.
As I travel around the world and meet other people in other places,
they are always asking me, how we can do these things for our people?
They are amazed at what we do. Our domestic spending has increased
while the defense budget has been steadily going down, to its lowest
levels since the Korean war.
I repeat that I am not saying that we should increase defense at the
expense of providing our people with other things. Those things are
important. In fact, that is why I want to defend this country. What
good is it to have our freedoms we if we are not free or alive to enjoy
them? That is the only point I am making.
As Jesus referred to in the parable I mentioned earlier, your House
gets plundered when you tie up a strong man. I do not want to tie up
this strong man.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
support this burdensharing amendment, which I am proud to have co-
authored. This amendment seeks to continue the progress we made last
year in embarking on a comprehensive approach to achieving more
participation by our allies in our common defense. A virtually
identical amendment was adopted by the House last year by a vote of 353
to 62; I hope that we can again demonstrate our resolve this year in
obtaining greater burdensharing by our allies.
Since the beginning of the cold war, the United States has
contributed trillions of dollars to the defense of the West. As we all
know, the people of the United States accepted this burden willingly,
because we understood after two world wars that the defense of Europe
was essential to the stability of the West and the security of America.
Since the end of the cold war, many of us have called on our allies
to accept a greater share of the burden toward our mutual defense. With
the demise of the Soviet Union, we knew that our military
infrastructure in Europe could be reduced and our allies could be
expected to perform more significant roles in their own--and our
common--defense.
Beginning in 1992, I joined others in Congress in offering the first
burdensharing amendments of the post-cold war period. We called for a
reduction in the number of U.S. troops stationed overseas, and urged
the administration to seek greater financial contributions from our
allies to support the U.S. presence. And we achieved some success,
particularly with our Asian allies.
But burdensharing by our allies should not simply consist of digging
deeper into their treasuries to pay for a U.S. troop presence, for
American soldiers are not mercenaries. Instead, we must demand that our
allies bear more of the roles, risks and responsibilities of full
partners in regional security, whether it be in Europe, Asia or
elsewhere. With the likelihood of global nuclear confrontation
declining and the risks to the United States itself reduced, Americans
should no longer be expected to bear an inordinate share of the defense
burden.
To achieve this goal, last year my colleagues and I altered our
strategy to achieve increased allied burdensharing. For the first time,
we sought a comprehensive, long-range approach with the view that other
nations should take more concrete actions, and that the administration
can work harder to achieve our objectives.
First, our legislation called on the President to seek increases in
allied burdensharing in four areas: additional host nation financial
support, increased defense expenditures to support the common defense,
greater participation in multinational military operations like United
Nations peacekeeping or the NATO Bosnia operation, and a larger share
of foreign assistance worldwide. It also provided the President with
certain authorities to use as leverage in seeking these increases.
Second, it broadened U.S. burdensharing efforts by seeking allied
actions beyond simply providing contributions to the payment of costs
incurred by the U.S. Government for stationing personnel overseas. This
will contribute substantially to a more far-reaching, long-term goal of
promoting responsibility-sharing rather than just cash payments, by our
allies.
Third, it avoided the limited approach of previous legislation which
required reductions in U.S. forces stationed overseas if our allies
failed to increase their burdensharing contributions. Instead, it
provided proper incentives to achieve greater burdensharing by our
allies, and it initiated the necessary and substantive analysis that
will enable Congress to take unilateral action--if necessary--in the
future.
In promoting greater burdensharing, this amendment also sought to
save taxpayer dollars. That's why several citizens groups, including
Citizens Against Government Waste, Taxpayers for Common Sense, and The
Concord Coalition, heartily endorsed our initiative.
With agreement by the Senate and enactment by the President, our
burdensharing provision became law last September and we received the
Defense Department's first burdensharing report required by the
legislation in March of this year. The report notes that our allies are
performing well in one of the areas of the areas of concern specified
in the measure--increased foreign assistance spending--but notes that
serious deficiencies remain in others. For example, the report states
that:
We are concerned about current and prospective levels of
defense spending in Europe, and continue to urge our allies
to maintain defense budgets at appropriate levels and reverse
negative trends in spending.
As the Defense Department has acknowledged, our comprehensive
burdensharing agenda is making progress in achieving greater efforts by
our allies. But we must do more. That's why I believe we must renew our
comprehensive approach again this year--and demonstrate to both our
allies and the administration that we are serious about getting other
nations to contribute their fair share to our common defense. Vote for
this important amendment.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the defense
authorization bill and the rule under which it is being considered.
There was a time when this Chambers' walls rang with debate on the
important issues facing our great Nation. Not long ago, the defense
authorization bill, the source of nearly half of all the discretionary
spending in the Federal budget, was considered under an open rule. The
present rule fails to offer much of any opportunity for Members of
Congress outside of the National Security Committee and the defense
appropriators to influence and impact the defense authorization
process. The committee has asked for $2.6 billion beyond the
President's request for a total defense authorization of $268.2
billion. Yet, discourse today has disappointedly been reduced to
essentially a rubber stamp. Curtailing debate to preapproved topics
guarantees that the pressing issues before us are not discussed, much
less resolved. We are squandering the opportunity to restructure our
military during a period in which the United States faces no credible
threat or military equal. We should be engaging in the comprehensive
discussion of defense strategy and force structure necessary to prepare
us for the uncertain challenges of tomorrow.
Change seems to be the buzzword of the upcoming century. Wherever one
turns,
[[Page H3961]]
change is emphasized. Unfortunately, the bill offered by the House
National Security Committee neither reflects nor embraces change. This
bill focuses on keeping what existed rather than addressing in a
serious manner, how U.S. military policy should move forward. The
committee simply decided to retain as much of the cold war assumptions
within the context of the authorization measure, as much at least as
this military budget will allow. For example, H.R. 1119 continues
funding for major weapons programs that were specifically designed for
use against a military configuration and challenge that collapsed with
the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Yet, it keeps us in the race to
design and fund weapons systems, which responds to a measuring stick
which continues to be whether or not our weapons can outperform their
Russian counterparts. No one, including Pentagon officials, holds
privileged insight into the security and political landscape of
tomorrow, but I would advance that the world will not require the
identical military capabilities that characterized cold war strategies.
H.R. 1119 dangerously and wastefully assumes that our long term future
will resemble our recent past.
H.R. 1119 includes an additional $331 million for advance procurement
of the B-2 stealth bomber beyond the 21 aircraft previously authorized.
Yet, the Department of Defense's [DOD] 1995 heavy bomber force study
concluded that a fleet of only 20 B-2 stealth bombers would be adequate
to meet any current or future threats against the United States. And
both the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff support this conclusion, adding that the high cost of additional
B-2 bombers will require the retirement of forces with greater overall
capability and the misuse of funds to achieve this purpose. Secretary
Cohen stated that ``the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages of
additional B-2s.'' Arguments in favor of additional B-2 bombers stress
that there will be no substitute for long-range air power in the
security environment of tomorrow. I wholeheartedly disagree, and would
submit that we are entering an era in which the value of an education
and the investment in people has assumed as much or more importance
than a weapon. What would make the American people feel safer? Knowing
that their government is building additional B-2 bombers and
constructing a national defense missile system to thwart an unlikely
attack, or knowing that their children will be able to attend college
and that their parents will receive the Social Security and Medicare
benefits they tirelessly worked for over the years? This bill may
increase the likelihood of victory on the battlefields of the 21st
century, but is it worth handicapping our chances for success in the
classroom? H.R. 1119 simply does not defend our genuine vital
interests.
The winners in this bill are clearly the weapons manufacturers, whose
programs the Pentagon will continue to be forced fed. Weapons
manufacturers furthermore will continue to benefit from and receive
taxpayer financed subsidies for merger-related costs which results in
laid off workers and shut down plants. Although, the DOD itself has
admitted that it can not directly attribute any savings to military
related industries restructuring, the Rules Committee rejected an
amendment I supported that would have ensured that taxpayers realize
actual cost savings in the form of reduced contract prices before
defense contractors are awarded subsidies. Apparently, accountability
and smart investment of taxpayer dollars are not viewed as a required
policy path to the Rules Committee, which denied the House the
opportunity to discuss this questionable program and practice of
misusing taxpayer dollars.
By realizing that our national defense requires investment in people
and not only the weapons they operate, I am encouraged by some
provisions included in H.R. 1119. Capable weapons do not guarantee
victory in and of themselves; investment in personnel and maintenance
is equally important. Since 1989, we have appropriately downsized the
uniformed services by 25 percent while stepping up the pace of
operations abroad. The net result, familiar to so many Federal
employees these days, is that service members are asked to do much more
with less. By addressing shortfalls in compensation, housing, and
health care, H.R. 1119 takes giant steps toward improving the quality
of life for U.S. service members. Furthermore, these provisions will
also improve our ability to recruit high quality personnel and enhance
retention levels. All new initiatives are intimately linked to
readiness and therefore bolster the safety of our Nation.
National security in the next century will not be confined to the
national security establishment per se. Accordingly, we must
incorporate other elements, such as diplomacy, sound trade policies,
and foreign assistance programs in any national security strategy. By
pursuing other policies outside the traditional realm of military
programs, we can proactively shape our international environment to
protect our vital interests. More resources should be diverted to
minimizing the risks of the uncertain security environment of the
future. Yet, despite the remarkable achievements of the Nunn-Lugar
program that has greatly accelerated the safe dismantling, destruction,
and storage of thousands of nuclear warheads once pointed at the United
States, H.R. 1119 shamefully decreases program funding by $97.5
million.
We must also make a concerted effort to call on others around the
globe that benefit from our military's presence to take on greater
responsibility in matters of their own national defense. American
citizens are eager to reap the rewards of the peace dividend they were
promised after the end of the cold war. With so many domestic
programs--quality housing, affordable education, environmental
protection, and job training--suffering from inadequate funding, it is
necessary that we hold the defense budget to the same level of
scrutiny, accountability, and constraint that govern the appropriations
of other Federal programs. Our Federal budget must adequately reflect
the integral components of a national security strategy--namely
economic, educational, and environmental security. I intend to vote no
if this measure H.R. 1119 is not substantially modified--it isn't just
the dollar figure but the programs and policy path it commits us to--
this policy persists within the time warp of the cold war when we need
a military and defense policy for the 21st century.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, today, as part of the Defense
Authorization Act, we are honoring those Americans who served during
the cold war.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, a 46-year conflict
between the Free World and Soviet totalitarianism ended. Yet little was
said to acknowledge the close of this momentous struggle. Perhaps
because the cold war was like no other conflict in our Nation's
history, we have seemed slow to recognize our debt to those who made
victory possible.
We have passed a supreme test of our national character. This 46-
year-long struggle placed unprecedented burdens on our Nation. We lived
with the threat of a nuclear war that could shatter the Earth's
environment and destroy civilization. We shouldered the awesome
responsibilities of standard-bearer for the Free World. We sent our
military personnel to the far corners of the globe.
During the cold war, dedicated Americans, in and out of uniform, rose
to the long-term challenge of protecting their democratic institutions
and the future of the Free World. Some 24 million soldiers, sailors,
airmen, and marines served around the world. More than 100,000 lost
their lives fighting communism in Korea, Vietnam, and other foreign
battlegrounds.
Our intelligence personnel vigilantly monitored our adversaries. Our
diplomats held alliances together, defused crises, and negotiated
treaties to limit the risk of nuclear war. Our scientists, engineers,
and technicians brought America's overwhelming technological
capabilities to our defense. And Americans of all walks of life
accepted the responsibilities of world leadership and the risks of
nuclear war--and kept our economy growing and our democratic
institutions strong.
It is now time to recognize all Americans who served during the long,
demanding years of the cold war. Because of them, our country and the
world can look ahead to a brighter future, unclouded by fears of a
nuclear holocaust or the triumph of totalitarianism.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1119.
This is an important measure that makes positive steps toward balancing
budgetary constraints with defense needs. I would like to thank
Chairman Spence and Congressman Dellums for their assistance in dealing
with issues of concern to me and the people of Guam. I would also like
to thank Chairmen Hefley, Buyer, and Bateman for their leadership in
the subcommittees as we dealt with issues surrounding the bill. Though
I have some minor reservations regarding certain provisions of the
authorization, I am encouraged by the balance struck financially and
within Defense Department priorities.
As members of the House National Security Committee, we and other
Members of Congress have realized, the quality of life for our service
men and women must be protected. I am encouraged by measures in this
bill that serve to improve the quality of life for our Armed Forces.
First, a 2.8-percent pay raise shows our commitment to the men and
women in uniform. The pay raise is badly needed and will help to
alleviate the disparity between military and private sector pay.
Second, this measure recommends the use of a portion of funding
allocated for family housing improvements by the Air Force to be used
at Andersen AFB, Guam. As is the case with other bases across the
country and overseas, family housing at Andersen is below standards.
This important quality of life issue for families stationed at Andersen
can now be addressed.
[[Page H3962]]
I am grateful for the assistance of members of the committee and
their staff in including two other important provisions. I have long
been concerned that my district, and other U.S. territories, have not
been given serious consideration during Theater Missile Defense
planning and ultimately, National Missile Defense planning. I am
encouraged by the cooperation I received from Chairman Weldon to ensure
that this does not continue. While Guam may be an unlikely target for
any nation that developed the capabilities and possessed the will, the
time to ensure proper protection for the territories is now, during the
development phase, not when the United States is deploying a system.
I also thank the members of the committee for accepting my amendment
concerning the use of foreign workers for A-76 base operating
contracting. This measure will help ensure that American citizens are
not displaced by foreign workers in the execution of this competitive
contracting assessment.
Mr. Chairman, I do have to express some concern regarding a few items
within the authorization. First, I am sure I am not alone in expressing
disappointment that the bill does not authorize funding for the
construction of a National Guard Readiness Center. This is of grave
concern to me. The Guam Army National Guard is the only guard unit that
does not have an armory. The Guam Guard uses formerly abandoned
construction company barracks. The National Guard borrows space from
the Navy. The Navy Armory is over 10 miles from the guard training
site. This causes continually training delays and problems.
Unfortunately, this type of situation does not seem to be of concern to
the National Guard Bureau. I find it shocking that we broaden our
dependence on the guard yet cannot properly equip them for training.
Second, I am concerned about misguided, jingoistic measures which
prohibit property from being conveyed to a State-owned shipping
company. This has broad implications beyond the narrow concerns of
competitiveness between ports. In my district, the local community has
worked hard to recover from the impacts of BRAC and this action would
be a further impediment to the right of local determination of reuse
plans best for the community and their progress toward full economic
recovery.
Mr. Chairman, though there may be individual concerns for each Member
of this House, I urge my colleagues to support this measure and vote
for H.R. 1119.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 169, the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute printed in the bill is considered as an original
bill for the purpose of amendment and is considered as having been
read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 1119
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998''.
SEC. 2. ORGANIZATION OF ACT INTO DIVISIONS; TABLE OF
CONTENTS.
(a) Divisions.--This Act is organized into three divisions
as follows:
(1) Division A--Department of Defense Authorizations.
(2) Division B--Military Construction Authorizations.
(3) Division C--Department of Energy National Security
Authorizations and Other Authorizations.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Organization of Act into divisions; table of contents.
Sec. 3. Congressional defense committees defined.
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Sec. 101. Army.
Sec. 102. Navy and Marine Corps.
Sec. 103. Air Force.
Sec. 104. Defense-wide activities.
Sec. 105. Reserve components.
Sec. 106. Defense Inspector General.
Sec. 107. Chemical Demilitarization Program.
Sec. 108. Defense health programs.
Sec. 109. Defense Export Loan Guarantee Program.
Subtitle B--Other Matters
Sec. 121. Limitation on obligation of funds for the Seawolf Submarine
program.
Sec. 122. Report on annual budget submission regarding the reserve
components.
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Sec. 201. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 202. Amount for basic and applied research.
Sec. 203. Dual-use technology program.
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations
Sec. 211. Manufacturing technology program.
Sec. 212. Report on Strategic Environmental Research and Development
Program.
Sec. 213. Tactical unmanned aerial vehicles.
Sec. 214. Revisions to membership of and appointment authority for
National Ocean Research Leadership Council.
Sec. 215. Maintenance and repair of real property at Air Force
installations.
Sec. 216. Expansion of eligibility for Defense Experimental Program to
Stimulate Competitive Research.
Sec. 217. Limitation on use of funds for adaption of Integrated
Defensive Electronic Countermeasures (IDECM) program to
F/A-18E/F aircraft and A/V-8B aircraft.
Sec. 218. Bioassay testing of veterans exposed to ionizing radiation
during military service.
Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense Programs
Sec. 231. Budgetary treatment of amounts requested for procurement for
Ballistic Missile Defense programs.
Sec. 232. Cooperative ballistic missile defense program.
Sec. 233. Deployment dates for core theater missile defense programs
Sec. 234. Annual report on threat posed to the United States by weapons
of mass destruction, ballistic missiles, and cruise
missiles.
Sec. 235. Director of Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.
Sec. 236. Tactical high energy laser program.
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Sec. 301. Operation and maintenance funding.
Sec. 302. Working capital funds.
Sec. 303. Armed Forces Retirement Home.
Sec. 304. Transfer from National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund.
Sec. 305. Refurbishment and installation of air search radar.
Sec. 306. Refurbishment of M1-A1 tanks.
Sec. 307. Procurement and electronic commerce technical assistance
program.
Sec. 308. Availability of funds for separation pay for defense
acquisition personnel.
Subtitle B--Military Readiness Issues
Sec. 311. Expansion of scope of quarterly readiness reports.
Sec. 312. Limitation on reallocation of funds within operation and
maintenance appropriations.
Sec. 313. Operation of prepositioned fleet, National Training Center,
Fort Irwin, California.
Sec. 314. Prohibition of implementation of tiered readiness system.
Sec. 315. Reports on transfers from high-priority readiness
appropriations.
Sec. 316. Report on Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Exercise Program
and Partnership for Peace program.
Sec. 317. Quarterly reports on execution of operation and maintenance
appropriations.
Subtitle C--Civilian Personnel
Sec. 321. Pay practices when overseas teachers transfer to general
schedule positions.
Sec. 322. Use of approved fire-safe accommodations by Government
employees on official business.
Subtitle D--Depot-Level Activities
Sec. 331. Extension of authority for aviation depots and naval
shipyards to engage in defense-related production and
services.
Sec. 332. Exclusion of certain large maintenance and repair projects
from percentage limitation on contracting for depot-level
maintenance.
Sec. 333. Restrictions on contracts for performance of depot-level
maintenance and repair at certain facilities.
Sec. 334. Core logistics functions of Department of Defense.
Sec. 335. Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence.
Sec. 336. Personnel reductions, Army depots participating in Army
Workload and Performance System.
Subtitle E--Environmental Provisions
Sec. 341. Revision of membership terms for Strategic Environmental
Research and Development Program scientific advisory
board.
Sec. 342. Amendments to authority to enter into agreements with other
agencies in support of environmental technology
certification.
Sec. 343. Authorization to pay negotiated settlement for environmental
cleanup at former Department of Defense sites in Canada.
Sec. 344. Modifications of authority to store and dispose of nondefense
toxic and hazardous materials.
Sec. 345. Revision of report requirement for Navy program to monitor
ecological effects of organotin.
Sec. 346. Partnerships for investment in innovative environmental
technologies.
Sec. 347. Pilot program to test an alternative technology for
eliminating solid and liquid waste emissions during ship
operations.
Subtitle F--Commissaries and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities
Sec. 361. Reorganization of laws regarding commissaries and exchanges
and other morale, welfare, and recreation activities.
[[Page H3963]]
Sec. 362. Merchandise and pricing requirements for commissary stores.
Sec. 363. Limitation on noncompetitive procurement of brand-name
commercial items for resale in commissary stores.
Sec. 364. Transfer of jurisdiction over exchange, commissary, and
morale, welfare, and recreation activities to Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller).
Sec. 365. Public and private partnerships to benefit morale, welfare,
and recreation activities.
Sec. 366. Treatment of certain amounts received by Defense Commissary
Agency.
Sec. 367. Authorized use of appropriated funds for relocation of Navy
Exchange Service Command.
Subtitle G--Other Matters
Sec. 371. Assistance to local educational agencies that benefit
dependents of members of the Armed Forces and Department
of Defense civilian employees.
Sec. 372. Continuation of Operation Mongoose.
Sec. 373. Inclusion of Air Force depot maintenance as operation and
maintenance budget activity group.
Sec. 374. Programs to commemorate 50th anniversary of Marshall Plan and
Korean conflict.
Sec. 375. Prohibition on use of Special Operations Command budget for
base operation support.
Sec. 376. Continuation and expansion of demonstration program to
identify overpayments made to vendors.
Sec. 377. Applicability of Federal printing requirements to Defense
Automated Printing Service.
Sec. 378. Base operations support for military installations on Guam.
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS
Subtitle A--Active Forces
Sec. 401. End strengths for active forces.
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces
Sec. 411. End strengths for Selected Reserve.
Sec. 412. End strengths for reserves on active duty in support of the
Reserves.
Sec. 413. End strengths for military technicians (dual status).
Sec. 414. Increase in number of members in certain grades authorized to
serve on active duty in support of the reserves.
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations
Sec. 421. Authorization of appropriations for military personnel.
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy
Sec. 501. Limitation on number of general and flag officers who may
serve in positions outside their own service.
Sec. 502. Exclusion of certain retired officers from limitation on
period of recall to active duty.
Sec. 503. Clarification of officers eligible for consideration by
selection boards.
Sec. 504. Authority to defer mandatory retirement for age of officers
serving as chaplains.
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Matters
Sec. 511. Individual Ready Reserve activation authority.
Sec. 512. Termination of Mobilization Income Insurance Program.
Sec. 513. Correction of inequities in medical and dental care and death
and disability benefits for reserve members who incur or
aggravate an illness in the line of duty.
Sec. 514. Time-in-grade requirements for reserve commissioned officers
retired during force drawdown period.
Sec. 515. Authority to permit non-unit assigned officers to be
considered by vacancy promotion board to general officer
grades.
Sec. 516. Grade requirement for officers eligible to serve on
involuntary separation boards.
Sec. 517. Limitation on use of Air Force Reserve AGR personnel for Air
Force base security functions.
Subtitle C--Military Technicians
Sec. 521. Authority to retain on the reserve active-status list until
age 60 military technicians in the grade of brigadier
general.
Sec. 522. Military technicians (dual status).
Sec. 523. Non-dual status military technicians.
Subtitle D--Measures To Improve Recruit Quality and Reduce Recruit
Attrition
Sec. 531. Reform of military recruiting systems.
Sec. 532. Improvements in medical prescreening of applicants for
military service.
Sec. 533. Improvements in physical fitness of recruits.
Subtitle E--Military Education and Training
Sec. 541. Independent panel to review military basic training.
Sec. 542. Reform of Army drill sergeant selection and training process.
Sec. 543. Requirement for candidates for admission to United States
Naval Academy to take oath of allegiance.
Sec. 544. Reimbursement of expenses incurred for instruction at service
academies of persons from foreign countries.
Sec. 545. United States Naval Postgraduate School.
Sec. 546. Air Force Academy cadet foreign exchange program.
Sec. 547. Training in human relations matters for Army drill sergeant
trainees.
Sec. 548. Study of feasibility of gender-segregated basic training.
Subtitle F--Military Decorations and Awards
Sec. 551. Study of new decorations for injury or death in line of duty.
Sec. 552. Purple heart to be awarded only to members of the armed
forces.
Sec. 553. Eligibility for Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal for
participation in Operation Joint Endeavor or Operation
Joint Guard.
Sec. 554. Waiver of time limitations for award of certain decorations
to specified persons.
Subtitle G--Other Matters
Sec. 561. Suspension of temporary early retirement authority.
Sec. 562. Treatment of educational accomplishments of National Guard
Challenge Program participants.
Sec. 563. Authority for personnel to participate in management of
certain non-Federal entities.
Sec. 564. Crew requirements of WC-130J aircraft.
Sec. 565. Comptroller General study of Department of Defense civil
military programs.
Sec. 566. Treatment of participation of members in Department of
Defense civil military programs.
Sec. 567. Continuation of support to senior military colleges.
Sec. 568. Restoration of missing persons authorities applicable to
Department of Defense as in effect before enactment of
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997.
Sec. 569. Establishment of sentence of confinement for life without
eligibility for parole.
Sec. 570. Limitation on appeal of denial of parole for offenders
serving life sentence.
Sec. 571. Establishment of Public Affairs Branch in the Army.
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances
Sec. 601. Increase in basic pay for fiscal year 1998.
Sec. 602. Annual adjustment of basic pay and protection of member's
total compensation while performing certain duty.
Sec. 603. Use of food cost information to determine basic allowance for
subsistence.
Sec. 604. Consolidation of basic allowance for quarters, variable
housing allowance, and overseas housing allowances.
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays
Sec. 611. One-year extension of certain bonuses and special pay
authorities for reserve forces.
Sec. 612. One-year extension of certain bonuses and special pay
authorities for nurse officer candidates, registered
nurses, and nurse anesthetists.
Sec. 613. One-year extension of authorities relating to payment of
other bonuses and special pays.
Sec. 614. Increase in minimum monthly rate of hazardous duty incentive
pay for certain members.
Sec. 615. Availability of multiyear retention bonus for dental
officers.
Sec. 616. Increase in variable and additional special pays for certain
dental officers.
Sec. 617. Special pay for duty at designated hardship duty locations.
Sec. 618. Selected Reserve reenlistment bonus.
Sec. 619. Selected Reserve enlistment bonus for former enlisted
members.
Sec. 620. Special pay or bonuses for enlisted members extending tours
of duty overseas.
Sec. 621. Increase in amount of family separation allowance.
Sec. 622. Change in requirements for Ready Reserve muster duty
allowance.
Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances
Sec. 631. Travel and transportation allowances for dependents of member
sentenced by court-martial.
Sec. 632. Dislocation allowance.
Subtitle D--Retired Pay, Survivor Benefits, and Related Matters
Sec. 641. Time in which certain changes in beneficiary under survivor
benefit plan may be made.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
Sec. 651. Definition of sea duty for purposes of career sea pay.
Sec. 652. Loan repayment program for commissioned officers in certain
health professions.
Sec. 653. Conformance of NOAA commissioned officers separation pay to
separation pay for members of other uniformed services.
Sec. 654. Reimbursement of Public Health Service officers for adoption
expenses.
Sec. 655. Payment of back quarters and subsistence allowances to World
War II veterans who served as guerrilla fighters in the
Philippines.
Sec. 656. Space available travel for members of selected reserve.
Sec. 657. Study on military personnel at, near, or below the poverty
line.
Sec. 658. Implementation of Department of Defense supplemental food
program for military personnel outside the United States.
[[Page H3964]]
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Health Care Services
Sec. 701. Expansion of retiree dental insurance plan to include
surviving spouse and child dependents of certain deceased
members.
Sec. 702. Provision of prosthetic devices to covered beneficiaries.
Subtitle B--TRICARE Program
Sec. 711. Addition of definition of TRICARE program to title 10.
Sec. 712. Plan for expansion of managed care option of TRICARE program.
Subtitle C--Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities
Sec. 721. Implementation of designated provider agreements for
Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities.
Sec. 722. Limitation on total payments.
Sec. 723. Continued acquisition of reduced-cost drugs.
Subtitle D--Other Changes to Existing Laws Regarding Health Care
Management
Sec. 731. Waiver or reduction of copayments under overseas dental
program.
Sec. 732. Premium collection requirements for medical and dental
insurance programs.
Sec. 733. Consistency between CHAMPUS and medicare in payment rates for
services.
Sec. 734. Use of personal services contracts for provision of health
care services and legal protection for providers.
Sec. 735. Portability of State licenses for Department of Defense
health care professionals.
Sec. 736. Standard form and requirements regarding claims for payment
for services.
Sec. 737. Medical personnel conscience clause.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
Sec. 741. Continued admission of civilians as students in physician
assistant training program of Army Medical Department.
Sec. 742. Emergency health care in connection with overseas activities
of On-Site Inspection Agency of Department of Defense.
Sec. 743. Comptroller General study of adequacy and effect of maximum
allowable charges for physicians under CHAMPUS.
Sec. 744. Comptroller General study of Department of Defense pharmacy
programs.
Sec. 745. Comptroller General study of Navy graduate medical education
program.
Sec. 746. Study of expansion of pharmaceuticals by mail program to
include additional medicare-eligible covered
beneficiaries.
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS
Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy
Sec. 801. Case-by-case waivers of domestic source limitations.
Sec. 802. Expansion of authority to enter into contracts crossing
fiscal years to all severable services contracts not
exceeding a year.
Sec. 803. Clarification of vesting of title under contracts.
Sec. 804. Exclusion of disaster relief, humanitarian, and peacekeeping
operations from restrictions on use of undefinitized
contract actions.
Sec. 805. Limitation and report on payment of restructuring costs under
defense contracts.
Sec. 806. Authority relating to purchase of certain vehicles.
Sec. 807. Multiyear procurement contracts.
Sec. 808. Domestic source limitation amendments.
Sec. 809. Repeal of expiration of domestic source limitation for
certain naval vessel propellers.
Subtitle B--Other Matters
Sec. 821. Repeal of certain acquisition reports and requirements.
Sec. 822. Extension of authority for use of test and evaluation
installations by commercial entities.
Sec. 823. Requirement to develop and maintain list of firms not
eligible for defense contracts.
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
Sec. 901. Limitation on operation and support funds for the Office of
the Secretary of Defense.
Sec. 902. Components of National Defense University.
Sec. 903. Authorization for the Marine Corps University to employ
civilian professors.
Sec. 904. Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs.
Sec. 905. White House Communications Agency.
Sec. 906. Revision to required frequency for provision of policy
guidance for contingency plans.
Sec. 907. Termination of the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office.
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Financial Matters
Sec. 1001. Transfer authority.
Sec. 1002. Incorporation of classified annex.
Sec. 1003. Authority for obligation of unauthorized fiscal year 1997
defense appropriations.
Sec. 1004. Authorization of supplemental appropriations for fiscal year
1997.
Sec. 1005. Increase in fiscal year 1996 transfer authority.
Sec. 1006. Fisher House trust funds.
Sec. 1007. Flexibility in financing closure of certain outstanding
contracts for which a small final payment is due.
Subtitle B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards
Sec. 1021. Relationship of certain laws to disposal of vessels for
export from the Naval Vessel Register and the National
Defense Reserve Fleet.
Sec. 1022. Authority to enter into a long-term charter for a vessel in
support of the Surveillance Towed-Array Sensor (SURTASS)
program.
Sec. 1023. Transfer of two specified obsolete tugboats of the Army.
Sec. 1024. Naming of a DDG-51 class destroyer the U.S.S. Thomas F.
Connolly.
Sec. 1025. Congressional review period with respect to transfer of the
ex-U.S.S. Midway (CV-41).
Subtitle C--Counter-Drug Activities
Sec. 1031. Prohibition on use of National Guard for civil-military
activities under State drug interdiction and counter-drug
activities plan.
Subtitle D--Miscellaneous Report Requirements and Repeals
Sec. 1041. Repeal of miscellaneous obsolete reports required by prior
defense authorization Acts.
Sec. 1042. Repeal of annual report requirement relating to training of
special operations forces with friendly foreign forces.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
Sec. 1051. Authority for special agents of the Defense Criminal
Investigative Service to execute warrants and make
arrests.
Sec. 1052. Study of investigative practices of military criminal
investigative organizations relating to sex crimes.
Sec. 1053. Technical and clerical amendments.
Sec. 1054. Display of POW/MIA flag.
Sec. 1055. Certification required before observance of moratorium on
use by Armed Forces of antipersonnel landmines.
Sec. 1056. Protection of safety-related information voluntarily
provided by air carriers.
Sec. 1057. National Guard Challenge Program to create opportunities for
civilian youth.
Sec. 1058. Lease of non-excess personal property of the military
departments.
Sec. 1059. Commendation of members of the Armed Forces and Government
civilian personnel who served during the Cold War.
TITLE XI--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF FORMER SOVIET
UNION
Sec. 1101. Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs.
Sec. 1102. Fiscal year 1998 funding allocations.
Sec. 1103. Prohibition on use of funds for specified purposes.
Sec. 1104. Limitation on use of funds until specified reports are
submitted.
Sec. 1105. Limitation on use of funds until submission of
certification.
Sec. 1106. Use of funds for chemical weapons destruction facility.
Sec. 1107. Limitation on use of funds for storage facility for Russian
fissile material.
Sec. 1108. Limitation on use of funds for weapons storage security.
Sec. 1109. Report to Congress on issues regarding payment of taxes or
duties on assistance provided to Russia under Cooperative
Threat Reduction programs.
Sec. 1110. Limitation on obligation of funds for a specified period.
Sec. 1111. Availability of funds.
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS
Sec. 1201. Reports to Congress relating to United States forces in
Bosnia.
Sec. 1202. One-year extension of counterproliferation authorities.
Sec. 1203. Report on future military capabilities and strategy of the
People's Republic of China.
Sec. 1204. Temporary use of general purpose vehicles and nonlethal
military equipment under acquisition and cross servicing
agreements.
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
Sec. 2001. Short title.
TITLE XXI--ARMY
Sec. 2101. Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects.
Sec. 2102. Family housing.
Sec. 2103. Improvements to military family housing units.
Sec. 2104. Authorization of appropriations, Army.
Sec. 2105. Correction in authorized uses of funds, Fort Irwin,
California.
TITLE XXII--NAVY
Sec. 2201. Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects.
Sec. 2202. Family housing.
Sec. 2203. Improvements to military family housing units.
Sec. 2204. Authorization of appropriations, Navy.
Sec. 2205. Authorization of military construction project at Naval Air
Station, Pascagoula, Mississippi, for which funds have
been appropriated.
[[Page H3965]]
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE
Sec. 2301. Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition
projects.
Sec. 2302. Family housing.
Sec. 2303. Improvements to military family housing units.
Sec. 2304. Authorization of appropriations, Air Force.
Sec. 2305. Authorization of military construction project at McConnell
Air Force Base, Kansas, for which funds have been
appropriated.
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES
Sec. 2401. Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land
acquisition projects.
Sec. 2402. Military housing planning and design.
Sec. 2403. Improvements to military family housing units.
Sec. 2404. Energy conservation projects.
Sec. 2405. Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies.
Sec. 2406. Correction in authorized uses of funds, McClellan Air Force
Base, California.
Sec. 2407. Modification of authority to carry out fiscal year 1995
projects.
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT
PROGRAM
Sec. 2501. Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition projects.
Sec. 2502. Authorization of appropriations, NATO.
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES
Sec. 2601. Authorized Guard and Reserve construction and land
acquisition projects.
Sec. 2602. Authorization of military construction projects for which
funds have been appropriated.
Sec. 2603. Army Reserve construction project, Salt Lake City, Utah.
TITLE XXVII--EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS
Sec. 2701. Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be
specified by law.
Sec. 2702. Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 1995
projects.
Sec. 2703. Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 1994
projects.
Sec. 2704. Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 1993
projects.
Sec. 2705. Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 1992
projects.
Sec. 2706. Extension of availability of funds for construction of Over-
the-Horizon Radar in Puerto Rico.
Sec. 2707. Effective date.
TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing
Changes
Sec. 2801. Use of mobility enhancement funds for unspecified minor
construction.
Sec. 2802. Limitation on use of operation and maintenance funds for
facility repair projects.
Sec. 2803. Leasing of military family housing, United States Southern
Command, Miami, Florida.
Sec. 2804. Use of financial incentives provided as part of energy
savings and water conservation activities.
Sec. 2805. Congressional notification requirements regarding use of
Department of Defense housing funds for investments in
nongovernmental entities.
Subtitle B--Real Property And Facilities Administration
Sec. 2811. Increase in ceiling for minor land acquisition projects.
Sec. 2812. Administrative expenses for certain real property
transactions.
Sec. 2813. Disposition of proceeds from sale of Air Force Plant 78,
Brigham City, Utah.
Subtitle C--Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Sec. 2821. Consideration of military installations as sites for new
Federal facilities.
Sec. 2822. Prohibition against conveyance of property at military
installations to State-owned shipping companies.
Subtitle D--Land Conveyances
Part I--Army Conveyances
Sec. 2831. Land conveyance, James T. Coker Army Reserve Center, Durant,
Oklahoma.
Sec. 2832. Land conveyance, Fort A. P. Hill, Virginia.
Sec. 2833. Expansion of land conveyance, Indiana Army Ammunition Plant,
Charlestown, Indiana.
Sec. 2834. Modification of land conveyance, Lompoc, California.
Sec. 2835. Modification of land conveyance, Rocky Mountain Arsenal,
Colorado.
Sec. 2836. Correction of land conveyance authority, Army Reserve
Center, Anderson, South Carolina.
Sec. 2837. Land conveyance, Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
Sec. 2838. Land conveyance, Gibson Army Reserve Center, Chicago,
Illinois.
Sec. 2839. Land conveyance, Fort Dix, New Jersey.
Part II--Navy Conveyances
Sec. 2851. Correction of lease authority, Naval Air Station, Meridian,
Mississippi.
Part III--Air Force Conveyances
Sec. 2861. Land transfer, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida.
Sec. 2862. Study of land exchange options, Shaw Air Force Base, South
Carolina.
Sec. 2863. Land conveyance, March Air Force Base, California.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
Sec. 2881. Repeal of requirement to operate Naval Academy dairy farm.
Sec. 2882. Long-term lease of property, Naples Italy.
Sec. 2883. Designation of military family housing at Lackland Air Force
Base, Texas, in honor of Frank Tejeda, a former Member of
the House of Representatives.
TITLE XXIX--SIKES ACT IMPROVEMENT
Sec. 2901. Short title.
Sec. 2902. Definition of Sikes Act for purposes of amendments.
Sec. 2903. Codification of short title of Act.
Sec. 2904. Integrated natural resource management plans.
Sec. 2905. Review for preparation of integrated natural resource
management plans.
Sec. 2906. Annual reviews and reports.
Sec. 2907. Transfer of wildlife conservation fees from closed military
installations.
Sec. 2908. Federal enforcement of integrated natural resource
management plans and enforcement of other laws.
Sec. 2909. Natural resource management services.
Sec. 2910. Definitions.
Sec. 2911. Cooperative agreements.
Sec. 2912. Repeal of superseded provision.
Sec. 2913. Clerical amendments.
Sec. 2914. Authorizations of appropriations.
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations
Sec. 3101. Weapons activities.
Sec. 3102. Environmental restoration and waste management.
Sec. 3103. Other defense activities.
Sec. 3104. Defense nuclear waste disposal.
Subtitle B--Recurring General Provisions
Sec. 3121. Reprogramming.
Sec. 3122. Limits on general plant projects.
Sec. 3123. Limits on construction projects.
Sec. 3124. Fund transfer authority.
Sec. 3125. Authority for conceptual and construction design.
Sec. 3126. Authority for emergency planning, design, and construction
activities.
Sec. 3127. Funds available for all national security programs of the
Department of Energy.
Sec. 3128. Authority relating to transfers of defense environmental
management funds.
Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations
Sec. 3131. Ballistic Missile Defense National Laboratory Program.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
Sec. 3141. Plan for stewardship, management, and certification of
warheads in the nuclear weapons stockpile.
Sec. 3142. Repeal of obsolete reporting requirements.
Sec. 3143. Revisions to defense nuclear facilities workforce
restructuring plan requirements.
Sec. 3144. Extension of authority for appointment of certain
scientific, engineering, and technical personnel.
Sec. 3145. Report on proposed contract for Hanford Tank Waste
Vitrification project.
Sec. 3146. Limitation on conduct of subcritical nuclear weapons tests.
Sec. 3147. Limitation on use of certain funds until future use plans
are submitted.
Sec. 3148. Plan for external oversight of national laboratories.
Sec. 3149. University-based research center.
Sec. 3150. Stockpile stewardship program.
Sec. 3151. Reports on advanced supercomputer sales to certain foreign
nations.
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
Sec. 3201. Authorization.
Sec. 3202. Plan for transfer of facilities from jurisdiction of Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board to jurisdiction of
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
TITLE XXXIII--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE
Sec. 3301. Authorized uses of stockpile funds.
Sec. 3302. Disposal of beryllium copper master alloy in National
Defense Stockpile.
Sec. 3303. Disposal of titanium sponge in National Defense Stockpile.
Sec. 3304. Conditions on transfer of stockpiled platinum reserves for
Treasury use.
Sec. 3305. Restrictions on disposal of certain manganese ferro.
Sec. 3306. Required procedures for disposal of strategic and critical
materials.
TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES
Sec. 3401. Authorization of appropriations.
[[Page H3966]]
Sec. 3402. Price requirement on sale of certain petroleum during fiscal
year 1998.
Sec. 3403. Termination of assignment of Navy officers to Office of
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves.
TITLE XXXV--PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION
Subtitle A--Authorization of Expenditures From Revolving Fund
Sec. 3501. Short title.
Sec. 3502. Authorization of expenditures.
Sec. 3503. Purchase of vehicles.
Sec. 3504. Expenditures only in accordance with treaties.
Subtitle B--Facilitation of Panama Canal Transition
Sec. 3511. Short title; references.
Sec. 3512. Definitions relating to Canal transition.
Part I--Transition Matters Relating to Commission Officers and
Employees
Sec. 3521. Authority for the Administrator of the Commission to accept
appointment as the Administrator of the Panama Canal
Authority.
Sec. 3522. Post-Canal Transfer Personnel Authorities.
Sec. 3523. Enhanced authority of Commission to establish compensation
of Commission officers and employees.
Sec. 3524. Travel, transportation, and subsistence expenses for
Commission personnel no longer subject to Federal Travel
Regulation.
Sec. 3525. Enhanced recruitment and retention authorities.
Sec. 3526. Transition separation incentive payments.
Sec. 3527. Labor-management relations.
Sec. 3528. Availability of Panama Canal Revolving Fund for severance
pay for certain employees separated by Panama Canal
Authority after Canal Transfer Date.
Part II--Transition Matters Relating to Operation and Administration of
Canal
Sec. 3541. Establishment of procurement system and board of contract
appeals.
Sec. 3542. Transactions with the Panama Canal Authority.
Sec. 3543. Time limitations on filing of claims for damages.
Sec. 3544. Tolls for small vessels.
Sec. 3545. Date of actuarial evaluation of FECA liability.
Sec. 3546. Notaries public.
Sec. 3547. Commercial services.
Sec. 3548. Transfer from President to Commission of certain regulatory
functions relating to employment classification appeals.
Sec. 3549. Enhanced printing authority.
Sec. 3550. Technical and conforming amendments.
TITLE XXXVI--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
Sec. 3601. Authorization of appropriations for fiscal year 1998.
Sec. 3602. Repeal of obsolete annual report requirement concerning
relative cost of shipbuilding in the various coastal
districts of the United States.
Sec. 3603. Provisions relating to maritime security fleet program.
Sec. 3604. Authority to utilize replacement vessels and capacity.
Sec. 3605. Authority to convey national defense reserve fleet vessel.
SEC. 3. CONGRESSIONAL DEFENSE COMMITTEES DEFINED.
For purposes of this Act, the term ``congressional defense
committees'' means--
(1) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate; and
(2) the Committee on National Security and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
SEC. 101. ARMY.
Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 1998 for procurement for the Army as follows:
(1) For aircraft, $1,535,264,000.
(2) For missiles, $1,176,516,000.
(3) For weapons and tracked combat vehicles,
$1,519,527,000.
(4) For ammunition, $1,093,802,000.
(5) For other procurement, $2,640,277,000.
SEC. 102. NAVY AND MARINE CORPS.
(a) Navy.--Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated
for fiscal year 1998 for procurement for the Navy as follows:
(1) For aircraft, $6,172,950,000.
(2) For weapons, including missiles and torpedoes,
$1,214,687,000.
(3) For shipbuilding and conversion, $7,654,977,000.
(4) For other procurement, $3,073,432,000.
(b) Marine Corps.--Funds are hereby authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal year 1998 for procurement for the
Marine Corps in the amount of $442,807,000.
(c) Navy and Marine Corps Ammunition.--Funds are hereby
authorized to be appropriated for procurement of ammunition
for the Navy and the Marine Corps in the amount of
$470,355,000.
SEC. 103. AIR FORCE.
Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 1998 for procurement for the Air Force as follows:
(1) For aircraft, $6,770,900,000.
(2) For missiles, $2,389,183,000.
(3) For ammunition, $436,984,000.
(4) For other procurement, $6,574,096,000.
SEC. 104. DEFENSE-WIDE ACTIVITIES.
Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 1998 for Defense-wide procurement in the amount of
$1,836,989,000.
SEC. 105. RESERVE COMPONENTS.
Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 1998 for procurement of aircraft, vehicles,
communications equipment, and other equipment for the reserve
components of the Armed Forces as follows:
(1) For the Army National Guard, $102,700,000.
(2) For the Air National Guard, $117,775,000.
(3) For the Army Reserve, $90,400,000.
(4) For the Naval Reserve, $118,000,000.
(5) For the Air Force Reserve, $167,630,000.
(6) For the Marine Corps Reserve, $98,600,000.
(7) For the Coast Guard Reserve, $5,250,000.
SEC. 106. DEFENSE INSPECTOR GENERAL.
Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 1998 for procurement for the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense in the amount of $1,800,000.
SEC. 107. CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION PROGRAM.
There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 1998 the amount of $610,700,000 for--
(1) the destruction of lethal chemical agents and munitions
in accordance with section 1412 of the Department of Defense
Authorization Act, 1986 (50 U.S.C. 1521); and
(2) the destruction of chemical warfare materiel of the
United States that is not covered by section 1412 of such
Act.
SEC. 108. DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAMS.
Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 1998 for the Department of Defense for procurement for
carrying out health care programs, projects, and activities
of the Department of Defense in the total amount of
$279,068,000.
SEC. 109. DEFENSE EXPORT LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM.
Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 1998 for the Department of Defense for carrying out the
Defense Export Loan Guarantee Program in the total amount of
$1,231,000.
Subtitle B--Other Matters
SEC. 121. LIMITATION ON OBLIGATION OF FUNDS FOR THE SEAWOLF
SUBMARINE PROGRAM.
(a) Limitation.--The Secretary of the Navy may not obligate
more than 50 percent of the funds appropriated for fiscal
year 1998 for Shipbuilding and Conversion for the Navy that
are specified as being available for the Seawolf submarine
program until the Secretary certifies to the congressional
defense committees that the Secretary will include in the
future-years defense program accompanying the fiscal year
1999 budget for the Department of Defense not less than 50
percent of the amount necessary to fully fund incorporation
into each of the first four vessels in the New Attack
Submarine program the technology insertion opportunities
specified in subsection (b).
(b) Technology Insertion Opportunities.--The technology
insertion opportunities referred to in subsection (a) are
those technology insertion opportunities available for the
first four vessels in the New Attack Submarine program that
were presented by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy
(Research, Development, and Acquisition) in testimony before
the Procurement Subcommittee of the Committee on National
Security of the House of Representatives on March 18, 1997.
SEC. 122. REPORT ON ANNUAL BUDGET SUBMISSION REGARDING THE
RESERVE COMPONENTS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 1013 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``Sec. 10544. Budget information
``(a) Report.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the
congressional committees specified in subsection (d), at the
same time that the President submits the budget for a fiscal
year under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, a
report on amounts requested in that budget for the reserve
components.
``(b) Content.--The report shall include the following:
``(1) A description of the anticipated effect that the
amounts requested (if approved by Congress) will have to
enhance the capabilities of each of the reserve components.
``(2) A listing, with respect to each such component, of
each of the following:
``(A) The amount requested for each major weapon system for
which funds are requested in the budget for that component.
``(B) The amount requested for each item of equipment
(other than a major weapon system) for which funds are
requested in the budget for that component.
``(c) Inclusion of Information in Next FYDP.--The Secretary
of Defense shall specifically display in the each future-
years defense program (or program revision) submitted to
Congress under section 221 of this title the amounts
programmed for procurement of equipment for each of the
reserve components.
``(d) Congressional Committees Specified.--The
congressional committees referred to in subsection (a) are
the following:
``(1) The Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate.
``(2) The Committee on National Security and the Committee
on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
``(e) Exclusion of Coast Guard Reserve.--In this section,
the term `reserve components' does not include the Coast
Guard Reserve.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``10544. Budget information.''.
[[Page H3967]]
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 1998 for the use of the Department of Defense for
research, development, test, and evaluation as follows:
(1) For the Army, $4,752,913,000.
(2) For the Navy, $7,946,996,000.
(3) For the Air Force, $14,659,736,000.
(4) For Defense-wide activities, $9,914,080,000, of which--
(A) $279,683,000 is authorized for the activities of the
Director, Test and Evaluation; and
(B) $23,384,000 is authorized for the Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation.
SEC. 202. AMOUNT FOR BASIC AND APPLIED RESEARCH.
(a) Fiscal Year 1998.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated by section 201, $4,131,871,000 shall be
available for basic research and applied research projects.
(b) Basic Research and Applied Research Defined.--For
purposes of this section, the term ``basic research and
applied research'' means work funded in program elements for
defense research and development under Department of Defense
category 6.1 or 6.2.
SEC. 203. DUAL-USE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.
(a) Funding Requirement.--Of the amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorizations in section 201 for the
Department of Defense for science and technology programs for
each of fiscal years 1998 through 2001, at least the
following percentages of such amounts shall be available in
the applicable fiscal year only for dual-use projects of the
Department of Defense:
(1) For fiscal year 1998, 5 percent.
(2) For fiscal year 1999, 7 percent.
(3) For fiscal year 2000, 10 percent.
(4) For fiscal year 2001, 15 percent.
(b) Senior Official for Dual-Use Program.--The person
responsible for developing policy relating to, and ensuring
effective implementation of, the dual-use technology program
of the Department of Defense is the senior official
designated by the Secretary of Defense under section 203(b)
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1997 (Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2451).
(c) Limitation on Obligations.--(1) Except as provided in
paragraph (2), funds made available pursuant to subsection
(a) may not be obligated until the senior official referred
to in subsection (b) approves the obligation.
(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply with respect to funds made
available pursuant to subsection (a) to the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency.
(3) Funds made available pursuant to subsection (a) may be
used for a dual-use project only if the contract, cooperative
agreement, or other transaction by which the project is
carried out is entered into through the use of competitive
procedures.
(d) Transfer Authority.--In addition to the transfer
authority provided in section 1001, the Secretary of Defense
may transfer funds made available pursuant to subsection (a)
for a dual-use project from a military department or defense
agency to another military department or defense agency to
ensure efficient implementation of the dual-use technology
program. The Secretary may delegate the authority provided in
the preceding sentence to the senior official referred to in
subsection (b).
(e) Federal Cost Share.--(1) The share contributed by the
Secretary of a military department or the head of a defense
agency for the cost of a dual-use project during fiscal years
1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 may not be greater than 50 percent
of the cost of the project for that fiscal year.
(2) In calculating the share of the costs of a dual-use
program contributed by a military department or a non-
Government entity, the Secretaries of the military
departments may not consider in-kind contributions.
(f) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``dual-use
technology program'', ``dual-use project'', and ``science and
technology program'' have the meanings provided by section
203(h) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2452).
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations
SEC. 211. MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.
Section 2525 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(e) Funding Requirement.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2),
the Secretary of Defense shall make available each fiscal
year for the Manufacturing Technology Program the greater of
the following amounts:
``(A) 0.25 percent of the amount available for the fiscal
year concerned for the demonstration and validation,
engineering and manufacturing development, operational
systems development, and procurement programs of the military
departments and Defense Agencies.
``(B) The amount authorized to be appropriated by law for
the fiscal year concerned for projects of the military
departments and Defense Agencies under the Manufacturing
Technology Program.
``(2) Paragraph (1) applies to fiscal years 1998, 1999, and
2000.
``(f) Transfer Authority.--The Secretary of Defense may
transfer funds made available pursuant to subsection (e) from
a military department or Defense Agency to another military
department or Defense Agency to ensure efficient
implementation of the Manufacturing Technology Program. The
Secretary may delegate the authority provided in the
preceding sentence to the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Technology. Authority to transfer funds under
this subsection is in addition to any other authority
provided by law to transfer funds (whether enacted before,
on, or after the date of the enactment of this section) and
is not subject to any dollar limitation or notification
requirement contained in any other such authority to transfer
funds.
``(g) Report.--(1) At the same time the President submits
to Congress the budget for fiscal year 1999 pursuant to
section 1105(a) of title 31, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to Congress a report that--
``(A) specifies the plans of the Secretary for expenditures
under the program during fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000;
and
``(B) assesses the effectiveness of the program.
``(2) The Secretary shall submit an updated version of such
report at the same time the President submits the budget for
each fiscal year after fiscal year 1999 during which the
program is in effect shall include--
``(A) an assessment of whether the funding of the program,
as provided pursuant to the funding requirement of subsection
(e), is sufficient; and
``(B) any recommendations considered appropriate by the
Secretary for changes in, or an extension of, the funding
requirement of subsection (e).''.
SEC. 212. REPORT ON STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
(a) Report.--Not later than February 28, 1998, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report
containing, for each project or activity of the Strategic
Environmental Research and Development Program--
(1) an explanation of why the project or activity is not
duplicative of environmentally related research, development,
and demonstration activities of other departments and
agencies of the Federal Government, of State and local
governments, or of other organizations engaged in such
activities; and
(2) an explanation of why the project or activity is
uniquely related to and necessary for the mission of the
Department of Defense.
(b) Limitation on Use of Funds Pending Submission of
Report.--Not more than 50 percent of the funds appropriated
for the Strategic Environmental Research and Development
Program pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in
section 201(4) may be expended until the Secretary of Defense
submits the report required under this section.
SEC. 213. TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES.
(a) Prohibition on Funding for Outrider ACTD Program.--No
funds authorized to be appropriated under section 201 may be
obligated for the Outrider Advanced Concept Technology
Demonstration (ACTD) program.
(b) Funding Requirements.--Of the funds authorized to be
appropriated for tactical unmanned aerial vehicles (TUAV)
under section 201--
(1) $10,000,000 shall be available to carry out a
competition for an unmanned aerial vehicle capable of
vertical takeoff and landing; and
(2) $11,500,000 shall be available to provide a Predator
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle system equipped with synthetic
aperture radar and associated equipment to facilitate the
development of a common Tactical Control System for unmanned
aerial vehicles.
SEC. 214. REVISIONS TO MEMBERSHIP OF AND APPOINTMENT
AUTHORITY FOR NATIONAL OCEAN RESEARCH
LEADERSHIP COUNCIL.
(a) Membership Revisions.--Section 7902(b) of title 10,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking out paragraph (11); and
(2) in paragraph (17), by striking out ``One member'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``Not more than four members''.
(b) Appointment Authority Revisions.--Section 7902 of such
title is amended--
(1) in paragraphs (14), (15), (16), and (17) of subsection
(b), by striking out ``chairman'' each place it appears and
inserting in lieu thereof ``President''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(j) Delegation of Appointment Authority.--The President
may delegate the authority to make appointments under
subsection (b) to the head of a department, without authority
to redelegate.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 7902 of such title
is further amended--
(A) in subsection (b), by redesignating paragraphs (12),
(13), (14), (15), (16), and (17) as paragraphs (11), (12),
(13), (14), (15), and (16), respectively; and
(B) in subsection (d), by striking out ``(14), (15), (16),
or (17)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``(13), (14), (15),
or (16)''.
(2) Section 282 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2473) is
amended by striking out subsection (c).
SEC. 215. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF REAL PROPERTY AT AIR
FORCE INSTALLATIONS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 949 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``Sec. 9782. Maintenance and repair of real property
``(a) Allocation of Funds.--The Secretary of the Air Force
shall allocate funds authorized to be appropriated by a
provision described in subsection (c) and a provision
described in subsection (d) for maintenance and repair of
real property at military installations of the Department of
the Air Force without regard to whether the installation
is supported with funds authorized by a provision
described in subsection (c) or (d).
``(b) Mixing of Funds Prohibited on Individual Projects.--
The Secretary of the Air
[[Page H3968]]
Force may not combine funds authorized to be appropriated by
a provision described in subsection (c) and funds authorized
to be appropriated by a provision described in subsection (d)
for an individual project for maintenance and repair of real
property at a military installation of the Department of the
Air Force.
``(c) Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Funds.--
The provision described in this subsection is a provision of
a national defense authorization Act that authorizes funds to
be appropriated for a fiscal year to the Air Force for
research, development, test, and evaluation.
``(d) Operation and Maintenance Funds.--The provision
described in this subsection is a provision of a national
defense authorization Act that authorizes funds to be
appropriated for a fiscal year to the Air Force for operation
and maintenance.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``9782. Maintenance and repair of real property.''.
SEC. 216. EXPANSION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR DEFENSE EXPERIMENTAL
PROGRAM TO STIMULATE COMPETITIVE RESEARCH.
Section 257 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337; U.S.C. 2358 note) is
amended by adding at the end of subsection (d) the following
new paragraph:
``(3) In this section, the term `State' means a State of
the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.''.
SEC. 217. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR ADAPTION OF
INTEGRATED DEFENSIVE ELECTRONIC COUNTERMEASURES
(IDECM) PROGRAM TO F/A-18E/F AIRCRAFT AND A/V-
8B AIRCRAFT.
Not more than 50 percent of the amount authorized to be
appropriated in section 201(2) for development of the
Integrated Defensive Electronic Countermeasures (IDECM)
program for adaption to the F/A-18E/F aircraft and the AV-8B
aircraft may be obligated until the amount authorized in
section 201(2) for development of the IDECM program for
adaption to the F/A-18C/D aircraft is obligated.
SEC. 218. BIOASSAY TESTING OF VETERANS EXPOSED TO IONIZING
RADIATION DURING MILITARY SERVICE.
Of the amount provided in section 201(4), $300,000 shall be
available for the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program
conducted by the Defense Special Weapons Agency.
Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense Programs
SEC. 231. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF AMOUNTS REQUESTED FOR
PROCUREMENT FOR BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE
PROGRAMS.
(a) Requirement for Inclusion in Budget of BMDO.--(1)
Chapter 9 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
inserting after section 222 the following new section:
``Sec. 224. Ballistic missile defense programs: amounts for
procurement
``(a) Requirement.--Any amount in the budget submitted to
Congress under section 1105 of title 31 for any fiscal year
for procurement for the National Missile Defense program or
for any system that is part of the core theater missile
defense program shall be set forth under the account of the
Department of Defense for Defense-wide procurement and,
within that account, under the subaccount (or other budget
activity level) for the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization.
``(b) Core Theater Ballistic Missile Defense Program.--For
purposes of this section, the core theater missile defense
program consists of the systems specified in section 234 of
the Ballistic Missile Defense Act of 1995 (10 U.S.C. 2431
note).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 222 the following new item:
``224. Ballistic missile defense programs: amounts for procurement.''.
SEC. 232. COOPERATIVE BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAM.
(a) Requirement for New Program Element.--The Secretary of
Defense shall establish a program element for the Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization, to be referred to as the
``Cooperative Ballistic Missile Defense Program'', to support
technical and analytical cooperative efforts between the
United States and other nations that contribute to United
States ballistic missile defense capabilities. All
international cooperative ballistic missile defense programs
of the Department of Defense shall be budgeted and
administered through that program element.
(b) Relationship to Other Program Elements.--The program
element established pursuant to subsection (a) is in addition
to the program elements for activities of the Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization required under section 251 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 233; 10 U.S.C. 221 note).
SEC. 233. DEPLOYMENT DATES FOR CORE THEATER MISSILE DEFENSE
PROGRAMS.
(a) Change in Deployment Dates.--Section 234(a) of the
Ballistic Missile Defense Act of 1995 (subtitle C of title II
of Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 229; 10 U.S.C. 2431 note) is
amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking out
``, to be carried out so as to achieve the specified
capabilities'';
(2) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``, with a first unit
equipped (FUE) during fiscal year 1998'';
(3) in paragraph (2), by striking out ``Navy Lower Tier
(Area) system'' and all that follows through ``fiscal year
1999'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``Navy Area Defense
system'';
(4) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by striking out ``with a'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``to be carried out so as to achieve a''; and
(B) by striking out ``fiscal year 1998'' and ``fiscal year
2000'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``fiscal year 2000'' and
``fiscal year 2004'', respectively; and
(5) in paragraph (4), by striking out ``Navy Upper Tier
(Theater Wide) system, with'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``Navy Theater Wide system, to be carried out so as to
achieve''.
(b) Conforming Amendments for Program Element Name
Changes.--Section 251(a) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106;
110 Stat. 233; 10 U.S.C. 221 note) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking out ``Navy Lower Tier
(Area) system'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``Navy Area
Defense system''; and
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking out ``Navy Upper Tier
(Theater Wide) system'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``Navy
Theater Wide system''.
SEC. 234. ANNUAL REPORT ON THREAT POSED TO THE UNITED STATES
BY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, BALLISTIC
MISSILES, AND CRUISE MISSILES.
(a) Annual Report.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit
to Congress by January 30 of each year a report on the
threats posed to the United States and allies of the United
States--
(1) by weapons of mass destruction, ballistic missiles, and
cruise missiles; and
(2) by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles.
(b) Consultation.--Each report submitted under subsection
(a) shall be prepared in consultation with the Director of
Central Intelligence.
(c) Matters To Be Included.--Each report submitted under
subsection (a) shall include the following:
(1) Identification of each foreign country and non-State
organization that possesses weapons of mass destruction,
ballistic missiles, or cruise missiles, and a description of
such weapons and missiles with respect to each such foreign
country and non-State organization.
(2) A description of the means by which any foreign country
and non-State organization that has achieved capability with
respect to weapons of mass destruction, ballistic missiles,
or cruise missiles has achieved that capability, including a
description of the international network of foreign countries
and private entities that provide assistance to foreign
countries and non-State organizations in achieving that
capability.
(3) An examination of the doctrines that guide the use of
weapons of mass destruction in each foreign country that
possesses such weapons.
(4) An examination of the existence and implementation of
the control mechanisms that exist with respect to nuclear
weapons in each foreign country that possesses such weapons.
(5) Identification of each foreign country and non-State
organization that seeks to acquire or develop (indigenously
or with foreign assistance) weapons of mass destruction,
ballistic missiles, or cruise missiles, and a description of
such weapons and missiles with respect to each such foreign
country and non-State organization.
(6) An assessment of various possible timelines for the
achievement by foreign countries and non-State organizations
of capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction,
ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles, taking into account
the probability of whether the Russian Federation and the
People's Republic of China will comply with the Missile
Technology Control Regime, the potential availability of
assistance from foreign technical specialists, and the
potential for independent sales by foreign private entities
without authorization from their national Governments.
(7) For each foreign country or non-State organization that
has not achieved the capability to target the United States
or its territories with weapons of mass destruction,
ballistic missiles, or cruise missiles as of the date of the
enactment of this Act, an estimate of how far in advance the
United States is likely to be warned before such foreign
country or non-State organization achieves that capability.
(8) For each foreign country or non-State organization that
has not achieved the capability to target members of the
United States Armed Forces deployed abroad with weapons of
mass destruction, ballistic missiles, or cruise missiles as
of the date of the enactment of this Act, an estimate of how
far in advance the United States is likely to be warned
before such foreign country or non-State organization
achieves that capability.
(d) Classification.--Each report under subsection (a) shall
be submitted in classified and unclassified form.
SEC. 235. DIRECTOR OF BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION.
(a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 8 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``Sec. 203. Director of Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization
``(a) Grade.--The position of Director of the Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization--
``(1) may only be held by an officer of the armed forces on
the active-duty list; and
``(2) shall be designated under section 601 of this title
as a position of importance and responsibility to carry the
grade of general or admiral or lieutenant general or vice
admiral.
``(b) Line of Authority to Secretary of Defense.--The
Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
reports directly to the
[[Page H3969]]
Secretary of Defense and (if so directed by the Secretary)
the Deputy Secretary of Defense, without intervening review
or approval by any other officer of the Department of
Defense, with respect to all matters pertaining to the
management of ballistic missile defense programs for which
the Director has responsibility (including matters pertaining
to the status of those programs and the budgets for those
programs).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such subchapter is amended by adding at the end
the following new item:
``203. Director of Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.''.
SEC. 236. TACTICAL HIGH ENERGY LASER PROGRAM.
(a) Transfer of Program.--The Secretary of Defense shall
transfer the Tactical High Energy Laser program from the
Secretary of the Army to the Director of the Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization, to be carried out under the
Cooperative Ballistic Missile Defense Program established
pursuant to section 232(a).
(b) Authorization.--Of the amount authorized to be
appropriated in section 201, $38,200,000 is authorized for
the Tactical High Energy Laser program.
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
SEC. 301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING.
Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 1998 for the use of the Armed Forces and other
activities and agencies of the Department of Defense for
expenses, not otherwise provided for, for operation and
maintenance, in amounts as follows:
(1) For the Army, $17,185,034,000.
(2) For the Navy, $21,372,699,000.
(3) For the Marine Corps, $2,381,245,000.
(4) For the Air Force, $18,745,985,000.
(5) For Defense-wide activities, $10,030,057,000.
(6) For the Army Reserve, $1,202,891,000.
(7) For the Naval Reserve, $849,711,000.
(8) For the Marine Corps Reserve, $110,366,000.
(9) For the Air Force Reserve, $1,629,120,000.
(10) For the Army National Guard, $2,266,432,000.
(11) For the Air National Guard, $2,985,969,000.
(12) For the Defense Inspector General, $136,580,000.
(13) For the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed
Forces, $6,952,000.
(14) For Environmental Restoration, Army, $377,337,000.
(15) For Environmental Restoration, Navy, $277,500,000.
(16) For Environmental Restoration, Air Force,
$378,900,000.
(17) For Environmental Restoration, Defense-wide,
$27,900,000.
(18) For Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense
Sites, $202,300,000.
(19) For Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid
programs, $50,000,000.
(20) For Drug Interdiction and Counter-drug Activities,
Defense-wide, $661,671,000.
(21) For the Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and
Environmental Restoration Trust Fund, $10,000,000.
(22) For Medical Programs, Defense, $9,975,382,000.
(23) For Cooperative Threat Reduction programs,
$284,700,000.
(24) For Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund,
$1,467,500,000.
SEC. 302. WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS.
Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 1998 for the use of the Armed Forces and other
activities and agencies of the Department of Defense for
providing capital for working capital and revolving funds in
amounts as follows:
(1) For the Defense Working Capital Funds, $971,952,000.
(2) For the National Defense Sealift Fund, $1,181,626,000.
SEC. 303. ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME.
There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 1998 from the Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund
the sum of $79,977,000 for the operation of the Armed Forces
Retirement Home, including the United States Soldiers' and
Airmen's Home and the Naval Home.
SEC. 304. TRANSFER FROM NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE
TRANSACTION FUND.
(a) Transfer Authority.--To the extent provided in
appropriations Acts, not more than $150,000,000 is authorized
to be transferred from the National Defense Stockpile
Transaction Fund to operation and maintenance accounts for
fiscal year 1998 in amounts as follows:
(1) For the Army, $50,000,000.
(2) For the Navy, $50,000,000.
(3) For the Air Force, $50,000,000.
(b) Treatment of Transfers.--Amounts transferred under this
section--
(1) shall be merged with, and be available for the same
purposes and the same period as, the amounts in the accounts
to which transferred; and
(2) may not be expended for an item that has been denied
authorization of appropriations by Congress.
(c) Relationship to Other Transfer Authority.--The transfer
authority provided in this section is in addition to the
transfer authority provided in section 1001.
SEC. 305. REFURBISHMENT AND INSTALLATION OF AIR SEARCH RADAR.
Of the amount authorized to be appropriated pursuant to
section 301(2) for operation and maintenance for the Navy,
$6,000,000 shall be available only for the refurbishment and
installation of the AN/SPS-48E air search radar for the Ship
Self Defense System at the Integrated Ship Defense Systems
Engineering Center, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Wallops
Islands, Virginia.
SEC. 306. REFURBISHMENT OF M1-A1 TANKS.
Of the amount authorized to be appropriated pursuant to
section 301(1) for operation and maintenance for the Army,
$35,000,000 shall be available only for refurbishment of M1-
A1 tanks at the Anniston Army Depot under the AIM-XXI program
if the Secretary of Defense determines that the cost
effectiveness of the pilot AIM-XXI program is validated
through user trials conducted at the National Training
Center, Fort Irwin, California.
SEC. 307. PROCUREMENT AND ELECTRONIC COMMERCE TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
(a) Authorization.--Subject to subsection (c), of the
amount authorized to be appropriated under section 301(5),
$15,000,000 shall be available for carrying out the
provisions of chapter 142 of title 10, United States Code.
(b) Prohibition.--Subject to subsection (c), the Secretary
of Defense may not obligate or expend any funds available for
research, development, test, and evaluation to establish or
operate a resource center or program to provide technical
assistance relating to electronic commerce.
(c) Limitation.--Subsections (a) and (b) apply only in the
event of the consolidation of the procurement technical
assistance program and the electronic commerce resource
program as a single technical assistance program funded with
amounts available for operation and maintenance.
SEC. 308. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR SEPARATION PAY FOR
DEFENSE ACQUISITION PERSONNEL.
Of the amount authorized to be appropriated pursuant to
section 301(5) for operation and maintenance for Defense-wide
activities, $100,000,000 shall be available only for the
payment of separation pay for defense acquisition personnel
(other than pursuant to section 5597 of title 5, United
States Code).
Subtitle B--Military Readiness Issues
SEC. 311. EXPANSION OF SCOPE OF QUARTERLY READINESS REPORTS.
(a) Expanded Reports Required.--Section 482 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 482. Quarterly readiness reports
``(a) Quarterly Reports Required.--Not later than 30 days
after the end of each calendar-year quarter, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of
the Senate and the Committee on National Security of the
House of Representatives a report on military readiness. The
report for a quarter shall contain the information required
by subsections (b) (d), and (e).
``(b) Readiness Problems and Remedial Actions.--Each report
shall specifically describe--
``(1) readiness problems or deficiencies identified using
the assessments considered under subsection (c);
``(2) planned remedial actions; and
``(3) the key indicators and other relevant information
related to the identified problem or deficiency.
``(c) Consideration of Readiness Assessments.--The
information required under subsection (b) to be included in
the report for a quarter shall be based on readiness
assessments that are provided during that quarter--
``(1) to any council, committee, or other body of the
Department of Defense--
``(A) that has responsibility for readiness oversight; and
``(B) whose membership includes at least one civilian
officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense at the
level of Assistant Secretary of Defense or higher;
``(2) by senior civilian and military officers of the
military departments and the commanders of the unified and
specified commands; and
``(3) as part of any regularly established process of
periodic readiness reviews for the Department of Defense as a
whole.
``(d) Comprehensive Readiness Indicators.--Each report
shall also include information regarding each military
department (and an evaluation of such information) with
respect to each of the following readiness indicators:
``(1) Personnel strength.--
``(A) Individual personnel status.
``(B) Historical and projected personnel trends.
``(2) Personnel turbulence.--
``(A) Recruit quality.
``(B) Borrowed manpower.
``(C) Personnel stability.
``(3) Other personnel matters.--
``(A) Personnel morale.
``(B) Medical and dental readiness.
``(C) Recruit shortfalls.
``(4) Training.--
``(A) Training unit readiness and proficiency.
``(B) Operations tempo.
``(C) Training funding.
``(D) Training commitments and deployments.
``(5) Logistics--equipment fill.--
``(A) Deployed equipment.
``(B) Equipment availability.
``(C) Equipment that is not mission capable.
``(D) Age of equipment.
``(E) Condition of nonpacing items.
``(6) Logistics--equipment maintenance.--
``(A) Maintenance backlog.
``(7) Logistics--supply.--
``(A) Availability of ordnance and spares.
``(e) Unit Readiness Indicators.--Each report shall also
include information regarding the readiness of each unit of
the armed forces at the battalion, squadron, or an equivalent
level (or a higher level) that received a readiness rating of
C-3 (or below) for any month of the calendar-year quarter
covered by the report. With respect to each such unit, the
report shall separately provide the following information:
[[Page H3970]]
``(1) The unit designation and level of organization.
``(2) The overall readiness rating for the unit for the
quarter and each month of the quarter.
``(3) The resource area or areas (personnel, equipment and
supplies on hand, equipment condition, or training) that
adversely affected the unit's readiness rating for the
quarter.
``(4) If the unit received a readiness rating below C-1 in
personnel for the quarter, the primary reason for the lower
rating, by reason code and definition.
``(5) If the unit received a readiness rating below C-1 in
equipment and supplies on hand for the quarter, the primary
reason for the lower rating, by reason code and definition.
``(6) If the unit received a readiness rating below C-1 in
equipment condition for the quarter, the primary reason for
the lower rating, by reason code and definition.
``(7) If the unit received a readiness rating below C-1 in
training for the quarter, the primary reason for the lower
rating, by reason code and definition.
``(f) Classification of Reports.--A report under this
section shall be submitted in unclassified form. To the
extent the Secretary of Defense determines necessary, the
report may also be submitted in classified form.''.
(b) Implementation Plan to Examine Readiness Indicators.--
Not later than January 15, 1998, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to the congressional defense committees a plan--
(1) specifying the manner in which the Secretary will
implement the additional reporting requirement of subsection
(d) of section 482 of title 10, United States Code, as added
by this section; and
(2) specifying the criteria proposed to be used to evaluate
the readiness indicators identified in such subsection (d).
(c) Limitation Pending Receipt of Implementation Plan.--Of
the amount available for fiscal year 1998 for operation and
support activities of the Office of the Secretary of Defense,
10 percent may not be obligated until after the date on which
the implementation plan required by subsection (b) is
submitted.
(d) First Report; Transition.--The first report required
under section 482 of title 10, United States Code, as amended
by subsection (a), shall be submitted not later than October
31, 1997. Until the report required for the third quarter of
1998 is submitted, the Secretary of Defense may omit the
information required by subsection (d) of such section if the
Secretary determines that it is impracticable to comply with
such subsection with regard to the preceding reports.
SEC. 312. LIMITATION ON REALLOCATION OF FUNDS WITHIN
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Limitation.--Whenever the Secretary of Defense proposes
to reallocate funds within an O&M budget activity in a manner
described in subsection (b), the reallocation may be made
only--
(1) after the Secretary submits to the congressional
defense committees notice of the proposed reallocation; and
(2) if the procedures generally applicable to transfers of
funds between appropriations of the Department of Defense
have been followed with respect to such reallocation.
(b) Covered Reallocations.--Subsection (a) applies in the
case of any reallocation of funds from a subactivity of an
O&M budget activity to another subactivity within the same
O&M budget activity or to another O&M budget activity within
the same operation and maintenance appropriation if the
amount to be reallocated, when added to any previous amounts
reallocated from that subactivity for that fiscal year, is in
excess of $10,000,000.
(c) O&M Budget Activity Defined.--For purposes of this
section, the term ``O&M budget activity'' means a budget
activity within an operation and maintenance appropriation of
the Department of Defense for a fiscal year.
(d) Covered Fiscal Years.--This section applies with
respect to funds appropriated for fiscal years 1998, 1999,
and 2000.
SEC. 313. OPERATION OF PREPOSITIONED FLEET, NATIONAL TRAINING
CENTER, FORT IRWIN, CALIFORNIA.
Of the amount authorized to be appropriated pursuant to
section 301(1) for operation and maintenance for the Army,
$60,200,000 shall be available only to pay costs associated
with the operation of the prepositioned fleet of equipment
during training rotations at the National Training Center,
Fort Irwin, California.
SEC. 314. PROHIBITION OF IMPLEMENTATION OF TIERED READINESS
SYSTEM.
(a) Prohibition.--The Secretary of a military department
may not implement, or be required to implement, a readiness
system for units of the Armed Forces under the jurisdiction
of that Secretary under which a military unit would be
categorized into one of several categories (or ``tiers'')
according to the likelihood that the unit will be required to
respond to a military conflict and the time in which the unit
will be required to respond, if that system would have the
effect of changing the methods used as of October 1, 1996, by
the Armed Forces under the jurisdiction of that Secretary for
determining the priorities for allocating to such military
units funding, personnel, equipment, equipment maintenance,
and training resources, and the associated levels of
readiness of those units that result from those priorities.
(b) Report to Congress Requesting Waiver.--If the Secretary
of Defense determines that implementation, for one or more of
the Armed Forces, of a tiered readiness system that is
otherwise prohibited by subsection (a) would be in the
national security interests of the United States, the
Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of
the Senate and the Committee on National Security of the
House of Representatives a report setting forth that
determination of the Secretary, together with the rationale
for that determination, and a request for the enactment of
legislation to allow implementation of such a system.
SEC. 315. REPORTS ON TRANSFERS FROM HIGH-PRIORITY READINESS
APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Annual and Quarterly Reports Required.--Chapter 23 of
title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following new section:
``Sec. 483. Reports on transfers from high-priority readiness
appropriations
``(a) Annual Reports.--Not later than the date on which the
President submits the budget for a fiscal year to Congress
pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services and
the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the
Committee on National Security and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives a report on
transfers during the preceding fiscal year from funds
available for each covered budget activity.
``(b) Quarterly Reports.--Not later than 30 days after the
end of each quarter of a fiscal year, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to the congressional committees
specified in subsection (a) a report on transfers, during
that fiscal year quarter, from funds available for each
covered budget activity.
``(c) Matters To Be Included.--In each report under
subsection (a) or (b), the Secretary of Defense shall include
for each covered budget activity the following:
``(1) A statement, for the period covered by the report,
of--
``(A) the total amount of transfers into funds available
for that activity;
``(B) the total amount of transfers from funds available
for that activity; and
``(C) the net amount of transfers into, or out of, funds
available for that activity.
``(2) A detailed explanation of the transfers into, and out
of, funds available for that activity during the period
covered by the report.
``(d) Covered Budget Activity Defined.--In this section,
the term `covered budget activity' means each of the
following:
``(1) The budget activity groups (known as `subactivities')
within the Operating Forces budget activity of the annual
Operation and Maintenance, Army, appropriation that are
designated as follows:
``(A) All subactivities under the category of Land Forces.
``(B) Land Forces Depot Maintenance.
``(C) Base Support.
``(D) Maintenance of Real Property.
``(2) The Air Operations budget activity groups (known as
`subactivities') within the Operating Forces budget activity
of the annual Operation and Maintenance, Navy, appropriation
that are designated as follows:
``(A) Mission and Other Flight Operations.
``(B) Fleet Air Training.
``(C) Aircraft Depot Maintenance.
``(D) Base Support.
``(E) Maintenance of Real Property.
``(3) The Ship Operations budget activity groups (known as
`subactivities') within the Operating Forces budget activity
of the annual Operation and Maintenance, Navy, appropriation
that are designated as follows:
``(A) Mission and Other Ship Operations.
``(B) Ship Operational Support and Training.
``(C) Ship Depot Maintenance.
``(D) Base Support.
``(E) Maintenance of Real Property.
``(4) The Expeditionary Forces budget activity groups
(known as `subactivities') within the Operating Forces budget
activity of the annual Operation and Maintenance, Marine
Corps, appropriation that are designated as follows:
``(A) Operational Forces.
``(B) Depot Maintenance.
``(C) Base Support.
``(D) Maintenance of Real Property.
``(5) The Air Operations and Combat Related Operations
budget activity groups (known as `subactivities') within the
Operating Forces budget activity of the annual Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force, appropriation that are designated as
follows:
``(A) Primary Combat Forces.
``(B) Primary Combat Weapons.
``(C) Air Operations Training.
``(D) Depot Maintenance.
``(E) Base Support.
``(F) Maintenance of Real Property.
``(6) The Mobility Operations budget activity group (known
as a `subactivity') within the Mobilization budget activity
of the annual Operation and Maintenance, Air Force,
appropriation that is designated as Airlift Operations.
``(e) Termination.--The requirements specified in
subsections (a) and (b) shall terminate upon the submission
of the annual report under subsection (a) covering fiscal
year 2000.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``483. Reports on transfers from high-priority readiness
appropriations.''.
SEC. 316. REPORT ON CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF EXERCISE
PROGRAM AND PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE PROGRAM.
(a) Report.--Not later than February 16, 1998, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate and the Committee on National Security
of the House of Representatives a report on the military
exercises conducted by the Department of Defense during
fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997 and the military exercises
planned to be conducted during fiscal years 1998, 1999, and
2000, under the training exercises program known as the
``CJCS Exercise Program'' and under the training exercises
program known as the Partnership for Peace program.
(b) Information on Exercises Conducted or To Be
Conducted.--The report under subsection (a) shall include the
following information for each such exercise, which shall be
set
[[Page H3971]]
forth by fiscal year and shown within fiscal year by the
sponsoring command:
(1) Name of the exercise.
(2) Type, description, duration, and objectives of the
exercise
(3) Command sponsoring the exercise.
(4) Participating units, including the number of personnel
participating in each unit.
(5) For each participating unit, the percentage of the
tasks on that unit's specification of tasks knows as a
Mission Essential Task List (or comparable specification, in
the case of any of the Armed Forces that do not maintain a
Mission Essential Task List designation) scheduled to be
performed as part of the exercise.
(6) The cost of the exercise to the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and the cost to each of the Armed Forces
participating in the exercise, with a description of the
categories of activities for which those costs are incurred
in each such case.
(7) The priority of the exercise in relation to all other
exercises planned by the sponsoring command to be conducted
during that fiscal year.
(8) In the case of an exercise conducted under the
Partnership for Peace program, the country with which each
the exercise was conducted.
(c) Assessment.--The report shall include--
(1) an assessment of the ability of each of the Armed
Forces to meet requirements of the CJCS Exercise Program and
the Partnership for Peace program with available assets;
(2) an assessment of the training value of each exercise
covered in the report to each unit participating in the
exercise, including for each such unit an assessment of the
value of the percentage under subsection (b)(5) as an
indicator of the training value of the exercise for that
unit; and
(3) options to minimize the negative effects on operational
and personnel tempo resulting from the CJCS Exercise Program
and the Partnership for Peace program.
(d) Funding Limitation Pending Receipt of Report.--Of the
funds available for fiscal year 1998 for the conduct of the
CJSC Exercise Program, not more than 50 percent may be
expended before the report under subsection (a) is submitted.
SEC. 317. QUARTERLY REPORTS ON EXECUTION OF OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Report Required.--Chapter 23 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 483, as added by
section 315, the following new section:
``Sec. 484. Quarterly reports on execution of operation and
maintenance appropriations
``(a) Report Required.--Not later than 60 days after the
end of each quarter of a fiscal year, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services and
the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the
Committee on National Security and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives a report
containing budget execution data for each budget activity
group (known as a `subactivity') within the annual operation
and maintenance appropriations for the period covered by the
report. A report shall cover all preceding quarters of the
fiscal year involved.
``(b) Manner of Presenting Data.--The budget execution data
required under subsection (a) shall be displayed for the
fiscal year involved in the same manner used in the operation
and maintenance tables contained in the budget justification
document entitled `O-1 Exhibit' submitted to Congress in
support of the budget of the Department of Defense, as
included in the budget of the President submitted under
section 1105 of title 31.
``(c) Required Information.--The following information
shall be provided for each budget activity group:
``(1) Amounts authorized to be appropriated.
``(2) Amounts appropriated.
``(3) Direct obligations.
``(4) Total obligational authority.
``(5) Amounts related to unbudgeted contingency operations.
``(6) Direct obligations related to unbudgeted contingency
operations.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 483, as added by section 315, the
following new item:
``484. Quarterly reports on execution of operation and maintenance
appropriations.''.
Subtitle C--Civilian Personnel
SEC. 321. PAY PRACTICES WHEN OVERSEAS TEACHERS TRANSFER TO
GENERAL SCHEDULE POSITIONS.
Section 5334(d) of title 5, United States Code, is amended
by striking out ``is deemed increased by 20 percent'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``shall be increased by such amount
as may be authorized, if any, under regulations issued by the
Secretary of Defense, but not to exceed 20 percent,''.
SEC. 322. USE OF APPROVED FIRE-SAFE ACCOMMODATIONS BY
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS.
(a) Percentage Use Requirement.--Section 5707a of title 5,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (a) through (d) as
subsections (b) through (e), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after the section heading the following
new subsection:
``(a)(1) For the purpose of making payments under this
chapter for lodging expenses incurred in a State, each agency
shall ensure that not less than 90 percent of the commercial-
lodging room nights for employees of that agency for a fiscal
year are booked in approved places of public accommodation.
``(2) Each agency shall establish explicit procedures to
satisfy the percentage requirement of paragraph (1).''.
(b) Definitions.--Such section is further amended by adding
at the end the following new subsection:
``(f) For purposes of this section:
``(1) The term `agency' does not include the government of
the District of Columbia.
``(2) The term `approved places of public accommodation'
means hotels, motels, and other places of public
accommodation that are listed by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency as meeting the requirements of the fire
prevention and control guidelines described in section 29 of
the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15
U.S.C. 2225).
``(3) The term `State' means any State, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, or
any other territory or possession of the United States.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--Such section is further
amended--
(1) in subsection (b), as redesignated by subsection
(a)(1)--
(A) by striking out ``places of public accommodation that
meet the requirements of the fire prevention and control
guidelines described in section 29 of the Federal Fire
Prevention and Control Act of 1974'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``approved places of public accommodation''; and
(B) by striking out ``as defined in section 4 of the
Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974'';
(2) in subsection (c), as redesignated by subsection
(a)(1), by striking out ``does not meet the requirements of
the fire prevention and control guidelines described in
section 29 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of
1974'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``is not an approved
place of public accommodation''; and
(3) in subsection (e), as redesignated by subsection
(a)(1)--
(A) by striking out ``encourage'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``facilitate the ability of ''; and
(B) by striking out ``places of public accommodation that
meet the requirements of the fire prevention and control
guidelines described in section 29 of the Federal Fire
Prevention and Control Act of 1974'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``approved places of public accommodation''.
(d) Report on Implementation.--Not later than March 31,
1998, the Administrator of General Services, after
consultation with the agencies covered by section 5707a of
title 5, United States Code, shall submit to Congress a
report describing the procedures established by each agency
to satisfy the percentage requirement imposed by subsection
(a) of such section, as amended by this section.
Subtitle D--Depot-Level Activities
SEC. 331. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR AVIATION DEPOTS AND
NAVAL SHIPYARDS TO ENGAGE IN DEFENSE-RELATED
PRODUCTION AND SERVICES.
Section 1425(e) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510; 104 Stat. 1684) is
amended by striking out ``September 30, 1997'' and inserting
in lieu thereof ``September 30, 1999''.
SEC. 332. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN LARGE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR
PROJECTS FROM PERCENTAGE LIMITATION ON
CONTRACTING FOR DEPOT-LEVEL MAINTENANCE.
Section 2466 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
inserting after subsection (a) the following new subsection:
``(b) Treatment of Certain Large Projects.--If a
maintenance or repair project concerning an aircraft carrier
or submarine that is contracted for performance by non-
Federal Government personnel and that accounts for five
percent or more of the funds made available in a fiscal year
to a military department or a Defense Agency for depot-level
maintenance and repair workload, the project and the funds
necessary for the project shall not be considered when
applying the percentage limitation specified in subsection
(a) to that military department or Defense Agency.''.
SEC. 333. RESTRICTIONS ON CONTRACTS FOR PERFORMANCE OF DEPOT-
LEVEL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR AT CERTAIN
FACILITIES.
(a) Depot-Level Maintenance and Repair Defined.--(1)
Chapter 146 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
inserting before section 2461 the following new section:
``Sec. 2460. Definition of depot-level maintenance and repair
``(a) In General.--In this chapter, the term `depot-level
maintenance and repair' means material maintenance or repair
requiring the overhaul, upgrading, or rebuilding of parts,
assemblies, or subassemblies, and the testing and reclamation
of equipment as necessary, regardless of the source of funds
for the maintenance or repair. The term includes all aspects
of software maintenance and such portions of interim
contractor support, contractor logistics support, or any
similar contractor support for the performance of services
that are described in the preceding sentence.
``(b) Exception.--The term does not include the procurement
of a major weapon system modification or upgrade, except
where the changes to the system are primarily for safety
reasons, to correct a deficiency, or to improve program
performance.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by inserting before the item relating to section
2461 the following new item:
``2460. Definition of depot-level maintenance and repair.''.
(b) Restriction on Certain Contracts.--Section 2469 of
title 10, United States Code, is amended--
[[Page H3972]]
(1) in subsections (a) and (b), by striking out ``or
repair'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``and repair''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Restriction on Contracts at Certain Facilities.--
``(1) Restriction.--The Secretary of Defense may not enter
into any contract for the performance of depot-level
maintenance and repair of weapon systems or other military
equipment of the Department of Defense, or for the
performance of management functions related to depot-level
maintenance and repair of such systems or equipment, at any
military installation where a depot-level maintenance and
repair facility was approved in 1995 for closure under the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of
title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note). In
the preceding sentence, the term `military installation'
includes a former military installation closed under the Act
that was a military installation when it was approved for
closure under the Act.
``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply with
respect to an installation or former installation described
in such paragraph if the Secretary of Defense certifies to
Congress, not later than 45 days before entering into a
contract for depot-level maintenance and repair at the
installation or former installation, that--
``(A) not less than 80 percent of the capacity at each of
the depot-level maintenance and repair activities of the
military department concerned is being utilized on an ongoing
basis to perform industrial operations in support of the
depot-level maintenance and repair of weapon systems and
other military equipment of the Department of Defense;
``(B) the Secretary has determined, on the basis of a
detailed analysis (which the Secretary shall submit to
Congress with the certification), that the total amount of
the costs of the proposed contract to the Government, both
recurring and nonrecurring and including any costs associated
with planning for and executing the proposed contract, would
be less than the costs that would otherwise be incurred if
the depot-level maintenance and repair to be performed under
the contract were performed using equipment and facilities of
the Department of Defense;
``(C) all of the information upon which the Secretary
determined that the total costs to the Government would be
less under the contract is available for examination; and
``(D) none of the depot-level maintenance and repair to be
performed under the contract was considered, before July 1,
1995, to be a core logistics capability of the military
department concerned pursuant to section 2464 of this title.
``(3) Capacity of depot-level activities.--For purposes of
paragraph (2)(A), the capacity of depot-level maintenance and
repair activities shall be considered to be the same as the
maximum potential capacity identified by the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Commission for purposes of the
selection in 1995 of military installations for closure or
realignment under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Act of 1990, without regard, after 1995, to any limitation on
the maximum number of Federal employees (expressed as full
time equivalent employees or otherwise), Federal
employment levels, or the actual availability of equipment
to support depot-level maintenance and repair.
``(4) GAO review.--At the same time that the Secretary
submits the certification and analysis to Congress under
paragraph (2), the Secretary shall submit a copy of the
certification and analysis to the Comptroller General. The
Comptroller General shall review the analysis and the
information referred to in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2)
and, not later than 30 days after Congress receives the
certification, submit to Congress a report containing a
statement regarding whether the Comptroller General concurs
with the determination of the Secretary included in the
certification pursuant to subparagraph (B) of that paragraph.
``(5) Application.--This subsection shall apply with
respect to any contract described in paragraph (1) that is
entered into, or proposed to be entered into, after January
1, 1997.''.
SEC. 334. CORE LOGISTICS FUNCTIONS OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
Section 2464(a) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``a logistics
capability (including personnel, equipment, and facilities)''
and inserting in lieu thereof ``a core logistics capability
that is Government-owned and Government-operated (including
Government personnel and Government-owned and Government-
operated equipment and facilities)'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking out ``the logistics'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``the core logistics''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(3) Those core logistics activities identified under
paragraphs (1) and (2) shall include the capability,
facilities, and equipment to maintain and repair all types of
weapon systems and other military equipment that are
identified by the Secretary, in consultation with the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, as necessary to enable the armed forces to
fulfill the national military strategy, including the
capability and capacity to maintain and repair any new
mission-essential weapon system or materiel within four years
after the system or materiel achieves initial operational
capability.
``(4) The Secretary of Defense shall require the
performance of core logistics activities identified under
paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) at Government-owned, Government-
operated facilities of the Department of Defense (including
Government-owned, Government-operated facilities of a
military department) and shall assign such facilities
sufficient workload to ensure cost efficiency and technical
proficiency in peacetime while preserving the surge capacity
and reconstitution capabilities necessary to meet the
military contingencies provided for in the national military
strategy.''.
SEC. 335. CENTERS OF INDUSTRIAL AND TECHNICAL EXCELLENCE.
(a) Designation and Purpose.--(1) Chapter 146 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``Sec. 2474. Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence:
designation; public-private partnerships
``(a) Designation.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall
designate each depot-level activity of the military
departments and the Defense Agencies (other than facilities
approved for closure or major realignment under the Defense
Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title
XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note)) as a Center
of Industrial and Technical Excellence in the recognized core
competencies of the activity.
``(2) The Secretary shall establish a policy to encourage
the Secretary of each military department and the head of
each Defense Agency to reengineer industrial processes and
adopt best-business practices at their depot-level activities
in connection with their core competency requirements, so as
to serve as recognized leaders in their core competencies
throughout the Department of Defense and in the national
technology and industrial base (as defined in section 2500(1)
of this title).
``(b) Public-Private Partnerships.--The Secretary of
Defense shall enable Centers of Industrial and Technical
Excellence to form public-private partnerships for the
performance of depot-level maintenance and repair and shall
encourage the use of such partnerships to maximize the
utilization of the capacity at such Centers.
``(c) Additional Work.--The policy required under
subsection (a) shall include measures to enable a private
sector entity that enters into a partnership arrangement
under subsection (b) or leases excess equipment and
facilities at a Center of Industrial and Technical Excellence
pursuant to section 2471 of this title to perform
additional work at the Center, subject to the limitations
outlined in subsection (b) of such section, outside of the
types of work normally assigned to the Center.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``2474. Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence: designation;
public-private partnerships.''.
(b) Reporting Requirement.--Not later than March 1, 1998,
the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on
the policies established by the Secretary pursuant to section
2474 of title 10, United States Code, to implement the
requirements of such section. The report shall include--
(1) the details of any public-private partnerships entered
into as of that date under subsection (b) of such section;
(2) the details of any leases entered into as of that date
under section 2471 of such title with authorized entities for
dual-use (military and nonmilitary) purposes; and
(3) the effect that the partnerships and leases had on
capacity utilization, depot rate structures, and readiness.
SEC. 336. PERSONNEL REDUCTIONS, ARMY DEPOTS PARTICIPATING IN
ARMY WORKLOAD AND PERFORMANCE SYSTEM.
The Secretary of the Army may not carry out a reduction in
force of civilian employees at the five Army depots
participating in the demonstration and testing of the Army
Workload and Performance System until after the date on which
the Secretary submits to Congress a report certifying that--
(1) the Army Workload and Performance System is fully
operational; and
(2) the manpower audits being performed by the Comptroller
General, the Army Audit Agency, and the Inspector General of
the Army as of the date of the enactment of this Act have
been completed.
Subtitle E--Environmental Provisions
SEC. 341. REVISION OF MEMBERSHIP TERMS FOR STRATEGIC
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD.
Section 2904(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
in paragraph (4) by striking out ``three'' and inserting in
lieu thereof ``not less than two and not more than four''.
SEC. 342. AMENDMENTS TO AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS
WITH OTHER AGENCIES IN SUPPORT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
TECHNOLOGY CERTIFICATION.
(a) Authority To Enter Into Agreements With Indian
Tribes.--Section 327 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2483)
is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, or with an Indian
tribe,'' after ``with an agency of a State or local
government'';
(2) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
(3) by inserting after subsection (d) the following new
subsection:
``(e) Definition.--In this section, the term `Indian tribe'
has the meaning given that term by section 101(36) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601(36)).''.
(b) Elimination of Certain Limitation on Authority.--
Subsection (b)(1) of such section is amended by striking out
``in carrying out its environmental restoration activities''.
[[Page H3973]]
SEC. 343. AUTHORIZATION TO PAY NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP AT FORMER DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE SITES IN CANADA.
(a) Authorization.--To the extent provided in
appropriations Acts, the Secretary of Defense may pay an
amount to the Government of Canada of not more than
$100,000,000 (in fiscal year 1996 constant dollars), for
purposes of implementing the October 1996 negotiated
settlement between the United States and Canada relating to
environmental cleanup at various sites in Canada that were
formerly used by the Department of Defense.
(b) Method of Payment.--The amount authorized by subsection
(a) shall be paid in 10 annual payments, with the first
payment made in fiscal year 1998.
(c) Fiscal Year 1998 Payment.--The payment under this
section for fiscal year 1998 shall be made from amounts
appropriated pursuant to section 301(5).
SEC. 344. MODIFICATIONS OF AUTHORITY TO STORE AND DISPOSE OF
NONDEFENSE TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
(a) Authority To Store Materials Owned by Members of the
Armed Forces.--Section 2692(a) of title 10, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``either'' before ``by the Department'';
and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``or by a member of the armed forces (or a
dependent of the member) assigned to or provided military
housing on the installation''.
(b) Additional Exception to Limitation on Storage and
Disposal.--Section 2692(b) of such title is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (9) as
paragraphs (2) through (10), respectively; and
(2) by inserting before paragraph (2) (as so redesignated)
the following new paragraph (1):
``(1) the storage, treatment, or disposal of materials that
will be or have been used in connection with an activity of
the Department of Defense or in connection with a service to
be performed on an installation of the Department for the
benefit of the Department;''.
(c) Modification to Exception Relating to Storage or
Disposal of Explosives To Assist Law Enforcement Agencies.--
Section 2692(b) of such title is amended in paragraph (3) (as
redesignated by subsection (b))--
(1) by striking out ``Federal law enforcement'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``Federal, State, or local law
enforcement''; and
(2) by striking out ``Federal agency'' and inserting in
lieu thereof ``Federal, State, or local agency''.
(d) Modification to Exception Relating to Storage of
Material in Connection With Use of a Defense Facility.--
Section 2692(b) of such title is amended in paragraph (9) (as
redesignated by subsection (b))--
(1) by striking out ``by a private person in connection
with the authorized and compatible use by that person of an
industrial-type'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``in
connection with the authorized use of a''; and
(2) by striking out ``; and'' at the end and inserting in
lieu thereof the following: ``including the use of such a
facility for testing materiel and training personnel;''.
(e) Modification to Exception Relating to Treatment and
Disposal of Material in Connection With Use of a Defense
Facility.--Section 2692(b) of such title is amended in
paragraph (10) (as redesignated by subsection (b))--
(1) by striking out ``by a private person in connection
with the authorized and compatible commercial use by that
person of an industrial-type'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``in connection with the authorized use of a'';
(2) by striking out ``with that person'' and inserting in
lieu thereof ``or agreement with the prospective user'';
(3) by striking out ``for that person's'' in subparagraph
(B) and inserting in lieu thereof ``for the prospective
user's''; and
(4) by striking out the period at the end and inserting in
lieu thereof ``; and''.
(f) Additional Exception Relating to Space Launch
Facilities.--Section 2692(b) of such title is further amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(11) the storage of any material that is not owned by the
Department of Defense if the Secretary of the military
department concerned determines that the material is required
or generated in connection with the use of a space launch
facility located on an installation of the Department of
Defense or on other land controlled by the United States.''.
(g) Technical Amendments.--(1) Section 2692(a)(1) of such
title is amended by striking out ``storage'' and inserting in
lieu thereof ``storage, treatment,''.
(2) The heading for section 2692 of such title is amended
to read as follows:
``Sec. 2692. Storage, treatment, and disposal of nondefense
toxic and hazardous materials''.
(3) The item relating to section 2692 in the table of
sections at the beginning of chapter 159 of such title is
amended to read as follows:
``2692. Storage, treatment, and disposal of nondefense toxic and
hazardous materials.''.
SEC. 345. REVISION OF REPORT REQUIREMENT FOR NAVY PROGRAM TO
MONITOR ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ORGANOTIN.
Section 333(e) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2486) is
amended--
(1) by striking out ``June 1'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``October 30'';
(2) by striking out paragraphs (1) and (2);
(3) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs
(1) and (2), respectively; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) A description of the present and future use, if any,
of antifouling paints containing organotin on naval
vessels.''.
SEC. 346. PARTNERSHIPS FOR INVESTMENT IN INNOVATIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES.
(a) Authority.--Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary of
Defense may enter into a partnership with one or more private
sector entities to demonstrate and validate innovative
environmental technologies.
(b) Limitations.--The Secretary of Defense may enter into a
partnership with respect to an environmental technology under
subsection (a)--
(1) subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary
considers appropriate and in the national interest; and
(2) only if the Secretary determines that the technology
has clear potential to be of significant value to the
Department of Defense in carrying out its environmental
activities.
(c) Funding.--Under a partnership entered into under
subsection (a), the Secretary may provide funds to the
partner or partners from appropriations available to the
Department of Defense for environmental activities, for a
period of up to five years.
(d) Report.--In the annual report required under section
2706(a) of title 10, United States Code, the Secretary of
Defense shall include the following information with respect
to partnerships entered into under this section:
(1) The number of such partnerships.
(2) A description of the nature of the technology involved
in each such partnership.
(3) A list of all partners in such partnerships.
(e) Coordination.--The Secretary of Defense shall ensure
that the Department of Defense coordinates with the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in any
verification sponsored by the Department of technologies
demonstrated and validated by a partnership entered into
under this section.
(f) Termination of Authority.--The authority to enter into
agreements under subsection (a) shall terminate three years
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 347. PILOT PROGRAM TO TEST AN ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY FOR
ELIMINATING SOLID AND LIQUID WASTE EMISSIONS
DURING SHIP OPERATIONS.
(a) Determination by Secretary of the Navy.--(1) The
Secretary of the Navy shall make a determination whether the
alternative technology described in paragraph (2) has the
clear potential for significant benefit to the Navy.
(2) The technology referred to in paragraph (1) is an
alternative technology designed to thermally treat on
shipboard all kinds of liquid and solid wastes generated on
an operating ship by means of a plasma arc melter system that
is compact, stationary, and uses a high alumina refractory
hearth.
(b) Pilot Program.--If the determination made under
subsection (a)(1) is in the affirmative, the Secretary shall
establish a pilot program to test the alternative technology.
In conducting the test, the Secretary shall seek to
demonstrate whether the technology is valid, cost-effective,
and in compliance with environmental laws and regulations.
(c) Funding.--From funds appropriated pursuant to the
authorization in section 301(2), the Secretary of the Navy
may use not more than $4,000,000 to carry out the pilot
program.
(d) Report.--(1) If the determination made under subsection
(a)(1) is in the affirmative, upon completion of the test
conducted under the pilot program the Secretary shall submit
to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the
Committee on National Security of the House of
Representatives a report setting forth in detail the results
of the test. The report shall include recommendations on
whether the alternative technology merits implementation on
naval vessels and such other recommendations as the Secretary
considers appropriate.
(2) If the determination made under subsection (a)(1) is in
the negative, the Secretary shall submit to the committees
referred to in paragraph (1) a report containing the analysis
and data used by the Secretary in making the determination
and such other recommendations as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
Subtitle F--Commissaries and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities
SEC. 361. REORGANIZATION OF LAWS REGARDING COMMISSARIES AND
EXCHANGES AND OTHER MORALE, WELFARE, AND
RECREATION ACTIVITIES.
(a) Description of Chapter.--(1) The heading of chapter 147
of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as
follows:
``CHAPTER 147--COMMISSARIES AND EXCHANGES AND OTHER MORALE, WELFARE,
AND RECREATION ACTIVITIES''.
(2) The tables of chapters at the beginning of subtitle A,
and at the beginning of part IV of subtitle A, of such title
are amended by striking out the item relating to chapter 147
and inserting in lieu thereof the following new item:
``147. Commissaries and Exchanges and Other Morale, Welfare, and
Recreation Activities...................................2481''.....
(b) Transfer and Redesignation of Unrelated Provisions.--
(1) Section 2481 of title 10, United States Code, is
transferred to chapter 159 of such title, inserted after
section 2685, and redesignated as section 2686.
(2) Sections 2483 and 2490 of such title are transferred to
the end of subchapter III of chapter 169 of such title and
redesignated as sections 2867 and 2868, respectively.
(3) Section 2491 of such title is redesignated as section
2500.
(c) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 147 of title
[[Page H3974]]
10, United States Code, is amended by striking out the items
relating to sections 2481, 2483, and 2490.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 159
of such title is amended by inserting after the item relating
to section 2685 the following new item:
``2686. Utilities and services: sale; expansion and extension of
systems and facilities.''.
(3) The table of sections at the beginning of subchapter
III of chapter 169 of such title is amended by adding at the
end the following new items:
``2867. Sale of electricity from alternate energy and cogeneration
production facilities.
``2868. Utility services: furnishing for certain buildings.''.
(4) The table of sections at the beginning of subchapter I
of chapter 148 of such title is amended by striking out the
item relating to section 2491 and inserting in lieu thereof
the following new item:
``2500. Definitions.''.
(d) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 2534(d) of title
10, United States Code, is amended by striking out ``section
2491(1)'' both places it appears and inserting in lieu
thereof ``section 2500(1)''.
(2) Section 2865(b)(2) of such title is amended by striking
out ``section 2483(b)(2)'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``section 2867(b)(2)''.
SEC. 362. MERCHANDISE AND PRICING REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMISSARY
STORES.
(a) Authorized Commissary Merchandise Categories.--
Subsection (b) of section 2486 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by striking out the matter preceding paragraph (1) and
inserting in lieu thereof the following: ``(b) Authorized
Commissary Merchandise Categories.--Merchandise sold in, at,
or by commissary stores may include items only in the
following categories:''; and
(2) by striking out paragraph (11) and inserting in lieu
thereof the following new paragraph:
``(11) Subject to the congressional notification
requirements of subsection (f), such other merchandise
categories as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe.''.
(b) Alteration of Uniform Sales Price Surcharge or
Adjustment.--Subsection (c) of such section is amended--
(1) by inserting ``Uniform Sales Price Surcharge or
Adjustment.--'' after ``(c)'';
(2) by striking out ``in commissary stores.'' and inserting
in lieu thereof ``in, at, or by commissary stores.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The
uniform percentage in effect on the date of the enactment of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998
may not be changed except by a law enacted after such
date.''.
(c) Establishment of Sales Price.--Subsection (d) of such
section is amended to read as follows:
``(d) Sales Price Establishment.--The Secretary of Defense
shall establish the sales price of each item of merchandise
sold in, at, or by commissary stores at the level that will
recoup the actual product cost of the item (consistent with
this section and sections 2484 and 2685 of this title).''.
(d) Congressional Notification; Special Rules.--Such
section is further amended by adding at the end the following
new subsections:
``(f) Congressional Notification.--(1) Any change in the
pricing policies for merchandise sold in, at, or by
commissary stores, and any addition of a merchandise category
under subsection (a)(11), shall not take effect until the
Secretary of Defense submits written notice of the proposed
change or addition to Congress and a period of 90 days of
continuous session of Congress expires following the date on
which notice was received.
``(2) For purposes of this subsection, the continuity of a
session of Congress is broken only by an adjournment of the
Congress sine die, and the days on which either House is not
in session because of an adjournment or recess of more than
three days to a day certain are excluded in a computation of
such 90-day period.
``(g) Special Rule for Certain Merchandise.--(1)
Notwithstanding the general requirement that merchandise sold
in, at, or by commissary stores be commissary store
inventory, the Secretary of Defense may authorize the sale of
items in the merchandise categories specified in paragraph
(2) as noncommissary store inventory. Subsections (c) and (d)
shall not apply to the pricing of such items of merchandise.
``(2) The merchandise categories referred to in paragraph
(1) are as follows:
``(A) Magazines and other periodicals.
``(B) Tobacco products.''.
(e) Clerical and Conforming Amendments.--Such section is
further amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``In General.--'' after
``(a)''; and
(2) in subsection (e)--
(A) by inserting ``Special Rule for Brand-Name Commercial
Items.--'' after ``(e)''; and
(B) by striking out ``in commissary stores'' both places it
appears and inserting in lieu thereof ``in, at, or by
commissary stores''.
(f) Effect of Amendment.--(1) In the case of merchandise
categories authorized, before the date of the enactment of
this Act, for sale in, at, or by commissary stores pursuant
to regulations prescribed under subsection (b)(11) of section
2486 of title 10, United States Code, as in effect before
such date, the Secretary of Defense may continue to authorize
the sale of such merchandise categories in, at, or by
commissary stores after such date notwithstanding the
amendment made by subsection (a)(2). However, the sale in
commissary store of such merchandise categories shall be
subject to the other requirements of such section 2486.
(2) Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to
Congress a report specifying the commissary merchandise
categories covered by paragraph (1).
SEC. 363. LIMITATION ON NONCOMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT OF BRAND-
NAME COMMERCIAL ITEMS FOR RESALE IN COMMISSARY
STORES.
Section 2486(e) of title 10, United States Code, as amended
by section 362(e)(2), is further amended by adding at the end
the following new sentence: ``In determining whether a brand
name commercial item is regularly sold outside of commissary
stores, the Secretary shall consider only sales of the item
on a regional or national basis by commercial grocery or
other retail operations consisting of multiple stores.''.
SEC. 364. TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION OVER EXCHANGE, COMMISSARY,
AND MORALE, WELFARE, AND RECREATION ACTIVITIES
TO UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER).
(a) Comptroller Jurisdiction.--Section 135(c) of title 10,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking out ``and'' at the end of paragraph (4);
(2) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (5)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(6) in the areas of exchange, commissary, and
nonappropriated fund instrumentalities regarding morale,
welfare, and recreation activities.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 136(b) of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by striking out ``exchange,
commissary, and nonappropriated fund activities,''.
SEC. 365. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS TO BENEFIT MORALE,
WELFARE, AND RECREATION ACTIVITIES.
(a) Partnerships Authorized.--Chapter 147 of title 10,
United States Code, as amended by section 361, is further
amended by inserting before section 2482 the following new
section:
``Sec. 2481. Morale, welfare, and recreation activities:
leases and other contracts to benefit
``(a) Leases and Other Contracts Authorized.--The Secretary
of Defense may authorize a nonappropriated fund
instrumentality to enter into leases, licensing agreements,
concession agreements, and other contracts with private
persons and State or local governments involving real
property (and related personal property) under the control of
the nonappropriated fund instrumentality in order to
facilitate the provision of facilities, goods, or services to
authorized patrons of the nonappropriated fund
instrumentality.
``(b) Conditions.--A nonappropriated fund instrumentality
may enter into an authorized lease or other contract under
subsection (a) only if the nonappropriated fund
instrumentality determines, in consultation with the
Secretary of Defense, that--
``(1) the use of the property subject to the lease or
contract will provide appropriate space, or contribute to the
provision of goods and services, for a morale, welfare, or
recreation activity of the nonappropriated fund
instrumentality;
``(2) the lease or contract will not be inconsistent with
and will not adversely affect the mission of the Department
or the nonappropriated fund instrumentality; and
``(3) the lease or contract will enhance the use of the
property subject to the lease or contract.
``(c) Access to Resulting Facilities, Goods, or Services.--
The use of a lease or contract under subsection (a) to
provide facilities, goods, or services shall not be construed
to permit the use of the resulting facilities, goods, or
services by persons who are not authorized patrons of the
nonappropriated fund instrumentality that is a party to the
lease or contract.
``(d) Lease and Contract Terms.--Subsection (b) of section
2667 of this title shall apply to a lease or contract under
subsection (a), except that references to the Secretary
concerned shall be deemed to mean the nonappropriated fund
instrumentality that is a party to the lease or contract.
``(e) Money Rentals.--Money rentals received pursuant to a
lease or contract under subsection (a) shall be treated in
the same manner as other receipts of the nonappropriated fund
instrumentality that is a party to the lease or contract,
except that use of the rentals shall be restricted to the
installation at which the property covered by the lease or
contract is located.
``(f) Definition.--In this section, the term
`nonappropriated fund instrumentality' means the Army and Air
Force Exchange Service, Navy Exchange Service Command, Marine
Corps exchanges, or any other instrumentality of the United
States under the jurisdiction of the armed forces which is
conducted for the comfort, pleasure, contentment, or physical
or mental improvement of members of the armed forces.''.
(b) Clerical Amendments.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 147 of such title, as amended by section
361, is further amended by inserting before the item relating
to section 2482 the following new item:
``2481. Morale, welfare, and recreation activities: leases and other
contracts to benefit.''.
SEC. 366. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY DEFENSE
COMMISSARY AGENCY.
Section 2482 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) Treatment of Certain Receipts.--(1) The Defense
Commissary Agency shall deposit
[[Page H3975]]
amounts received from the sources specified in paragraph (2)
into the same account in which the proceeds from the
adjustment of, or surcharge on, commissary store prices
authorized by subsection (a) of section 2685 of this title
are deposited. In such amounts as provided in appropriations
Acts, the amounts deposited under this paragraph shall be
available for the purposes described in subsection (b) of
such section.
``(2) Paragraph (1) shall apply with respect to amounts
received by the Defense Commissary Agency from--
``(A) the sale of items for recycling;
``(B) the disposal of excess property;
``(C) license fees, royalties, incentive allowances, and
management and other fees; and
``(D) a nonappropriated fund instrumentality of the United
States.''.
SEC. 367. AUTHORIZED USE OF APPROPRIATED FUNDS FOR RELOCATION
OF NAVY EXCHANGE SERVICE COMMAND.
The Navy Exchange Service Command is not required to
reimburse the United States for appropriated funds allotted
to the Navy Exchange Service Command during fiscal years
1994, 1995, and 1996 to cover costs incurred by the Navy
Exchange Service Command to relocate to Virginia Beach,
Virginia, and to lease headquarters space in Virginia Beach.
Subtitle G--Other Matters
SEC. 371. ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES THAT
BENEFIT DEPENDENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED
FORCES AND DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN
EMPLOYEES.
(a) Continuation of Department of Defense Program for
Fiscal Year 1998.--Of the amount authorized to be
appropriated pursuant to section 301(5) for operation and
maintenance for Defense-wide activities--
(1) $30,000,000 shall be available for providing
educational agencies assistance (as defined in subsection
(d)(1)) to local educational agencies; and
(2) $5,000,000 shall be available for making educational
agencies payments (as defined in subsection (d)(2)) to local
educational agencies.
(b) Notification.--Not later than June 30, 1998, the
Secretary of Defense shall--
(1) notify each local educational agency that is eligible
for educational agencies assistance for fiscal year 1998 of
that agency's eligibility for such assistance and the amount
of such assistance for which that agency is eligible; and
(2) notify each local educational agency that is eligible
for an educational agencies payment for fiscal year 1998 of
that agency's eligibility for such payment and the amount of
the payment for which that agency is eligible.
(c) Disbursement of Funds.--The Secretary of Defense shall
disburse funds made available under paragraphs (1) and (2) of
subsection (a) not later than 30 days after the date on which
notification to the eligible local educational agencies is
provided pursuant to subsection (b).
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``educational agencies assistance'' means
assistance authorized under section 386(b) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law
102-484; 20 U.S.C. 7703 note).
(2) The term ``educational agencies payments'' means
payments authorized under section 386(d) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law
102-484; 20 U.S.C. 7703 note).
(3) The term ``local educational agency'' has the meaning
given that term in section 8013(9) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7713(9)).
(e) Technical Correction Relating to Original Assistance
Authority.--Section 386(c)(1) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484;
20 U.S.C. 7703 note) is amended--
(1) by striking out ``section 8003(a)'' and inserting in
lieu thereof ``section 8003(a)(1)''; and
(2) by striking out ``(20 U.S.C. 7703(a))'' and inserting
in lieu thereof ``(20 U.S.C. 7703(a)(1))''.
SEC. 372. CONTINUATION OF OPERATION MONGOOSE.
Section 135 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(f) The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) shall be
responsible for investigating evidence of fraud, waste, and
abuse uncovered as a result of the Department of Defense
program (known as Operation Mongoose) established to identify
and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse within the Department of
Defense, particularly fraud, waste, and abuse regarding
finance and accounting matters. The program shall continue
through fiscal year 2003.''.
SEC. 373. INCLUSION OF AIR FORCE DEPOT MAINTENANCE AS
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE BUDGET ACTIVITY
GROUP.
For fiscal year 1999 and each fiscal year thereafter, Air
Force depot-level maintenance of materiel shall be displayed
as one or more budget activity groups (known as
``subactivities'') within the authorization request for
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force, in the proposed budget
for that fiscal year submitted to Congress pursuant to
section 1105 of title 31, United States Code.
SEC. 374. PROGRAMS TO COMMEMORATE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF
MARSHALL PLAN AND KOREAN CONFLICT.
(a) Commemorative Programs.--(1) The Secretary of Defense
may conduct a program to commemorate the 50th anniversary of
the Marshall Plan that provided for the reconstruction of the
economies of Western Europe following World War II.
(2) The Secretary may conduct a program to commemorate the
50th anniversary of the Korean conflict.
(3) In conducting such commemorative programs, the
Secretary may coordinate, support, and facilitate other
programs and activities of the Federal Government, State and
local governments, and other persons in commemoration of the
Marshall Plan or the Korean conflict.
(b) Marshall Plan Commemorative Activities.--The
commemorative programs authorized by subsection (a)(1) may
include activities and ceremonies--
(1) to honor George C. Marshall, who developed the Marshall
Plan, for a lifetime of service to the United States as a
commissioned officer of the Army (including service during
World War II as Chief of Staff of the Army with the rank of
General of the Army) and as Secretary of Defense and
Secretary of State at the beginning of the Cold War; and
(2) to provide the people of the United States with a clear
understanding and appreciation of the significance of
Marshall Plan.
(c) Korean Conflict Commemorative Activities.--The
commemorative programs authorized by subsection (a)(2) may
include activities and ceremonies--
(1) to provide the people of the United States with a clear
understanding and appreciation of the lessons and history of
the Korean conflict;
(2) to thank and honor veterans of the Korean conflict and
their families;
(3) to pay tribute to the sacrifices and contributions made
on the home front by the people of the United States during
the Korean conflict;
(3) to highlight advances in technology, science, and
medicine related to military research conducted during the
Korean conflict;
(4) to recognize the contributions and sacrifices made by
the allies of the United States in the Korean conflict; and
(5) to highlight the role of the Armed Forces of the United
States, then and now, in maintaining world peace through
strength.
(d) Names and Symbols.--The Secretary of Defense shall have
the sole and exclusive right to use the names ``The
Department of Defense 50th Anniversary of the Marshall
Plan'', ``50th Anniversary of the Marshall Plan'', and ``The
Korean Conflict Commemoration'', and such seal, emblems, and
badges incorporating such names as the Secretary may lawfully
adopt. Nothing in this section may be construed to supersede
rights that are established or vested before the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(e) Commemorative Account.--(1) There is established in the
Treasury an account to be known as the ``Department of
Defense 50th Anniversary of the Marshall Plan and Korean
Conflict Commemoration Account'', which shall be administered
by the Secretary of Defense as a single account. There
shall be deposited into the account all proceeds derived
from the Secretary's use of the exclusive rights described
in subsection (d). The Secretary may use funds in the
account only for the purpose of conducting the
commemorative programs authorized by subsection (a).
(2) Not later than 60 days after completion of all
activities and ceremonies conducted as part of the
commemorative programs, the Secretary shall submit to
Congress a report containing an accounting of all the funds
deposited into and expended from the account or otherwise
expended under this section, and of any funds remaining in
the account. Unobligated funds remaining in the account on
that date shall be held in the account until transferred by
law.
(f) Acceptance of Voluntary Services.--(1) Notwithstanding
section 1342 of title 31, United States Code, the Secretary
of Defense may accept from any person voluntary services to
be provided in furtherance of the commemorative programs
authorized by subsection (a).
(2) A person providing voluntary services under this
subsection shall be considered to be a Federal employee for
purposes of chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code,
relating to compensation for work-related injuries. The
person shall also be considered a special governmental
employee for purposes of standards of conduct and sections
202, 203, 205, 207, 208, and 209 of title 18, United states
Code. A person who is not otherwise employed by the Federal
Government shall not be considered to be a Federal employee
for any other purpose by reason of the provision of voluntary
services under this subsection.
(3) The Secretary may provide for reimbursement of
incidental expenses incurred by a person providing voluntary
services under this subsection. The Secretary shall determine
which expenses are eligible for reimbursement under this
paragraph.
SEC. 375. PROHIBITION ON USE OF SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND
BUDGET FOR BASE OPERATION SUPPORT.
Section 167(f) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as
subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively;
(2) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``In addition''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Funds provided for the special operations command as
part of the budget for the special operations command under
paragraph (1) may not be used to cover base operation support
expenses incurred at a military installation.''.
SEC. 376. CONTINUATION AND EXPANSION OF DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
TO IDENTIFY OVERPAYMENTS MADE TO VENDORS.
(a) Scope of Program.--Section 354 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106;
110 Stat. 268; 10 U.S.C. 2461 note) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking out the second sentence;
and
(2) in subsection (b)(1), by striking out ``of the Defense
Logistics Agency that relate to (at least) fiscal years 1993,
1994, and 1995'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``relating to
fiscal years after fiscal year 1993 of the working-capital
funds and industrial, commercial, and support type activities
managed through the Defense Business Operations Fund, except
the Defense Logistics Agency to the extent such records have
already been audited''.
[[Page H3976]]
(b) Collection Method; Contractor Payments.--Such section
is further amended by striking out subsections (d) and (e)
and inserting in lieu thereof the following new subsections:
``(d) Collection Method.--In the case of an overpayment to
a vendor identified under the demonstration program, the
Secretary shall require the use of the procedures specified
in section 32.611 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation,
regarding a setoff against existing invoices for payment to
the vendor, as the first method by which the Department shall
seek to recover the amount of the overpayment (and any
applicable interest and penalties) from the vendor.
``(e) Fees for Contractor.--The Secretary shall pay to the
contractor under the contract entered into under the
demonstration program an amount not to exceed 25 percent of
the total amount recovered by the Department (through the
collection of overpayments and the use of setoffs) solely on
the basis of information obtained as a result of the audits
performed by the contractor under the program. When an
overpayment is recovered through the use of a setoff, amounts
for the required payment to the contractor shall be derived
from funds available to the working-capital fund or
industrial, commercial, or support type activity for which
the overpayment is recovered.''.
SEC. 377. APPLICABILITY OF FEDERAL PRINTING REQUIREMENTS TO
DEFENSE AUTOMATED PRINTING SERVICE.
(a) Subchapter I of chapter 8 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``Sec. 195. Defense Automated Printing Service: applicability
of Federal printing requirements
``The Defense Automated Printing Service shall comply fully
with the requirements of chapter 5 of title 44 relating to
the production and procurement of printing, binding, and
blank-book work.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such subchapter is amended by adding at the end
the following new item:
``195. Defense Automated Printing Service: applicability of Federal
printing requirements.''.
SEC. 378. BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT FOR MILITARY INSTALLATIONS
ON GUAM.
(a) Contractor Use of Nonimmigrant Aliens.--Each contract
for base operations support to be performed on Guam shall
contain a condition that work under the contract may not be
performed by any alien who is issued a visa or otherwise
provided nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)).
(b) Application of Section.--This section shall apply to
contracts entered into, amended, or otherwise modified on or
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
TITLE IV--PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS
Subtitle A--Active Forces
SEC. 401. END STRENGTHS FOR ACTIVE FORCES.
The Armed Forces are authorized strengths for active duty
personnel as of September 30, 1998, as follows:
(1) The Army, 495,000.
(2) The Navy, 395,000.
(3) The Marine Corps, 174,000.
(4) The Air Force, 381,000.
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces
SEC. 411. END STRENGTHS FOR SELECTED RESERVE.
(a) In General.--The Armed Forces are authorized strengths
for Selected Reserve personnel of the reserve components as
of September 30, 1998, as follows:
(1) The Army National Guard of the United States, 366,516.
(2) The Army Reserve, 208,000.
(3) The Naval Reserve, 94,294.
(4) The Marine Corps Reserve, 42,000.
(5) The Air National Guard of the United States, 107,377.
(6) The Air Force Reserve, 73,431.
(7) The Coast Guard Reserve, 8,000.
(b) Waiver Authority.--The Secretary of Defense may vary
the end strength authorized by subsection (a) by not more
than 2 percent.
(c) Adjustments.--The end strengths prescribed by
subsection (a) for the Selected Reserve of any reserve
component shall be proportionately reduced by--
(1) the total authorized strength of units organized to
serve as units of the Selected Reserve of such component
which are on active duty (other than for training) at the end
of the fiscal year; and
(2) the total number of individual members not in units
organized to serve as units of the Selected Reserve of such
component who are on active duty (other than for training or
for unsatisfactory participation in training) without their
consent at the end of the fiscal year.
Whenever such units or such individual members are released
from active duty during any fiscal year, the end strength
prescribed for such fiscal year for the Selected Reserve of
such reserve component shall be proportionately increased by
the total authorized strengths of such units and by the total
number of such individual members.
SEC. 412. END STRENGTHS FOR RESERVES ON ACTIVE DUTY IN
SUPPORT OF THE RESERVES.
Within the end strengths prescribed in section 411(a), the
reserve components of the Armed Forces are authorized, as of
September 30, 1998, the following number of Reserves to be
serving on full-time active duty or full-time duty, in the
case of members of the National Guard, for the purpose of
organizing, administering, recruiting, instructing, or
training the reserve components:
(1) The Army National Guard of the United States, 22,310.
(2) The Army Reserve, 11,500.
(3) The Naval Reserve, 16,136.
(4) The Marine Corps Reserve, 2,559.
(5) The Air National Guard of the United States, 10,616.
(6) The Air Force Reserve, 748.
SEC. 413. END STRENGTHS FOR MILITARY TECHNICIANS (DUAL
STATUS).
(a) Authorization for Fiscal Year 1998.--The minimum number
of military technicians (dual status) as of the last day of
fiscal year 1998 for the reserve components of the Army and
the Air Force (notwithstanding section 129 of title 10,
United States Code) shall be the following:
(1) For the Army Reserve, 5,503.
(2) For the Army National Guard of the United States,
23,125.
(3) For the Air Force Reserve, 9,802.
(4) For the Air National Guard of the United States,
22,853.
(b) Requests for Future Fiscal Years.--Section 115(g) of
title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following new sentence: ``In each budget submitted by the
President to Congress under section 1105 of title 31, the end
strength requested for military technicians (dual status) for
each reserve component of the Army and Air Force shall be
specifically set forth.''.
SEC. 414. INCREASE IN NUMBER OF MEMBERS IN CERTAIN GRADES
AUTHORIZED TO SERVE ON ACTIVE DUTY IN SUPPORT
OF THE RESERVES.
(a) Officers.--The table in section 12011(a) of title 10,
United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Marine
``Grade Army Navy Force Corps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major or Lieutenant Commander....... 3,219 1,071 673 140
Lieutenant Colonel or Commander..... 1,524 520 672 90
Colonel or Navy Captain............. 437 188 274 30''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Senior Enlisted Members.--The table in section 12012(a)
of such title is amended to read as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Marine
``Grade Army Navy Force Corps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-9................................. 627 202 371 20
E-8................................. 2,585 429 900 94''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations
SEC. 421. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR MILITARY
PERSONNEL.
There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the
Department of Defense for military personnel for fiscal year
1998 a total of $69,539,862,000. The authorization in the
preceding sentence supersedes any other authorization of
appropriations (definite or indefinite) for such purpose for
fiscal year 1998.
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy
SEC. 501. LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF GENERAL AND FLAG OFFICERS
WHO MAY SERVE IN POSITIONS OUTSIDE THEIR OWN
SERVICE.
(a) In General.--Chapter 41 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``Sec. 721. General and flag officers: limitation on
appointments, assignments, details, and duties outside an
officer's own service
``(a) Limitation.--An officer described in subsection (b)
may not be appointed, assigned, or detailed for a period in
excess of 90 days to a position external to that officer's
armed force if, immediately following such appointment,
assignment, or detail, the number of officers described in
subsection (b) serving in positions external to such
officers' armed force for a period in excess of 90 days would
be in excess of 24.5 percent of the total number of such
officers.
``(b) Covered Officers.--The officers covered by subsection
(a), and to be counted for the purposes of the limitation in
that subsection, are the following:
``(1) Any general or flag officer counted for purposes of
section 526(a) of this title.
``(2) Any general or flag officer serving in a joint duty
assignment position designated by the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff under section 526(b) of this title.
``(3) Any colonel or Navy captain counted for purposes of
section 777(d)(1) of this title.
``(c) External Positions.--For purposes of this section,
the following positions shall be considered to be external to
an officer's armed force:
``(1) Any position (including a position in joint
education) that is a joint duty assignment for purposes of
chapter 38 of this title.
``(2) Any position in the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, a Defense Agency, or a Department of Defense Field
Activity.
``(3) Any position in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Joint
Staff, or the headquarters of a combatant command (as defined
in chapter 6 of this title).
``(4) Any position in the National Guard Bureau.
``(5) Any position outside the Department of Defense,
including any position in the headquarters of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization or any other international
military command, any combined or multinational command, or
military mission.
``(d) Assignments, Etc. For Periods in Excess of 90 Days.--
For purposes of this section,
[[Page H3977]]
the appointment, assignment, or detail of an officer to a
position shall be considered to be for a period in excess of
90 days unless the appointment, assignment, or detail
specifies that it is made a period of 90 days or less.
``(e) Waiver During Period of War or National Emergency.--
The President may suspend the operation of this section
during any period of war or of national emergency declared by
Congress or the President.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``721. General and flag officers: limitation on appointments,
assignments, details, and duties outside an officer's own
service.''.
SEC. 502. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN RETIRED OFFICERS FROM
LIMITATION ON PERIOD OF RECALL TO ACTIVE DUTY.
Effective October 1, 1997, section 688(e) of title 10,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``A member''; and
(2) adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the following
officers:
``(A) A chaplain who is assigned to duty as a chaplain for
the period of active duty to which ordered.
``(B) A health care professional (as characterized by the
Secretary concerned) who is assigned to duty as a health care
professional for the period of active duty to which ordered.
``(C) An officer assigned to duty with the American Battle
Monuments Commission for the period of active duty to which
ordered.''.
SEC. 503. CLARIFICATION OF OFFICERS ELIGIBLE FOR
CONSIDERATION BY SELECTION BOARDS.
(a) Officers on the Active-Duty List.--Section 619(d) of
title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking out ``grade--'' in the matter preceding
paragraph (1) and inserting in lieu thereof ``grade any of
the following officers:'';
(2) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking out ``an officer'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``An officer''; and
(B) by striking out ``; or'' at the end and inserting in
lieu thereof a period; and
(3) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3) and in
that paragraph striking out ``an officer'' and inserting in
lieu thereof ``An officer''; and
(4) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraph (2):
``(2) An officer who is recommended for promotion to that
grade in the report of an earlier selection board convened
under that section, in the case of such a report that has not
yet been approved by the President.''.
(b) Officers on the Reserve Active-Status List.--Section
14301(c) of such title is amended--
(1) by striking out ``grade--'' in the matter preceding
paragraph (1) and inserting in lieu thereof ``grade any of
the following officers:'';
(2) by striking out ``an officer'' in each of paragraphs
(1), (2), and (3) and inserting in lieu thereof ``An
officer'';
(3) by striking out the semicolon at the end of paragraph
(1) and inserting in lieu thereof a period;
(4) by striking out ``; or'' at the end of paragraph (2)
and inserting in lieu thereof a period;
(5) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3), as so amended,
as paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively, and in each such
paragraph striking out ``the next higher grade'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``that grade''; and
(6) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraph (2):
``(2) An officer who is recommended for promotion to that
grade in the report of an earlier selection board convened
under a provision referred to in paragraph (1), in the case
of such a report that has not yet been approved by the
President.''.
(c) Clarifying Amendments.--Paragraphs (3) and (4) of
section 14301(c) of such title, as redesignated and amended
by subsection (b), are each amended by inserting before the
period at the end the following: ``, if that nomination is
pending before the Senate''.
SEC. 504. AUTHORITY TO DEFER MANDATORY RETIREMENT FOR AGE OF
OFFICERS SERVING AS CHAPLAINS.
(a) Authority for Deferral of Retirement for Chaplains
Providing Direct Support to Units or Installations.--
Subsection (c) of section 1251 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs
(3) and (4), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraph (2):
``(2) The Secretary concerned may defer the retirement
under subsection (a) of an officer who is appointed or
designated as a chaplain if during the period of the
deferment the officer will be performing duties consisting
primarily of providing direct support as a chaplain to units
or installations.''.
(b) Authority for Deferral of Retirement for Chief and
Deputy Chief of Chaplains.--Such section is further amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) The Secretary concerned may defer the retirement
under subsection (a) of an officer who is the Chief of
Chaplains or Deputy Chief of Chaplains of that officer's
armed force. Such a deferment may not extend beyond the
first day of the month following the month in which the
officer becomes 68 years of age.''.
(c) Qualification for Service as Navy Chief of Chaplains or
Deputy Chief of Chaplains.--(1) Section 5142(b) of such title
is amended by striking out ``, who are not on the retired
list,''.
(2) Section 5142a of such title is amended by striking out
``, who is not on the retired list,''.
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Matters
SEC. 511. INDIVIDUAL READY RESERVE ACTIVATION AUTHORITY.
(a) IRR Members Subject To Order to Active Duty Other Than
During War or National Emergency.--Section 10144 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``Within the Ready
Reserve''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b)(1) Within the Individual Ready Reserve of each
reserve component there is a category of members, as
designated by the Secretary concerned, who are subject to
being ordered to active duty involuntarily in accordance with
section 12304 of this title. A member may not be placed in
that mobilization category unless--
``(A) the member volunteers for that category; and
``(B) the member is selected for that category by the
Secretary concerned, based upon the needs of the service and
the grade and military skills of that member.
``(2) A member of the Individual Ready Reserve may not be
carried in such mobilization category of members after the
end of the 24-month period beginning on the date of the
separation of the member from active service.
``(3) The Secretary shall designate the grades and military
skills or specialities of members to be eligible for
placement in such mobilization category.
``(4) A member in such mobilization category shall be
eligible for benefits (other than pay and training) as are
normally available to members of the Selected Reserve, as
determined by the Secretary of Defense.''.
(b) Criteria for Ordering to Active Duty.--Subsection (a)
of section 12304 of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by inserting after ``of this title),'' the following: ``or
any member in the Individual Ready Reserve mobilization
category and designated as essential under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary concerned,''.
(c) Maximum Number.--Subsection (c) of such section is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``and the Individual Ready Reserve'' after
``Selected Reserve''; and
(2) by inserting ``, of whom not more than 30,000 may be
members of the Individual Ready Reserve'' before the period
at the end.
(d) Conforming Amendments.--Such section is further
amended--
(1) in subsection (f), by inserting ``or Individual Ready
Reserve'' after ``Selected Reserve'';
(2) in subsection (g), by inserting ``, or member of the
Individual Ready Reserve,'' after ``to serve as a unit''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(i) For purposes of this section, the term `Individual
Ready Reserve mobilization category' means, in the case of
any reserve component, the category of the Individual Ready
Reserve described in section 10144(b) of this title.''.
(e) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The heading of such section
is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 12304. Selected Reserve and certain Individual Ready
Reserve members; order to active duty other than during war
or national emergency''.
(2) The item relating to section 12304 in the table of
sections at the beginning of chapter 1209 of such title is
amended to read as follows:
``12304. Selected Reserve and certain Individual Ready Reserve members;
order to active duty other than during war or national
emergency''.
SEC. 512. TERMINATION OF MOBILIZATION INCOME INSURANCE
PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Chapter 1214 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``Sec. 12533. Termination of program
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall terminate the
insurance program in accordance with this section.
``(b) Termination of New Enrollments.--The Secretary may
not enroll a member of the Ready Reserve for coverage under
the insurance program after the date of the enactment of this
section.
``(c) Termination of Coverage.--(1) The enrollment under
the insurance program of insured members other than insured
members described in paragraph (2) is terminated as of the
date of the enactment of this section. The enrollment of
an insured member described in paragraph (2) is terminated
as of the date of the termination of the period of covered
service of that member described in that paragraph.
``(2) An insured member described in this paragraph is an
insured member who on the date of the enactment of this
section is serving on covered service for a period of
service, or has been issued an order directing the
performance of covered service, that satisfies or would
satisfy the entitlement-to-benefits provisions of this
chapter.
``(d) Termination of Payment of Benefits.--The Secretary
may not make any benefit payment under the insurance program
after the date of the enactment of this section other than to
an insured member who on that date (1) is serving on an order
to covered service, (2) has been issued an order directing
performance of covered service, or (3) has served on covered
service before that date for which benefits under the program
have not been paid to the member.
``(e) Termination of Insurance Fund.--The Secretary shall
close the Fund not later than 60 days after the date on which
the last benefit payment from the Fund is made. Any amount
remaining in the Fund when closed shall be covered into the
Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.''.
[[Page H3978]]
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``12533. Termination of program.''.
SEC. 513. CORRECTION OF INEQUITIES IN MEDICAL AND DENTAL CARE
AND DEATH AND DISABILITY BENEFITS FOR RESERVE
MEMBERS WHO INCUR OR AGGRAVATE AN ILLNESS IN
THE LINE OF DUTY.
(a) Medical and Dental Care for Dependents.--Section
1076(a)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking out ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
(2) by striking out the period at the end of subparagraph
(B) and inserting in lieu thereof ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) who incurs or aggravates an injury or illness in the
line of duty while serving on active duty for a period of 30
days or less and whose orders are subsequently modified to
extend the period of active duty to a period of more than 30
days.''.
(b) Medical and Dental Care.--Section 1074a(a)(3) of such
title is amended by inserting ``while remaining overnight
immediately before the commencement of inactive-duty
training, or'' after ``in the line of duty''.
(c) Eligibility for Disability Retirement.--Section
1204(2)(C) of such title is amended by inserting ``while
remaining overnight immediately before the commencement of
inactive-duty training, or'' after ``aggravated''.
(d) Eligibility for Disability Separation.--Section 1206 of
such title is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) as
paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraph:
``(2) the disability was incurred in the line of duty as a
result of--
``(A) performing active duty or inactive-duty training;
``(B) traveling directly to or from the place at which such
duty is performed; or
``(C) an injury, illness, or disease incurred or aggravated
while remaining overnight immediately before the commencement
of inactive-duty training, or while remaining overnight
between successive periods of inactive-duty training, at or
in the vicinity of the site of the inactive-duty training, if
the site is outside reasonable commuting distance of the
member's residence;''.
(e) Recovery, Care, and Disposition of Remains.--Section
1481(a)(2)(D) of such title is amended by inserting
``remaining overnight immediately before the commencement of
inactive-duty training, or'' after ``(D)''.
(f) Entitlement to Basic Pay.--Section 204 of title 37,
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``while remaining
overnight immediately before the commencement of inactive-
duty training, or'' in subsections (g)(1)(D) and (h)(1)(D)
after ``in line of duty''.
(g) Compensation for Inactive-Duty Training.--Section
206(a)(3)(C) of such title is amended by inserting ``while
remaining overnight immediately before the commencement of
inactive-duty training, or'' after ``in line of duty''.
SEC. 514. TIME-IN-GRADE REQUIREMENTS FOR RESERVE COMMISSIONED
OFFICERS RETIRED DURING FORCE DRAWDOWN PERIOD.
(a) Authority Comparable to Active-Duty List Officers.--
Subsection (d)(3) of section 1370 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(F) The Secretary of Defense may authorize the Secretary
of a military department to reduce the three-year period
specified in subparagraph (A) to a period of not less than
two years in the case of retirements effective during the
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this
subparagraph and ending on September 30, 1999. The number
of officers in an armed force in a grade for whom a
reduction is made during any fiscal year in the period of
service-in-grade otherwise required under this paragraph
may not exceed the number equal to two percent of the
authorized reserve active status strength for that fiscal
year for officers of that armed force in that grade.''.
(b) Technical Amendments.--Such section is further
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2)(A), by inserting ``of'' after
``reduce such period to a period''; and
(2) in subsection (d)(1), by striking out ``chapter 1225''
and inserting in lieu thereof ``chapter 1223''.
SEC. 515. AUTHORITY TO PERMIT NON-UNIT ASSIGNED OFFICERS TO
BE CONSIDERED BY VACANCY PROMOTION BOARD TO
GENERAL OFFICER GRADES.
(a) Convening of Selection Boards.--Section 14101(a)(2) of
title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking out
``(except in the case of a board convened to consider
officers as provided in section 14301(e) of this title).''.
(b) Eligibility for Consideration of Certain Army
Officers.--Section 14301 of such title is amended--
(1) by striking out subsection (e); and
(2) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections
(e) and (f), respectively.
(c) General Officer Promotions.--Section 14308 of such
title is amended--
(1) in subsection (e)(2), by inserting ``a grade below
colonel in'' after ``(2) an officer in''; and
(2) in subsection (g)--
(A) by inserting ``or the Air Force'' in the first sentence
after ``of the Army'' the first place it appears;
(B) by striking out ``in that grade'' in the first sentence
and all that follows through ``Secretary of the Army'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``in the Army Reserve or the Air
Force Reserve, as the case may be, in that grade''; and
(C) by striking out the second sentence.
(d) Vacancy Promotions.--Section 14315(b)(1) of such title
is amended by striking out ``the duties'' in clause (A) and
all that follows through ``as a unit,'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``duties of a general officer of the next higher
reserve grade in the Army Reserve,''.
SEC. 516. GRADE REQUIREMENT FOR OFFICERS ELIGIBLE TO SERVE ON
INVOLUNTARY SEPARATION BOARDS.
Section 14906(a)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by striking out ``a grade above lieutenant colonel or
commander'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the grade of
lieutenant colonel or commander or a higher grade''.
SEC. 517. LIMITATION ON USE OF AIR FORCE RESERVE AGR
PERSONNEL FOR AIR FORCE BASE SECURITY
FUNCTIONS.
(a) Limitation.--The Secretary of the Air Force may not use
members of the Air Force Reserve who are AGR personnel for
the performance of force protection, base security, or
security police functions at an Air Force facility in the
United States until six months after the date on which the
Secretary submits to Congress a report on such use of AGR
personnel.
(b) Matters To Be Included in Report.--The report under
subsection (a) shall include the following:
(1) A statement of the planned scope, including each
planned location, of such use of AGR personnel during the
year in which the report is submitted and each of the five
subsequent years.
(2) A detailed rationale for, and evaluation of, the cost
effectiveness of the use of AGR personnel to perform such
functions at Air Force facilities in the United States
compared to the use of Department of Defense civilian
personnel or contractor personnel for the performance of
these functions at those facilities.
(3) A plan, including a cost estimate, for the
reemployment, conversion to AGR status, or retirement of
civilian employees and military technicians who are displaced
by the use of Air Force Reserve AGR personnel to perform
those functions.
(c) AGR Personnel Defined.--For the purposes of this
section, the term ``AGR personnel'' means members of the Air
Force Reserve who are on active duty (other than for
training) in connection with organizing, administering,
recruiting, instructing, or training the Air Force Reserve.
Subtitle C--Military Technicians
SEC. 521. AUTHORITY TO RETAIN ON THE RESERVE ACTIVE-STATUS
LIST UNTIL AGE 60 MILITARY TECHNICIANS IN THE
GRADE OF BRIGADIER GENERAL.
(a) Retention.--Section 14702(a) of title 10, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by striking out ``section 14506 or 14507'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``section 14506, 14507, or 14508'';
and
(2) by striking out ``or colonel'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``colonel, or brigadier general''.
(b) Technical Amendment.--Section 14508(c) of such title is
amended by striking out ``not later than the date on which
the officer becomes 60 years of age'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``not later than the last day of the month in which
the officer becomes 60 years of age''.
SEC. 522. MILITARY TECHNICIANS (DUAL STATUS).
(a) Definition.--Subsection (a) of section 10216 of title
10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(a) In General.--(1) For purposes of this section and any
other provision of law, a military technician (dual status)
is a Federal civilian employee who--
``(A) is employed under section 3101 of title 5 or section
709 of title 32;
``(B) is required as a condition of that employment to
maintain membership in the Selected Reserve; and
``(C) is assigned to a position as a technician in the
administration and training of the Selected Reserve or in the
maintenance and repair of supplies or equipment issued to the
Selected Reserve or the armed forces.
``(2) Military technicians (dual status) shall be
authorized and accounted for as a separate category of
civilian employees.''.
(b) Unit Membership and Dual-Status Requirement.--
Subsection (d) of such section is amended to read as follows:
``(d) Unit Membership Requirement.--(1) Unless specifically
exempted by law, each individual who is hired as a military
technician (dual status) after December 1, 1995, shall be
required as a condition of that employment to maintain
membership in--
``(A) the unit of the Selected Reserve by which the
individual is employed as a military technician; or
``(B) a unit of the Selected Reserve that the individual is
employed as a military technician to support.
``(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to a military technician
(dual status) who is employed by the Army Reserve in an area
other than Army Reserve troop program units.
``(e) Dual-Status Requirement.--(1) Funds appropriated for
the Department of Defense may not (except as provided in
paragraph (2)) be used for compensation as a military
technician of any individual hired as a military technician
after February 10, 1996, who is no longer a member of the
Selected Reserve.
``(2) The Secretary concerned may pay compensation
described in paragraph (1) to an individual described in that
paragraph who is no longer a member of the Selected Reserve
for a period not to exceed six months following the
individual's loss of membership in the Selected Reserve if
the Secretary determines such loss of membership was not due
to the failure of that individual to meet military
standards.''.
[[Page H3979]]
(c) National Guard Dual-Status Requirement.--Section 709(b)
of title 32, United States Code, is amended by striking out
``Except as prescribed by the Secretary concerned, a
technician'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``A technician''.
(d) Plan for Clarification of Statutory Authority of
Military Technicians.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall
submit to Congress, as part of the budget justification
materials submitted in support of the budget for the
Department of Defense for fiscal year 1999, a legislative
proposal to provide statutory authority and clarification
under title 5, United States Code--
(A) for the hiring, management, promotion, separation, and
retirement of military technicians who are employed in
support of units of the Army Reserve or Air Force Reserve;
and
(B) for the transition to the competitive service of an
individual who is hired as military technician in support of
a unit of the Army Reserve or Air Force Reserve and who (as
determined by the Secretary concerned) fails to maintain
membership in the Selected Reserve through no fault of the
individual.
(2) The legislative proposal under paragraph (1) shall be
developed in consultation with the Director of the Office of
Personnel Management.
(e) Conforming Repeal.--Section 8106 of Public Law 104-61
(109 Stat. 654; 10 U.S.C. 10101 note) is repealed.
(f) Cross-Reference Corrections.--Section 10216(c)(1) of
title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking out
``subsection (a)(1)'' in subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D)
and inserting in lieu thereof ``subsection (b)(1)''.
(g) Conforming Amendments to Section 10216.--Section 10216
of title 10, United States Code, is further amended as
follows:
(1) The heading of subsection (b) is amended by inserting
``(Dual Status)'' after ``Military Technicians''.
(2) Subsection (b)(1) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``(dual status)'' after ``for military
technicians'';
(B) by striking out ``dual status military technicians''
and inserting in lieu thereof ``military technicians (dual
status)'';
(C) by inserting ``(dual status)'' after ``military
technicians'' in subparagraph (C).
(3) Subsection (b)(2) is amended by inserting ``(dual
status)'' after ``military technicians'' both places it
appears.
(4) Subsection (b)(3) is amended by inserting ``(dual
status)'' after ``Military technician''.
(5) Subsection (c) is amended--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)(A), by inserting
``(dual status)'' after ``military technicians'';
(B) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``dual status
technicians'' in subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D) and
inserting in lieu thereof ``military technicians (dual
status)'';
(C) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ``(dual status)''
after ``military technician''; and
(D) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking out ``delineate--''
and all that follows through ``or other reasons'' in clause
(ii) and inserting in lieu thereof ``delineate the specific
force structure reductions''.
(h) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The heading of section 10216
of such title is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 10216. Military technicians (dual status)''.
(2) The item relating to such section in the table of
sections at the beginning of chapter 1007 of such title is
amended to read as follows:
``10216. Military technicians (dual status).''.
(i) Other Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 115(g) of
such title is amended by inserting ``(dual status)'' in the
first sentence after ``military technicians'' and in the
second sentence after ``military technician''.
(2) Section 115a(h) of such title is amended--
(A) by inserting ``(displayed in the aggregate and
separately for military technicians (dual status) and non-
dual status military technicians)'' in the matter preceding
paragraph (1) after ``of the following''; and
(B) by striking out paragraph (3).
SEC. 523. NON-DUAL STATUS MILITARY TECHNICIANS.
(a) In General.--(1) Chapter 1007 of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following
new section:
``Sec. 10217. Non-dual status military technicians
``(a) Definition.--For the purposes of this section and any
other provision of law, a non-dual status military technician
is a civilian employee of the Department of Defense who--
``(1) was hired as a military technician before the date of
the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998 under any of the authorities specified in
subsection (d); and
``(2) as of the date of the enactment of that Act is not a
member of the Selected Reserve or after such date ceases to
be a member of the Selected Reserve.
``(b) Fiscal Year 1998 Limitation.--As of September 30
1998, the number of civilian employees of a military
department who are non-dual status military technicians may
not exceed the following:
``(1) For the Army Reserve, 1,200.
``(2) For the Army National Guard of the United States,
2,260.
``(3) For the Air Force Reserve, 0.
``(4) For the Air National Guard of the United States, 395.
``(c) Reductions for Future Years.--For each of the 10
fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 1999, the Secretary
of the military department concerned shall reduce the number
of non-dual status military technicians under the
jurisdiction of that Secretary, as of the end of that fiscal
year, from the authorized number for the preceding fiscal
year by not less--
``(1) 120, for the Army Reserve;
``(2) 226, for the Army National Guard of the United
States; and
``(3) 39, for the Air National Guard of the United States.
``(d) Employment Authorities.--The authorities referred to
in subsection (a) are the following:
``(1) Section 10216 of this title.
``(2) Section 709 of title 32.
``(3) The requirements referred to in section 8401 of title
5.
``(4) Section 8016 of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 1996 (Public Law 104-61; 109 Stat. 654),
and any comparable provision provided on an annual basis in
the Department of Defense Appropriations Acts for fiscal
years 1984 through 1995.
``(5) Any memorandum of agreement between the Department of
Defense and the Office of Personnel Management providing for
the hiring of military technicians.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``10217. Non-dual status military technicians.''.
(b) Plan for Non-Dual Status Technicians.--Not later than
March 31, 1998, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to
Congress a report setting forth recommendations of the
Secretary (including proposals for such legislative changes
as may be necessary to implement the recommendations of the
Secretary) for eliminating non-dual status military
technician positions. In developing the plan, the Secretary
shall consider (among other alternatives) the feasibility and
cost of each of the following:
(1) Elimination or consolidation of functions and
positions.
(2) Contracting for performance by contractor personnel of
functions currently performed by personnel in those
positions.
(3) Conversion of those technicians and positions, in the
case of technicians of the Army National Guard of the United
States or the Air National Guard of the United States, to
State employment and positions or competitive service
employment positions under title 5, United States Code.
(4) Conversion of those technicians or positions to
employment and positions in the competitive service under
title 5, United States Code, in the case of technicians of
the Army Reserve.
(5) Use of incentives to facilitate the reductions required
under subsection (c) of section 10217 of title 10, United
States Code, as added by subsection (a).
Subtitle D--Measures To Improve Recruit Quality and Reduce Recruit
Attrition
SEC. 531. REFORM OF MILITARY RECRUITING SYSTEMS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense shall carry out
reforms in the recruiting systems of the Army, Navy, Air
Force, and Marine Corps in order to improve the quality of
new recruits and to reduce attrition among recruits.
(b) Specific Reforms.--As part of the reforms in military
recruiting systems to be undertaken under subsection (a), the
Secretary shall take the following steps:
(1) Improve the system of separation codes used for
recruits who are separated during recruit training by (A)
revising and updating those codes to allow more accurate and
useful data collection about those separations, and (B)
prescribing regulations to ensure that those codes are
interpreted in a uniform manner by the military services.
(2) Develop a reliable database for (A) analyzing service-
wide data on reasons for attrition of new recruits, and (B)
undertaking service-wide measures to control and manage such
attrition.
(3) Require that the Secretary of each military department
(A) adopt or strengthen incentives for recruiters to
thoroughly prescreen potential candidates for recruitment,
and (B) link incentives for recruiters, in part, to the
ability of a recruiter to screen out unqualified candidates
before enlistment.
(4) Require that the Secretary of each military department
include as a measurement of recruiter performance the
percentage of persons enlisted by a recruiter who complete
initial combat training or basic training.
(5) Assess trends in the number and use of waivers over the
1991-1997 period that were issued to permit applicants to
enlist with medical or other conditions that would otherwise
be disqualifying.
(6) Require the Secretary of each military department to
implement policies and procedures (A) to ensure the prompt
separation of recruits who are unable to successfully
complete basic training, and (B) to remove those recruits
from the training environment while separation proceedings
are pending.
(c) Report.--The Secretary shall submit to Congress a
report of the trends assessed under subsection (b)(5). The
information on those trends provided in the report shall be
shown by armed force and by category of waiver. The report
shall include recommendations of the Secretary for changing,
revising, or limiting the use of waivers referred to in that
subsection and shall be submitted not later than March 31,
1998.
SEC. 532. IMPROVEMENTS IN MEDICAL PRESCREENING OF APPLICANTS
FOR MILITARY SERVICE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense shall improve the
medical prescreening of applicants for entrance into the
Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps.
(b) Specific Steps.--As part of those improvements, the
Secretary shall take the following steps:
(1) Require that each applicant for service in the Army,
Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps (A) provide to the Secretary
the name of the applicant's medical insurer and the names of
past medical providers, and (B) sign a release allowing the
Secretary to request and obtain medical records of the
applicant.
(2) Require that the forms and procedures for medical
prescreening of applicants that are used
[[Page H3980]]
by recruiters and by Military Entrance Processing Commands be
revised so as to ensure that medical questions are specific,
unambiguous, and tied directly to the types of medical
separations most common for recruits during basic training
and follow-on training.
(3) Add medical screening tests to the examinations of
recruits carried out by Military Entrance Processing Station,
provide more thorough medical examinations to selected groups
of applicants, or both, to the extent that the Secretary
determines that to do so could be cost effective in reducing
attrition at basic training.
(4) Assign the responsibility for evaluating medical
conditions of a recruit that are missed during accession
processing to an agency or contractor other than the Military
Entrance Processing Command which carried out the accession
processing of that recruit (such command being the
organization responsible for accession medical exams).
(5) Require that the Secretary of each military department
test an applicant for entrance into the Armed Forces for use
of illegal drugs at the Military Entrance Processing Station
which carries out the accession processing of that recruit
(in addition to any subsequent drug testing that may be
required).
SEC. 533. IMPROVEMENTS IN PHYSICAL FITNESS OF RECRUITS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense shall take steps
to improve the physical fitness of recruits before they enter
basic training.
(b) Specific Steps.--As part of those improvements, the
Secretary shall take the following steps:
(1) Direct the Secretary of each military department to
implement programs under which new recruits who are in the
Delayed Entry Program are encouraged to participate in
physical fitness activities before reporting to basic
training.
(2) Develop a range of incentives for new recruits to
participate in physical fitness programs, as well as for
those recruits who improve their level of fitness while in
the Delayed Entry Program, which may include the use of
monetary or other incentives, access to Department of Defense
military fitness facilities, and access to military medical
facilities in the case of a recruit who is injured while
participating in physical activities with recruiters or other
military personnel.
(3) Evaluate whether partnerships between recruiters and
reserve components, or other innovative arrangements, could
provide a pool of qualified personnel to assist in the
conduct of physical training programs for new recruits in the
Delayed Entry Program.
Subtitle E--Military Education and Training
SEC. 541. INDEPENDENT PANEL TO REVIEW MILITARY BASIC
TRAINING.
(a) Establishment.--There is hereby established a panel to
review the basic training programs of the Army, Navy, Air
Force, and Marine Corps and to make recommendations on
improvements to those programs.
(b) Composition.--(1) The panel shall be composed of seven
members, appointed as follows:
(A) Three members shall be appointed jointly by the
chairman and ranking minority party member of the Committee
on National Security of the House of Representatives.
(B) Three members shall be appointed jointly by the
chairman and ranking minority party member of the Committee
on Armed Services of the Senate.
(C) One member shall be appointed by the Secretary of
Defense.
(2) The members of the panel shall choose one of the
members to chair the panel.
(c) Qualifications.--Members of the panel shall be
appointed from among private United States citizens with
knowledge and expertise in one or more of the following:
(1) Training of military personnel.
(2) Social and cultural matters affecting entrance into the
Armed Forces and affecting military service, military
training, and military readiness, such knowledge and
expertise to have been gained through recognized research,
policy making and practical experience, as demonstrated by
retired military personnel, representatives from educational
organizations, and leaders from civilian industry and other
Government agencies.
(3) Factors that define appropriate military job
qualifications, including physical, mental, and educational
factors.
(4) Combat or other theater of war operations.
(d) Panel Functions Relating to Basic Training Programs
Generally.--The panel shall review the course objectives,
structure, and length of the basic training programs of the
Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. As part of that
review, the panel shall (with respect to each of those
services) take the following measures:
(1) Determine the current end-state objectives established
for graduates of basic training, particularly in regard to--
(A) physical conditioning;
(B) technical and physical skills proficiency;
(C) knowledge;
(D) military socialization, including the inculcation of
service values and attitudes; and
(E) basic combat operational requirements.
(2) Assess whether those current end-state objectives, and
basic training itself, should be modified (in structure,
length, focus, program of instruction, training methods or
otherwise) based, in part, on the following:
(A) An assessment of the perspectives of operational units
on the quality and qualifications of the initial entry
training graduates being assigned to those units, considering
in particular whether the basic training system produces
graduates who arrive in operational units with an appropriate
level of skills, physical conditioning, and degree of
military socialization to meet unit requirements and needs.
(B) An assessment of the demographics, backgrounds,
attitudes, experience, and physical fitness of new recruits
entering basic training, considering in particular the
question of whether, given the entry level demographics,
education, and background of new recruits, the basic training
systems and objectives are most efficiently and effectively
structured and conducted to produce graduates who meet
service needs.
(C) An assessment of the perspectives of personnel who
conduct basic training with regard to measures required to
improve basic training.
(e) Panel Functions Relating to Gender-Integrated and
Gender-Segregated Basic Training.--The panel shall review the
basic training policies of each of the Army, Navy, Air Force,
and Marine Corps with regard to gender-integrated and gender-
segregated basic training. As part of that review, the panel
shall (with respect to each of those services) take the
following measures:
(1) Determine the historical rationales for the
establishment and disestablishment of gender-integrated or
gender-segregated basic training.
(2) Examine the current rationales for the use of gender-
integrated or gender-segregated basic training and, as part
of such examination, evaluate whether at the time any of the
services made a decision to integrate, or to segregate, basic
training by gender, the Secretary of the military department
concerned had substantive reason to believe, or has since
developed data to support, any of the following:
(A) That gender-integrated basic training, or gender-
segregated basic training, improves the readiness or
performance of operational units
(B) That the entry level of new recruits with regard to
physical condition, attitudes, and values is so different
from that required and expected in the military services in
general, and in operational units in particular, that an
intense period of focused training is required, free from the
additional challenges of training males and females together.
(C) That a significant percentage of women entering basic
training experienced sexual abuse or assault before entering
military service and that gender-segregated basic training
(with same-sex drill instructors) provides the best
opportunity for such women to have positive military female
role models as mentors and to enter gender-integrated
operational forces from a position of confidence, strength,
and knowledge.
(3) Assess whether the concept of ``training as you will
fight'' is a valid rationale for gender-integrated basic
training or whether the training requirements and objectives
for basic training are sufficiently different from those of
operational unit so that such concept, when balanced against
other factors relating to basic training, might not be a
sufficient rationale for gender-integrated basic training.
(4) Assess the degree to which different standards have
been established, or if not established are in fact being
implemented, for males and females in basic training for
matters such as physical fitness, physical performance (such
as confidence and obstacle courses), military skills (such as
marksmanship and hand-grenade qualifications), and
nonphysical tasks required of individuals and, to the degree
that differing standards exist or are in fact being
implemented, assess the effect of the use of those differing
standards.
(5) Assess the degree to which performance standards in
basic training are based on military readiness.
(6) Review Department of Defense and military department
efforts to objectively measure or evaluate the effectiveness
of gender-integrated basic training, as compared to gender-
segregated basic training, particularly with regard to the
adequacy and scope of the efforts and with regard to the
relevancy of findings to operational unit requirements.
(7) Compare the pattern of attrition in gender-integrated
basic training units with the pattern of attrition in gender-
segregated basic training units and assess the relevancy of
the findings of such comparison.
(8) Compare the level of readiness and morale of gender-
integrated basic training units with the level of readiness
and morale of gender-segregated units and assess the
relevancy of the findings of such comparison.
(f) Recommendations.--The panel shall prepare--
(1) an evaluation of gender-integrated and gender-
segregated basic training programs, based upon the review
under subsection (e); and
(2) recommendations for such changes to the current system
of basic training as the panel considers warranted.
(g) Reports.--(1) Not later than six months after the
members of the panel are appointed, the panel shall submit an
interim report on its findings and conclusions to the
Secretary of Defense.
(2) Not later than one year after establishment of the
panel, the panel shall submit a final report to the Secretary
of Defense. The final report shall include recommendations
for legislative and administrative changes to basic training
programs to improve the readiness and performance of initial
entry training graduates and to reduce attrition, both during
training and in the first term of enlistment.
(h) Submission of Reports to Congress.--Not later than one
month after receipt of the panel's interim report and one
month after receipt of the panel's final report, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit the report to Congress
together with the views of the Secretary regarding the report
and the matter covered in the report.
(i) Pay and Expenses of Members.--(1) Each member of the
panel who is not an employee of the Government shall be paid
at a rate equal to the daily equivalent of the annual rate of
basic pay payable for level IV of the Executive Schedule
under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, for each
day (including travel time) during which the member is
engaged in the performance of the duties of the panel.
[[Page H3981]]
(2) The members of the panel shall be allowed travel
expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates
authorized for employees of agencies under subchapter I of
chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, while away from
their homes or regular places of business in the performance
of services for the panel.
(j) Administrative Support.--(1) Upon the request of the
chairman of the panel, the Secretary of Defense may detail to
the panel, on a nonreimbursable basis, personnel of the
Department of Defense to assist the panel in carrying out its
duties.
(2) The Secretary of Defense shall furnish to the panel
such administrative and support services as may be requested
by the chairman of the panel.
(k) Funding.--The Secretary of Defense shall, upon the
request of the panel, make available to the panel such
amounts as the panel may require to carry out its duties
under this title.
(l) Termination of the Panel.--The panel shall terminate 60
days after the date on which it submits its final report
under subsection (g).
(m) Subsequent Consideration by Congress.--After submission
of the final report of the panel to Congress, the Congress
shall, based upon the results of the study (and such other
matters as Congress considers appropriate), consider whether
to require by law that the Secretaries of the military
departments conduct basic training on a gender-segregated
basis.
SEC. 542. REFORM OF ARMY DRILL SERGEANT SELECTION AND
TRAINING PROCESS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Army shall reform the
process for selection and training of drill sergeants for the
Army.
(b) Measures To Be Taken.--As part of such reform, the
Secretary shall undertake the following measures (unless, in
the case of any such measure, the Secretary determines that
that measure would not result in improved effectiveness and
efficiency in the drill sergeant selection and training
process):
(1) Review the overall process used by the Department of
the Army for selection of drill sergeants to determine--
(A) if that process is providing drill sergeant candidates
in sufficient quantity and quality to meet the needs of the
training system; and
(B) whether duty as a drill sergeant is a career-enhancing
assignment (or is seen by potential drill sergeant candidates
as a career-enhancing assignment) and what steps could be
taken to ensure that such duty is in fact a career-enhancing
assignment.
(2) Incorporate into the selection process for all drill
sergeants the views and recommendations of the officers and
senior noncommissioned officers in the chain of command of
each candidate for selection (particularly those of senior
noncommissioned officers) regarding the candidate's
suitability and qualifications to be a drill sergeant.
(3) Establish a requirement for psychological screening for
each drill sergeant candidate.
(4) Reform the psychological screening process for drill
sergeant candidates to improve the quality, depth, and rigor
of that screening process.
(5) Revise the evaluation system for drill sergeants in
training to provide for a so-called ``whole person''
assessment that gives insight into the qualifications and
suitability of a drill sergeant candidate beyond the
candidate's ability to accomplish required performance tasks.
(6) Revise the Army military personnel records system so
that, under specified conditions and circumstances, a drill
sergeant trainee who fails to complete the training to be a
drill sergeant and is denied graduation will not have the
fact of that failure recorded in those records. The
conditions and circumstances under which the authority
provided in the preceding sentence may be shall be prescribed
by the Secretary in regulations.
(7) Provide each drill sergeant in training with the
opportunity, before or during that training, to work with new
recruits in initial entry training and to be evaluated on
that opportunity.
(c) Report.--Not later than March 31, 1998, the Secretary
shall submit to the Committee on National Security of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Armed Services
of the Senate a report of the reforms adopted pursuant to
this section or, in the case of any measure specified in any
of paragraphs (1) through (7) of subsection (b) that was not
adopted, the rationale why that measure was not adopted.
SEC. 543. REQUIREMENT FOR CANDIDATES FOR ADMISSION TO UNITED
STATES NAVAL ACADEMY TO TAKE OATH OF
ALLEGIANCE.
(a) Requirement.--Section 6958 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(d) To be admitted to the Naval Academy, an appointee
must take and subscribe to an oath prescribed by the
Secretary of the Navy. If a candidate for admission refuses
to take and subscribe to the prescribed oath, the candidate's
appointment is terminated.''.
(b) Exception for Midshipmen From Foreign Countries.--
Section 6957 of such title is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
``(d) A person receiving instruction under this section is
not subject to section 6958(d) of this title.''.
SEC. 544. REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED FOR INSTRUCTION
AT SERVICE ACADEMIES OF PERSONS FROM FOREIGN
COUNTRIES.
(a) United States Military Academy.--Section 4344(b) of
title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking out the period at the end
and inserting in lieu thereof the following: ``, except that
the reimbursement rates may not be less than the cost to the
United States of providing such instruction, including pay,
allowances, and emoluments, to a cadet appointed from the
United States.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) The amount of reimbursement waived under paragraph
(2) may not exceed 25 percent of the per-person reimbursement
amount otherwise required to be paid by a foreign country
under such paragraph, except in the case of not more than
five persons receiving instruction at the Academy under this
section at any one time.''.
(b) Naval Academy.--Section 6957(b) of such title is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking out the period at the end
and inserting in lieu thereof the following: ``, except that
the reimbursement rates may not be less than the cost to the
United States of providing such instruction, including pay,
allowances, and emoluments, to a midshipman appointed from
the United States.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) The amount of reimbursement waived under paragraph
(2) may not exceed 25 percent of the per-person reimbursement
amount otherwise required to be paid by a foreign country
under such paragraph, except in the case of not more than
five persons receiving instruction at the Naval Academy under
this section at any one time.''.
(c) Air Force Academy.--Section 9344(b) of such title is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking out the period at the end
and inserting in lieu thereof the following: ``, except that
the reimbursement rates may not be less than the cost to the
United States of providing such instruction, including pay,
allowances, and emoluments, to a cadet appointed from the
United States.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) The amount of reimbursement waived under paragraph
(2) may not exceed 25 percent of the per-person reimbursement
amount otherwise required to be paid by a foreign country
under such paragraph, except in the case of not more than
five persons receiving instruction at the Academy under this
section at any one time.''.
SEC. 545. UNITED STATES NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL.
(a) Authority to Admit Enlisted Members as Students.--
Section 7045 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) The Secretary may permit an enlisted member of the
armed forces who is assigned to the Naval Postgraduate School
or to a nearby command to receive instruction at the Naval
Postgraduate School. Admission of enlisted members for
instruction under this paragraph shall be on a space-
available basis.'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking out ``the students'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``officers''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``In
the case of an enlisted member permitted to receive
instruction at the Postgraduate School, the Secretary of the
Navy shall charge that member only for such costs and fees as
the Secretary considers appropriate (taking into
consideration the admission of enlisted members on a space-
available basis).''; and
(3) in subsection (c)--
(A) by striking out ``officers'' both places it appears and
inserting in lieu thereof ``members''; and
(B) by striking out ``the same regulations'' and inserting
in lieu thereof ``regulations, as determined appropriate by
the Secretary of the Navy,''.
(b) Expansion of Authority to Admit Civilians as
Students.--Section 7047 of such title is amended to read as
follows:
``Sec. 7047. Civilian students at institutions of higher
education: admission
``(a) Admission on Tuition-Free, Exchange Basis.--(1) The
Secretary of the Navy may enter into an agreement with an
accredited institution of higher education (or a consortium
of such institutions) under which students described in
subsection (c) who are enrolled at that institution (or an
institution in such consortium) are permitted to receive
instruction at the Naval Postgraduate School on a space-
available, tuition-free basis in exchange for which the
institution of higher education (or each institution in the
consortium) agrees to enroll, on a tuition-free basis,
officers of the armed forces or other persons properly
admitted for instruction at the Naval Postgraduate School.
``(2) Exchange of students under paragraph (1) need not be
on a one-for-one basis.
``(3) An exchange under such an agreement shall be on the
basis of in-kind reimbursement, with the total value of the
instruction provided during a year by the Naval Postgraduate
School to civilian students from the institutions that are
parties to the agreement being at least as great as the value
of instruction provided by those institutions to students
from the Naval Postgraduate School.
``(4) In determining the value of the in-kind reimbursement
for the instruction provided by the Naval Postgraduate
School, the Secretary shall use the same amount charged by
the Secretary for the provision of the same instruction to a
Federal employee who is not a Department of Defense employee.
``(5) The authority of the Secretary to accept an offer of
in-kind reimbursement under this subsection may not be
delegated below the level of Assistant Secretary of the Navy.
``(b) Admission on Cost-Reimbursable Basis.--(1) The
Secretary of the Navy may permit a student described in
subsection (c) who is enrolled at an accredited institution
of higher
[[Page H3982]]
education that is a party to an agreement under subsection
(a) to receive instruction at the Naval Postgraduate School
on a cost-reimbursable, space-available basis.
``(2) The Secretary shall ensure that the value of any
reimbursement received under this subsection in the case of
any such student is not less than the amount charged by the
Secretary for the provision of the same instruction to a
Federal employee who is not a Department of Defense employee.
``(c) Eligible Students.--A student enrolled at an
accredited institution of higher education that is party to
an agreement under subsection (a) may be admitted to the
Naval Postgraduate School under subsection (a) or (b) if the
student--
``(1) is a citizen of the United States or is lawfully
admitted for permanent residence in the United States;
``(2) has a demonstrated ability, as determined by the
Secretary of the Navy, in a field of study designated by the
Secretary as related to naval warfare, armed conflict, or
national security; and
``(3) meets the academic requirements for the course or
courses for which the student seeks admission to the Naval
Postgraduate School.
``(d) Standards of Conduct.--Except as the Secretary of the
Navy otherwise determines necessary, a person receiving
instruction under this section is subject to the same
regulations governing attendance, discipline, dismissal, and
standards of study as apply to students who are officers of
the naval service.
``(e) Retention of Funds Received.--Amounts received under
subsection (b) to reimburse the Naval Postgraduate School for
the costs of providing instruction to students permitted to
attend the Naval Postgraduate School under this section shall
be credited to the current appropriation supporting the
operation and maintenance of the Naval Postgraduate
School.''.
(c) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The heading of section 7045
of such title is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 7045. Officers of the other armed forces; enlisted
members: admission''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 605
of such title is amended--
(A) by striking out the item relating to section 7045 and
inserting in lieu thereof the following:
``7045. Officers of the other armed forces; enlisted members:
admission.'';
and
(B) by striking out the item relating to section 7047 and
inserting in lieu thereof the following:
``7047. Civilian students at institutions of higher education:
admission.''.
(d) Amendment To Reflect Revised Civil Service Grade
Structure.--Section 7043(b) of such title is amended by
striking out ``grade GS-18 of the General Schedule under
section 5332 of title 5'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``level IV of the Executive Schedule''.
SEC. 546. AIR FORCE ACADEMY CADET FOREIGN EXCHANGE PROGRAM.
(a) Exchange Program Authorized.--Chapter 903 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by inserting after section
9344 the following new section:
``Sec. 9345. Exchange program with foreign military academies
``(a) Exchange Program Authorized.--The Secretary of the
Air Force may permit a student enrolled at a military academy
of a foreign country to receive instruction at the Air Force
Academy in exchange for an Air Force cadet receiving
instruction at that foreign military academy pursuant to an
exchange agreement entered into between the Secretary and
appropriate officials of the foreign country. Students
receiving instruction at the Academy under the exchange
program shall be in addition to persons receiving instruction
at the Academy under section 9344 of this title.
``(b) Limitations on Number and Duration of Exchanges.--An
exchange agreement under this section between the Secretary
and a foreign country shall provide for the exchange of
students on a one-for-one basis each fiscal year. Not more
than 10 Air Force cadets and a comparable number of students
from all foreign military academies participating in the
exchange program may be exchanged during any fiscal year. The
duration of an exchange may not exceed the equivalent of one
academic semester at the Air Force Academy.
``(c) Costs and Expenses.--(1) A student from a military
academy of a foreign country is not entitled to the pay,
allowances, and emoluments of an Air Force cadet by reason of
attendance at the Air Force Academy under the exchange
program, and the Department of Defense may not incur any cost
of international travel required for transportation of such a
student to and from the sponsoring foreign country.
``(2) The Secretary may provide a student from a foreign
country under the exchange program, during the period of the
exchange, with subsistence, transportation within the
continental United States, clothing, health care, and other
services to the same extent that the foreign country provides
comparable support and services to the exchanged Air Force
cadet in that foreign country.
``(3) The Air Force Academy shall bear all costs of the
exchange program from funds appropriated for the Academy.
Expenditures in support of the exchange program may not
exceed $50,000 during any fiscal year.
``(d) Application of Other Laws.--Subsections (c) and (d)
of section 9344 of this title shall apply with respect to a
student enrolled at a military academy of a foreign country
while attending the Air Force Academy under the exchange
program.
``(e) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe
regulations to implement this section. Such regulations may
include qualification criteria and methods of selection for
students of foreign military academies to participate in the
exchange program.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 9344 the following new item:
``9345. Exchange program with foreign military academies.''.
(c) Repeal of Obsolete Limitation.--Section 9353(a) of such
title is amended by striking out ``After the date of the
accrediting of the Academy, the'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``The''.
SEC. 547. TRAINING IN HUMAN RELATIONS MATTERS FOR ARMY DRILL
SERGEANT TRAINEES.
(a) Human Relations Training Required.--The Secretary of
the Army shall include as part of the training program for
drill sergeants a course in human relations. The course shall
be a minimum of two days in duration.
(b) Resources.--In developing a human relations course
under this section, the Secretary shall use the capabilities
and expertise of the Defense Equal Opportunity Management
Institute (DEOMI).
(c) Effective Date.--This section shall apply with respect
drill sergeant trainee classes that begin after the end of
the 90-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of
this Act.
SEC. 548. STUDY OF FEASIBILITY OF GENDER-SEGREGATED BASIC
TRAINING.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of each military department
shall submit to Congress a report on gender-segregated
basic training. Each report shall give the views of the
Secretary--
(1) on the feasibility and implications of conducting basic
training (or equivalent training) at the company level and
below through separate units for male and female recruits,
including the costs and other resource commitments required
to implement and conduct basic training in such a manner and
the implications for readiness and unit cohesion; and
(2) assuming that basic training were to be conducted as
described in paragraph (1), on the feasibility and
implications of requiring drill instructors for basic
training units to be of the same sex as the recruits in those
units.
Subtitle F--Military Decorations and Awards
SEC. 551. STUDY OF NEW DECORATIONS FOR INJURY OR DEATH IN
LINE OF DUTY.
(a) Determination of Criteria for New Decoration.--(1) The
Secretary of Defense shall determine the appropriate name,
policy, award criteria, and design for two possible new
decorations.
(2) The first such decoration would, if implemented, be
awarded to members of the Armed Forces who, while serving
under competent authority in any capacity with the Armed
Forces, are killed or injured in the line of duty as a result
of noncombat circumstances occurring--
(A) as a result of an international terrorist attack
against the United States or a foreign nation friendly to the
United States;
(B) while engaged in, training for, or traveling to or from
a peacetime or contingency operation; or
(C) while engaged in, training for, or traveling to or from
service outside the territory of the United States as part of
a peacekeeping force.
(3) The second such decoration would, if implemented, be
awarded to civilian nationals of the United States who, while
serving under competent authority in any capacity with the
Armed Forces, are killed or injured in the line of duty under
circumstances which, if they were members of the Armed
Forces, would qualify them for award of the Purple Heart or
the medal described in paragraph (2).
(b) Limitation on Implementation.--Any such decoration may
only be implemented as provided by a law enacted after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Recommendation to Congress.--Not later than July 31,
1998, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a legislative
proposal that would, if enacted, establish the new
decorations developed pursuant to subsection (a). The
Secretary shall include with that proposal the Secretary's
recommendation concerning the need for, and propriety of,
each of the decorations.
(d) Coordination.--The Secretary shall carry out this
section in coordination with the Secretaries of the military
departments and the Secretary of Transportation with regard
to the Coast Guard.
SEC. 552. PURPLE HEART TO BE AWARDED ONLY TO MEMBERS OF THE
ARMED FORCES.
(a) In General.--(1) Chapter 57 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``Sec. 1131. Purple Heart: limitation to members of the armed
forces
``The decoration known as the Purple Heart (authorized to
be awarded pursuant to Executive Order 11016) may only be
awarded to a person who is a member of the armed forces at
the time the person is killed or wounded under circumstances
otherwise qualifying that person for award of the Purple
Heart.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``1131. Purple Heart: limitation to members of the armed forces.''.
(b) Effective Date.--Section 1131 of title 10, United
States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall apply with
respect to persons who are killed or wounded after the end of
the 180-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of
this Act.
SEC. 553. ELIGIBILITY FOR ARMED FORCES EXPEDITIONARY MEDAL
FOR PARTICIPATION IN OPERATION JOINT ENDEAVOR
OR OPERATION JOINT GUARD.
(a) Inclusion of Operations.--For the purpose of
determining the eligibility of members
[[Page H3983]]
and former members of the Armed Forces for the Armed Forces
Expeditionary Medal, the Secretary of Defense shall designate
participation in Operation Joint Endeavor or Operation Joint
Guard in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and in such
other areas in the region as the Secretary considers
appropriate, as service in an area that meets the general
requirements for the award of that medal.
(b) Individual Determination.--The Secretary of the
military department concerned shall determine whether
individual members or former members of the Armed Forces who
participated in Operation Joint Endeavor or Operation Joint
Guard meet the individual service requirements for award of
the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal as established in
applicable regulations. A member or former member shall be
considered to have participated in Operation Joint Endeavor
or Operation Joint Guard if the member--
(1) was deployed in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
or in such other area in the region as the Secretary of
Defense considers appropriate, in direct support of one or
both of the operations;
(2) served on board a United States naval vessel operating
in the Adriatic Sea in direct support of one or both of the
operations; or
(3) operated in airspace above the Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, or in such other area in the region as the
Secretary of Defense considers appropriate, while the
operations were in effect.
(c) Operations Defined.--For purposes of this section:
(1) The term ``Operation Joint Endeavor'' means operations
of the United States Armed Forces conducted in the Republic
of Bosnia and Herzegovina during the period beginning on
November 20, 1995, and ending on December 20, 1996, to assist
in implementing the General Framework Agreement and
Associated Annexes, initialed on November 21, 1995, in
Dayton, Ohio.
(2) The term ``Operation Joint Guard'' means operations of
the United States Armed Forces conducted in the Republic of
Bosnia and Herzegovina as a successor to Operation Joint
Endeavor during the period beginning on December 20, 1996,
and ending on such date as the Secretary of Defense may
designate.
SEC. 554. WAIVER OF TIME LIMITATIONS FOR AWARD OF CERTAIN
DECORATIONS TO SPECIFIED PERSONS.
(a) Waiver of Time Limitation.--Any limitation established
by law or policy for the time within which a recommendation
for the award of a military decoration or award must be
submitted shall not apply in the case of awards of
decorations described in subsections (b), (c), and (d), the
award of each such decoration having been determined by the
Secretary of the military department concerned to be
warranted in accordance with section 1130 of title 10, United
States Code.
(b) Silver Star Medal.--Subsection (a) applies to the award
of the Silver Star Medal as follows:
(1) To Joseph M. Moll, Jr. of Milford, New Jersey, for
service during World War II.
(2) To Philip Yolinsky of Hollywood, Florida, for service
during the Korean Conflict.
(c) Navy and Marine Corps Medal.--Subsection (a) applies to
the award of the Navy and Marine Corps Medal to Gary A.
Gruenwald of Damascus, Maryland, for service in Tunisia in
October 1977.
(d) Distinguished Flying Cross.--Subsection (a) applies to
awards of the Distinguished Flying Cross for service during
World War II or Korea (including multiple awards to the same
individual) in the case of each individual concerning whom
the Secretary of the Navy (or an officer of the Navy acting
on behalf of the Secretary) submitted to the Committee on
National Security of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Armed Services of the Senate, before the date of
the enactment of this Act, a notice as provided in section
1130(b) of title 10, United States Code, that the award of
the Distinguished Flying Cross to that individual is
warranted and that a waiver of time restrictions prescribed
by law for recommendation for such award is recommended.
Subtitle G--Other Matters
SEC. 561. SUSPENSION OF TEMPORARY EARLY RETIREMENT AUTHORITY.
Notwithstanding subsection (i) of section 4403 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993
(Public Law 102-484; 10 U.S.C. 1293 note), the Secretary of a
military department may not use the authority provided under
such section to retire a member of the Armed Forces during
fiscal year 1998.
SEC. 562. TREATMENT OF EDUCATIONAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF
NATIONAL GUARD CHALLENGE PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS.
Section 509 of title 32, United States Code, as added by
section 1057, is amended by adding at the end of subsection
(f) the following new paragraph:
``(3) In the case of a person who is selected for training
in a State program conducted under the National Guard
Challenge Program and who obtains a general education diploma
in connection with such training, the general education
diploma shall be treated as equivalent to a high school
diploma for purposes of determining the eligibility of the
person for enlistment in the armed forces.''.
SEC. 563. AUTHORITY FOR PERSONNEL TO PARTICIPATE IN
MANAGEMENT OF CERTAIN NON-FEDERAL ENTITIES.
(a) Military Personnel.--(1) Chapter 53 of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1032 the
following new section:
``Sec. 1033. Participation in management of specified non-
Federal entities: authorized activities
``(a) Authorization.--The Secretary concerned may authorize
a member of the armed forces under the Secretary's
jurisdiction, as part of that member's official duties, to
serve without compensation as a director, officer, or
trustee, or to otherwise participate, in the management of an
entity designated under subsection (b). Any such
authorization shall be made on a case-by-case basis, for a
particular member to participate in a specific capacity
with a specific designated entity. Such authorization may
be made only for the purpose of providing oversight and
advice to, and coordination with, the designated entity,
and participation of the member in the activities of the
designated entity may not extend to participation in the
day-to-day operations of the entity.
``(b) Designated Entities.--(1) The Secretary of Defense,
and the Secretary of Transportation in the case of the Coast
Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy,
shall designate those entities for which authorization under
subsection (a) may be provided. The list of entities so
designated may not be revised more frequently than
semiannually. In making such designations, the Secretary
shall designate each military welfare society and may
designate any other entity described in paragraph (3). No
other entities may be designated.
``(2) In this section, the term `military welfare society'
means the following:
``(A) Army Emergency Relief.
``(B) Air Force Aid Society, Inc.
``(C) Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society.
``(D) Coast Guard Mutual Assistance.
``(3) An entity described in this paragraph is an entity
that--
``(A) regulates and supports the athletic programs of the
service academies (including athletic conferences);
``(B) regulates international athletic competitions;
``(C) accredits service academies and other schools of the
armed forces (including regional accrediting agencies); or
``(D)(i) regulates the performance, standards, and policies
of military health care (including health care associations
and professional societies), and (ii) has designated the
position or capacity in that entity in which a member of the
armed forces may serve if authorized under subsection (a).
``(c) Publication of Designated Entities and of Authorized
Persons.--A designation of an entity under subsection (b),
and an authorization under subsection (a) of a member of the
armed forces to participate in the management of such an
entity, shall be published in the Federal Register.
``(d) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense, and the
Secretary of Transportation in the case of the Coast Guard
when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, shall
prescribe regulations to carry out this section.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section
1032 the following new item:
``1033. Participation in management of specified non-Federal entities:
authorized activities.''.
(b) Civilian Personnel.--(1) Chapter 81 of such title is
amended by inserting after section 1588 the following new
section:
``Sec. 1589. Participation in management of specified non-
Federal entities: authorized activities
``(a) Authorization.--(1) The Secretary concerned may
authorize an employee described in paragraph (2), as part of
that employee's official duties, to serve without
compensation as a director, officer, or trustee, or to
otherwise participate, in the management of an entity
designated under subsection (b). Any such authorization shall
be made on a case-by-case basis, for a particular employee to
participate in a specific capacity with a specific designated
entity. Such authorization may be made only for the purpose
of providing oversight and advice to, and coordination with,
the designated entity, and participation of the employee in
the activities of the designated entity may not extend to
participation in the day-to-day operations of the entity.
``(2) Paragraph (1) applies to any employee of the
Department of Defense or, in the case of the Coast Guard when
not operating as a service in the Navy, of the Department of
Transportation. For purposes of this section, the term
`employee' includes a civilian officer.
``(b) Designated Entities.--(1) The Secretary of Defense,
and the Secretary of Transportation in the case of the Coast
Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy,
shall designate those entities for which authorization under
subsection (a) may be provided. The list of entities so
designated may not be revised more frequently than
semiannually. In making such designations, the Secretary
shall designate each military welfare society and may
designate any other entity described in paragraph (3). No
other entities may be designated.
``(2) In this section, the term `military welfare society'
means the following:
``(A) Army Emergency Relief.
``(B) Air Force Aid Society, Inc.
``(C) Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society.
``(D) Coast Guard Mutual Assistance.
``(3) An entity described in this paragraph is an entity
that--
``(A) regulates and supports the athletic programs of the
service academies (including athletic conferences);
``(B) regulates international athletic competitions;
``(C) accredits service academies and other schools of the
armed forces (including regional accrediting agencies); or
``(D)(i) regulates the performance, standards, and policies
of military health care (including health care associations
and professional societies), and (ii) has designated the
position or capacity in that entity in which a Federal
employee described in subsection (a)(2) may serve if
authorized under subsection (a).
[[Page H3984]]
``(c) Publication of Designated Entities and of Authorized
Persons.--A designation of an entity under subsection (b),
and an authorization under subsection (a) of an employee to
participate in the management of such an entity, shall be
published in the Federal Register.
``(d) Civilians Outside the Military Departments.--In this
section, the term `Secretary concerned' includes the
Secretary of Defense with respect to employees of the
Department of Defense who are not employees of a military
department.
``(e) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense, and the
Secretary of Transportation in the case of the Coast Guard
when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, shall
prescribe regulations to carry out this section.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section
1588 the following new item:
``1589. Participation in management of specified non-Federal entities:
authorized activities.''.
SEC. 564. CREW REQUIREMENTS OF WC-130J AIRCRAFT.
(a) Study.--The Secretary of the Air Force shall conduct a
study of the crew requirements for WC-130J aircraft engaged
in the aerial weather reconnaissance mission involving the
eyewall penetration of tropical cyclones. The study shall
involve the operation of WC-130J aircraft in weather
reconnaissance missions configured to carry five crewmembers,
including a navigator. The study shall include the
participation of members of the Armed Forces assigned to
units currently engaged in weather reconnaissance operations.
(b) Report.--The Secretary shall submit to Congress a
report on the results of the study. The report shall include
the views of members of the Armed Forces assigned to units
currently engaged in weather reconnaissance operations who
participated in the study.
(c) Limitation on Revision to Personnel Requirements.--The
Secretary of the Air Force may not reduce the personnel
requirement levels of units that, as of the date of the
enactment of this Act, are engaged in weather reconnaissance
operations involving the eyewall penetration of tropical
cyclones, including requirements for navigators, below the
requirements established for those units as of October 1,
1997, until the end of the six-month period beginning on the
date on which the report required under subsection (b) is
submitted to Congress.
SEC. 565. COMPTROLLER GENERAL STUDY OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
CIVIL MILITARY PROGRAMS.
(a) Study Required.--The Comptroller General shall conduct
a study to evaluate the following:
(1) The nature, extent, and cost to the Department of
Defense of the support and services being provided by units
and members of the Armed Forces to non-Department of Defense
organizations and activities under the authority of section
2012 of title 10, United States Code.
(2) The degree to which the Armed Forces are in compliance
with the requirements of such section in the provision of
such support and services, especially the requirements that
the assistance meet specific requirements relative to
military training and that the assistance provided be
incidental to military training.
(3) The degree to which the regulations and procedures for
implementing such section, as required by subsection (f) of
such section, are consistent with the requirements of such
section.
(4) The effectiveness of the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretaries of the military departments in conducting
oversight of the implementation of such section, and the
provision of such support and services under such section, to
ensure compliance with the requirements of such section.
(b) Submission of Report.--Not later than March 31, 1998,
the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report
containing the results of the study required by subsection
(a).
SEC. 566. TREATMENT OF PARTICIPATION OF MEMBERS IN DEPARTMENT
OF DEFENSE CIVIL MILITARY PROGRAMS.
Section 2012 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (g) and (h) as subsections
(h) and (i), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following new
subsection:
``(g) Treatment of Member's Participation in Provision of
Support or Services.--(1) The Secretary of a military
department may not require or request a member of the armed
forces to submit for consideration by a selection board
(including a promotion board, command selection board, or any
other kind of selection board) evidence of the member's
participation in the provision of support and services to
non-Department of Defense organizations and activities under
this section or the member's involvement in, or support of,
other community relations and public affairs activities of
the armed forces. A selection board may not evaluate a member
on the basis of the member's participation or involvement in,
or support of, such support, services, or activities.
``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to the
following members:
``(A) A member who is in a public affairs career field.
``(B) A member who is not in a public affairs career field,
but who is serving, at the time the member is considered by a
selection board, in a public affairs position specified in
service authorization documents or who served in such a
position within three years before being considered by a
selection board.''.
SEC. 567. CONTINUATION OF SUPPORT TO SENIOR MILITARY
COLLEGES.
(a) Definition of Senior Military Colleges.--For purposes
of this section, the term ``senior military colleges'' means
the following:
(1) Texas A&M University.
(2) Norwich University.
(3) The Virginia Military Institute.
(4) The Citadel.
(5) Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
(6) North Georgia College and State University.
(b) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The senior military colleges consistently have provided
substantial numbers of highly qualified, long-serving leaders
to the Armed Forces.
(2) The quality of the military leaders produced by the
senior military colleges is, in part, the result of the
rigorous military environment imposed on students attending
the senior military colleges by the colleges, as well as the
result of the long-standing close support relationship
between the Corps of Cadets at each college and the Reserve
Officer Training Corps personnel at the colleges who serve as
effective leadership role models and mentors.
(3) In recognition of the quality of the young leaders
produced by the senior military colleges, the Department of
Defense and the military services have traditionally
maintained special relationships with the colleges, including
the policy to grant active duty service in the Army to
graduates of the colleges who desire such service and who are
recommended for such service by their ROTC professors of
military science.
(4) Each of the senior military colleges has demonstrated
an ability to adapt its systems and operations to changing
conditions in, and requirements of, the Armed Forces without
compromising the quality of leaders produced and without
interruption of the close relationship between the colleges
and the Department of Defense.
(c) Sense of Congress.--In light of the findings in
subsection (b), it is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the proposed initiative of the Secretary of the Army to
end the commitment to active duty service for all graduates
of senior military colleges who desire such service and who
are recommended for such service by their ROTC professors of
military science is short-sighted and contrary to the long-
term interests of the Army;
(2) as they have in the past, the senior military colleges
can and will continue to accommodate to changing military
requirements to ensure that future graduates entering
military service continue to be officers of superb quality
who are quickly assimilated by the Armed Forces and fully
prepared to make significant contributions to the Armed
Forces through extended military careers; and
(3) decisions of the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary
of a military department that fundamentally and unilaterally
change the long-standing relationship of the Armed Forces
with the senior military colleges are not in the best
interests of the Department of Defense or the Armed Forces
and are patently unfair to students who made decisions to
enroll in the senior military colleges on the basis of
existing Department and Armed Forces policy.
(d) Continuation of Support for Senior Military Colleges.--
Section 2111a of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (g); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new
subsections:
``(d) Additional Support.--(1) The Secretaries of the
military departments shall ensure that each unit of the
Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps at a senior military
college provides support to the Corps of Cadets at the
college over and above the level of support associated with
the conduct of the formal Senior Reserve Officers' Training
Corps course of instruction.
``(2) This additional support shall include the following:
``(A) Mentoring, teaching, coaching, counseling and
advising cadets and cadet leaders in the areas of leadership,
military, and academic performance.
``(B) Involvement in cadet leadership training,
development, and evaluation, as well as drill, ceremonies,
parades, and inspections.
``(3) This additional support may include the following:
``(A) Advising cadet teams, clubs, and organizations.
``(B) Involvement in matters of discipline and
administration of the Corps of Cadets so long as such
involvement does not interfere with the conduct of the formal
Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps course of instruction
or the support required by paragraph (2).
``(e) Termination or Reduction of Program Prohibited.--The
Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the military
departments may not take or authorize any action to terminate
or reduce a unit of the Senior Reserve Officers' Training
Corps at a senior military college unless the termination or
reduction is specifically requested by the college.
``(f) Assignment to Active Duty.--(1) The Secretary of the
Army shall ensure that a graduate of a senior military
college who desires to serve as a commissioned officer on
active duty upon graduation from the college, who is
medically and physically qualified for active duty, and who
is recommended for such duty by the professor of military
science at the college, shall be assigned to active duty.
This paragraph shall apply to a member of the program at a
senior military college who graduates from the college after
March 31, 1997.
``(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to
prohibit the Secretary of the Army from requiring a member of
the program who graduates from a senior military college to
serve on active duty.''.
(e) Technical Corrections.--Subsection (g) of such section,
as redesignated by subsection (d)(1), is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking out ``College'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``University''; and
[[Page H3985]]
(2) in paragraph (6), by inserting before the period the
following: ``and State University''.
(f) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The heading of such section
is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 2111a. Support for senior military colleges''.
(2) The item relating to such section in the table of
sections at the beginning of chapter 103 of title 10, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``2111a. Support for senior military colleges.''.
SEC. 568. RESTORATION OF MISSING PERSONS AUTHORITIES
APPLICABLE TO DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AS IN
EFFECT BEFORE ENACTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997.
(a) Applicability to Department of Defense Civilian
Employees and Contractor Employees.--(1) Section 1501 of
title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking out subsection (c) and inserting in lieu
thereof the following:
``(c) Covered Persons.--Section 1502 of this title applies
in the case of the following persons:
``(1) Any member of the armed forces on active duty who
becomes involuntarily absent as a result of a hostile action,
or under circumstances suggesting that the involuntary
absence is a result of a hostile action, and whose status is
undetermined or who is unaccounted for.
``(2) Any civilian employee of the Department of Defense,
and any employee of a contractor of the Department of
Defense, who serves with or accompanies the armed forces in
the field under orders who becomes involuntarily absent as a
result of a hostile action, or under circumstances suggesting
that the involuntary absence is a result of a hostile action,
and whose status is undetermined or who is unaccounted
for.'', and
(B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(f) Secretary Concerned.--In this chapter, the term
`Secretary concerned' includes, in the case of a civilian
employee of the Department of Defense or contractor of the
Department of Defense, the Secretary of the military
department or head of the element of the Department of
Defense employing the employee or contracting with the
contractor, as the case may be.''.
(2) Section 1503(c) of such title is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``one military
officer'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``one individual
described in paragraph (2)'';
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs
(3) and (4), respectively; and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraph (2):
``(2) An individual referred to in paragraph (1) is the
following:
``(A) A military officer, in the case of an inquiry with
respect to a member of the armed forces.
``(B) A civilian, in the case of an inquiry with respect to
a civilian employee of the Department of Defense or of a
contractor of the Department of Defense.''.
(3) Section 1504(d) of such title is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``who are and all the
follows in that paragraph and inserting in lieu thereof ``as
follows:
``(A) In the case of a board that will inquire into the
whereabouts and status of one or more members of the armed
forces (and no civilians described in subparagraph (B)), the
board shall be composed of officers having the grade of major
or lieutenant commander or above.
``(B) In the case of a board that will inquire into the
whereabouts and status of one or more civilian employees of
the Department of Defense or contractors of the Department of
Defense (and no members of the armed forces), the board
shall be composed of--
``(i) not less than three employees of the Department of
Defense whose rate of annual pay is equal to or greater than
the rate of annual pay payable for grade GS-13 of the General
Schedule under section 5332 of title 5; and
``(ii) such members of the armed forces as the Secretary
considers advisable.
``(C) In the case of a board that will inquire into the
whereabouts and status of both one or more members of the
armed forces and one or more civilians described in
subparagraph (B)--
``(i) the board shall include at least one officer
described in subparagraph (A) and at least one employee of
the Department of Defense described in subparagraph (B)(i);
and
``(ii) the ratio of such officers to such employees on the
board shall be roughly proportional to the ratio of the
number of members of the armed forces who are subjects of the
board's inquiry to the number of civilians who are subjects
of the board's inquiry.''; and
(B) in paragraph (4), by striking out ``section
1503(c)(3)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``section
1503(c)(4)''.
(4) Paragraph (1) of section 1513 of such title is amended
to read as follows:
``(1) The term `missing person' means--
``(A) a member of the armed forces on active duty who is in
a missing status; or
``(B) a civilian employee of the Department of Defense or
an employee of a contractor of the Department of Defense who
serves with or accompanies the armed forces in the field
under orders and who is in a missing status.''.
(b) Report on Preliminary Assessment of Status.--(1)
Section 1502 of such title is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(2)--
(i) by striking out ``10 days'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``48 hours''; and
(ii) by striking out ``Secretary concerned'' and inserting
in lieu thereof ``theater component commander with
jurisdiction over the missing person'';
(B) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c);
(C) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new
subsection (b):
``(b) Transmission Through Theater Component Commander.--
Upon reviewing a report under subsection (a) recommending
that a person by placed in a missing status, the theater
component commander shall ensure that all necessary actions
are being taken, and all appropriate assets are being used,
to resolve the status of the missing person. Not later than
14 days after receiving the report, the theater component
commander shall forward the report to the Secretary of
Defense or the Secretary concerned in accordance with
procedures prescribed under section 1501(b) of this title.
The theater component commander shall include with such
report a certification that all necessary actions are being
taken, and all appropriate assets are being used, to resolve
the status of the missing person.''; and
(D) in subsection (c), as redesignated by subparagraph (B),
by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The
theater component commander through whom the report with
respect to the missing person is transmitted under subsection
(b) shall ensure that all pertinent information relating to
the whereabouts and status of the missing person that results
from the preliminary assessment or from actions taken to
locate the person is properly safeguarded to avoid loss,
damage, or modification.''.
(2) Section 1503(a) of such title is amended by striking
out ``section 1502(a)'', and inserting in lieu thereof
``section 1502(b)''.
(3) Section 1513 of such title is amended by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(8) The term `theater component commander' means, with
respect to any of the combatant commands, an officer of any
of the armed forces who (A) is commander of all forces of
that armed force assigned to that combatant command, and (B)
is directly subordinate to the commander of the combatant
command.''.
(c) Frequency of Subsequent Reviews.--Subsection (b) of
section 1505 of such title is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Frequency of Subsequent Reviews.--(1) In the case of
a missing person who was last known to be alive or who was
last suspected of being alive, the Secretary shall appoint a
board to conduct an inquiry with respect to a person under
this subsection--
``(A) on or about three years after the date of the initial
report of the disappearance of the person under section
1502(a) of this title; and
``(B) not later than every three years thereafter.
``(2) In addition to appointment of boards under paragraph
(1), the Secretary shall appoint a board to conduct an
inquiry with respect to a missing person under this
subsection upon receipt of information that could result in a
change of status of the missing person. When the Secretary
appoints a board under this paragraph, the time for
subsequent appointments of a board under paragraph (1)(B)
shall be determined from the date of the receipt of such
information.
``(3) The Secretary is not required to appoint a board
under paragraph (1) with respect to the disappearance of any
person--
``(A) more than 30 years after the initial report of the
disappearance of the missing person required by section 1502
of this title; or
``(B) if, before the end of such 30-year period, the
missing person is accounted for.''.
(d) Penalties for Wrongful Withholding of Information.--
Section 1506 of such title is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following new
subsection (e):
``(e) Wrongful Withholding.--Except as provided in
subsections (a) through (d), any person who knowingly and
willfully withholds from the personnel file of a missing
person any information relating to the disappearance or
whereabouts and status of a missing person shall be fined as
provided in title 18 or imprisoned not more than one year, or
both.''.
(e) Information To Accompany Recommendation of Status of
Death.--Section 1507(b) of such title is amended adding at
the end the following new paragraphs:
``(3) A description of the location of the body, if
recovered.
``(4) If the body has been recovered and is not
identifiable through visual means, a certification by a
practitioner of an appropriate forensic science that the body
recovered is that of the missing person.''.
(f) Scope of Preenactment Review.--(1) Section 1509 of such
title is amended--
(A) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
(B) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new
subsection (c):
``(c) Special Rule for Persons Classified as `KLA/BNR'.--In
the case of a person described in subsection (b) who was
classified as `killed in action/body not recovered', the case
of that person may be reviewed under this section only if the
new information referred to in subsection (a) is
compelling.''.
(2)(A) The heading of such section is amended by inserting
``, special interest'' after ``Preenactment''.
(B) The item relating to such section in the table of
sections at the beginning of chapter 76 of such title is
amended by inserting ``, special interest'' after
``Preenactment''.
SEC. 569. ESTABLISHMENT OF SENTENCE OF CONFINEMENT FOR LIFE
WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE.
(a) Establishment of Sentence.--(1) Chapter 47 of title 10,
United States Code (the Uniform Code of Military Justice), is
amended by inserting after section 856 (article 56) the
following new section (article):
``Sec. 856a. Art. 56a. Sentence of confinement for life
without eligibility for parole
``(a) For any offense for which a sentence of confinement
for life may be adjudged, a court-martial may adjudge a
sentence of confinement for life without eligibility for
parole.
[[Page H3986]]
``(b) An accused who is sentenced to confinement for life
without eligibility for parole shall be confined for the
remainder of the accused's life unless--
``(1) the sentence is set aside or otherwise modified as a
result of--
``(A) action taken by the convening authority, the
Secretary concerned, or another person authorized to act
under section 860 of this title (article 60); or
``(B) any other action taken during post-trial procedure
and review under any other provision of subchapter IX;
``(2) the sentence is set aside or otherwise modified as a
result of action taken by a Court of Criminal Appeals, the
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, or the Supreme Court;
or
``(3) the accused is pardoned.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of subchapter
VIII of such chapter is amended by inserting after the item
relating to section 856 (article 56) the following new item:
``856a. 56a. Sentence of confinement for life without eligibility for
parole.''.
(b) Effective Date.--Section 856a of title 10, United
States Code (article 56a of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), as added by subsection (a), shall be applicable
only with respect to an offense committed after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 570. LIMITATION ON APPEAL OF DENIAL OF PAROLE FOR
OFFENDERS SERVING LIFE SENTENCE.
(a) Exclusive Authority To Grant Parole on Appeal of
Denial.--Section 952 of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``The Secretary''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) In a case in which parole for an offender serving a
sentence of confinement for life is denied, only the
President or the Secretary concerned may grant the offender
parole on appeal of that denial. The authority to grant
parole on appeal in such a case may not be delegated.''.
(b) Effective Date.--This section shall apply only with
respect to any decision to deny parole made after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 571. ESTABLISHMENT OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS BRANCH IN THE ARMY.
(a) New Special Branch.--Section 3064(a) of title 10,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs
(4) and (5); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new
paragraph:
``(3) the Public Affairs Corps;''.
(b) Public Affairs Corps.--(1) Chapter 307 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``Sec. 3083. Public Affairs Corps
``There is a Public Affairs Corps in the Army. The Public
Affairs Corps consists of--
``(1) the Chief of the Public Affairs Corps;
``(2) commissioned officers of the Regular Army appointed
therein; and
``(3) other members of the Army assigned thereto by the
Secretary of the Army.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``3083. Public Affairs Corps.''.
(c) Transition.--The Secretary of the Army shall implement
the amendments made by this section not later than October 1,
1998.
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances
SEC. 601. INCREASE IN BASIC PAY FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998.
(a) Waiver of Section 1009 Adjustment.--The adjustment, to
become effective during fiscal year 1998, required by section
1009(b) of title 37, United States Code (as amended by
section 602), in the rate of monthly basic pay authorized
members of the uniformed services by section 203(a) of such
title shall not be made.
(b) Increase in Basic Pay.--Effective on January 1, 1998,
the rates of basic pay of members of the uniformed services
are increased by 2.8 percent.
SEC. 602. ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT OF BASIC PAY AND PROTECTION OF
MEMBER'S TOTAL COMPENSATION WHILE PERFORMING
CERTAIN DUTY.
(a) In General.--Section 1009 of title 37, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 1009. Certain elements of compensation: adjustment;
protection against change
``(a) Elements of Compensation.--In this section, the term
`elements of compensation' means--
``(1) the monthly basic pay authorized members of the
uniformed services by section 203(a) of this title;
``(2) the basic allowance for subsistence authorized
members of the uniformed services by section 402 of this
title; and
``(3) the basic allowance for housing authorized members of
the uniformed services by section 403 of this title.
``(b) Annual Adjustment of Basic Pay.--Effective as of the
first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or
after January 1 of each calendar year, the rates of basic pay
of members of the uniformed services shall be increased by
the percentage (rounded to the nearest one-tenth of one
percent) equal to the percentage by which the Employment Cost
Index for the base quarter of the year before the preceding
calendar year exceeds the Employment Cost Index for the base
quarter of the second year before the preceding calendar year
(if at all).
``(c) Allocation of Adjustment.--(1) Subject to paragraph
(2), whenever the President determines such action to be in
the best interest of the Government, the President may
allocate the percentage increase in basic pay among such pay
grade and years-of-service categories as the President
considers appropriate.
``(2) In making any allocation under paragraph (1), the
amount of the increase in basic pay for any given pay grade
and years-of-service category after the allocation under
paragraph (1) may not be less than 75 percent of the amount
of the increase that otherwise would have been effective with
respect to such pay grade and years-of-service category under
subsection (b).
``(3) Whenever the President plans to use the authority
provided under paragraph (1) with respect to any anticipated
increase in the compensation of members of the uniformed
services, the President shall advise the Congress, at the
earliest practicable time before the effective date of the
increase, regarding the proposed allocation of the
increase among pay grade and years-of-service categories.
``(d) Protection of Member's Total Compensation While
Performing Certain Duty.--(1) The total daily amount of the
elements of compensation, described in subsection (a),
together with other pay and allowances under this title, to
be paid to a member of the uniformed services who is
temporarily assigned to duty away from the member's permanent
duty station or to duty under field conditions at the
member's permanent duty station shall not be less, for any
day during the assignment period, than the total amount, for
the day immediately preceding the date of the assignment, of
the elements of compensation and other pay and allowances of
the member.
``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to an
element of compensation or other pay or allowance of a member
during an assignment described in such paragraph to the
extent that the element of compensation or other pay or
allowance is reduced or terminated due to circumstances
unrelated to the assignment.
``(e) Other Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `Employment Cost Index' means the Employment
Cost Index (wages and salaries, private industry workers)
published quarterly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
``(2) The term `base quarter', for each year, means the
three-month period ending on September 30 of such year.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The item relating to such section
in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 19 of
such title is amended to read as follows:
``1009. Certain elements of compensation: adjustment; protection
against change.''.
SEC. 603. USE OF FOOD COST INFORMATION TO DETERMINE BASIC
ALLOWANCE FOR SUBSISTENCE.
(a) Food-Cost Based Allowance.--Section 402 of title 37,
United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 402. Basic allowance for subsistence
``(a) Entitlement; Rate; Adjustment.--(1) Except as
otherwise provided by law, each member of a uniformed service
described in subsection (b) or (c) is entitled to a basic
allowance for subsistence. The rate for the allowance shall
be prescribed in regulations by the Secretary of Defense
after consultation with the Secretaries concerned specified
in subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F) of section 101(5) of this
title. The allowance may be paid in advance for a period of
not more than three months.
``(2) Whenever basic pay is increased pursuant to section
1009 of this title or another law, the Secretary of Defense
shall adjust the basic allowance for subsistence at the same
rate as the most recent adjustment made to the cost of the
moderate food plan of the Department of Agriculture (one of
the four official food plans used by the Department of
Agriculture under the Food Stamp Act of 1977) to reflect
changes in the cost of the diet described by the moderate
food plan.
``(b) Enlisted Members.--An enlisted member is entitled to
the basic allowance for subsistence on a daily basis if the
member is entitled to basic pay and one or more of the
following applies with respect to the member:
``(1) Rations in kind are not available.
``(2) Rations in kind are available, but the Secretary of
Defense authorizes the payment of the basic allowance for
subsistence.
``(3) Permission to mess separately is granted.
``(4) The member is assigned to duty under emergency
conditions where no messing facilities of the United States
are available.
``(5) The member is on an authorized leave of absence, is
confined in a hospital, or is performing travel under orders
away from the member's designated post of duty (except when
rations in kind are available and the Secretary of Defense
does not authorize the payment of the basic allowance for
subsistence.).
``(c) Officers.--An officer of a uniformed service who is
entitled to basic pay is entitled, at all times, to the basic
allowances for subsistence. An aviation cadet of the Navy,
Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard is entitled to the
same basic allowance for subsistence as is provided for an
officer of the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard,
respectively.
``(d) Special Rule for Certain Members Authorized to Mess
Separately.--Under regulations and in areas prescribed by the
Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Transportation
with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a
service in the Navy, an enlisted member who is granted
permission to mess separately, and whose duties require the
member to buy at least one meal from other than a messing
facility of the United States, is entitled to not more than
the pro rata allowance authorized for each such meal for an
enlisted member when rations in kind are not available.
``(e) Payment for Rations in Kind Actually Received.--The
Secretary of Defense may require a member of the uniformed
services to pay
[[Page H3987]]
for rations in kind actually received by the member while
entitled to a basic allowance for subsistence.
``(f) Administration.--(1) The Secretary of Defense may
prescribe regulations for the administration of this section.
``(2) For purposes of subsection (b)(5), a member shall not
be considered to be performing travel under orders away from
his designated post of duty if the member--
``(A) is an enlisted member serving the member's first tour
of active duty;
``(B) has not actually reported to a permanent duty station
pursuant to orders directing such assignment; and
``(C) is not actually traveling between stations pursuant
to orders directing a change of station.
``(g) Percentage Limitation on Enlisted Members Receiving
Allowance.--(1) This subsection apples with respect to
enlisted members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine
Corps who, when present at their permanent duty station and
at which adequate messing facilities of the United States are
available, reside without dependents in Government quarters.
The Secretary concerned may not provide a basic allowance for
subsistence to more than 12 percent of such members under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary concerned.
``(2) The Secretary concerned may exceed the percentage
limitation specified in paragraph (1) if the Secretary
determines that compliance would increase costs to the
Government, would impose financial hardships on members
otherwise entitled to a basic allowance for subsistence, or
would reduce the quality of life for such members.
``(3) This subsection shall not apply to a member described
in paragraph (1) when the member is not residing at the
member's permanent duty station.
``(h) Rations in Kind for Certain Reserves.--(1) The
Secretary concerned may provide rations in kind, or a part
thereof, to an enlisted member of a reserve component or of
the National Guard when the member's instruction or duty
periods, described in section 206(a) of this title, total at
least eight hours in a calendar day. The Secretary concerned
may provide the member with a commutation when rations in
kind are not available.
``(2) This subsection shall not apply with respect to an
enlisted member of a reserve component or of the National
Guard who is entitled to basic pay.
``(i) Use of Messing Facilities.--The Secretary of Defense,
in consultation with the Secretaries concerned, shall
establish policies regarding the use of messing facilities of
the United States, including field messing facilities.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 404(b)(2) of title
37, United States Code, is amended by striking out ``under
section 402(e) of this title'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``by the Secretary of Defense''.
(2) Section 1012 of title 37, United States Code, is
amended by striking out ``section 402(b)(3)'' and inserting
in lieu thereof ``section 402(h)''.
(3) Section 6912 of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by striking out ``section 402(a) and (b)'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``section 402(c)''.
SEC. 604. CONSOLIDATION OF BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR QUARTERS,
VARIABLE HOUSING ALLOWANCE, AND OVERSEAS
HOUSING ALLOWANCES.
(a) Consolidation of Allowances.--Section 403 of title 37,
United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 403. Basic allowance for housing
``(a) Components of Basic Allowance for Housing.--The basic
allowance for housing consists of the following components:
``(1) A basic allowance for quarters for members of the
uniformed services stationed in the United States and, under
certain circumstances, members on duty outside of the United
States whose dependents continue to reside in the United
States.
``(2) A overseas station housing allowance for members on
duty outside of the United States to reflect housing costs
incurred by the members.
``(3) A family separation housing allowance for members
with dependents when the movement of the dependents to the
members' permanent station is not authorized at the expense
of the United States.
``(b) Eligibility for Allowance.--(1) Except as otherwise
provided by law, a member of a uniformed service who is
entitled to basic pay shall receive the component or
components of the basic allowance for housing to which the
member is entitled under this section at the monthly rates
prescribed in connection with the component under this
section or other provision of law. The amount of the
allowance for a member will vary according to the pay grade
in which the member is assigned or distributed for basic pay
purposes and the member's dependency status.
``(2) The basic allowance for housing may be paid in
advance.
``(c) Effect of Assignment to Government Quarters.--(1)
Except as otherwise provided by law, a member of a uniformed
service who is assigned to quarters of the United States
appropriate to the grade, rank, or rating of the member and
adequate for the member and dependents, if with dependents,
is not entitled to a basic allowance for housing. In this
section, the term `quarters of the United States' includes a
housing facility under the jurisdiction of a uniformed
service.
``(2) A member without dependents who is in a pay grade
above pay grade E-6 and is assigned to quarters of the United
States may elect not to occupy those quarters and instead
receive the basic allowance for housing to which the member
is otherwise entitled.
``(3) A member without dependents who is in pay grade E-6
and is assigned to quarters of the United States that do not
meet the minimum adequacy standards established by the
Secretary of Defense for members in such pay grade may elect
not to occupy those quarters and instead to receive the basic
allowance for housing to which the member is otherwise
entitled. The Secretary concerned may deny the right to make
an election under this paragraph if the Secretary determines
that the exercise of such an election would adversely affect
a training mission, military discipline, or military
readiness.
``(4) In the case of a member with dependents who is
assigned to quarters of the United States at a location or
under circumstances that, as determined by the Secretary
concerned, require the member's dependents to reside at
different location, the member shall receive a basic
allowance for housing as if the member were assigned to duty
in the area in which the dependents reside and did not reside
in quarters of the United States.
``(d) Effect of Field Duty and Sea Duty.--(1) The Secretary
concerned may deny the basic allowance for housing to a
member of a uniformed service without dependents when the
member is assigned to field duty with a unit conducting field
operations.
``(2) A member of a uniformed service without dependents
who is in a pay grade below pay grade E-6 is not entitled to
a basic allowance for housing while on sea duty. After taking
into consideration the availability of quarters for members
serving in pay grade E-5, the Secretary concerned may
authorize the payment of a basic allowance for housing to a
member without dependents who is serving in such pay grade
and is assigned to sea duty.
``(3) Notwithstanding section 421 of this title, two
members of the uniformed services in a pay grade below pay
grade E-6 who are married to each other, have no other
dependents, and are simultaneously assigned to sea duty are
jointly entitled to one basic allowance for housing during
the period of such simultaneous sea duty. The amount of the
allowance shall be based on the without dependents rate for
the pay grade of the senior member of the couple. However,
this paragraph shall not apply to a couple if one or both of
the members are entitled to a basic allowance for housing
under paragraph (2).
``(4) For purposes of this subsection, the Secretary of
Defense shall prescribe, by regulation, definitions of the
terms `field duty' and `sea duty'.
``(e) Basic Allowance for Quarters.--(1) The Secretary of
Defense shall determine the costs of adequate housing in a
military housing area for all members of the uniformed
services entitled to a basic allowance for quarters in that
area. The Secretary shall base the determination upon the
costs of adequate housing for civilians with comparable
income levels in the same area.
``(2) The monthly amount of a basic allowance for quarters
for an area of the United States for a member of a uniformed
service is equal to difference between--
``(A) the monthly cost of housing in that area, as
determined by the Secretary of Defense, for members of the
uniformed services serving in the same pay grade and with the
same dependency status as the member; and
``(B) 15 percent of the national average monthly cost of
housing in the United States, as determined by the Secretary,
for members of the uniformed services serving in the same pay
grade and with the same dependency status as the member.
``(3) The rates of basic allowance for quarters shall be
reduced as necessary to comply with this paragraph. The total
amount that may be paid for a fiscal year for the basic
allowance for quarters is the product of--
``(A) the total amount authorized to be paid for such
allowance for the preceding fiscal year (as adjusted under
paragraph (5)); and
``(B) a fraction--
``(i) the numerator of which is the index of the national
average monthly cost of housing for June of the preceding
fiscal year; and
``(ii) the denominator of which is the index of the
national average monthly cost of housing for June of the
fiscal year before the preceding fiscal year.
``(4) An adjustment in the rates of basic allowance for
quarters as a result of the Secretary's redetermination of
housing costs in an area shall take effect on the same date
as the effective date of the next increase in basic pay under
section 1009 of this title or other provision of law.
``(5) In making a determination under paragraph (3) for a
fiscal year, the amount authorized to be paid for the
preceding fiscal year for the basic allowance for quarters
shall be adjusted to reflect changes during the year for
which the determination is made in the number, grade
distribution, geographic distribution, and dependency status
of members of the uniformed services entitled to the
allowance from the number of such members during the
preceding fiscal year.
``(6) So long as a member of a uniformed service retains
uninterrupted eligibility to receive a basic allowance for
quarters within an area of the United States, the monthly
amount of the allowance for the member may not be reduced as
a result of changes in housing costs in the area, changes in
the national average monthly cost of housing, or the
promotion of the member.
``(f) Overseas Station Housing Allowance.--(1) The
Secretary of Defense may prescribe an overseas station
housing allowance for a member of a uniformed service who is
on duty outside of the United States. The Secretary shall
base the station housing allowance on housing costs in the
overseas area in which the member is assigned.
``(2) So long as a member of a uniformed service retains
uninterrupted eligibility to receive an overseas station
housing allowance in an overseas area and the actual monthly
cost of housing for the member is not reduced, the monthly
[[Page H3988]]
amount of the overseas station housing allowance may not be
reduced as a result of changes in housing costs in the area
or the promotion of the member. The monthly amount of the
allowance may be adjusted to reflect changes in currency
rates.
``(g) Family Separation Housing Allowance.--(1) A member of
a uniformed service with dependents who is on permanent duty
at a location described in paragraph (2) is entitled to a
family separation housing allowance under this subsection at
a monthly rate equal to the rate of basic allowance for
quarters or overseas station housing allowance established
for that location for members without dependents in the same
grade.
``(2) A permanent duty location referred to in paragraph
(1) is a location--
``(A) to which the movement of the member's dependents is
not authorized at the expense of the United States under
section 406 of this title, and the member's dependents do not
reside at or near the location; and
``(B) at which quarters of the United States are not
available for assignment to the member.
``(3) The allowance provided under this subsection is in
addition to any other allowance or per diem that the member
is otherwise entitled to under this title.
``(h) Partial Allowance.--(1) The Secretary of Defense may
prescribe a partial basic allowance for housing for a member
of a uniformed service without dependents who is not entitled
to the allowance pursuant to subsection (c) or (d).
``(2) In the case of a member of a uniformed service who is
assigned to quarters of the United States and pays child
support, the Secretary of Defense may authorize the payment
of a partial basic allowance for housing, at a rate
prescribed by the Secretary, on account of the member's
payment of the child support. The allowance shall be at a
reduced rate to reflect the member's assignment to quarters
of the United States. The amount of the partial allowance
shall not exceed the monthly rate of the member's child
support. The payment of a partial allowance under this
paragraph to a member may be in addition to any allowance
paid to the member under paragraph (1).
``(i) Special Rules for Certain Members.--(1)(A) In the
case of a member of a reserve component of a uniformed
service without dependents who is called or ordered to active
duty (other than for training) or a retired member without
dependents ordered to active duty under section 688(a) of
title 10, the member shall be considered to be assigned to
duty at the location of the primary residence of the member
at the time of the call or order for purposes of determining
the amount of the member's basic allowance for housing.
``(B) If a member described in subparagraph (A) is called
or ordered to active duty for less than 30 days, the
Secretary of Defense shall prescribe the amount of the basic
allowance for housing to be paid to the member.
``(C) This paragraph shall not apply to a member described
in subparagraph (A) if the member is authorized
transportation of household goods under section 406 of this
title as part of the call or order to active duty or if the
primary residence of the member is not owned by the member or
the member is not responsible for rental payments.
``(2) A member of a uniformed service without dependents
who is in pay grade E-4 (four or more years' service), or
above, is entitled to a basic allowance for housing while the
member is in a travel or leave status between permanent duty
stations, including time granted as delay en route or proceed
time, when the member is not assigned to quarters of the
United States. Notwithstanding subsection (e)(2), the rate of
basic allowance for quarters for such a member shall be equal
to the national average monthly cost of housing in the United
States, as determined by the Secretary, for members of the
uniformed services serving in the same pay grade and with the
same dependency status as the member.
``(3) The eligibility of an aviation cadet of the Navy, Air
Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard for a basic allowance for
housing shall be determined as if the aviation cadet were a
member of the uniformed services in pay grade E-4.
``(4) In the case of a member without dependents who is
assigned to duty inside the United States, the location or
the circumstances of which make it necessary that the member
be reassigned under the conditions of low cost or no cost
permanent change of station or permanent change of
assignment, the member may be treated as if the member were
not reassigned if the Secretary concerned determines that it
would be inequitable to base the member's entitlement to, and
amount of, a basic allowance for housing on the area to which
the member is reassigned.
``(j) Administration.--(1) The Secretary concerned may make
such determinations as may be necessary to administer this
section, including determinations of dependency and
relationship. When warranted by the circumstances, the
Secretary concerned may reconsider and change or modify any
such determination. This authority may be delegated by the
Secretary concerned. Any determination made under this
section with regard to a member of the uniformed services is
final and is not subject to review by any accounting officer
of the United States or a court, unless there is fraud or
gross negligence.
``(2) Parking facilities (including utility connections)
provided members of the uniformed services for house trailers
and mobile homes not owned by the Government shall not be
considered to be quarters for the purposes of this section or
any other provision of law. Any fees established by the
Government for the use of such a facility shall be
established in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of
maintenance, services, and utilities and to amortize the cost
of construction of the facility over the 25-year period
beginning with the completion of such construction.
``(k) Temporary Continuation of Allowance.--(1) The
Secretary of Defense, or the Secretary of Transportation in
the case of the Coast Guard when not operating as a service
in the Navy, may allow the dependents of a member of the
armed forces who dies while on active duty and whose
dependents are occupying family housing provided by the
Department of Defense, or by the Department of Transportation
in the case of the Coast Guard, other than on a rental basis
on the date of the member's death to continue to occupy such
housing without charge for a period of 180 days.
``(2) The Secretary concerned may pay an allowance for
housing to the dependents of a member of the uniformed
services who dies while on active duty and whose dependents
are not occupying a housing facility under the jurisdiction
of a uniformed service on the date of the member's death or
are occupying such housing on a rental basis on such date, or
whose dependents vacate such housing sooner than 180 days
after the date of the member's death. The amount of the
allowance shall be the same amount that would otherwise be
payable to the deceased member under this section if the
member had not died. The payment of an allowance under this
paragraph shall terminate 180 days after the date of the
member's death.''.
(b) Repeal of Superseded Authorities.--(1) Section 403a of
title 37, United States Code, is repealed.
(2) Section 405 of such title is amended--
(A) by striking out subsection (b); and
(B) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections
(b) and (c), respectively.
(3) Section 427 of such title is amended--
(A) by striking out subsection (a); and
(B) in subsection (b)--
(i) by striking out ``(b) Additional Separation
Allowance.--'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``(a)
Availability of Separation Allowance.--'';
(ii) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``including
subsection (a)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``including
section 403(g) of this title'';
(iii) in paragraph (4)--
(I) by striking out ``(4) A member'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``(b) Effect of Election to Serve Unaccompanied Tour
of Duty.--A member'';
(II) by striking out ``paragraph (1)(A) of this
subsection'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``subsection
(a)(1)(A)''; and
(iv) in paragraph (5)--
(I) by striking out ``(5) Section 421'' and inserting in
lieu thereof ``(c) Effect of Dependent Entitled to Basic
Pay.--Section 421''; and
(II) by striking out ``paragraph (1)(D)'' both places it
appears and inserting in lieu thereof ``subsection
(a)(1)(D)''.
(4) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 7 of
title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking out the
items relating to sections 403 and 403a and inserting in lieu
thereof the following new item:
``403. Basic allowance for housing.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Title 37, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) in section 101(25), by striking out ``basic allowance
for quarters (including any variable housing allowance or
station housing allowance)'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``basic allowance for housing'';
(B) in section 406(c), by striking out ``sections 404 and
405'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``sections 403(f), 404,
and 405'';
(C) in section 420(c), by striking out ``quarters'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``housing'';
(D) in section 551(3)(D), by striking out ``basic allowance
for quarters'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``basic
allowance for housing''; and
(E) in section 1014(a), by striking out ``basic allowance
for quarters'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``basic
allowance for housing''.
(2) Title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in section 708(c)(1), by striking out ``basic allowance
for quarters or basic allowance for subsistence'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``basic allowance for housing under
section 403 of title 37, basic allowance for subsistence
under section 402 of such title,'';
(B) in section 2830(a)--
(i) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``basic allowance for
quarters'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``basic allowance
for housing under section 403 of title 37''; and
(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking out ``basic allowance
for quarters'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``basic
allowance for housing'';
(C) in section 2882(b)--
(i) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``section 403(b)''
and inserting in lieu thereof ``section 403''; and
(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking out ``basic allowance
for quarters'' and all that follows through the end of the
paragraph and inserting in lieu thereof ``basic allowance for
housing under section 403 of title 37.'';
(D) in section 7572(b)--
(i) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``the total of--''
and all that follows through the end of the paragraph and
inserting in lieu thereof ``the basic allowance for housing
payable under section 403 of title 37 to a member of the same
pay grade without dependents for the period during which the
member is deprived of quarters on board ship.''; and
(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking out ``basic allowance
for quarters'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``basic
allowance for housing''; and
(E) in section 7573, by striking out ``basic allowance for
quarters'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``basic allowance
for housing under section 403 of title 37''.
(3) Section 5561(6)(D) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by striking out ``basic allowance for quarters'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``basic allowance for housing''.
(4) Section 107(b) of title 32, United States Code, is
amended by striking out ``and quarters'' and inserting in
lieu thereof ``and housing''.
[[Page H3989]]
(5) Section 4(k)(10) of the Military Selective Service Act
(50 U.S.C. App. 454(k)(10)) is amended by striking out ``as
such terms'' and all that follows through ``extended or
amended'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``shall be entitled
to receive a dependency allowance equal to the basic
allowance for quarters provided for persons in pay grade E-1
under section 403 of title 37, United States Code,''.
(d) Transition to Basic Allowance for Housing.--The
Secretary of Defense shall develop and implement a plan to
incrementally manage the rate of growth of the various
components of the basic allowance for housing authorized by
section 403 of title 37, United States Code (as amended by
subsection (a)), during a transition period of not more than
six years. During the transition period, the Secretary may
continue to use the authorities provided under sections 403,
403a, 405(b), and 427(a) of title 37, United States Code (as
in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this
Act), but subject to such modifications as the Secretary
considers necessary, to provide allowances for members of the
uniformed services.
(e) Availability of Funds to Reduce Out-Of-Pocket Housing
Costs.--Of the amount authorized to be appropriated pursuant
to section 421 for military personnel, $35,000,000 shall be
available to the Secretary of Defense to increase the rates
of basic allowance for quarters authorized members of the
Armed Forces by section 403 of title 37, United States Code
(as amended by subsection (a)), so as to further reduce out-
of-pocket housing costs incurred by members of the Armed
Forces.
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays
SEC. 611. ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF CERTAIN BONUSES AND SPECIAL
PAY AUTHORITIES FOR RESERVE FORCES.
(a) Special Pay for Health Professionals in Critically
Short Wartime Specialties.--Section 302g(f) of title 37,
United States Code, is amended by striking out ``September
30, 1998'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``September 30,
1999''.
(b) Selected Reserve Reenlistment Bonus.--Section 308b(f)
of title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking out
``September 30, 1998'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``September 30, 1999''.
(c) Selected Reserve Enlistment Bonus.--Section 308c(e) of
title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking out
``September 30, 1998'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``September 30, 1999''.
(d) Special Pay for Enlisted Members Assigned to Certain
High Priority Units.--Section 308d(c) of title 37, United
States Code, is amended by striking out ``September 30,
1998'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``September 30, 1999''.
(e) Selected Reserve Affiliation Bonus.--Section 308e(e) of
title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking out
``September 30, 1998'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``September 30, 1999''.
(f) Ready Reserve Enlistment and Reenlistment Bonus.--
Section 308h(g) of title 37, United States Code, is amended
by striking out ``September 30, 1998'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``September 30, 1999''.
(g) Prior Service Enlistment Bonus.--Section 308i(i) of
title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking out
``September 30, 1998'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``September 30, 1999''.
SEC. 612. ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF CERTAIN BONUSES AND SPECIAL
PAY AUTHORITIES FOR NURSE OFFICER CANDIDATES,
REGISTERED NURSES, AND NURSE ANESTHETISTS.
(a) Nurse Officer Candidate Accession Program.--Section
2130a(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
striking out ``September 30, 1998'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``September 30, 1999''.
(b) Accession Bonus for Registered Nurses.--Section
302d(a)(1) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by
striking out ``September 30, 1998'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``September 30, 1999''.
(c) Incentive Special Pay for Nurse Anesthetists.--Section
302e(a)(1) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by
striking out ``September 30, 1998'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``September 30, 1999''.
SEC. 613. ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF AUTHORITIES RELATING TO
PAYMENT OF OTHER BONUSES AND SPECIAL PAYS.
(a) Aviation Officer Retention Bonus.--Section 301b(a) of
title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking out
``September 30, 1998,'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``September 30, 1999,''.
(b) Reenlistment Bonus for Active Members.--Section 308(g)
of title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking out
``September 30, 1998'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``September 30, 1999''.
(c) Enlistment Bonuses for Members With Critical Skills.--
Sections 308a(c) and 308f(c) of title 37, United States Code,
are each amended by striking out ``September 30, 1998'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``September 30, 1999''.
(d) Special Pay for Nuclear Qualified Officers Extending
Period of Active Duty.--Section 312(e) of title 37, United
States Code, is amended by striking out ``September 30,
1998'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``September 30, 1999''.
(e) Nuclear Career Accession Bonus.--Section 312b(c) of
title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking out
``September 30, 1998'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``September 30, 1999''.
(f) Nuclear Career Annual Incentive Bonus.--Section 312c(d)
of title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking out
``October 1, 1998'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``October
1, 1999''.
(g) Repayment of Education Loans for Certain Health
Professionals Who Serve in the Selected Reserve.--Section
16302(d) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
striking out ``October 1, 1998'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``October 1, 1999''.
SEC. 614. INCREASE IN MINIMUM MONTHLY RATE OF HAZARDOUS DUTY
INCENTIVE PAY FOR CERTAIN MEMBERS.
(a) Aerial Flight Crewmembers.--The table in subsection (b)
of section 301 of title 37, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking out ``110'' each place it appears and
inserting in lieu thereof ``150''; and
(2) by striking out ``125'' each place it appears and
inserting in lieu thereof ``150''.
(b) Air Weapons Controller Aircrew.--The table in
subsection (c)(2)(A) of such section is amended--
(1) by striking out ``100'' in the first column of amounts
and inserting in lieu thereof ``150'';
(2) by striking out ``110'' in the last column of amounts
and inserting in lieu thereof ``150''; and
(3) by striking out ``125'' each place it appears and
inserting in lieu thereof ``150''.
(c) Other Members.--Subsection (c)(1) of such section is
amended--
(1) by striking out ``$110'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``$150''; and
(2) by striking out ``$165'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``$225''.
SEC. 615. AVAILABILITY OF MULTIYEAR RETENTION BONUS FOR
DENTAL OFFICERS.
(a) Availability of Retention Bonus.--Chapter 5 of title
37, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section
301d the following new section:
``Sec. 301e. Multiyear retention bonus: dental officers of
the armed forces
``(a) Bonus Authorized.--(1) A dental officer described in
subsection (b) who executes a written agreement to remain on
active duty for two, three, or four years after completion of
any other active-duty service commitment may, upon acceptance
of the written agreement by the Secretary of the military
department concerned, be paid a retention bonus as provided
in this section.
``(2) The amount of a retention bonus under paragraph (1)
may not exceed $14,000 for each year covered by a four-year
agreement. The maximum yearly retention bonus for two-year
and three-year agreements shall be reduced to reflect the
shorter service commitment.
``(b) Officers Automatically Eligible.--Subsection (a)
applies to an officer of the armed forces who--
``(1) is an officer of the Dental Corps of the Army or the
Navy or an officer of the Air Force designated as a dental
officer;
``(2) has a dental specialty in oral and maxillofacial
surgery;
``(3) is in a pay grade below pay grade 0-7;
``(4) has at least eight years of creditable service
(computed as described in section 302b(g) of this title) or
has completed any active-duty service commitment incurred for
dental education and training; and
``(5) has completed initial residency training (or will
complete such training before September 30 of the fiscal year
in which the officer enters into an agreement under
subsection (a)).
``(c) Extension of Bonus to Other Dental Officers.--At the
discretion of the Secretary of the military department
concerned, the Secretary may enter into a written agreement
described in subsection (a)(1) with a dental officer who does
not have the dental specialty specified in subsection (b)(2),
and pay a retention bonus to such an officer as provided in
this section, if the officer otherwise satisfies the
eligibility requirements specified in subsection (b). The
Secretaries shall exercise the authority provided in this
section in a manner consistent with regulations prescribed by
the Secretary of Defense.
``(d) Refunds.--(1) Refunds shall be required, on a pro
rata basis, of sums paid under this section if the officer
who has received the payment fails to complete the total
period of active duty specified in the agreement, as
conditions and circumstances warrant.
``(2) An obligation to reimburse the United States imposed
under paragraph (1) is for all purposes a debt owed to the
United States.
``(3) A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11, United
States Code, that is entered less than five years after the
termination of an agreement under this section does not
discharge the member signing such agreement from a debt
arising under such agreement or under paragraph (1). This
paragraph applies to any case commenced under title 11 after
the date of the enactment of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 301d the following new item:
``301e. Multiyear retention bonus: dental officers of the armed
forces.''.
SEC. 616. INCREASE IN VARIABLE AND ADDITIONAL SPECIAL PAYS
FOR CERTAIN DENTAL OFFICERS.
(a) Variable Special Pay for Junior Officers.--Paragraph
(2) of section 302b(a) of title 37, United States Code, is
amended by striking out subparagraphs (C) through (F) and
inserting in lieu thereof the following new subparagraphs:
``(C) $7,000 per year, if the officer has at least six but
less than eight years of creditable service.
``(D) $12,000 per year, if the officer has at least eight
but less than 12 years of creditable service.
``(E) $10,000 per year, if the officer has at least 12 but
less than 14 years of creditable service.
``(F) $9,000 per year, if the officer has at least 14 but
less than 18 years of creditable service.
[[Page H3990]]
``(G) $8,000 per year, if the officer has 18 or more years
of creditable service.''.
(b) Variable Special Pay for Senior Officers.--Paragraph
(3) of such section is amended by striking out ``$1,000'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``$7,000''.
(c) Additional Special Pay.--Paragraph (4) of such section
is amended by striking out subparagraphs (B) through (D) and
inserting in lieu thereof the following new subparagraphs:
``(B) $6,000 per year, if the officer has at least three
but less than 10 years of creditable service.
``(C) $15,000 per year, if the officer has 10 or more years
of creditable service.''.
SEC. 617. SPECIAL PAY FOR DUTY AT DESIGNATED HARDSHIP DUTY
LOCATIONS.
(a) Special Pay Authorized.--Section 305 of title 37,
United States Code, is amended by striking out subsection (a)
and inserting in lieu thereof the following new subsection:
``(a) Special Pay Authorized.--A member of a uniformed
service who is entitled to basic pay may be paid
special pay under this section at a monthly rate not to
exceed $300 while the member is on duty at a location in
the United States or outside the United States designated
by the Secretary of Defense as a hardship duty
location.''.
(b) Cross References and Regulations.--Such section is
further amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) by inserting ``Exception for Certain Members Serving in
Certain Locations.--'' after ``(b)''; and
(B) by striking out ``as foreign duty pay'' and inserting
in lieu thereof ``as hardship duty location pay'';
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) by inserting ``Exception for Members Receiving Career
Sea Pay.--'' after ``(c)''; and
(B) by striking out ``special pay under this section'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``hardship duty location pay under
subsection (a)''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall
prescribe regulations for the provision of hardship duty
location pay under subsection (a), including the actual
monthly rates at which the special pay will be available.''.
(c) Clerical Amendments.--(1) the heading of such section
is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 305. Special pay: hardship duty location pay''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 5 of
title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking out the
item relating to section 305 and inserting in lieu thereof
the following new item:
``305. Special pay: hardship duty location pay.''.
(d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 907(d) of such title is
amended by striking out ``duty at certain places'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``duty at a hardship duty
location''.
(e) Transition.--Until such time as the Secretary of
Defense prescribes regulations regarding the provision of
hardship duty location pay under section 305 of title 37,
United States Code, as amended by this section, the Secretary
may continue to use the authority provided by such section
305, as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment
of this Act, to provide special pay to enlisted members of
the uniformed services on duty at certain places.
SEC. 618. SELECTED RESERVE REENLISTMENT BONUS.
(a) Eligible Members.--Subsection (a)(1) of section 308b of
title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking out
``ten years'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``14 years''.
(b) Bonus Amounts; Payment.--Subsection (b) of such section
is amended to read as follows:
``(b)(1) The amount of a bonus under this section may not
exceed--
``(A) $2,500, in the case of a member who reenlists or
extends an enlistment for a period of three years; and
``(B) $5,000, in the case of a member who reenlists or
extends an enlistment for a period of six years.
``(2) The bonus shall be paid according to a payment
schedule determined by the Secretary concerned, except that
the initial payment to a member may not exceed one-half the
total bonus amount for the member.''.
(c) Number of Individual Bonuses.--Subsection (c) of such
section is amended to read as follows:
``(c) A member may not be paid more than one six-year bonus
or two three-year bonuses under this section.''.
(d) Effect of Failure to Serve Satisfactorily.--Subsection
(d) of such section is amended to read as follows:
``(d) A member who receives a bonus under this section and
who fails, during the period for which the bonus was paid, to
serve satisfactorily in the element of the Selected Reserve
of the Ready Reserve with respect to which the bonus was paid
shall refund to the United States an amount that bears the
same relation to the amount of the bonus paid to the member
as the period that the member failed to serve satisfactorily
bears to the total period for which the bonus was paid.''.
SEC. 619. SELECTED RESERVE ENLISTMENT BONUS FOR FORMER
ENLISTED MEMBERS.
(a) Eligible Persons.--Subsection (a)(2) of section 308i of
title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking out
subparagraph (A) and inserting in lieu thereof the following
new subparagraph:
``(A) has completed a military obligation but has less than
14 years of total military service;'';
(b) Bonus Amounts; Payment.--Subsection (b) of such section
is amended to read as follows:
``(b)(1) The amount of a bonus under this section may not
exceed--
``(A) $2,500, in the case of a person who enlists for a
period of three years; and
``(B) $5,000, in the case of a person who enlists for a
period of six years.
``(2) The bonus shall be paid according to a payment
schedule determined by the Secretary concerned, except that
the initial payment to a person may not exceed one-half the
total bonus amount for the person.''.
(c) Limitations.--Subsection (c) of such section is amended
to read as follows:
``(c)(1) A person may not be paid more than one six-year
bonus or two three-year bonuses under this section.
``(2) A person may not be paid a bonus under this section
unless the specialty associated with the position the person
is projected to occupy as a member of the Selected Reserve is
a specialty in which--
``(A) the person successfully served while a member on
active duty; and
``(B) the person attained a level of qualification while a
member commensurate with the grade and years of service of
the member.''.
SEC. 620. SPECIAL PAY OR BONUSES FOR ENLISTED MEMBERS
EXTENDING TOURS OF DUTY OVERSEAS.
(a) Inclusion of Bonus Incentive.--(1) Section 314 of title
37, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 314. Special pay or bonus: qualified enlisted members
extending duty at designated locations overseas
``(a) Covered Members.--This section applies with respect
to an enlisted member of an armed force who--
``(1) is entitled to basic pay;
``(2) has a specialty that is designated by the Secretary
concerned for the purposes of this section;
``(3) has completed a tour of duty (as defined in
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary
concerned) at a location outside the 48 contiguous States and
the District of Columbia that is designated by the Secretary
concerned for the purposes of this section; and
``(4) at the end of that tour of duty executes an agreement
to extend that tour for a period of not less than one year.
``(b) Special Pay or Bonus Authorized.--Under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary concerned, an enlisted member
described in subsection (a) is entitled, upon acceptance by
the Secretary concerned of the agreement providing for
extension of the member's tour of duty, to either--
``(1) special pay for duty performed during the period of
the extension at a rate of not more than $80 per month, as
prescribed by the Secretary concerned; or
``(2) a bonus of up to $2,000 per year, as prescribed by
the Secretary concerned, for specialty requirements at
designated locations.
``(c) Selection and Payment of Special Pay or Bonus.--Not
later than the date on which the Secretary concerned accepts
an agreement described in subsection (a)(4) providing for the
extension of a member's tour of duty, the Secretary concerned
shall notify the member regarding whether the member will
receive special pay or a bonus under this section. The
payment rate for the special pay or bonus shall be fixed at
the time of the agreement and may not be changed during the
period of the extended tour of duty. The Secretary concerned
may pay a bonus under this section either in a lump sum or
installments.
``(d) Repayment of Bonus.--(1) If a member who receives all
or part of a bonus under this section fails to complete the
total period of extension specified in the agreement
described in subsection (a)(4), the Secretary concerned may
require the member to repay the United States, on a pro rata
basis and to the extent that the Secretary determines
conditions and circumstances warrant, amounts paid to the
member under this section.
``(2) An obligation to repay the United States imposed
under paragraph (1) is for all purposes a debt owed to the
United States.
``(3) A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11 that is
entered less than five years after the termination of the
agreement does not discharge the member signing the agreement
from a debt arising under the agreement or under paragraph
(1). This paragraph applies to any case commenced under title
11 on or after October 1, 1997.
``(e) Effect of Rest and Recuperative Absence.--A member
who elects to receive one of the benefits specified in
section 705(b) of title 10 as part of the extension of a tour
of duty is not entitled to the special pay or bonus
authorized by this section for the period of the extension of
duty for which the benefit under such section is provided.''.
(2) The item relating to section 314 in the table of
sections at the beginning of chapter 5 of such title is
amended to read as follows:
``314. Special pay or bonus: qualified enlisted members extending duty
at designated locations overseas.''.
(b) Application of Amendment.--Section 314 of title 37,
United States Code, as amended by subsection (a), shall apply
with respect to an agreement to extend a tour of duty as
provided in such section executed on or after October 1,
1997.
SEC. 621. INCREASE IN AMOUNT OF FAMILY SEPARATION ALLOWANCE.
Section 427 of title 37, United States Code (as amended by
section 604(b)(3)), is further amended in subsection (a)(1)
by striking out ``$75'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``$100''.
SEC. 622. CHANGE IN REQUIREMENTS FOR READY RESERVE MUSTER
DUTY ALLOWANCE.
Section 433(c) of title 37, United States Code, is
amended--
[[Page H3991]]
(1) in the first sentence, by striking out ``and shall be''
and all that follows through ``is performed''; and
(2) by inserting after the first sentence the following new
sentence: ``The allowance may be paid to the member on or
before the date on which the muster duty is performed, but
shall be paid not later than 30 days after the date on which
the muster duty is performed.''.
Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances
SEC. 631. TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCES FOR DEPENDENTS
OF MEMBER SENTENCED BY COURT-MARTIAL.
Section 406(h)(2)(C) of title 37, United States Code, is
amended by striking out the comma at the end of clause (iii)
and all that follows through ``title 10.'' and inserting in
lieu thereof a period.
SEC. 632. DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE.
Section 407 of title 37, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
``Sec. 407. Travel and transportation allowances: dislocation
allowance
``(a) Basic Eligibility.--(1) Under regulations prescribed
by the Secretary concerned, a member of a uniformed service
described in paragraph (2) is entitled to a dislocation
allowance at the rate set forth in the tables in subsection
(c) for the member's pay grade and dependency status.
``(2) A member of the uniformed services referred to in
paragraph (1) is any of the following:
``(A) A member who makes a change of permanent station and
the member's dependents actually make an authorized move in
connection with the change, including a move by the
dependents--
``(i) to join the member at the member's duty station after
an unaccompanied tour of duty when the member's next tour of
duty is an accompanied tour at the same station; and
``(ii) to a location designated by the member after an
accompanied tour of duty when the member's next tour of duty
is an unaccompanied tour at the same duty station.
``(B) A member whose dependents actually move pursuant to
section 405a(a), 406(e), 406(h), or 554 of this title.
``(C) A member whose dependents actually move from their
place of residence under circumstances described in section
406a of this title.
``(D) A member who is without dependents and--
``(i) actually moves to a new permanent station where the
member is not assigned to quarters of the United States; or
``(ii) actually moves from a place of residence under
circumstances described in section 406a of this title.
``(E) A member who is ordered to move in connection with
the closure or realignment of a military installation and, as
a result, the member's dependents actually move or, in the
case of a member without dependents, the member actually
moves.
``(3) If a dislocation allowance is paid under this
subsection to a member described in subparagraph (C) or
(D)(ii), the member is not entitled to another dislocation
allowance as a member described in subparagraph (A) or (E) in
connection with the same move.
``(b) Second Allowance Authorized Under Certain
Circumstances.--(1) Under regulations prescribed by the
Secretary concerned, whenever a member is entitled to a
dislocation allowance as a member described in subparagraph
(C) or (D)(ii) of subsection (a)(2), the member is also
entitled to a second dislocation allowance at the rate set
forth in the tables in subsection (c) for the member's pay
grade and dependency status if, subsequent to the member or
the member's dependents actually moving from their place of
residence under circumstances described in section 406a of
this title, the member or member's dependents complete that
move to a new location and then actually move from that new
location to another location also under circumstances
described in section 406a of this title.
``(2) If a second dislocation allowance is paid under this
subsection, the member is not entitled to a dislocation
allowance as a member described in subparagraph (A) or (E) of
subsection (a)(2) in connection with those moves.
``(c) Dislocation Allowance Rates.--(1) A dislocation
allowance under this section shall be paid at the following
monthly rates, based on a member's pay grade and dependency
status:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paygrade Without dependents With dependents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O-10............................ $2,061.75 $2,538.00
O-9............................. 2,061.75 2,538.00
O-8............................. 2,061.75 2,538.00
O-7............................. 2,061.75 2,538.00
O-6............................. 1,891.50 2,285.25
O-5............................. 1,821.75 2,202.75
O-4............................. 1,688.25 1,941.75
O-3............................. 1,353.00 1,606.50
O-2............................. 1,073.25 1,371.75
O-1............................. 903.75 1,226.25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paygrade Without dependents With dependents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O-3E............................ $1,461.00 $1,726.50
O-2E............................ 1,242.00 1,557.75
O-1E............................ 1,068.00 1,439.25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paygrade Without dependents With dependents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
W-5............................. $1,715.25 $1,874.25
W-4............................. 1,523.25 1,718.25
W-3............................. 1,280.00 1,574.25
W-2............................. 1,137.00 1,448.25
W-1............................. 951.75 1,252.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paygrade Without dependents With dependents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-9............................. $1,251.00 $1,649.25
E-8............................. 1,148.25 1,520.25
E-7............................. 981.00 1,411.50
E-6............................. 888.00 1,304.25
E-5............................. 819.00 1,173.00
E-4............................. 712.50 1,020.00
E-3............................. 699.00 949.50
E-2............................. 567.75 903.75
E-1............................. 506.25 903.75
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``(2) For each calendar year after 1997, the Secretary of
Defense shall adjust the rates in the tables in paragraph (1)
by the percentage equal to the rate of change of the national
average monthly cost of housing, as determined by the
Secretary under section 403 of this title for that calendar
year.
``(d) Fiscal Year Limitation; Exceptions.--(1) A member is
not entitled to more than one dislocation allowance during a
fiscal year unless--
``(A) the Secretary concerned finds that the exigencies of
the service require the member to make more than one change
of permanent station during the fiscal year;
``(B) the member is ordered to a service school as a change
of permanent station;
``(C) the member's dependents are covered by section
405a(a), 406(e), 406(h), or 554 of this title; or
``(D) subparagraph (C) or (D)(ii) of subsection (a)(2) or
subsection (b) apply with respect to the member or the
member's dependents.
``(2) This subsection does not apply in time of national
emergency or in time of war.
``(e) First or Last Duty.--A member is not entitled to
payment of a dislocation allowance when ordered from the
member's home to the member's first duty station or from the
member's last duty station to the member's home.
``(f) Rule of Construction.--For purposes of this section,
a member whose dependents may not make an authorized move in
connection with a change of permanent station is considered a
member without dependents.
``(g) Advance Payment.--A dislocation allowance payable
under this section may be paid in advance.''.
Subtitle D--Retired Pay, Survivor Benefits, and Related Matters
SEC. 641. TIME IN WHICH CERTAIN CHANGES IN BENEFICIARY UNDER
SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN MAY BE MADE.
(a) Extension of Time for Change.--Section 1450(f)(1)(C) of
title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting before
the period at the end the following: ``, except that such a
change of election to change a beneficiary under the Plan
from a former spouse to a spouse may be made at any time
after the person providing the annuity remarries (rather than
only within one year after the date on which that person
marries)''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to marriages occurring before, on,
or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
SEC. 651. DEFINITION OF SEA DUTY FOR PURPOSES OF CAREER SEA
PAY.
Section 305a(d) of title 37, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking out ``, ship-based
staff, or ship-based aviation unit'';
(2) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking out ``or ship-based
staff'';
(3) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs
(3) and (4), respectively; and
(4) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraph:
``(2) The Secretary concerned may designate duty performed
by a member while serving on a ship the primary mission of
which is accomplished either while under way or in port as
`sea duty' for purposes of this section, even though the duty
is performed while the member is permanently or temporarily
assigned to a ship-based staff or other unit not covered by
paragraph (1).''.
SEC. 652. LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAM FOR COMMISSIONED OFFICERS IN
CERTAIN HEALTH PROFESSIONS.
(a) Chapter 109 of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 2173. Education loan repayment program: commissioned
officers in specified health professions
``(a) Authority To Repay Education Loans.--For the purpose
of maintaining adequate numbers of commissioned officers of
the armed forces on active duty who are qualified in the
various health professions, the Secretary of a military
department may repay, in the case of a person described in
subsection (b), a loan that was used by the person to finance
education regarding a health profession and was obtained from
a governmental entity, private financial institution, school,
or other authorized entity.
``(b) Eligible Persons.--To be eligible to obtain a loan
repayment under this section, a person must--
``(1) satisfy one of the academic requirements specified in
subsection (c);
``(2) be fully qualified for, or hold, an appointment as a
commissioned officer in one of the health professions; and
``(3) sign a written agreement to serve on active duty, or,
if on active duty, to remain on active duty for a period in
addition to any other incurred active duty obligation.
``(c) Academic Requirements.--One of the following academic
requirements must be satisfied for purposes of determining
the eligibility of a person for a loan repayment under this
section:
[[Page H3992]]
``(1) The person must be fully qualified in a health
profession that the Secretary of the military department
concerned has determined to be necessary to meet identified
skill shortages.
``(2) The person must be enrolled as a full-time student in
the final year of a course of study at an accredited
educational institution leading to a degree
in a health profession other than medicine or osteopathic
medicine.
``(3) The person must be enrolled in the final year of an
approved graduate program leading to specialty qualification
in medicine, dentistry, osteopathic medicine, or other health
profession.
``(d) Certain Person Ineligible.--Participants of the Armed
Forces Health Professions Scholarship and Financial
Assistance program under subchapter I of chapter 105 of this
title and students of the Uniformed Services University of
the Health Sciences established under section 2112 of this
title are not eligible for the repayment of an education loan
under this section.
``(e) Loan Repayments.--(1) Subject to the limits
established by paragraph (2), a loan repayment under this
section may consist of payment of the principal, interest,
and related expenses of a loan obtained by a person described
in subsection (b) for--
``(A) all educational expenses, comparable to all
educational expenses recognized under section 2127(a) of this
title for participants in the Armed Forces Health Professions
Scholarship and Financial Assistance program; and
``(B) reasonable living expenses, not to exceed expenses
comparable to the stipend paid under section 2121(d) of this
title for participants in the Armed Forces Health Professions
Scholarship and Financial Assistance program.
``(2) For each year of obligated service that a person
agrees to serve in an agreement described in subsection
(b)(3), the Secretary of the military department concerned
may pay not more than $22,000 on behalf of the person. This
maximum amount shall be increased annually by the Secretary
of Defense effective October 1 of each year by a percentage
equal to the percent increase in the average annual cost of
educational expenses and stipend costs of a single
scholarship under the Armed Forces Health Professions
Scholarship and Financial Assistance program. The total
amount that may be repaid on behalf of any person may not
exceed an amount determined on the basis of a four-year
active duty service obligation.
``(f) Active Duty Service Obligation.--(1) A person
entering into an agreement described in subsection (b)(3)
incurs an active duty service obligation. The length of this
obligation shall be determined under regulations prescribed
by the Secretary of Defense, but those regulations may not
provide for a period of obligation of less than one year for
each maximum annual amount, or portion thereof, paid on
behalf of the person for qualified loans.
``(2) For persons on active duty before entering into the
agreement, the active duty service obligation shall be served
consecutively to any other incurred obligation.
``(g) Effect of Failure To Complete Obligation.--A
commissioned officer who is relieved of the officer's active
duty obligation under this section before the completion of
that obligation may be given, with or without the consent of
the officer, any alternative obligation comparable to any of
the alternative obligations authorized by section 2123(e) of
this title for participants in the Armed Forces Health
Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance program.
``(h) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall
prescribe regulations to carry out this section, including
standards for qualified loans and authorized payees and other
terms and conditions for the making of loan repayments.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``2173. Education loan repayment program: commissioned officers in
specified health professions.''.
SEC. 653. CONFORMANCE OF NOAA COMMISSIONED OFFICERS
SEPARATION PAY TO SEPARATION PAY FOR MEMBERS OF
OTHER UNIFORMED SERVICES.
(a) Elimination of Limitations on Amount of Separation
Pay.--Section 9 of the Coast and Geodetic Survey Commissioned
Officers' Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 853h) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``, or $30,000,
whichever is less'';
(2) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``, but in no event
more than $15,000''; and
(3) in subsection (d), by striking ``(1)'', and by striking
paragraph (2).
(b) Waiver of Recoupment of Amounts Withheld for Tax
Purposes From Certain Separation Pay.--Section 9(e)(2) of the
Coast and Geodetic Survey Commissioned Officers' Act of 1948
(33 U.S.C. 853h) is amended in the first sentence by
inserting before the period at the end the following: ``,
less the amount of Federal income tax withheld from such pay
(such withholding being at the flat withholding rate for
Federal income tax withholding, as in effect pursuant to
regulations prescribed under chapter 24 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986)''.
(c) Effective Date and Application.--The amendments made by
this section shall take effect on October 1,
1996, and shall apply to payments of separation pay that are
made after September 30, 1997.
SEC. 654. REIMBURSEMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE OFFICERS FOR
ADOPTION EXPENSES.
Section 221(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
213a(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(16) Section 1052, Reimbursement for adoption
expenses.''.
SEC. 655. PAYMENT OF BACK QUARTERS AND SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCES
TO WORLD WAR II VETERANS WHO SERVED AS
GUERRILLA FIGHTERS IN THE PHILIPPINES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the military department
concerned shall pay, upon request, to an individual described
in subsection (b) the amount determined with respect to that
individual under subsection (c).
(b) Covered Individuals.--A payment under subsection (a)
shall be made to any individual who as a member of the Armed
Forces during World War II--
(1) was captured within the territory of the Philippines by
Japanese forces;
(2) escaped from captivity; and
(3) served as a guerrilla fighter in the Philippines during
the period from January 1942 through February 1945.
(c) Amount To Be Paid.--The amount of a payment under
subsection (a) shall be the amount of quarters and
subsistence allowance which accrued to an individual
described in subsection (b) during the period specified in
paragraph (3) of subsection (b) and which was not paid to
that individual. For the purposes of this subsection, the
Secretary of War shall be deemed to have determined that
conditions in the Philippines during the specified period
justified payment under applicable regulations of quarters
and subsistence allowances at the maximum special rate for
duty where emergency conditions existed. The Secretary shall
apply interest compounded at the three-month Treasury bill
rate.
(d) Payment to Survivors.--In the case of any individual
described in subsection (b) who is deceased, payment under
this section with respect to that individual shall be made to
that individual's nearest surviving relative, as determined
by the Secretary concerned.
SEC. 656. SPACE AVAILABLE TRAVEL FOR MEMBERS OF SELECTED
RESERVE.
(a) In General.--Chapter 157 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``Sec. 2646. Space available travel: members of Selected
Reserve
``(a) Availability.--The Secretary of Defense shall
prescribe regulations to allow members of the Selected
Reserve in good standing (as determined by the Secretary
concerned), and dependents of such members, to receive
transportation on aircraft of the Department of Defense on a
space available basis under the same terms and conditions as
apply to members of the armed forces on active duty and
dependents of such members.
``(b) Condition on Dependent Transportation.--A dependent
of a member of the Selected Reserve may be provided
transportation under this section only when the dependent is
actually accompanying the member on the travel.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``2646. Space available travel: members of Selected Reserve.''.
SEC. 657. STUDY ON MILITARY PERSONNEL AT, NEAR, OR BELOW THE
POVERTY LINE.
(a) Requirement.--The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a
study of members of the Armed Forces and their dependents who
subsist at, near, or below the poverty line.
(b) Matters To Be Included.--The study shall include the
following:
(1) An analysis of potential solutions for mitigating or
eliminating income levels for members of the Armed Forces
that result in certain members and their dependents
subsisting at, near, or below the poverty line, including
potential solutions involving changes in the systems and
rates of--
(A) basic allowance for subsistence for members of the
Armed Forces under section 402 of title 37, United States
Code;
(B) basic allowance for quarters for members of the Armed
Forces under section 403 of such title; and
(C) variable housing allowance for members of the Armed
Forces under section 403a of such title.
(2) An analysis of the effect of the amendments made by
sections 603 and 604 of this Act regarding the calculation of
the basic allowance for subsistence and the consolidation of
the basic allowance for quarters and variable housing
allowance on mitigating or eliminating income levels for
members of the Armed Forces that result in certain members
and their dependents subsisting at, near, or below the
poverty line (as defined in section 673(2) of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, including any revision
required by that section).
(3) Identification of the populations of members of the
Armed Forces and their dependents most likely to need income
support under Federal programs (and the number of individuals
in each population), including--
(A) the populations living in areas of the United States
where housing costs are notably high; and
(B) the populations living outside the United States.
(4) The desirability of increasing rates of basic pay
during a defined number of years by varying percentages
depending on pay grade, so as to provide for greater
increases for members in lower pay grades than for higher pay
grades.
(c) Submission to Congress.--Not later than 180 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
submit to Congress the findings of the study conducted under
subsection (a).
SEC. 658. IMPLEMENTATION OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD PROGRAM FOR MILITARY
PERSONNEL OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.
(a) Funding.--Section 1060a(b) of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the
[[Page H3993]]
end the following new sentence: ``Pending receipt of such
funds from the Secretary of Agriculture for any fiscal year,
the Secretary of Defense may use funds appropriated to the
Department of Defense for that fiscal year for operations and
maintenance to carry out, and to avoid delay in
implementation of, the program referred to in subsection (a)
during any fiscal year.''.
(b) Submission of Plan to Congress.--Not later than 90 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to Congress a plan for implementing the
special supplemental food program under section 1060a of
title 10, United States Code, as amended by subsection (a).
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Health Care Services
SEC. 701. EXPANSION OF RETIREE DENTAL INSURANCE PLAN TO
INCLUDE SURVIVING SPOUSE AND CHILD DEPENDENTS
OF CERTAIN DECEASED MEMBERS.
Section 1076c(b)(4) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) by striking out ``dies'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``died''; and
(B) by striking out ``or'' at the end of the subparagraph;
(2) by striking out the period at the end of subparagraph
(B) and inserting in lieu thereof ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) who died while on active duty for a period of more
than 30 days and whose eligible dependents are not eligible,
or no longer eligible, for dental benefits under section
1076a of this title pursuant to subsection (i)(2) of such
section.''.
SEC. 702. PROVISION OF PROSTHETIC DEVICES TO COVERED
BENEFICIARIES.
(a) Inclusion Among Authorized Care.--Subsection (a) of
section 1077 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(15) Prosthetic devices, as determined by the Secretary
of Defense to be necessary because of significant conditions
resulting from trauma, congenital anomalies, or disease.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Subsection (b) of such section
is amended by striking out paragraph (2) and inserting in
lieu thereof the following new paragraph:
``(2) Hearing aids, orthopedic footwear, and spectacles,
except that, outside of the United States and at stations
inside the United States where adequate civilian facilities
are unavailable, such items may be sold to dependents at cost
to the United States.''.
Subtitle B--TRICARE Program
SEC. 711. ADDITION OF DEFINITION OF TRICARE PROGRAM TO TITLE
10.
Section 1072 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(7) The term `TRICARE program' means the managed health
care program that is established by the Department of Defense
under the authority of this chapter, principally section 1097
of this title, and includes the competitive selection of
contractors to financially underwrite the delivery of health
care services under the Civilian Health and Medical Program
of the Uniformed Services.''.
SEC. 712. PLAN FOR EXPANSION OF MANAGED CARE OPTION OF
TRICARE PROGRAM.
(a) Expansion Plan Required.--The Secretary of Defense
shall prepare a plan for the expansion of the managed care
option of the TRICARE program, known as TRICARE Prime, into
areas of the United States located outside of the catchment
areas of medical treatment facilities of the uniformed
services, but in which the managed care option is a cost-
effective alternative because of--
(1) the significant number of covered beneficiaries under
chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, including retired
members of the Armed Forces and their dependents, who reside
in the areas; and
(2) the presence in the areas of sufficient nonmilitary
health care provider networks.
(b) Alternatives.--As an alternative to expansion of the
managed care option of the TRICARE program to areas of the
United States in which there is few or no nonmilitary health
care provider networks, the Secretary shall include in the
plan required under subsection (a) an evaluation of the
feasibility and cost-effectiveness of providing a member of
the Armed Forces on active duty who is stationed in such an
area, or whose dependents reside in such an area, with one or
both of the following:
(1) A monetary stipend to assist the member in obtaining
health care services for the member or the member's
dependents.
(2) A reduction in the cost-sharing requirements applicable
to the TRICARE program options otherwise available to the
member to match the reduced cost-sharing responsibilities of
the managed care option of the TRICARE program.
(c) Submission of Plan.--Not later than March 1, 1998, the
Secretary shall submit to Congress the plan required under
subsection (a).
Subtitle C--Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities
SEC. 721. IMPLEMENTATION OF DESIGNATED PROVIDER AGREEMENTS
FOR UNIFORMED SERVICES TREATMENT FACILITIES.
(a) Commencement of Health Care Services Under Agreement.--
Subsection (c) of section 722 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201,
10 U.S.C. 1073 note) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as
subparagraphs (A) and (B);
(2) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``Unless''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) The Secretary may modify the effective date
established under paragraph (1) for an agreement to permit a
transition period of not more than six months between the
date on which the agreement is executed by the parties and
the date on which the designated provider commences the
delivery of health care services under the agreement.''.
(b) Temporary Continuation of Existing Participation
Agreements.--Subsection (d) of such section is amended by
inserting before the period at the end the following: ``,
including any transitional period provided by the Secretary
under paragraph (2) of such subsection''.
SEC. 722. LIMITATION ON TOTAL PAYMENTS.
Section 726(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201, 10 U.S.C. 1073
note) is amended by adding at the end the following new
sentence: ``In establishing the ceiling rate for enrollees
with the designated providers who are also eligible for the
Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed
Services, the Secretary of Defense shall take into account
the health status of the enrollees.''.
SEC. 723. CONTINUED ACQUISITION OF REDUCED-COST DRUGS.
Section 722 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201; 10 U.S.C. 1073 note) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(g) Continued Acquisition of Reduced-Cost Drugs.--A
designated provider shall be treated as part of the
Department of Defense for purposes of section 8126 of title
38, United States Code, in connection with the provision by
the designated provider of health care services to covered
beneficiaries pursuant to the participation agreement of the
designated provider under section 718(c) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law
101-510; 42 U.S.C. 248c note) or pursuant to the agreement
entered into under subsection (b).''.
Subtitle D--Other Changes to Existing Laws Regarding Health Care
Management
SEC. 731. WAIVER OR REDUCTION OF COPAYMENTS UNDER OVERSEAS
DENTAL PROGRAM.
Section 1076a(h) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking out ``Secretary''
and inserting in lieu thereof ``Secretary of Defense''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``In
the case of such an overseas dental plan, the Secretary may
waive or reduce the copayments otherwise required by
subsection (e) to the extent the Secretary determines
appropriate for the effective and efficient operation of the
plan.''.
SEC. 732. PREMIUM COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR MEDICAL AND
DENTAL INSURANCE PROGRAMS.
(a) Selected Reserve Dental Insurance.--Paragraph (3) of
section 1076b(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
to read as follows:
``(3) The Secretary of Defense shall establish procedures
for the collection of the member's share of the premium for
coverage by the dental insurance plan. Not later than October
1, 1998, the Secretary shall permit a member to pay the
member's share of the premium through a deduction and
withholding from basic pay payable to the member for inactive
duty training or basic pay payable to the member for active
duty.''.
(b) Retiree Dental Insurance Plan.--Paragraph (2) of
section 1076c(c) of such title is amended to read as follows:
``(2) In the regulations prescribed under subsection (h),
the Secretary of Defense shall establish procedures for the
payment by enrolled members and by other enrolled covered
beneficiaries of premiums charged for coverage by the dental
insurance plan. Not later than October 1, 1998, the Secretary
shall permit a member enrolled in the plan and entitled to
retired pay to pay the member's share of the premium through
a deduction and withholding from the retired pay of the
member.''.
(c) Implementation Plan.--Not later than March 1, 1998, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a plan to
permit, not later than October 1, 1998--
(1) an enrollee in the Selected Reserve dental insurance
plan authorized under section 1076b of title 10, United
States Code, to pay the enrollee's share of the premium for
such insurance through a deduction and withholding from basic
pay payable to the enrollee;
(2) a retired member of the uniformed services enrolled in
the dental insurance plan authorized under section 1076c of
such title to pay the enrollee's share of the premium for
such insurance through a deduction and withholding from
retired pay payable to the enrollee; and
(3) a retired member of the uniformed services enrolled in
the managed care option of the TRICARE
program known as TRICARE Prime to pay the enrollee's share
of the premium for such option through a deduction and
withholding from retired pay payable to the enrollee.
SEC. 733. CONSISTENCY BETWEEN CHAMPUS AND MEDICARE IN PAYMENT
RATES FOR SERVICES.
(a) Conformity Between Rates.--Section 1079(h) of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by striking out paragraphs
(1), (2), and (3) and inserting in lieu thereof the following
new paragraph:
``(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), payment
for a charge for services by an individual health care
professional (or other noninstitutional health care provider)
for which a
[[Page H3994]]
claim is submitted under a plan contracted for under
subsection (a) shall be equal to an amount determined to be
appropriate, to the extent practicable, in accordance with
the same reimbursement rules as apply to payments for similar
services under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395 et seq.). The Secretary of Defense shall
determine the appropriate payment amount under this paragraph
in consultation with the other administering Secretaries.''.
(b) Reduced Rates Authorized.--Paragraph (5) of such
section is amended by adding at the end the following new
sentence: ``With the consent of the health care provider, the
Secretary is also authorized to reduce the authorized payment
for certain health care services below the amount otherwise
required by the payment limitations under paragraph (1).''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--Such section is further
amended--
(1) in paragraph (5), by striking out ``paragraph (4), the
Secretary'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``paragraph (2),
the Secretary of Defense''; and
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) as
paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), respectively.
SEC. 734. USE OF PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACTS FOR PROVISION OF
HEALTH CARE SERVICES AND LEGAL PROTECTION FOR
PROVIDERS.
(a) Use of Contracts Outside Medical Treatment
Facilities.--Section 1091(a) of title 10, United States Code,
is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``The Secretary of
Defense''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) The Secretary of Defense may also enter into personal
services contracts to carry out other health care
responsibilities of the Secretary, such as the provision of
medical screening examinations at Military Entrance
Processing Stations, at locations outside medical treatment
facilities, as determined necessary pursuant to regulations
issued by the Secretary.''.
(b) Defense of Suits.--Section 1089 of such title is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following
new sentence: ``This subsection shall also apply if the
physician, dentist, nurse, pharmacist, or paramedical or
other supporting personnel (or the estate of such person)
involved is serving under a personal services contract
entered into by the Secretary of Defense under section 1091
of this title.''; and
(2) in subsection (f)--
(A) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(f)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) With respect to the Secretary of Defense and the
Armed Forces Retirement Home Board, the authority provided by
paragraph (1) also includes the authority to provide for
reasonable attorney's fees for persons described in
subsection (a), as determined necessary pursuant to
regulations issued by the head of the agency concerned.''.
SEC. 735. PORTABILITY OF STATE LICENSES FOR DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS.
Section 1094 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new
subsection:
``(d)(1) Notwithstanding any law regarding the licensure of
health care providers, a health-care professional described
in paragraph (2) may practice the health profession or
professions of the health-care professional in any State, the
District of Columbia, or a Commonwealth, territory, or
possession of the United States, regardless of whether the
practice occurs in a health care facility of the Department
of Defense, a civilian facility affiliated with the
Department of Defense, or any other location authorized by
the Secretary of Defense .
``(2) A health-care professional referred to in paragraph
(1) is a member of the armed forces who--
``(A) has a current license to practice medicine,
osteopathic medicine, dentistry, or another health
profession; and
``(B) is performing authorized duties for the Department of
Defense.''.
SEC. 736. STANDARD FORM AND REQUIREMENTS REGARDING CLAIMS FOR
PAYMENT FOR SERVICES.
(a) Clarification of Existing Requirements.--Section 1106
of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as
follows:
``Sec. 1106. Submittal of claims: standard form; time limits
``(a) Standard Form.--The Secretary of Defense, after
consultation with the other administering Secretaries, shall
prescribe by regulation a standard form for the submission of
claims for the payment of health care services provided under
this chapter.
``(b) Time for Submission.--A claim for payment for
services shall be submitted as provided in such regulations
not later than one year after the services are provided.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by striking out the item relating to section 1106 and
inserting in lieu thereof the following new item:
``1106. Submittal of claims: standard form; time limits.''.
SEC. 737. MEDICAL PERSONNEL CONSCIENCE CLAUSE.
(a) Secretary of Defense Policy.--The Secretary of Defense
shall establish a uniform policy for the Army, Navy, and Air
Force establishing the circumstances under which covered
members (as defined in subsection (d)) of the Army, Navy, and
Air Force may refuse, based on conscience, to perform an
abortion (or participate in the performance of an abortion)
or provide a covered family planning service (or participate
in the provision of such a service).
(b) Conscience Clause.--(1) The policy established under
subsection (a) shall provide that a member of the Army, Navy,
or Air Force who is a covered member may not be required to
perform an abortion (or participate in the performance of an
abortion), or to provide a covered family planning service
(or participate in the provision of such a service), if the
member believes that to do so would be wrong on moral,
ethical or religious grounds.
(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply in a case in which refusal
to perform an abortion (or participate in the performance of
an abortion) or provide a covered family planning service
would pose a life-threatening risk to the patient.
(c) Covered Family Planning Services.--For the purposes of
this section, a covered family planning service is any of the
following:
(1) Contraceptive services, not limited to the prescription
or provision of a pharmaceutical preparation, device, or
chemical method.
(2) Surgical sterilization.
(d) Covered Member.--In this section, the term ``covered
member'' means a member of the Army, Navy, or Air Force who--
(1) in the case of the Army, is a member of the Medical
Corps, Dental Corps, Nurse Corps, Medical Service Corps,
Veterinary Corps, or Army Medical Specialist Corps or is an
enlisted member directly engaged in or directly supporting
medically related activities;
(2) in the case of the Navy, is a member of the Medical
Corps, Dental Corps, Nurse Corps, or Medical Service Corps or
is an enlisted member directly engaged in or directly
supporting medically related activities; and
(3) in the case of the Air Force, is designated as a
medical officer, dental officer, Air Force nurse, medical
service officer, or biomedical science officer or is an
enlisted member directly engaged in or directly supporting
medically related activities.
(e) Effective Date.--The policy established pursuant to
subsection (a) shall apply with respect to any refusal on or
after the date of the enactment of this Act to perform an
abortion (or participate in the performance of an abortion)
or to provide a covered family planning service.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
SEC. 741. CONTINUED ADMISSION OF CIVILIANS AS STUDENTS IN
PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT TRAINING PROGRAM OF ARMY
MEDICAL DEPARTMENT.
(a) Civilian Attendance.--(1) Chapter 407 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``Sec. 4416. Academy of Health Sciences: admission of
civilians in physician assistant training program
``(a) Reciprocal Agreements With Colleges.--The Secretary
of the Army may enter into an agreement with an accredited
institution of higher education under which students of the
institution may attend the physician assistant training
program conducted by the Army Medical Department at the
Academy of Health Sciences at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, during
the didactic portion of the program. In exchange for the
admission of such students, the institution of higher
education shall agree to provide such academic services as
the Secretary and the institution consider to be appropriate
to support the physician assistant training program at the
Academy. The Secretary shall ensure that the Army Medical
Department does not incur any additional costs as a result of
the agreement than the
Department would incur to obtain such academic services in
the absence of the agreement.
``(b) Selection of Students.--The attendance of civilian
students at the Academy pursuant to an agreement under
subsection (a) may not result in a decrease in the number of
members of the armed forces enrolled in the physician
assistant training program. In consultation with the
institution of higher education that is a party to the
agreement, the Secretary shall establish qualifications and
methods of selection for students to receive instruction at
the Academy. The qualifications established shall be
comparable to those generally required for admission to the
physician assistant training program at the Academy.
``(c) Rules of Attendance.--Except as the Secretary
determines necessary, a civilian student who receives
instruction at the Academy pursuant to an agreement entered
into under subsection (a) shall be subject to the same
regulations governing attendance, discipline, discharge, and
dismissal as apply to other persons attending the Academy.
``(d) Report.--For each year in which an agreement under
subsection (a) is in effect, the Secretary shall submit to
Congress a report specifying the number of civilian students
who received instruction at the Academy under the agreement
during the period covered by the report and accessing the
benefits to the United States of the agreement.
``(e) Academy Defined.--In this section, the term `Academy'
means the Academy of Health Sciences of the Army Medical
Department at Fort Sam Houston, Texas.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``4416. Academy of Health Sciences: admission of civilians in physician
assistant training program.''.
(b) Effect on Existing Demonstration Program.--An agreement
entered into under the demonstration program for the
admission of civilians as physician assistant students at the
Academy of Health Sciences, Fort Sam Houston, Texas,
established pursuant to section 732 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337;
108 Stat. 2810)
[[Page H3995]]
shall be treated as an agreement entered into under section
4416 of title 10, United States Code (as added by subsection
(a)). The agreement may be extended in such manner and for
such period as the parties to the agreement consider
appropriate consistent with such section 4416.
SEC. 742. EMERGENCY HEALTH CARE IN CONNECTION WITH OVERSEAS
ACTIVITIES OF ON-SITE INSPECTION AGENCY OF
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
(a) Payment of Expenses for Emergency Health Care.--Chapter
152 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after section 2549 the following new section:
``Sec. 2549a. Emergency health care: overseas activities of
On-Site Inspection Agency
``(a) Authority to Pay Expenses.--From funds appropriated
for the necessary expenses of the On-Site Inspection Agency
of the Department of Defense, the Secretary of Defense may
pay or reimburse an employee of the Agency, a member of the
uniformed services or a civilian employee assigned or
detailed to the Agency, or an employee of a contractor
operating under a contract with the Agency, for emergency
health care services obtained by the employee, member, or
contractor employee while permanently or temporarily on duty
in a state of the former Soviet Union or the former Warsaw
Pact.
``(b) Initial Deposits.--The expenses for emergency health
care that may be paid or reimbursed under subsection (a)
include initial deposits for emergency care and inpatient
care.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 2549 the following new item:
``2549a. Emergency health care: overseas activities of On-Site
Inspection Agency.''.
SEC. 743. COMPTROLLER GENERAL STUDY OF ADEQUACY AND EFFECT OF
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE CHARGES FOR PHYSICIANS UNDER
CHAMPUS.
(a) Study Required.--The Comptroller General shall conduct
a study regarding the adequacy of the maximum allowable
charges for physicians established under the Civilian Health
and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) and
the effect of such charges on the participation of physicians
in CHAMPUS. The study shall include an evaluation of the
following:
(1) The methodology used by the Secretary of Defense to
establish maximum allowable charges for physicians under
CHAMPUS, and whether such methodology conforms to the
requirements of section 1079(h) of title 10, United States
Code.
(2) The differences between the established charges under
CHAMPUS and reimbursement rates for similar services under
title XVIII of the Social Security Act and other health care
programs.
(3) The basis for physician complaints that the CHAMPUS
established charges are too low.
(4) The difficultly of CHAMPUS in ensuring physician
compliance with the CHAMPUS established charges in the
absence of legal mechanisms to enforce compliance, and the
effect of noncompliance on patient out-of-pocket expenses.
(5) The effect of the established charges under CHAMPUS on
the participation of physicians in CHAMPUS, and the extent
and success of Department of Defense efforts to increase
physician participation in areas with low participation
rates.
(b) Submission of Report.--Not later than March 1, 1998,
the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report
containing the results of the study required by subsection
(a).
SEC. 744. COMPTROLLER GENERAL STUDY OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
PHARMACY PROGRAMS.
Not later than March 31, 1998, the Comptroller General
shall submit to Congress a study evaluating the pharmacy
programs of the Department of Defense. The study shall
include an examination of the following:
(1) The merits and feasibility of establishing a uniform
formulary for military treatment facility pharmacies and
civilian contractor pharmacy benefit administrators.
(2) The extent of, and cost impacts from, military
treatment facility pharmacies denying covered beneficiaries
under chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, pharmacy
care access and shifting such beneficiaries to other sources
of pharmacy care.
(3) The merits and feasibility of implementing other
pharmacy benefit management best practices at military
treatment facility and civilian contractor pharmacies.
(4) The cost impacts of TRICARE program contractors being
unable to procure pharmaceuticals at discounted prices
pursuant to section 8126 of title 38, United States Code, and
potential ways to increase the discounts available to TRICARE
program contractors, with appropriate controls.
SEC. 745. COMPTROLLER GENERAL STUDY OF NAVY GRADUATE MEDICAL
EDUCATION PROGRAM.
(a) Study Required.--The Comptroller General shall conduct
a study to evaluate the validity of the recommendations made
by the Medical Education Policy Council of the Bureau of
Medicine and Surgery of the Navy regarding restructuring the
graduate medical education program of the Department of the
Navy. The study shall specifically address the Council's
recommendations relating to residency training conducted at
Naval Medical Center, Portsmouth, Virginia, and National
Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.
(b) Submission of Report.--Not later than March 1, 1998,
the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress and the
Secretary of the Navy a report containing the results of the
study required by subsection (a).
(c) Moratorium on Restructuring.--Until the report required
by subsection (b) is submitted to Congress, the Secretary of
the Navy may not make any change in the types of residency
programs conducted under the Navy graduate medical education
program or the locations at which such residency programs are
conducted or otherwise restructure the Navy graduate medical
education program.
SEC. 746. STUDY OF EXPANSION OF PHARMACEUTICALS BY MAIL
PROGRAM TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE
COVERED BENEFICIARIES.
Not later than six months after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to
Congress a report regarding the feasibility and advisability
of expanding the category of persons eligible to participate
in the demonstration project for the purchase of prescription
pharmaceuticals by mail, as required by section 702(a) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993
(Public Law 102-484; 10 U.S.C. 1079 note), to include persons
referred to in section 1086(c) of title 10, United States
Code, who are covered by subsection (d)(1) of such section
and reside in the United States outside of the catchment area
of a medical treatment facility of the uniformed services.
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS
Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy
SEC. 801. CASE-BY-CASE WAIVERS OF DOMESTIC SOURCE
LIMITATIONS.
(a) Requirement for Case-by-Case Waivers.--Section 2534(d)
of title 10, United States Code, is amended in the matter
appearing before paragraph (1) by striking out ``waive the
limitation in subsection (a) with respect to the procurement
of an item listed in that subsection if the Secretary
determines'' and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
``waive, on a case-by-case basis, the limitation in
subsection (a) in the case of a specific procurement of an
item listed in that subsection if the Secretary determines,
for that specific procurement,''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to contracts entered into after the
expiration of the 30-day period beginning on the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 802. EXPANSION OF AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS
CROSSING FISCAL YEARS TO ALL SEVERABLE SERVICES
CONTRACTS NOT EXCEEDING A YEAR.
(a) Expanded Authority.--Section 2410a of title 10, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 2410a. Severable services contracts for periods
crossing fiscal years
``(a) Authority.--The Secretary of Defense or the Secretary
of a military department may enter into a contract for
procurement of severable services for a period that begins in
one fiscal year and ends in the next fiscal year if (without
regard to any option to extend the period of the contract)
the contract period does not exceed one year.
``(b) Obligation of Funds.--Funds made available for a
fiscal year may be obligated for the total amount of a
contract entered into under the authority of subsection
(a).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The item relating to that section
in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 141 of
such title is amended to read as follows:
``2410a. Severable services contracts for periods crossing fiscal
years.''.
SEC. 803. CLARIFICATION OF VESTING OF TITLE UNDER CONTRACTS.
Section 2307 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(i) Vesting of Title.--If a contract made by the head of
an agency provides for title to property to vest in the
United States, such title shall vest in accordance with the
terms of the contract, regardless of any security interest in
the property asserted by the contractor.''.
SEC. 804. EXCLUSION OF DISASTER RELIEF, HUMANITARIAN, AND
PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS FROM RESTRICTIONS ON
USE OF UNDEFINITIZED CONTRACT ACTIONS.
Section 2326 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking out paragraph (4); and
(B) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (4); and
(2) in subsection (g)(1), by adding at the end the
following new subparagraphs:
``(E) Purchases in support of contingency operations.
``(F) Purchases in support of humanitarian or peacekeeping
operations, as defined in 2302(7)(B) of this title.
``(G) Purchases in support of emergency work and other
disaster relief operations performed pursuant to the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).''.
SEC. 805. LIMITATION AND REPORT ON PAYMENT OF RESTRUCTURING
COSTS UNDER DEFENSE CONTRACTS.
(a) In General.--(1) Chapter 137 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 2324 the
following new section:
``Sec. 2325. Restructuring costs
``(a) Limitation on Payment of Restructuring Costs.--(1)
The Secretary of Defense may not pay, under section 2324 of
this title, a defense contractor for restructuring costs
associated with a business combination of the contractor
unless the Secretary determines in writing either--
[[Page H3996]]
``(A) that the amount of savings for the Department of
Defense associated with the restructuring, based on audited
cost data, will be at least twice the amount of the costs
allowed; or
``(B) that the amount of savings for the Department of
Defense associated with the restructuring, based on audited
cost data, will exceed the amount of the costs allowed and
that the business combination will result in the preservation
of a critical capability that otherwise might be lost to the
Department.
``(2) The Secretary may not delegate the authority to make
a determination under paragraph (1) to an official of the
Department of Defense below the level of an Assistant
Secretary of Defense.
``(b) Report.--Not later than March 1 in each of 1998,
1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to Congress a report containing the following:
``(1) For each defense contractor to which the Secretary
has paid, under section 2324 of this title, restructuring
costs associated with a business combination, a summary of
the following:
``(A) The amount of savings for the Department of Defense
associated with such business combination that has been
realized as of the date of the report, based on audited cost
data.
``(B) An estimate, as of the date of the report, of the
amount of savings for the Department of Defense associated
with such business combination that is expected to be
achieved in the future.
``(2) An identification of any business combination for
which the Secretary has paid restructuring costs under
section 2324 of this title during the preceding calendar year
and, for each such business combination--
``(A) the supporting rationale for allowing such costs;
``(B) factual information associated with the determination
made under subsection (a) with respect to such costs; and
``(C) a discussion of whether the business combination
would have proceeded without the payment of restructuring
costs by the Secretary.
``(3) An assessment of the degree of vertical integration
resulting from business combinations of defense contractors
and a discussion of the measures taken by the Secretary of
Defense to increase the ability of the Department of Defense
to monitor vertical integration trends and address any
resulting negative consequences.
``(c) Definition.--In this section, the term `business
combination' includes a merger or acquisition.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section
2324 the following new item:
``2325. Restructuring costs.''.
(b) Effective Date.--Section 2325 of title 10, United
States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall apply with
respect to business combinations that occur after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(c) Repeal of Superseded Provision.--Subsection (a) of
section 818 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1995 (10 U.S.C. 2324 note) is repealed.
SEC. 806. AUTHORITY RELATING TO PURCHASE OF CERTAIN VEHICLES.
Section 2253(a)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by striking out ``$12,000'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``$30,000''.
SEC. 807. MULTIYEAR PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS.
(a) Requirement for Authorization by Law in Acts Other Than
Appropriations Acts.--(1) Subsection (i) of section 2306b of
title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(3) In the case of the Department of Defense, a multiyear
contract may not be entered into for any fiscal year under
this section unless the contract is specifically authorized
by law in an Act other than an appropriations Act.''.
(2) Paragraph (3) of section 2306b(i) of title 10, United
States Code, as added by paragraph (1), shall not apply with
respect to a contract authorized by law before the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(b) Codification of Annual Recurring Multiyear Procurement
Requirements.--(1) Such section is further amended by adding
at the end the following new subsection:
``(l) Various Additional Requirements With Respect to
Multiyear Defense Contracts.--(1)(A) The head of an agency
may not initiate a contract described in subparagraph (B)
unless the congressional defense committees are notified of
the proposed contract at least 30 days in advance of the
award of the proposed contract.
``(B) Subparagraph (A) applies to the following contracts:
``(i) A multiyear contract--
``(I) that employs economic order quantity procurement in
excess of $20,000,000 in any one year of the contract; or
``(II) that includes an unfunded contingent liability in
excess of $20,000,000.
``(ii) Any contract for advance procurement leading to a
multiyear contract that employs economic order quantity
procurement in excess of $20,000,000 in any one year.
``(2) The head of an agency may not initiate a multiyear
contract for which the economic order quantity advance
procurement is not funded at least to the limits of the
Government's liability.
``(3) The head of an agency may not initiate a multiyear
procurement contract for any system (or component thereof) if
the value of the multiyear contract would exceed $500,000,000
unless authority for the contract is specifically provided in
an appropriations Act.
``(4) The head of an agency may not terminate a multiyear
procurement contract until 10 days after the date on which
notice of the proposed termination is provided to the
congressional defense committees.
``(5) The execution of multiyear authority shall require
the use of a present value analysis to determine lowest cost
compared to an annual procurement.
``(6) This subsection does not apply to the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration or to the Coast Guard.
``(7) In this subsection, the term `congressional defense
committees' means the following:
``(A) The Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the
Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations of
the Senate.
``(B) The Committee on National Security of the House of
Representatives and the Subcommittee on National Security of
the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives.''.
(2) The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall take effect
on October 1, 1998.
(c) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--Such section is
further amended as follows:
(1) Subsection (a) is amended--
(A) by striking out ``finds--'' in the matter preceding
paragraph (1) and inserting in lieu thereof ``finds each of
the following:'';
(B) by capitalizing the initial letter of the first word in
each of paragraphs (1) through (6);
(C) by striking out the semicolon at the end of paragraphs
(1) through (4) and inserting in lieu thereof a period; and
(D) by striking out ``; and'' at the end of paragraph (5)
and inserting in lieu thereof a period.
(2) Subsection (d)(1) is amended by striking out
``paragraph (1)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``subsection
(a)''.
(3) Subsection (i)(1) is amended by striking ``five-year''
and inserting in lieu thereof ``future-years''.
(4) Subsection (k) is amended by striking out
``subsection'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``section''.
SEC. 808. DOMESTIC SOURCE LIMITATION AMENDMENTS.
(a) Addition of Shipboard Work Stations.--Section
2534(a)(3)(B) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking out ``and'' before ``totally''; and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, and shipboard work stations''.
(b) Extension of Domestic Source Limitation for Valves and
Machine Tools.--Section 2534(c)(2)(C) of such title is
amended by striking out ``October 1, 1996'' and inserting in
lieu thereof ``October 1, 2001''.
SEC. 809. REPEAL OF EXPIRATION OF DOMESTIC SOURCE LIMITATION
FOR CERTAIN NAVAL VESSEL PROPELLERS.
Section 2534(c) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by striking out paragraph (4).
Subtitle B--Other Matters
SEC. 821. REPEAL OF CERTAIN ACQUISITION REQUIREMENTS AND
REPORTS
(a) Repeal of Reporting Requirement for Nonmajor
Acquisition Programs.--Section 2220(b) of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by striking out ``and nonmajor''.
(b) Repeal of Additional Documentation Requirement for
Competition Exception for International Agreements.--Section
2304(f) of title 10, United States Code, is amended in
paragraph (2)(E) by striking out ``procedures and such
document is approved by the competition advocate for the
procuring activity.'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``procedures.''.
(c) Elimination of Completion Status Requirement in Certain
Selected Acquisition Reports.--Section 2432(h)(2) of title
10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking out subparagraph (D); and
(2) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) and (F) as
subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively.
(d) Repeal of Requirement To Establish Procurement
Competition Goals.--Section 913 of the Department of Defense
Authorization Act, 1986 (Public Law 99-145; 99 Stat. 687; 10
U.S.C. 2302 note), is repealed.
(e) Repeal of Annual Report by Advocates for Competition.--
Section 20(b) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act
(41 U.S.C. 418(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking out ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3)(B);
(2) by striking out paragraph (4); and
(3) by redesignating paragraphs (5), (6), and (7) as
paragraphs (4), (5), and (6), respectively.
(f) Repeal of Review and Report Relating to Procurement
Regulations.--Section 25 of the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 421) is amended--
(1) by striking out paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) of
subsection (c); and
(2) by striking out subsection (g).
SEC. 822. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR USE OF TEST AND
EVALUATION INSTALLATIONS BY COMMERCIAL
ENTITIES.
Section 2681(g) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by striking out ``September 30, 1998'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``September 30, 2000''.
SEC. 823. REQUIREMENT TO DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN LIST OF FIRMS
NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEFENSE CONTRACTS.
(a) Development and Maintenance of List.--Section 2327 of
title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections
(e) and (f), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new
subsection:
``(d) List of Firms Subject to Subsection (b).--(1) The
Secretary of Defense shall develop and maintain a list of all
firms and subsidiaries of firms that have been subject to the
prohibition in subsection (b) since the date occurring five
years before the date of the enactment of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998. The Secretary
shall make the list available to the public.
[[Page H3997]]
``(2) A firm or subsidiary included on the list maintained
under paragraph (1) may request the Secretary of Defense to
remove such firm or subsidiary from the list if its foreign
ownership circumstances have significantly changed. Upon
receipt of such request, the Secretary shall determine if
paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b) still apply to the
firm or subsidiary. If the Secretary determines such
paragraphs no longer apply, the Secretary shall remove the
firm or subsidiary from the list.
``(3) The head of an agency shall provide a copy of the
list maintained under paragraph (1) to each firm or
subsidiary of a firm that submits a bid or proposal in
response to a solicitation issued by the Department of
Defense.
``(4) The head of an agency shall prohibit each firm or
subsidiary of a firm awarded a contract by the agency from
using in the performance of the contract any equipment,
parts, or services that are provided by a firm or subsidiary
included on the list maintained under paragraph (1).''.
(b) Removal From List.--Section 2327(c)(1)(A) of such title
is amended by inserting after ``United States,'' the
following: ``the Secretary shall remove the firm or
subsidiary from the list maintained under subsection (d)(1)
and''.
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
SEC. 901. LIMITATION ON OPERATION AND SUPPORT FUNDS FOR THE
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.
(a) Reduction in Funds.--The amount of funds appropriated
pursuant to section 301 that are available for operation and
support activities of the Office of the Secretary of Defense
may not exceed the amount equal to 80 percent of the amount
of funds requested for such purpose in the budget submitted
by the President to Congress under section 1105 of title 31,
United States Code, for fiscal year 1998.
(b) Limitation Pending Receipt of Previously Required
Reports.--Of the amount available for fiscal year 1998 for
operation and support activities of the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (as limited pursuant to subsection (a)),
not more than 90 percent may be obligated until each of the
following reports has been submitted to the congressional
defense committees:
(1) The report required by section 901(c) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law
104-106; 110 Stat. 401).
(2) The report required by section 904(b) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law
104-201; 110 Stat. 2619).
SEC. 902. COMPONENTS OF NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY.
(a) Employment and Compensation of Civilian Faculty.--
Section 1595(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by striking out ``Institute for National Strategic
Study,'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``Institute for
National Strategic Studies, the Information Resources
Management College,''.
(b) Preparation of Budget Requests.--Section 2162(d)(2) of
such title is amended by inserting after ``the Armed Forces
Staff College,'' the following: ``the Institute for National
Strategic Studies, the Information Resources Management
College,''.
SEC. 903. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MARINE CORPS UNIVERSITY TO
EMPLOY CIVILIAN PROFESSORS.
(a) In General.--Subsections (a) and (c) of 7478 of title
10, United States Code, are amended by striking ``or at the
Marine Corps Command and Staff College'' and inserting in
lieu thereof ``or at a school of the Marine Corps
University''.
(b) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The heading of such section
is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 7478. Naval War College and Marine Corps University:
civilian faculty members''.
(2) The item relating to such section in the table of
sections at the beginning of chapter 643 of such title is
amended to read as follows:
``7478. Naval War College and Marine Corps University: civilian faculty
members.''.
SEC. 904. CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF CHINESE MILITARY AFFAIRS.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) The strategic relationship between the United States
and the People's Republic of China will be very important for
future peace and security, not only in the Asia-Pacific
region but around the world.
(2) The United States does not view China as an enemy, nor
consider that the coming century necessarily will see a new
great power competition between the two nations.
(3) The end of the Cold War has eliminated what had been
the one fundamental common strategic interest of the United
States and China, that of containing the Soviet Union.
(4) The rapid economic rise and stated geopolitical
ambitions of China will pose challenges that will require
careful management in order to preserve peace and protect the
national security interests of the United States.
(5) The ability of the Department of Defense, and the
United States Government more generally, to develop sound
security and military strategies is hampered by a limited
understanding of Chinese strategic goals and military
capabilities. The low priority accorded the study of Chinese
strategic and military affairs within the Government and
within the academic community has contributed to this limited
understanding.
(6) There is a need for a United States national institute
for research and assessment of political, strategic, and
military affairs in the People's Republic of China. Such an
institute should be capable of providing analysis for the
purpose of shaping United States military strategy and policy
with regard to China and should be readily accessible to
senior leaders within the Department of Defense, but should
maintain academic and intellectual independence so that that
analysis is not first shaped by policy.
(b) Establishment of Center for the Study of Chinese
Military Affairs.--(1) Chapter 108 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``Sec. 2165. National Defense University: Center for the
Study of Chinese Military Affairs
``(a) Establishment.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall
establish a Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs
(hereinafter in this section referred to as the `Center') as
part of the National Defense University. The Center shall be
organized as an independent institute under the University.
``(2) The Director of the Center shall be a distinguished
scholar of proven academic, management, and leadership
credentials with a superior record of achievement and
publication regarding Chinese political, strategic, and
military affairs. The Director shall be appointed by the
Secretary of Defense in consultation with the chairman and
ranking minority party member of the Committee on National
Security of the House of Representatives and the chairman and
ranking minority party member of the Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate.
``(b) Mission.--The mission of the Center is to study the
national goals and strategic posture of the People's Republic
of China and the ability of that nation to develop, field,
and deploy an effective military instrument in support of
its national strategic objectives.
``(c) Areas of Study.--The Center shall conduct research
relating to the People's Republic of China as follows:
``(1) To assess the potential of that nation to act as a
global great power, the Center shall conduct research that
considers the policies and capabilities of that nation in a
regional and world-wide context, including Central Asia,
Southwest Asia, Europe, and Latin America, as well as the
Asia-Pacific region.
``(2) To provide a fuller assessment of the areas of study
referred to in paragraph (1), the Center shall conduct
research on--
``(A) economic trends relative to strategic goals and
military capabilities;
``(B) strengths and weaknesses in the scientific and
technological sector; and
``(C) relevant demographic and human resource factors on
progress in the military sphere.
``(3) The Center shall conduct research on the armed forces
of the People's Republic of China, taking into account the
character of those armed forces and their role in Chinese
society and economy, the degree of their technological
sophistication, and their organizational and doctrinal
concepts. That research shall include inquiry into the
following matters:
``(A) Concepts concerning national interests, objectives,
and strategic culture.
``(B) Grand strategy, military strategy, military
operations, and tactics.
``(C) Doctrinal concepts at each of the four levels
specified in subparagraph (B).
``(D) The impact of doctrine on China's force structure
choices.
``(E) The interaction of doctrine and force structure at
each level to create an integrated system of military
capabilities through procurement, officer education,
training, and practice and other similar factors.
``(d) Faculty of the Center.--(1) The core faculty of the
Center should comprise mature scholars capable of providing
diverse perspectives on Chinese political, strategic, and
military thought. Center scholars shall demonstrate the
following competencies and capabilities:
``(A) Analysis of national strategy, military strategy, and
doctrine.
``(B) Analysis of force structure and military
capabilities.
``(C) Analysis of--
``(i) issues relating to weapons of mass destruction,
military intelligence, defense economics, trade, and
international economics; and
``(ii) the relationship between those issues and grand
strategy, science and technology, the sociology of human
resources and demography, and political science.
``(2) A substantial number of Center scholars shall be
competent in the Chinese language. The Center shall include a
core of junior scholars capable of providing linguistics and
translation support to the Center.
``(e) Activities of the Center.--The activities of the
Center shall include other elements appropriate to its
mission, including the following:
``(1) The Center should include an active conference
program with an international reach.
``(2) The Center should conduct an international
competition for a Visiting Fellowship in Chinese Military
Affairs and Chinese Security Issues. The term of the
fellowship should be for one year, renewable for a second.
The visitor should contract to produce a major publication in
the visitor's area of expertise.
``(3) The Center shall provide funds to support at least
one trip per analyst per year to China and the region and to
support visits of Chinese military leaders to the Center.
``(4) The Center shall support well defined, distinguished,
signature publications.
``(5) Center scholars shall have appropriate access to
intelligence community assessments of Chinese military
affairs.
``(f) Studies and Reports.--The Director may contract for
studies and reports from the private sector to supplement the
work of the Center.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``2165. National Defense University: Center for the Study of Chinese
Military Affairs.''.
(c) Implementation Report.--Not later than January 1, 1998,
the Secretary of Defense shall
[[Page H3998]]
submit to Congress a report stating the timetable and
organizational plan for establishing the Center for the Study
of Chinese Military Affairs under section 2165 of title 10,
United States Code, as added by subsection (b).
(d) Startup of Center.--The Secretary shall establish the
Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs under
section 2165 of title 10, United States Code, as added by
subsection (b), not later than March 1, 1998, and shall
appoint the first Director of the Center not later than June
1, 1998.
(e) First Year Funding.--Of the amount available to the
Secretary of Defense for fiscal year 1998 for Defense-wide
operation and maintenance (other than funds otherwise
available for the activities of the National Defense
University), the Secretary shall make $5,000,000 available
for the Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs
established under section 2165 of title 10, United States
Code, as added by subsection (b).
SEC. 905. WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS AGENCY.
Of the amount appropriated pursuant to section 301 for
operation and maintenance for fiscal year 1998, not more than
$55,000,000 may be made available for the White House
Communications Agency.
SEC. 906. REVISION TO REQUIRED FREQUENCY FOR PROVISION OF
POLICY GUIDANCE FOR CONTINGENCY PLANS.
Section 113(g)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking out ``annually'';
and
(2) in the second sentence, by inserting ``be provided
every two years or more frequently as needed and shall''
after ``Such guidance shall''.
SEC. 907. TERMINATION OF THE DEFENSE AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE
OFFICE.
(a) Termination of Office.--The organization within the
Department of Defense known as the Defense Airborne
Reconnaissance Office is terminated. No funds available for
the Department of Defense may be used for the operation of
that Office after the date specified in subsection (d).
(b) Transfer of Functions.--(1) Subject to paragraphs (2)
and (3), the Secretary of Defense shall transfer to the
Defense Intelligence Agency the functions that were performed
on the day before the date of the enactment this Act by the
Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office relating to its
responsibilities for management oversight and coordination of
defense airborne reconnaissance capabilities.
(2) The Secretary shall determine which functions are
appropriate for transfer under paragraph (1). In making such
determination, the Secretary shall ensure that program
management, development and acquisition, operations, and
related responsibilities for individual programs within the
Defense Airborne Reconnaissance program remain within the
military departments.
(3) Any functions transferred under this subsection shall
be subject to the authority, direction, and control of the
Secretary.
(c) Report.--(1) Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to the committees named in paragraph (2) a report
containing the Secretary's plan for terminating and
transferring the functions of the Defense Airborne
Reconnaissance Office.
(2) The committees referred to in paragraph (1) are--
(A) the Committee on Armed Services and the Select
Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and
(B) the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the
Committee on National Security of the House of
Representatives.
(d) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) shall take effect at
the end of the 120-day period beginning on the date of the
enactment of this Act.
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Financial Matters
SEC. 1001. TRANSFER AUTHORITY.
(a) Authority To Transfer Authorizations.--(1) Upon
determination by the Secretary of Defense that such action is
necessary in the national interest, the Secretary may
transfer amounts of authorizations made available to the
Department of Defense in this division for fiscal year 1998
between any such authorizations for that fiscal year (or any
subdivisions thereof). Amounts of authorizations so
transferred shall be merged with and be available for the
same purposes as the authorization to which transferred.
(2) The total amount of authorizations that the Secretary
of Defense may transfer under the authority of this section
may not exceed $2,000,000,000.
(b) Limitations.--The authority provided by this section to
transfer authorizations--
(1) may only be used to provide authority for items that
have a higher priority than the items from which authority is
transferred; and
(2) may not be used to provide authority for an item that
has been denied authorization by Congress.
(c) Effect on Authorization Amounts.--A transfer made from
one account to another under the authority of this section
shall be deemed to increase the amount authorized for the
account to which the amount is transferred by an amount equal
to the amount transferred.
(d) Notice to Congress.--The Secretary shall promptly
notify Congress of each transfer made under subsection (a).
SEC. 1002. INCORPORATION OF CLASSIFIED ANNEX.
(a) Status of Classified Annex.--The Classified Annex
prepared by the Committee on National Security of the House
of Representatives to accompany the bill H.R. 1119 of the One
Hundred Fifth Congress and transmitted to the President is
hereby incorporated into this Act.
(b) Construction With Other Provisions of Act.--The amounts
specified in the Classified Annex are not in addition to
amounts authorized to be appropriated by other provisions of
this Act.
(c) Limitation on Use of Funds.--Funds appropriated
pursuant to an authorization contained in this Act that are
made available for a program, project, or activity referred
to in the Classified Annex may only be expended for such
program, project, or activity in accordance with such terms,
conditions, limitations, restrictions, and requirements as
are set out for that program, project, or activity in the
Classified Annex.
(d) Distribution of Classified Annex.--The President shall
provide for appropriate distribution of the Classified Annex,
or of appropriate portions of the annex, within the executive
branch of the Government.
SEC. 1003. AUTHORITY FOR OBLIGATION OF UNAUTHORIZED FISCAL
YEAR 1997 DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Authority.--The amounts described in subsection (b) may
be obligated and expended for programs, projects, and
activities of the Department of Defense in accordance with
fiscal year 1997 defense appropriations.
(b) Covered Amounts.--The amounts referred to in subsection
(a) are the amounts provided for programs, projects, and
activities of the Department of Defense in fiscal year 1997
defense appropriations that are in excess of the amounts
provided for such programs, projects, and activities in
fiscal year 1997 defense authorizations.
(c) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section:
(1) Fiscal year 1997 defense appropriations.--The term
``fiscal year 1997 defense appropriations'' means amounts
appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of
Defense for fiscal year 1997 in the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 1997 (as contained in section 101(b) of
Public Law 104-208).
(2) Fiscal year 1997 defense authorizations.--The term
``fiscal year 1997 defense authorizations'' means amounts
authorized to be appropriated for the Department of Defense
for fiscal year 1997 in the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201).
SEC. 1004. AUTHORIZATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1997.
Amounts authorized to be appropriated to the Department of
Defense for fiscal year 1997 in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201)
are hereby adjusted, with respect to any such authorized
amount, by the amount by which appropriations pursuant to
such authorization were increased (by a supplemental
appropriation) or decreased (by a rescission), or both, in
the 1997 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for
Recovery from Natural Disasters, and for Overseas
Peacekeeping Efforts, Including Those in Bosnia.
SEC. 1005. INCREASE IN FISCAL YEAR 1996 TRANSFER AUTHORITY.
Section 1001(a)(2) of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106; 100 Stat. 2630)
is amended by striking out ``$2,000,000,000'' and inserting
in lieu thereof ``$3,100,000,000''.
SEC. 1006. FISHER HOUSE TRUST FUNDS.
Section 2221(c) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for any
fiscal year from a trust fund specified in subsection (a) any
amount referred to in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) (as
applicable to that trust fund), such amount to be available
only for the purposes stated in that paragraph. With respect
to any such amount, the preceding sentence is the specific
authorization by law required by section 1321(b)(2) of title
31.''.
SEC. 1007. FLEXIBILITY IN FINANCING CLOSURE OF CERTAIN
OUTSTANDING CONTRACTS FOR WHICH A SMALL FINAL
PAYMENT IS DUE.
(a) Closure of Outstanding Contracts.--The Secretary of
Defense may make the final payment on a contract to which
this section applies from the account established pursuant to
subsection (d).
(b) Covered Contracts.--This section applies to any
contract of the Department of Defense--
(1) that was entered into before December 5, 1990; and
(2) for which an unobligated balance of an appropriation
that had been initially applied to the contract was canceled
before December 5, 1990, pursuant to section 1552 of title
31, United States Code, as in effect before that date.
(c) Authority Limited to Small Final Payments.--The
Secretary may use the authority provided by this section only
for a contract for which the amount of the final payment due
is not greater than the micro-purchase threshold (as defined
in section 32 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act
(41 U.S.C. 428)).
(d) Account.--The Secretary may establish an account for
the purposes of this section. The Secretary may from time to
time transfer into the account, from funds available to the
Department of Defense for procurement or for research,
development, test, and evaluation, such amounts as the
Secretary determines to be needed for the purposes of the
account, except that no such transfer may be made that
would result in the balance of the account exceeding
$1,000,000. Amounts in the account may be used only for
the purposes of this section.
(e) Closure of Account.--When the Secretary determines that
all contracts to which this section applies have been closed
and there is no further need for the account established
under subsection (d), the Secretary shall close
[[Page H3999]]
the account. Any amounts remaining in the account shall be
covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
Subtitle B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards
SEC. 1021. RELATIONSHIP OF CERTAIN LAWS TO DISPOSAL OF
VESSELS FOR EXPORT FROM THE NAVAL VESSEL
REGISTER AND THE NATIONAL DEFENSE RESERVE
FLEET.
(a) Naval Vessel Register.--(1) Section 7305 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(e) Relationship to Toxic Substances Control Act.--(1)
Subject to paragraph (2), the sale of a vessel under this
section for export, or any subsequent resale of a vessel sold
under this section for export--
``(A) is not a disposal or a distribution in commerce under
section 6 or 12(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15
U.S.C. 2605 and 2611(a)) or an export of hazardous waste
under section 3017 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C.
6938); and
``(B) is not subject to section 12(b) of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)).
``(2)(A) Paragraph (1) applies to a vessel being sold for
export only if, before the sale of such vessel, any item
listed in subparagraph (B) containing polychlorinated
biphenyls is removed from the vessel.
``(B) Subparagraph (A) covers any transformer, large high
or low voltage capacitor, or hydraulic or heat transfer
fluid.''.
(2) Section 7306a of such title is amended--
(A) in the heading, by adding at the end the following:
``or operational training'';
(B) in subsection (a), by inserting ``or operational
training'' after ``purposes''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Relationship to Other Laws.--The sinking of a vessel
for an experimental purpose or for operational training
pursuant to subsection (a) is not--
``(1) a disposal or a distribution in commerce under
section 6 or 12(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15
U.S.C. 2605 and 2611(a)); or
``(2) the transport of material for the purpose of dumping
it into ocean waters, or the dumping of material transported
from a location outside the United States, under section 101
of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of
1972 (33 U.S.C. 1411).''.
(b) National Defense Reserve Fleet.--(1) Section 510(i) of
the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 U.S.C. App. 1160(i)) is
amended--
(A) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(i)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), the sale under this
subsection of a vessel from the National Defense Reserve
Fleet for export, or any subsequent resale of a vessel sold
from the Fleet for export--
``(i) is not a disposal or a distribution in commerce under
section 6 or 12(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15
U.S.C. 2605 and 2611(a)) or an export of hazardous waste
under section 3017 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C.
6938); and
``(ii) is not subject to subsection (b) of section 12 of
the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2611).
``(B)(i) Subparagraph (A) applies to a vessel being sold
for export only if, before the sale of such vessel, any item
listed in clause (ii) containing polychlorinated biphenyls is
removed from the vessel.
``(ii) Clause (i) covers any transformer, large high or low
voltage capacitor, or hydraulic or heat transfer fluid.''.
(2) Section 6 of the National Maritime Heritage Act of 1994
(Public Law 103-451; 108 Stat. 4776; 16 U.S.C. 5405) is
amended--
(A) in subsections (a)(1) and (b)(2)--
(i) by inserting ``or 510(i)'' after ``508''; and
(ii) by inserting ``or 1160(i)'' after ``1158''; and
(B) in subsection (c)(1)(A), by striking out ``1999'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``2001''.
SEC. 1022. AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO A LONG-TERM CHARTER FOR A
VESSEL IN SUPPORT OF THE SURVEILLANCE TOWED-
ARRAY SENSOR (SURTASS) PROGRAM.
The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to enter into a
contract in accordance with section 2401 of title 10, United
States Code, for the charter, for a period through
fiscal year 2003, of the vessel RV CORY CHOUEST (United
States official number 933435) in support of the
Surveillance Towed-Array Sensor (SURTASS) program.
SEC. 1023. TRANSFER OF TWO SPECIFIED OBSOLETE TUGBOATS OF THE
ARMY.
(a) Authority To Transfer Vessels.--The Secretary of the
Army may transfer the two obsolete tugboats of the Army
described in subsection (b) to the Brownsville Navigation
District, Brownsville, Texas.
(b) Vessels Covered.--Subsection (a) applies to the
following two decommissioned tugboats of the Army, each of
which is listed as of the date of the enactment of this Act
as being surplus to the needs of the Army: the Normandy (LT-
1971) and the Salerno (LT-1953).
(c) Transfers To Be at No Cost to United States.--A
transfer authorized by this section shall be made at no cost
to the United States.
(d) Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may require such
additional terms and conditions in connection with the
transfers authorized by this section as the Secretary
considers appropriate.
SEC. 1024. NAMING OF A DDG-51 CLASS DESTROYER THE U.S.S.
THOMAS F. CONNOLLY.
It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Navy
should name a guided missile destroyer of the DDG-51 class
the U.S.S. Thomas F. Connolly, in honor of Vice Admiral
Thomas F. Connolly (1909-1996), of the State of Minnesota,
who during an active-duty naval career extending from 1933 to
1971 became a leading architect of the modern United States
Navy .
SEC. 1025. CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW PERIOD WITH RESPECT TO
TRANSFER OF THE EX-U.S.S. MIDWAY (CV-41).
In applying section 7306 of title 10, United States Code,
with respect to the transfer of the decommissioned aircraft
carrier ex-U.S.S. MIDWAY (CV-41), subsection (d)(1)(B) of
that section shall be applied by substituting ``30 calendar
days'' for ``60 days of continuous session of Congress''.
Subtitle C--Counter-Drug Activities
SEC. 1031. PROHIBITION ON USE OF NATIONAL GUARD FOR CIVIL-
MILITARY ACTIVITIES UNDER STATE DRUG
INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES PLAN.
Section 112 of title 32, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (g) and (h) as subsections
(h) and (i), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following new
subsection:
``(g) Prohibition on Certain Civil-Military Activities.--
Funds provided under this section may not be used to conduct
activities, including community-outreach programs, designed
to reduce the demand for illegal drugs among persons who are
not members of the National Guard or their dependents.''.
Subtitle D--Miscellaneous Report Requirements and Repeals
SEC. 1041. REPEAL OF MISCELLANEOUS OBSOLETE REPORTS REQUIRED
BY PRIOR DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACTS.
(a) Report on Removal of Basic Point Defense Missile System
From Naval Amphibious Vessels.--Section 1437 of the
Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1986 (Public Law 99-
145; 99 Stat. 757), is repealed.
(b) Report Concerning the Stretchout of Major Defense
Acquisition Programs.--Section 117 of the National Defense
Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1989 (Public Law 100-456; 102
Stat. 1933), is repealed.
(c) Report Concerning the B-2 Aircraft Program.--Section
115 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Years 1990 and 1991 (Public Law 101-189; 103 Stat. 1373) is
repealed.
SEC. 1042. REPEAL OF ANNUAL REPORT REQUIREMENT RELATING TO
TRAINING OF SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES WITH
FRIENDLY FOREIGN FORCES.
Section 2011 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
striking out subsection (e).
Subtitle E--Other Matters
SEC. 1051. AUTHORITY FOR SPECIAL AGENTS OF THE DEFENSE
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE TO EXECUTE
WARRANTS AND MAKE ARRESTS.
(a) Authority.--Chapter 81 of title 10, United States Code,
is amended by inserting after section 1585 the following new
section:
``Sec. 1585a. Special agents of the Defense Criminal
Investigative Service: authority to execute warrants and
make arrests
``(a) Authority.--The Secretary of Defense may authorize
any DCIS special agent--
``(1) to execute and serve any warrant or other process
issued under the authority of the United States; and
``(2) to make arrests without a warrant--
``(A) for any offense against the United States committed
in the presence of that agent; and
``(B) for any felony cognizable under the laws of the
United States if the agent has probable cause to believe that
the person to be arrested has committed or is committing the
felony.
``(b) Attorney General Guidelines.--Authority of a DCIS
special agent under subsection (a) may be exercised only in
accordance with guidelines approved by the Attorney General.
``(c) DCIS Special Agent Defined.--In this section, the
term `DCIS special agent' means an employee of the Department
of Defense who is a special agent of the Defense Criminal
Investigative Service (or any successor to that service).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 1585 the following new item:
``1585a. Special agents of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service:
authority to execute warrants and make arrests.''.
SEC. 1052. STUDY OF INVESTIGATIVE PRACTICES OF MILITARY
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE ORGANIZATIONS RELATING
TO SEX CRIMES.
(a) Independent Study Required.--(1) The Secretary of
Defense shall provide for an independent study of the
policies, procedures, and practices of the military criminal
investigative organizations for the conduct of investigations
of complaints of sex crimes and other criminal sexual
misconduct arising in the Armed Forces.
(2) The Secretary shall provide for the study to be
conducted by the National Academy of Public Administration.
The amount of a contract for the study may not exceed
$2,000,000.
(3) The Secretary shall require that all components of the
Department of Defense cooperate fully with the organization
carrying out the study.
(b) Matters To Be Included in Study.--The Secretary shall
require that the organization conducting the study under this
section specifically consider each of the following matters:
(1) The need (if any) for greater organizational
independence and autonomy for the military criminal
investigative organizations than exists under current chain-
of-command structures within the military departments.
(2) The authority of each of the military criminal
investigative organizations to investigate allegations of sex
crimes and other criminal sexual misconduct and the policies
of those organizations for carrying out such investigations.
(3) The training (including training in skills and
techniques related to the conduct of interviews) provided by
each of those organizations
[[Page H4000]]
to agents or prospective agents responsible for conducting or
providing support to investigations of alleged sex crimes and
other criminal sexual misconduct, including--
(A) the extent to which that training is comparable to the
training provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and
other civilian law enforcement agencies; and
(B) the coordination of training and investigative policies
related to alleged sex crimes and other criminal sexual
misconduct of each of those organizations with the Federal
Bureau of Investigation and other civilian Federal law
enforcement agencies.
(4) The procedures and relevant professional standards of
each military criminal investigative organization with regard
to recruitment and hiring of agents, including an evaluation
of the extent to which those procedures and standards provide
for--
(A) sufficient screening of prospective agents based on
background investigations; and
(B) obtaining sufficient information about the
qualifications and relevant experience of prospective agents.
(5) The advantages and disadvantages of establishing,
within each of the military criminal investigative
organizations or within the Defense Criminal Investigative
Service only, of a special unit for the investigation of
alleged sex crimes and other criminal sexual misconduct.
(6) The clarity of guidance for, and consistency of
investigative tactics used by, each of the military criminal
investigative organizations for the investigation of alleged
sex crimes and other criminal sexual misconduct, together
with a comparison with the guidance and tactics used by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and other civilian law
enforcement agencies for such investigations.
(7) The number of allegations of agent misconduct in the
investigation of sex crimes and other criminal sexual
misconduct for each of those organizations, together with a
comparison with the number of such allegations concerning
agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other
civilian law enforcement agencies for such investigations.
(8) The procedures of each of the military criminal
investigative organizations for administrative identification
(known as ``titling'') of persons suspected of committing sex
crimes or other criminal sexual misconduct, together with a
comparison with the comparable procedures of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation and other civilian Federal law
enforcement agencies for such investigations.
(9) The accuracy, timeliness, and completeness of reporting
of sex crimes and other criminal sexual misconduct by each of
the military criminal investigative organizations to the
National Crime Information Center maintained by the
Department of Justice.
(10) Any recommendation for legislation or administrative
action to revise the organizational or operational
arrangements of the military criminal investigative
organizations or to alter recruitment, training, or
operational procedures, as they pertain to the investigation
of sex crimes and other criminal sexual misconduct.
(c) Report.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall require the
organization conducting the study under this section to
submit to the Secretary a report on the study not later than
one year after the date of the enactment of this Act. The
organization shall include in the report its findings and
conclusions concerning each of the matters specified in
subsection (b).
(2) The Secretary shall submit the report under paragraph
(1), together with the Secretary's comments on the report, to
Congress not later than 30 days after the date on which
the report is submitted to the Secretary under paragraph
(1).
(d) Military Criminal Investigative Organization Defined.--
For the purposes of this section, the term ``military
criminal investigative organization'' means any of the
following:
(1) The Army Criminal Investigation Command.
(2) The Naval Criminal Investigative Service.
(3) The Air Force Office of Special Investigations.
(4) The Defense Criminal Investigative Service.
(e) Criminal Sexual Misconduct Defined.--For the purposes
of this section, the term ``criminal sexual misconduct''
means conduct by a member of the Armed Forces involving
sexual abuse, sexual harassment, or other sexual misconduct
that constitutes an offense under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice.
SEC. 1053. TECHNICAL AND CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.
(a) Title 10, United States Code.--Title 10, United States
Code, is amended as follows:
(1) The tables of chapters at the beginning of subtitle A,
and at the beginning of part I of subtitle A, are each
amended by striking out ``471'' in the item relating to
chapter 23 and inserting in lieu thereof ``481''.
(2) The tables of chapters at the beginning of subtitle A,
and at the beginning of part IV of subtitle A, are each
amended by striking out ``2540'' in the item relating to
chapter 152 and inserting in lieu thereof ``2541''.
(3) Section 116(b)(2) is amended by striking out ``such
subsection'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``subsection
(a)''.
(4) Section 129c(e) is amended by striking out ``section
115a(g)(2)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``section
115a(e)(2)''.
(5) Section 382(g) is amended by striking out ``the date of
the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1997'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``September
23, 1996''.
(6) The table of sections at the beginning of subchapter I
of chapter 21 is amended by striking out the items relating
to sections 424 and 425 and inserting in lieu thereof the
following:
``424. Disclosure of organizational and personnel information:
exemption for Defense Intelligence Agency, National
Reconnaissance Office, and National Imagery and Mapping
Agency.''.
(7) Section 445 is amended--
(A) by striking out ``(1)'' before ``Except with'';
(B) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as
paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively;
(C) by striking out ``(2)'' before ``Whenever it appears''
and inserting in lieu thereof ``(b) Injunctive Relief.--'';
and
(D) by striking out ``paragraph (1)'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``subsection (a)''.
(8) Section 858b is amended in the first sentence by
striking out ``forfeiture'' and all that follows through
``due that member'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``forfeiture of pay, or of pay and allowances, due that
member''.
(9) Section 943(c) is amended--
(A) in the third sentence, by striking out ``such
positions'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``positions
referred to in the preceding sentences''; and
(B) by capitalizing the initial letter of the third word of
the subsection heading.
(10) Section 954 is amended by striking out ``this'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``his''.
(11) Section 972(b) is amended by striking out ``the date
of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1996'' in the matter preceding paragraph (1)
and inserting in lieu thereof ``February 10, 1996''.
(12) Section 976(f) is amended by striking out ``shall,''
and all that follows and inserting in lieu thereof ``shall be
fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or
both, except that, in the case of an organization (as defined
in section 18 of such title), the fine shall not be less than
$25,000.''.
(13) Section 977 is amended--
(A) in subsection (c), by striking out ``Beginning on
October 1, 1996, not more than'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``Not more than''; and
(B) in subsection (d)(2), by striking out ``before October
1, 1996,'' and all that follows through ``so assigned'' the
second place it appears.
(14) Section 1129(c) is amended--
(A) by striking out ``the date of the enactment of this
section,'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``November 30,
1993,''; and
(B) by striking out ``before the date of the enactment of
this section or'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``before such
date or''.
(15) Section 1151(b) is amended by striking out ``with'' in
the subsection heading and inserting in lieu thereof
``With''.
(16) Section 1152(g) is amended by inserting ``(1)'' before
``The Secretary may''.
(17) Section 1408(d) is amended--
(A) by striking out ``To'' in the subsection heading and
inserting in lieu thereof ``to''; and
(B) by redesignating the second paragraph (6) as paragraph
(7).
(18) Section 1599c(c)(1)(F) is amended by striking out
``Sections 106(f)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``Sections
106(e)''.
(19) Section 1763 is amended--
(A) by striking out ``On and after October 1, 1993, the
Secretary of Defense'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``The
Secretary of Defense''; and
(B) by striking out ``secretaries'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``Secretaries''.
(20) Section 2010(e) is repealed.
(21) Section 2208(k) is repealed.
(22)(A) Section 2306(h) is amended by inserting ``for the
purchase of property'' after ``Multiyear contracting
authority''.
(B)(i) The heading of section 2306b is amended to read as
follows:
``Sec. 2306b. Multiyear contracts: acquisition of property''.
(ii) The item relating to such section in the table of
sections at the beginning of chapter 137 of such title is
amended to read as follows:
``2306b. Multiyear contracts: acquisition of property.''.
(23) Section 2306b(k) is amended by striking out ``this
subsection'' in the first sentence and inserting in lieu
thereof ``this section''.
(24) Section 2315(a) is amended by striking out ``the
Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``division E of the Clinger-Cohen
Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.)''.
(25) Section 2371a is amended by inserting ``Defense''
before ``Advanced Research Projects Agency''.
(26) Section 2401a(a) is amended by striking out ``leasing
of such vehicles'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``such
leasing''.
(27) Section 2466(e) is repealed.
(28) Section 2684(b) is amended by striking out ``, United
States Code,''.
(29) Section 2885 is amended by striking out ``five years
after the date of the enactment of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996'' and inserting in
lieu thereof ``on February 10, 2001''.
(30) Section 12733(3) is amended--
(A) by inserting a comma after ``(B)''; and
(B) by striking out ``the date of the enactment of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``September 23, 1996,''.
(b) Title 37, United States Code.--Section 205(d) of title
37, United States Code, is amended by striking out the period
after ``August 1, 1979'' and inserting in lieu thereof a
comma.
(c) Public Law 104-201.--Effective as of September 23,
1996, and as if included therein as enacted, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law
104-201) is amended as follows:
(1) Section 367 (110 Stat. 2496) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking out ``Subchapter II of
chapter'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``Chapter''; and
[[Page H4001]]
(B) in subsection (b), by striking out ``subchapter'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``chapter''.
(2) Section 614(b)(2)(B) (110 Stat. 2544) is amended by
striking out ``the period'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``the semicolon''.
(3) Section 802(1) (110 Stat. 2604) is amended by striking
out ``1995'' in the first quoted matter therein and inserting
in lieu thereof ``1996''.
(4) Section 829(c) (110 Stat. 2612) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking out ``Section 2502(b)''
and inserting in lieu thereof ``Section 2502(c)''; and
(B) by redesignating paragraph (3) as subparagraph (C) of
paragraph (2).
(d) Other Annual Defense Authorization Acts.--
(1) of The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) is amended as follows:
(A) Section 533(b) (110 Stat. 315) is amended by inserting
before the period at the end the following: ``and the
amendments made by subsection (b), effective as of October 5,
1994''.
(B) Section 1501(d)(1) (110 Stat. 500) is amended by
striking out ``337(b)'' and ``2717'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``377(b)'' and ``2737'', respectively.
(2) Section 845 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160; 10 U.S.C. 2371
note) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by inserting ``Defense'' before
``Advanced''; and
(B) in the section heading, by inserting ``defense'' after
the third word.
(3) The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1993 (Public Law 102-484) is amended as follows:
(A) Section 812(c) (10 U.S.C. 1723 note) is amended by
inserting ``and Technology'' after ``for Acquisition''.
(B) Subsection (e) of section 4471 (10 U.S.C. 2501 note) is
amended--
(i) by realigning that subsection so as to be flush to the
margin; and
(ii) by capitalizing the initial letter of the third word
of the subsection heading.
(4) Section 807(b)(2)(A) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law
102-190; 10 U.S.C. 2320 note) is amended by inserting before
the period the following: ``and Technology''.
(5) The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1991 (Public Law 101-510) is amended as follows:
(A) Section 1205 (10 U.S.C. 1746 note) is amended by
striking out ``Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition''
each place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof ``Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology''.
(B) Section 2921 (10 U.S.C. 2687 note) is amended--
(i) in subsection (e)(3)(B), by striking out
``Subcommittees'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``Subcommittee''; and
(ii) in subsection (f)(2), by striking out ``the Committees
on Armed Services of the Senate and House of
Representatives'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the
Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee
on National Security of the House of Representatives''.
(6) Section 1121(c) of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (Public Law 100-180; 10
U.S.C. 113 note) is amended by striking out ``under this
section--'' and all that follow through ``fiscal year 1990''
and inserting in lieu thereof ``under this section may not
exceed 5,000 during any fiscal year''.
(d) Title 5, United States Code.--Title 5, United States
Code, is amended as follows:
(1) Section 3329(b) is amended by striking out ``a position
described in subsection (c)'' the second place it appears.
(2) Section 5315 is amended--
(A) in the item relating to the Chief Information Officer
of the Department of the Interior, by inserting ``the''
before ``Interior''; and
(B) in the item relating to the Chief Information Officer
of the Department of the Treasury, by inserting ``the''
before ``Treasury''.
(3) Section 5316 is amended by striking out ``Atomic
Energy'' after ``Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for''
and inserting in lieu thereof ``Nuclear and Chemical and
Biological Defense Programs''.
(e) Acquisition Policy Statutes.--
(1) Section 309 of the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 259) is amended by striking
out ``and'' at the end of subsection (b)(2).
(2) The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act is amended
as follows:
(A) The item relating to section 27 in the table of
contents in section 1 is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 27. Restrictions on disclosing and obtaining contractor bid or
proposal information or source selection information.''.
(B) Section 6(d) (41 U.S.C. 405(d)) is amended--
(i) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph
(5)(J) and inserting in lieu thereof a semicolon;
(ii) by moving paragraph (6) two ems to the left; and
(iii) in paragraph (12), by striking out ``small business''
and inserting in lieu thereof ``small businesses''.
(C) Section 35(b)(2) (41 U.S.C. 431(b)(2)) is amended by
striking out ``commercial'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``commercially available''.
(3) Section 6 of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41
U.S.C. 605) is amended in subsections (d) and (e) by striking
out ``(as in effect on September 30, 1995)'' each place it
appears.
(4) Subsections (d)(1) and (e) of section 16 of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 645) are each amended by striking out
``concerns'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``concern''.
(f) Coordination With Other Amendments.--For purposes of
applying amendments made by provisions of this Act other than
provisions of this section, this section shall be treated as
having been enacted immediately before the other provisions
of this Act.
SEC. 1054. DISPLAY OF POW/MIA FLAG.
(a) Required Display.--The POW/MIA flag shall be displayed
at the locations specified in subsection (c) each year on
POW/MIA flag display days. Such display shall serve (1) as
the symbol of the Nation's concern and commitment to
achieving the fullest possible accounting of Americans who,
having been prisoners of war or missing in action, still
remain unaccounted for, and (2) as the symbol of the Nation's
commitment to achieving the fullest possible accounting for
Americans who in the future may become prisoners of war,
missing in action, or otherwise unaccounted for as a result
of hostile action.
(b) Days for Flag Display.--(1) For purposes of this
section, POW/MIA flag display days are the following:
(A) Armed Forces Day, the third Saturday in May.
(B) Memorial Day, the last Monday in May.
(C) Flag Day, June 14.
(D) Independence Day, July 4.
(E) National POW/MIA Recognition Day.
(F) Veterans Day, November 11.
(2) In the case of display at United States Postal Service
post offices (required by subsection (c)(8)), POW/MIA flag
display days in any year include, in addition to the days
specified in paragraph (1), the last business day before each
such day that itself is not a business day.
(c) Locations for Flag Display.--The locations for the
display of the POW/MIA flag under this section are the
following:
(1) The Capitol.
(2) The White House.
(3) The Korean War Veterans Memorial and the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial.
(4) Each national cemetery.
(5) The buildings containing the primary offices of--
(A) the Secretary of State;
(B) the Secretary of Defense;
(C) the Secretary of Veterans Affairs; and
(D) the Director of the Selective Service System.
(6) Each major military installation, as designated by the
Secretary of Defense.
(7) Each Department of Veterans Affairs medical center.
(8) Each United States Postal Service post office.
(d) Coordination With Other Display Requirement.--Display
of the POW/MIA flag at the Capitol pursuant to paragraph (1)
of subsection (c) is in addition to the display of that flag
in the Rotunda of the Capitol required by Senate Concurrent
Resolution 5 of the 101st Congress, agreed to on February 22,
1989 (103 Stat. 2533).
(e) Requirements Concerning Display at Specified
Locations.--(1) Display of the POW/MIA flag at the buildings
specified in paragraphs (1), (2), (5), and (7) of subsection
(c) shall be on, or on the grounds of, each such building.
(2) Display of that flag pursuant to paragraph (5) of
subsection (c) at the buildings containing the primary
offices of the officials specified in that paragraph shall be
in an area visible to the public.
(3) Display of that flag at United States Postal Service
post offices pursuant to paragraph (8) of subsection (c)
shall be on the grounds or in the public lobby of each such
post office.
(f) POW/MIA Flag Defined.--As used in this section, the
term ``POW/MIA flag'' means the National League of Families
POW/MIA flag recognized officially and designated by section
2 of Public Law 101-355 (36 U.S.C. 189).
(g) Regulations for Implementation.--Within 180 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the head of each
department, agency, or other establishment responsible for a
location specified in subsection (c) (other than the Capitol)
shall prescribe such regulations as necessary to carry out
this section.
(h) Procurement and Distribution of Flags.--Within 30 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Administrator of General Services shall procure POW/MIA flags
and distribute them as necessary to carry out this section.
(i) Repeal of Prior Law.--Section 1084 of Public Law 102-
190 (36 U.S.C. 189 note) is repealed.
SEC. 1055. CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BEFORE OBSERVANCE OF
MORATORIUM ON USE BY ARMED FORCES OF
ANTIPERSONNEL LANDMINES.
Any moratorium imposed by law (whether enacted before, on,
or after the date of the enactment of this Act) on the use of
antipersonnel landmines by the Armed Forces may be
implemented only if (and after) the Secretary of Defense,
after consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, certifies to Congress that--
(1) the moratorium will not adversely affect the ability of
United States forces to defend against attack on land by
hostile forces; and
(2) the Armed Forces have systems that are effective
substitutes for antipersonnel landmines.
SEC. 1056. PROTECTION OF SAFETY-RELATED INFORMATION
VOLUNTARILY PROVIDED BY AIR CARRIERS.
(a) Authority To Protect Information.--Section 2640 of
title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (h) and (i) as subsections
(i) and (j), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (g) the following new
subsection:
``(h) Authority to Protect Safety-Related Information
Voluntarily Provided by An Air Carrier.--(1) In any case in
which an air carrier voluntarily provides safety-related
information to the Secretary for purposes of this section,
the Secretary may (notwithstanding any
[[Page H4002]]
other provision of law) withhold the information from public
disclosure if the Secretary determines that--
``(A) disclosure of the information would inhibit the air
carrier from voluntarily providing safety-related information
to the Secretary; and
``(B) the information would aid--
``(i) the Secretary in carrying out his responsibilities
under this section; or
``(ii) the head of another agency in carrying out the
safety responsibilities of the agency.
``(2) If the Secretary provides to the head of another
agency safety-related information described in paragraph (1)
with respect to which the Secretary has made a determination
described in that paragraph, the head of that agency shall
(notwithstanding any other provision of law) withhold the
information from public disclosure.''.
(b) Applicability.--Subsection (h) of section 2640 of title
10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall
apply with respect to requests for information made on or
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 1057. NATIONAL GUARD CHALLENGE PROGRAM TO CREATE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR CIVILIAN YOUTH.
(a) Program Authority.--Chapter 5 of title 32, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following
new section:
``Sec. 509. National Guard Challenge Program of opportunities
for civilian youth
``(a) Program Authority and Purpose.--The Secretary of
Defense, acting through the Chief of the National Guard
Bureau, may conduct a National Guard civilian youth
opportunities program (to be known as the `National Guard
Challenge Program') to use the National Guard to provide
military-based training, including supervised work experience
in community service and conservation projects, to civilian
youth who cease to attend secondary school before graduating
so as to improve the life skills and employment potential of
such youth.
``(b) Conduct of the Program.--The Secretary of Defense
shall provide for the conduct of the National Guard Challenge
Program in such States as the Secretary considers to be
appropriate, except that Federal expenditures under the
program may not exceed $50,000,000 for any fiscal year.
``(c) Program Agreements.--(1) To carry out the National
Guard Challenge Program in a State, the Secretary of Defense
shall enter into an agreement with the Governor of the State
or, in the case of the District of Columbia, with the
commanding general of the District of Columbia National
Guard, under which the Governor or the commanding general
will establish, organize, and administer the National Guard
Challenge Program in the State.
``(2) The agreement may provide for the Secretary to
provide funds to the State for civilian personnel costs
attributable to the use of civilian employees of the National
Guard in the conduct of the National Guard Challenge Program.
``(d) Matching Funds Required.--The amount of assistance
provided under this section to a State program of the
National Guard Challenge Program may not exceed--
``(1) for fiscal year 1998, 75 percent of the costs of
operating the State program during that year;
``(2) for fiscal year 1999, 70 percent of the costs of
operating the State program during that year;
``(3) for fiscal year 2000, 65 percent of the costs of
operating the State program during that year; and
``(4) for fiscal year 2001 and each subsequent fiscal year,
60 percent of the costs of operating the State program during
that year.
``(e) Persons Eligible to Participate in Program.--A school
dropout from secondary school shall be eligible to
participate in the National Guard Challenge Program. The
Secretary of Defense shall prescribe the standards and
procedures for selecting participants from among school
dropouts.
``(f) Authorized Benefits for Participants.--(1) To the
extent provided in an agreement entered into in accordance
with subsection (c) and subject to the approval of the
Secretary of Defense, a person selected for training in the
National Guard Challenge Program may receive the following
benefits in connection with that training:
``(A) Allowances for travel expenses, personal expenses,
and other expenses.
``(B) Quarters.
``(C) Subsistence.
``(D) Transportation.
``(E) Equipment.
``(F) Clothing.
``(G) Recreational services and supplies.
``(H) Other services.
``(I) Subject to paragraph (2), a temporary stipend upon
the successful completion of the training, as characterized
in accordance with procedures provided in the agreement.
``(2) In the case of a person selected for training in the
National Guard Challenge Program who afterwards becomes a
member of the Civilian Community Corps under subtitle E of
title I of the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C. 12611 et seq.), the person may not receive a temporary
stipend under paragraph (1)(I) while the person is a member
of that Corps. The person may receive the temporary stipend
after completing service in the Corps unless the person
elects to receive benefits provided under subsection (f) or
(g) of section 158 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 12618).
``(g) Program Personnel.--(1) Personnel of the National
Guard of a State in which the National Guard Challenge
Program is conducted may serve on full-time National Guard
duty for the purpose of providing command, administrative,
training, or supporting services for the program. For the
performance of those services, any such personnel may be
ordered to duty under section 502(f) of this title for not
longer than the period of the program.
``(2) A Governor participating in the National Guard
Challenge Program and the commanding general of the District
of Columbia National Guard (if the District of Columbia
National Guard is participating in the program) may procure
by contract the temporary full time services of such civilian
personnel as may be necessary to augment National Guard
personnel in carrying out the National Guard Challenge
Program in that State.
``(3) Civilian employees of the National Guard performing
services for the National Guard Challenge Program and
contractor personnel performing such services may be
required, when appropriate to achieve the purposes of the
program, to be members of the National Guard and to wear the
military uniform.
``(h) Equipment and Facilities.--(1) Equipment and
facilities of the National Guard, including military property
of the United States issued to the National Guard, may be
used in carrying out the National Guard Challenge Program.
``(2) Activities under the National Guard Challenge Program
shall be considered noncombat activities of the National
Guard for purposes of section 710 of this title.
``(i) Status of Participants.--(1) A person receiving
training under the National Guard Challenge Program shall be
considered an employee of the United States for the purposes
of the following provisions of law:
``(A) Subchapter I of chapter 81 of title 5 (relating to
compensation of Federal employees for work injuries).
``(B) Section 1346(b) and chapter 171 of title 28 and any
other provision of law relating to the liability of the
United States for tortious conduct of employees of the United
States.
``(2) In the application of the provisions of law referred
to in paragraph (1)(A) to a person referred to in paragraph
(1)--
``(A) the person shall not be considered to be in the
performance of duty while the person is not at the assigned
location of training or other activity or duty authorized in
accordance with a program agreement referred to in subsection
(c), except when the person is traveling to or from that
location or is on pass from that training or other activity
or duty;
``(B) the person's monthly rate of pay shall be deemed to
be the minimum rate of pay provided for grade GS-2 of the
General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5; and
``(C) the entitlement of a person to receive compensation
for a disability shall begin on the day following the date on
which the person's participation in the National Guard
Challenge Program is terminated.
``(3) A person referred to in paragraph (1) may not be
considered an employee of the United States for any purpose
other than a purpose set forth in that paragraph.
``(j) Supplemental Resources.--(1) To carry out the
National Guard Challenge Program in a State, the Governor of
the State or, in the case of the District of Columbia, the
commanding general of the District of Columbia National Guard
may supplement funds made available under the program out of
other resources (including gifts) available to the Governor
or the commanding general. The Governor or the commanding
general may accept, use, and dispose of gifts or donations of
money, other property, or services for the National Guard
Challenge Program.
``(k) Report.--Within 90 days after the end of each fiscal
year, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a
report on the design, conduct, and effectiveness of the
National Guard Challenge Program during the preceding fiscal
year. In preparing the report, the Secretary shall coordinate
with the Governor of each State in which the National Guard
Challenge Program is carried out and, if the program is
carried out in the District of Columbia, with the commanding
general of the District of Columbia National Guard.
``(l) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `State' includes the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the territories, and the District of Columbia.
``(2) The term `school dropout' means an individual who is
no longer attending any school and who has not received a
secondary school diploma or a certificate from a program of
equivalency for such a diploma.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``509. National Guard Challenge Program of opportunities for civilian
youth.''.
SEC. 1058. LEASE OF NON-EXCESS PERSONAL PROPERTY OF THE
MILITARY DEPARTMENTS.
(a) Receipt of Fair Market Value.--Subsection (b)(4) of
section 2667 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
striking out ``, in the case of the lease of real
property,''.
(b) Competitive Selection.--Such section is further
amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following new
subsection:
``(g)(1) If a proposed lease under subsection (a) involves
only personal property, the lease term exceeds one year, and
the fair market value of the lease interest exceeds $100,000,
as determined by the Secretary concerned, the Secretary shall
use competitive procedures to select the lessee.
``(2) Not later than 45 days before entering into a lease
referred to in paragraph (1), the Secretary concerned shall
submit to Congress written notice describing the terms of the
proposed lease and the competitive procedures used to select
the lessee.''.
[[Page H4003]]
SEC. 1059. COMMENDATION OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND
GOVERNMENT CIVILIAN PERSONNEL WHO SERVED DURING
THE COLD WAR.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) During the period of the Cold War, from the end of
World War II until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991,
the United States and the Soviet Union engaged in a global
military rivalry.
(2) This rivalry, potentially the most dangerous military
confrontation in the history of mankind, has come to a close
without a direct superpower military conflict.
(3) Military and civilian personnel of the Department of
Defense, personnel in the intelligence community, members of
the foreign service, and other officers and employees of the
United States faithfully performed their duties during the
Cold War.
(4) Many such personnel performed their duties while
isolated from family and friends and served overseas under
frequently arduous conditions in order to protect the United
States and achieve a lasting peace.
(5) The discipline and dedication of those personnel were
fundamental to the prevention of a superpower military
conflict.
(b) Congressional Commendation.--The Congress hereby
commends, and expresses its gratitude and appreciation for,
the service and sacrifices of the members of the Armed Forces
and civilian personnel of the Government who contributed to
the historic victory in the Cold War.
TITLE XI--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF FORMER SOVIET
UNION
SEC. 1101. SPECIFICATION OF COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION
PROGRAMS.
(a) In General.--For purposes of section 301 and other
provisions of this Act, Cooperative Threat Reduction programs
are the programs specified in subsection (b) of section 406
of title 10, United States Code, as added by section 1110.
(b) Fiscal Year 1998 Cooperative Threat Reduction Funds
Defined.--As used in this title, the term ``fiscal year 1998
Cooperative Threat Reduction funds'' means the funds
appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations
in section 301 for Cooperative Threat Reduction programs.
SEC. 1102. FISCAL YEAR 1998 FUNDING ALLOCATIONS.
(a) In General.--Of the fiscal year 1998 Cooperative Threat
Reduction funds, not more than the following amounts may be
obligated for the purposes specified:
(1) For strategic offensive arms elimination in Russia,
$77,900,000.
(2) For strategic nuclear arms elimination in Ukraine,
$76,700,000.
(3) For fissile material containers in Russia, $7,000,000.
(4) For planning and design of a chemical weapons
destruction facility in Russia, $14,400,000.
(5) For planning, design, and construction of a storage
facility for Russian fissile material, $57,700,000.
(6) For weapons storage security in Russia, $23,500,000.
(7) For activities designated as Defense and Military-to-
Military Contacts in Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan,
$7,000,000.
(8) For military-to-military programs of the United States
that focus on countering the threat of proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction and that include the security
forces of the independent states of the former Soviet Union
other than Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakstan,
$2,000,000.
(9) For activities designated as Other Assessments/
Administrative Support $18,500,000.
(b) Limited Authority To Vary Individual Amounts.--(1) If
the Secretary of Defense determines that it is necessary to
do so in the national interest, the Secretary may, subject to
paragraph (2), obligate amounts for the purposes stated in
any of the paragraphs of subsection (a) in excess of the
amount specified for those purposes in that paragraph, but
not in excess of 115 percent of that amount. However, the
total amount obligated for the purposes stated in the
paragraphs in subsection (a) may not by reason of the use of
the authority provided in the preceding sentence exceed the
sum of the amounts specified in those paragraphs.
(2) An obligation for the purposes stated in any of the
paragraphs in subsection (a) in excess of the amount
specified in that paragraph may be made using the authority
provided in paragraph (1) only after--
(A) the Secretary submits to Congress notification of the
intent to do so together with a complete discussion of the
justification for doing so; and
(B) 15 days have elapsed following the date of the
notification.
SEC. 1103. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR SPECIFIED
PURPOSES.
(a) In General.--No fiscal year 1998 Cooperative Threat
Reduction funds, and no funds appropriated for Cooperative
Threat Reduction programs for any prior fiscal year and
remaining available for obligation, may be obligated or
expended for any of the following purposes:
(1) Conducting with Russia any peacekeeping exercise or
other peacekeeping-related activity.
(2) Provision of housing.
(3) Provision of assistance to promote environmental
restoration.
(4) Provision of assistance to promote job retraining.
(b) Limitation With Respect to Defense Conversion
Assistance.--None of the funds appropriated pursuant to this
Act or any other Act may be obligated or expended for the
provision of assistance to Russia or any other state of the
former Soviet Union to promote defense conversion.
SEC. 1104. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS UNTIL SPECIFIED
REPORTS ARE SUBMITTED.
No fiscal year 1998 Cooperative Threat Reduction funds may
be obligated or expended until 15 days after the date that is
the latest of the following:
(1) The date on which the President submits to Congress the
determinations required under subsection (c) of section 211
of Public Law 102-228 (22 U.S.C. 2551 note) with respect to
any certification transmitted to Congress under subsection
(b) of that section during the period beginning on September
23, 1996, and ending on the date of the enactment of this
Act.
(2) The date on which the Secretary of Defense submits to
Congress the annual report required to be submitted not later
than January 31, 1998, under section 1206(a) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law
104-106; 110 Stat. 471; 22 U.S.C. 5955 note).
(3) The date on which the Secretary of Defense submits to
Congress the report for fiscal year 1997 required under
section 1205(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 2883; 22
U.S.C. 5952 note).
SEC. 1105. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS UNTIL SUBMISSION OF
CERTIFICATION.
(a) Limitation on Use of Funds Until Submission of
Certification.--No fiscal year 1998 Cooperative Threat
Reduction funds may be obligated or expended for strategic
offensive arms elimination projects in Russia related to the
START II Treaty (as defined in section 1302(d) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997
(Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2701)) until 30 days after the
date on which the President submits to Congress a
certification in writing that--
(1) implementation of the projects would benefit the
national security interest of the United States; and
(2) Russia has agreed to share the cost for the projects.
(b) Report.--Not later than 15 days after the date that the
President submits to Congress the certification under
subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the
congressional defense committees a report describing the
arrangement between the United States and Russia with respect
to the sharing of costs for strategic offensive arms
elimination projects in Russia related to the START II
Treaty.
SEC. 1106. USE OF FUNDS FOR CHEMICAL WEAPONS DESTRUCTION
FACILITY.
(a) Limitation on Use of Funds Until Submission of
Notifications to Congress.--No fiscal year 1998 Cooperative
Threat Reduction funds may be obligated or expended for
planning and design of a chemical weapons destruction
facility until 15 days after the date that is the later of
the following:
(1) The date on which the Secretary of Defense submits to
Congress notification of an agreement between the United
States and Russia with respect to such chemical weapons
destruction facility that includes--
(A) an agreement providing for a limitation on the
financial contribution by the United States for the facility;
(B) an agreement that the United States will not pay the
costs for infrastructure determined by Russia to be necessary
to support the facility; and
(C) an agreement on the site of the facility.
(2) The date on which the Secretary of Defense submits to
Congress notification that the Government of Russia has
formally approved a plan--
(A) that allows for the destruction of chemical weapons in
Russia; and
(B) that commits Russia to pay a portion of the cost for
the facility.
(b) Prohibition on Use of Funds for Facility
Construction.--No fiscal year 1998 Cooperative Threat
Reduction funds authorized to be obligated in section
1102(a)(4) for planning and design of a chemical weapons
destruction facility in Russia may be used for construction
of such facility.
SEC. 1107. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR STORAGE FACILITY
FOR RUSSIAN FISSILE MATERIAL.
(a) Limitation on Use of Fiscal Year 1998 Funds.--No fiscal
year 1998 Cooperative Threat Reduction funds may be obligated
or expended for planning, design, or construction of a
storage facility for Russian fissile material until 15 days
after the date that is the later of the following:
(1) The date on which the Secretary of Defense submits to
Congress notification of an agreement between the United
States and Russia that the total share of the cost to the
United States for such facility will not exceed $275,000,000.
(2) The date on which the Secretary submits to Congress
notification of an agreement between the United States and
Russia incorporating the principle of transparency with
respect to the use of the facility.
(b) Limitation on Use of Funds for Fiscal Years Before
Fiscal Year 1998.--None of the funds appropriated for
Cooperative Threat Reduction programs for a fiscal year
before fiscal year 1998 and remaining available for
obligation on the date of the enactment of this Act may be
obligated or expended for planning, design, or construction
of a storage facility for Russian fissile material until--
(1) the Secretary of Defense submits to the congressional
defense committees a report on the costs and schedule for the
planning, design, and construction of the facility and
transparency issues relating to the facility; and
(2) 15 days have elapsed following the date of the
notification.
[[Page H4004]]
SEC. 1108. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR WEAPONS STORAGE
SECURITY.
No fiscal year 1998 Cooperative Threat Reduction funds may
be obligated or expended for weapons storage security in
Russia until--
(1) the Secretary of Defense submits to the congressional
defense committees notification of an agreement between the
United States and Russia on audits and examinations with
respect to weapons storage security; and
(2) 15 days have elapsed following the date of the
notification.
SEC. 1109. REPORT TO CONGRESS ON ISSUES REGARDING PAYMENT OF
TAXES OR DUTIES ON ASSISTANCE PROVIDED TO
RUSSIA UNDER COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION
PROGRAMS.
Not later than September 30, 1997, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to Congress a report on--
(1) any disputes between the United States and Russia with
respect to payment by the United States of taxes or duties on
assistance provided to Russia under a Cooperative Threat
Reduction program, including a description of the nature of
each dispute, the amount of payment disputed, whether the
dispute was resolved, and if the dispute was resolved, the
means by which the dispute was resolved;
(2) the actions taken by the Secretary to prevent disputes
between the United States and Russia with respect to payment
by the United States of taxes or duties on assistance
provided to Russia under a Cooperative Threat Reduction
program;
(3) any agreements between the United States and Russia
with respect to payment by the United States of taxes or
duties on assistance provided to Russia under a Cooperative
Threat Reduction program; and
(4) any proposals of the Secretary on actions that should
be taken to prevent disputes between the United States and
Russia with respect to payment by the United States of
taxes or duties on assistance provided to Russia under a
Cooperative Threat Reduction program.
SEC. 1110. LIMITATION ON OBLIGATION OF FUNDS FOR A SPECIFIED
PERIOD.
(a) In General.--(1) Chapter 20 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``Sec. 406. Use of Cooperative Threat Reduction program
funds: limitation
``(a) In General.--In carrying out Cooperative Threat
Reduction programs during any fiscal year, the Secretary of
Defense may use funds appropriated for those programs only to
the extent that those funds were appropriated for that fiscal
year or for either of the two preceding fiscal years.
``(b) Definition of Cooperative Threat Reduction
Programs.--In this section, the term `Cooperative Threat
Reduction programs' means the following programs with respect
to states of the former Soviet Union:
``(1) Programs to facilitate the elimination, and the safe
and secure transportation and storage, of nuclear, chemical,
and other weapons and their delivery vehicles.
``(2) Programs to facilitate the safe and secure storage of
fissile materials derived from the elimination of nuclear
weapons.
``(3) Programs to prevent the proliferation of weapons,
components, and weapons-related technology and expertise.
``(4) Programs to expand military-to-military and defense
contacts.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``406. Use of Cooperative Threat Reduction program funds:
limitation.''.
(b) Effective Date.--Section 406 of title 10, United States
Code, as added by subsection (a), shall apply with respect to
fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 1998.
SEC. 1111. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.
Funds appropriated pursuant to the authorization of
appropriations in section 301 for Cooperative Threat
Reduction programs shall be available for obligation for
three fiscal years.
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS
SEC. 1201. REPORTS TO CONGRESS RELATING TO UNITED STATES
FORCES IN BOSNIA.
(a) Secretary of Defense Reports on Nonmilitary Tasks
Carried Out by United States Forces.--(1) The Secretary of
Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees
two reports identifying each activity being carried out, as
of the date of the report, by covered United States forces in
Bosnia that is an activity that (as determined by the
Secretary) is expected to be performed by an international or
local civilian organization once the multinational
peacekeeping mission in Bosnia is concluded.
(2) For purposes of this paragraph, covered United States
forces in Bosnia are United States ground forces in the
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina that are assigned to the
multinational peacekeeping force known as the Stabilization
Force (SFOR) or to any other multinational peacekeeping force
that is a successor to the Stabilization Force.
(3) The Secretary shall include in each report under
paragraph (1), for each activity identified in that
paragraph, the following:
(A) The number of United States military personnel
involved.
(B) Whether forces assigned to the SFOR (or successor
multinational force) from other nations also participated in
that activity.
(C) The justification for using military forces rather than
civilian organizations to perform that activity.
(4) The first report under paragraph (1) shall be submitted
not later than December 1, 1997. The second such report shall
be submitted not later than March 31, 1998.
(b) Presidential Report on Political and Military
Conditions in Bosnia.--(1) Not later than December 15, 1997,
the President shall submit to Congress a report on the
political and military conditions in the Republic of Bosnia
and Herzegovina (hereafter in this section referred to as
Bosnia-Herzegovina). Of the funds available to the Secretary
of Defense for fiscal year 1998 for the operation of United
States ground forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina during that fiscal
year, no more than 60 percent may be expended before the
report is submitted.
(2) The report under paragraph (1) shall include a
discussion of the following:
(A) The date on which the transition from the multinational
force known as the Stabilization Force to the planned
multinational successor force to be known as the Deterrence
Force will occur and how the decision as to that date will
impact the estimates of costs associated with the operation
of United States ground forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina during
fiscal year 1998 as contained in the President's budget for
fiscal year 1998.
(B) The military and political considerations that will
affect the decision to carry out such a transition.
(C) The incremental, per-month cost increases the
Department of Defense resulting from a decision to delay the
transition from the Stabilization Force to the Deterrence
Force.
(D) The unresolved political, economic, and military issues
within Bosnia-Herzegovina that may affect the estimate of the
Secretary of the costs of complete withdrawal of United
States forces from Bosnia-Herzegovina, the timeframe for
force reductions for such withdrawal, and the timing of
complete withdrawal of United States forces from Bosnia-
Herzegovina.
(E) A detailed explanation and timetable for carrying out
the President's commitment to withdraw all United States
ground forces from Bosnia-Herzegovina by the end of June
1998, including the planned date of commencement and
completion of the withdrawal.
(F) Any plan to maintain or expand other Bosnia-related
operations (such as the operation designated as Operation
Deliberate Guard) if tensions in Bosnia-Herzegovina remain
sufficient to delay the transition from the Stabilization
Force to the Deterrence Force and the estimated cost
associated with each such operation.
(G) Whether allied nations participating in the Bosnia
mission have similar plans to increase and maintain troop
strength or maintain ground forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina and,
if so, the identity of each such country and a description of
that country's plans.
(3) As used in this subsection, the term ``Stabilization
Force'' (referred to as ``SFOR'') means the follow-on force
to the Implementation Force (known as ``IFOR'') in the
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and other countries in the
region, authorized under United Nations Security Council
Resolution 1008 (December 12, 1996).
SEC. 1202. ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF COUNTERPROLIFERATION
AUTHORITIES.
Section 1505 of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Control Act
of 1992 (title XV of Public Law 102-484; 22 U.S.C. 5859a) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (d)(3), by striking out ``or'' after
``fiscal year 1996,'' and by inserting ``, or $15,000,000 for
fiscal year 1998'' before the period at the end; and
(2) in subsection (f), by striking out ``1997'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``1998''.
SEC. 1203. REPORT ON FUTURE MILITARY CAPABILITIES AND
STRATEGY OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.
(a) Report.--The Secretary of Defense shall prepare a
report, in both classified and unclassified form, on the
future pattern of military modernization of the People's
Republic of China. The report shall address the probable
course of military-technological development in the People's
Liberation Army and the development of Chinese grand
strategy, security strategy, and military strategy, and of
military organizations and operational concepts, through
2015.
(b) Matters To Be Included.--The report shall include
analyses and forecasts of the following:
(1) The goals of Chinese grand strategy, security strategy,
and military strategy.
(2) Trends in Chinese political grand strategy meant to
establish the People's Republic of China as the leading
political power in the Asia-Pacific region and as a political
and military presence in other regions of the world,
including Central Asia, Southwest Asia, Europe, and Latin
America.
(3) Developments in Chinese military doctrine, focusing on
(but not limited to) efforts to exploit the emerging
Revolution in Military Affairs or to conduct preemptive
strikes.
(4) Efforts by the People's Republic of China to develop
long-range air-to-air or air defense missiles designed to
target special support aircraft such as Airborne Warning and
Control System (AWACS) aircraft, Joint Surveillance and
Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) aircraft, or other
command and control, intelligence, airborne early warning, or
electronic warfare aircraft.
(5) Efforts by the People's Republic of China to develop a
capability to conduct ``information warfare'' at the
strategic, operational, and tactical levels of war.
(6) Efforts by the People's Republic of China to develop a
capability to establish control of space or to deny access
and use of military and commercial space systems in times of
crisis or war, including programs to place weapons in space
or to develop earth-based weapons capable of attacking space-
based systems.
(7) Trends that would lead the People's Republic of China
toward the development of advanced intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities, including
gaining access to commercial or third-party systems with
military significance.
(8) Efforts by the People's Republic of China to develop
highly accurate and stealthy ballistic
[[Page H4005]]
and cruise missiles, including sea-launched cruise missiles,
particularly in numbers sufficient to conduct attacks capable
of overwhelming projected defense capabilities in the Asia-
Pacific region.
(9) Development by the People's Republic of China of
command and control networks, particularly those capable of
battle management of long-range precision strikes.
(10) Programs of the People's Republic of China involving
unmanned aerial vehicles, particularly those with extended
ranges or loitering times or potential strike capabilities.
(11) Exploitation by the People's Republic of China for
military purposes of the Global Positioning System or other
similar systems (including commercial land surveillance
satellites), with such analysis and forecasts focusing
particularly on those signs indicative of an attempt to
increase accuracy of weapons or situational awareness of
operating forces.
(12) Development by the People's Republic of China of
capabilities for denial of sea control, including such
systems as advanced sea mines, improved submarine
capabilities, or land-based sea-denial systems.
(13) Continued development by the People's Republic of
China of follow-on forces, particularly forces capable of
rapid air or amphibious assault.
(c) Submission of Report.--The report shall be submitted to
Congress not later than March 15, 1998.
SEC. 1204. TEMPORARY USE OF GENERAL PURPOSE VEHICLES AND
NONLETHAL MILITARY EQUIPMENT UNDER ACQUISITION
AND CROSS SERVICING AGREEMENTS.
Section 2350(1) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by striking out ``other items'' in the second sentence and
all that follows through ``United States Munitions List'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``other nonlethal items of military
equipment which are not designated as significant military
equipment on the United States Munitions List promulgated''.
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
SEC. 2001. SHORT TITLE.
This division may be cited as the ``Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998''.
TITLE XXI--ARMY
SEC. 2101. AUTHORIZED ARMY CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION
PROJECTS.
(a) Inside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2104(a)(1), the Secretary of the Army may acquire real
property and carry out military construction projects for the
installations and locations inside the United States, and in
the amounts, set forth in the following table:
Army: Inside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation or
State Location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona........................ Fort Huachuca.......... $20,000,000
California..................... Fort Irwin............. $11,150,000
Naval Weapons Station, $23,000,000
Concord.
Colorado....................... Fort Carson............ $47,300,000
Georgia........................ Fort Gordon............ $22,000,000
Hunter Army Air Field, $54,000,000
Fort Stewart..........
Hawaii......................... Schofield Barracks..... $44,000,000
Indiana........................ Crane Army Ammunition $7,700,000
Activity.
Kansas......................... Fort Leavenworth....... $63,000,000
Fort Riley............. $25,800,000
Kentucky....................... Fort Campbell.......... $43,700,000
Fort Knox.............. $7,200,000
Missouri....................... Fort Leonard Wood...... $3,200,000
New Jersey..................... Fort Monmouth.......... $2,050,000
New Mexico..................... White Sands Missile $6,900,000
Range.
New York....................... Fort Drum.............. $24,400,000
North Carolina................. Fort Bragg............. $61,900,000
Oklahoma....................... Fort Sill.............. $25,000,000
South Carolina................. Fort Jackson........... $5,400,000
Naval Weapons Station, $7,700,000
Charleston.
Texas.......................... Fort Bliss............. $7,700,000
Fort Hood.............. $27,200,000
Fort Sam Houston....... $16,000,000
Virginia....................... Fort A.P. Hill......... $5,400,000
Fort Myer.............. $8,200,000
Fort Story............. $2,050,000
Washington..................... Fort Lewis............. $33,000,000
CONUS Classified............... Classified Location.... $6,500,000
---------------
Total................ $614,900,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Outside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2104(a)(2), the Secretary of the Army may acquire real
property and carry out military construction projects for the
locations outside the United States, and in the amounts, set
forth in the following table:
Army: Outside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation or
Country Location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Germany........................ Ansbach................ $22,000,000
Heidelberg............. $8,800,000
Mannheim............... $6,200,000
Military Support Group, $6,000,000
Kaiserslautern........
Korea.......................... Camp Casey............. $5,100,000
[[Page H4006]]
Camp Castle............ $8,400,000
Camp Humphreys......... $32,000,000
Camp Red Cloud......... $23,600,000
Camp Stanley........... $7,000,000
Overseas Classified............ Overseas Classified.... $37,000,000
---------------
Total................ $156,100,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 2102. FAMILY HOUSING.
(a) Construction and Acquisition.--Using amounts
appropriated pursuant to authorization of appropriations in
section 2104(a)(5)(A), the Secretary of the Army may
construct or acquire family housing units (including land
acquisition) at the installations, for the purposes, and in
the amounts set forth in the following table:
Army: Family Housing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or Location Purpose Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona............................... Fort Huachuca............ 55 Units..................... $8,000,000
Hawaii................................ Schofield Barracks....... 132 Units.................... $26,600,000
Maryland.............................. Fort George Meade........ 56 Units..................... $7,900,000
New Jersey............................ Picatinny Arsenal........ 35 Units..................... $7,300,000
North Carolina........................ Fort Bragg............... 174 Units.................... $20,150,000
Texas................................. Fort Bliss............... 91 Units..................... $12,900,000
Fort Hood................ 130 Units.................... $18,800,000
---------------
Total...................... $103,950,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Planning and Design.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2104(a)(5)(A), the Secretary of the Army may carry out
architectural and engineering services and construction
design activities with respect to the construction or
improvement of family housing units in an amount not to
exceed $9,550,000.
SEC. 2103. IMPROVEMENTS TO MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING UNITS.
Subject to section 2825 of title 10, United States Code,
and using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization
of appropriations in sections 2104(a)(5)(A), the Secretary of
the Army may improve existing military family housing units
in an amount not to exceed $89,200,000.
SEC. 2104. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, ARMY.
(a) In General.--Funds are hereby authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years beginning after September 30,
1997, for military construction, land acquisition, and
military family housing functions of the Department of the
Army in the total amount of $2,055,364,000 as follows:
(1) For military construction projects inside the United
States authorized by section 2101(a), $425,850,000.
(2) For the military construction projects outside the
United States authorized by section 2101(b), $162,600,000.
(3) For unspecified minor military construction projects
authorized by section 2805 of title 10, United States Code,
$6,000,000.
(4) For architectural and engineering services and
construction design under section 2807 of title 10, United
States Code, $71,577,000.
(5) For military family housing functions:
(A) For construction and acquisition, planning and design
and improvement of military family housing and facilities,
$200,400,000.
(B) For support of military family housing (including the
functions described in section 2833 of title 10, United
States Code), $1,148,937,000.
(6) For the construction of the National Range Control
Center, White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, authorized by
section 2101(a) of the Military Construction Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (division B of Public Law 104-201;
110 Stat. 2763), $18,000,000.
(7) For the construction of the whole barracks complex
renewal, Fort Knox, Kentucky, authorized by section 2101(a)
of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1997 (division B of Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2763),
$22,000,000.
(b) Limitation on Total Cost of Construction Projects.--
Notwithstanding the cost variations authorized by section
2853 of title 10, United States Code, and any other cost
variation authorized by law, the total cost of all projects
carried out under section 2101 of this Act may not exceed--
(1) the total amount authorized to be appropriated under
paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a);
(2) $14,400,000 (the balance of the amount authorized under
section 2101(a) for the construction of the Force XXI Soldier
Development School at Fort Hood, Texas);
(3) $24,000,000 (the balance of the amount authorized under
section 2101(a) for rail yard expansion at Fort Carson,
Colorado);
(4) $43,000,000 (the balance of the amount authorized under
section 2101(a) for the construction of a disciplinary
barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas);
(5) $36,500,000 (the balance of the amount authorized under
section 2101(a) for the construction of a barracks at Hunter
Army Airfield, Fort Stewart, Georgia);
(6) $44,200,000 (the balance of the amount authorized under
section 2101(a) for the construction of a barracks at Fort
Bragg, North Carolina); and
(7) $17,000,000 (the balance of the amount authorized under
section 2101(a) for the construction of a barracks at Fort
Sill, Oklahoma).
SEC. 2105. CORRECTION IN AUTHORIZED USES OF FUNDS, FORT
IRWIN, CALIFORNIA.
In the case of amounts appropriated pursuant to the
authorization of appropriations in section 2104(a)(1) of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995
(division B of Public Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 3029) and
section 2104(a)(1) of the Military Construction Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (division B of Public Law 104-106;
110 Stat. 524) for a military construction project for Fort
Irwin, California, involving the construction of an air field
for the National Training Center at Barstow-Daggett,
California, the Secretary of the Army may use such amounts
for the construction of a heliport at the same location.
TITLE XXII--NAVY
SEC. 2201. AUTHORIZED NAVY CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION
PROJECTS.
(a) Inside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2204(a)(1), the Secretary of the Navy may acquire real
property and carry out military construction projects for
the installations and locations inside the United States,
and in the amounts, set forth in the following table:
Navy: Inside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation or
State Location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona........................ Marine Corps Air $12,250,000
Station, Yuma.........
Navy Detachment, Camp $11,426,000
Navajo................
California..................... Marine Corps Air $24,150,000
Station, Camp
Pendleton.............
[[Page H4007]]
Marine Corps Air $8,700,000
Station, Miramar......
Marine Corps Air-Ground $3,810,000
Combat Center,
Twentynine Palms......
Marine Corps Base, Camp $60,069,000
Pendleton.............
Naval Air Facility, El $11,000,000
Centro................
Naval Air Station, $19,600,000
North Island..........
Naval Amphibious Base, $10,100,000
Coronado..............
Naval Construction $3,200,000
Battalion Center, Port
Hueneme...............
Connecticut.................... Naval Submarine Base, $18,300,000
New London............
Florida........................ Naval Air Station, $3,480,000
Jacksonville..........
Naval Air Station, $1,300,000
Whiting Field.
Naval Station, Mayport. $17,940,000
Hawaii......................... Marine Corps Air $19,000,000
Station, Kaneohe Bay..
Naval Communications $3,900,000
and Telecommunications
Area Master Station
Eastern Pacific,
Honolulu..............
Naval Station, Pearl $25,000,000
Harbor.
Illinois....................... Naval Training Center, $41,220,000
Great Lakes...........
Indiana........................ Naval Surface Warfare $4,120,000
Center, Crane.........
Maryland....................... Naval Electronics $2,610,000
System Command, St.
Ingoes................
Mississippi.................... Naval Air Station, $7,050,000
Meridian..............
North Carolina................. Marine Corps Air $8,800,000
Station, Cherry Point.
Marine Corps Air $19,900,000
Station, New River....
Rhode Island................... Naval Undersea Warfare $8,900,000
Center Division,
Newport...............
South Carolina................. Marine Corps Air $17,730,000
Station, Beaufort.....
Marine Corps Reserve $3,200,000
Detachment Parris
Island................
Texas.......................... Naval Air Station, $800,000
Corpus Christi........
Virginia....................... AEGIS Training Center, $6,600,000
Dahlgren.
Fleet Combat Training $7,000,000
Center, Dam Neck......
Naval Air Station, $18,240,000
Norfolk...............
Naval Air Station, $34,000,000
Oceana.
Naval Amphibious Base, $8,685,000
Little Creek..........
Naval Shipyard, $29,410,000
Norfolk, Portsmouth...
Naval Station, Norfolk. $18,850,000
Naval Surface Warfare $13,880,000
Center, Dahlgren......
Naval Weapons Station, $14,547,000
Yorktown..............
Washington..................... Naval Air Station, $1,100,000
Whidbey Island.
Puget Sound Naval $4,400,000
Shipyard, Bremerton...
---------------
Total................ $524,267,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Outside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2204(a)(2), the Secretary of the Navy may acquire real
property and carry out military construction projects for the
installations and locations outside the United States, and in
the amounts, set forth in the following table:
Navy: Outside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation or
Country Location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bahrain........................ Administrative Support $30,100,000
Unit, Bahrain.........
Guam........................... Naval Communications $4,050,000
and Telecommunications
Area Master Station
Western Pacific, Guam.
Italy.......................... Naval Air Station, $21,440,000
Sigonella.
Naval Support Activity, $8,200,000
Naples.
Puerto Rico.................... Naval Station, $500,000
Roosevelt Roads.
United Kingdom................. Joint Maritime $2,330,000
Communications Center,
St. Mawgan............
---------------
Total................ $66,620,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 2202. FAMILY HOUSING.
(a) Construction and Acquisition.--Using amounts
appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations
in section 2204(a)(5)(A), the Secretary of the Navy may
construct or acquire family housing units (including land
acquisition) at the installations, for the purposes, and in
the amounts set forth in the following table:
Navy: Family Housing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or Location Purpose Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California............................ Marine Corps Air Station, 166 Units.................... $28,881,000
Miramar.................
[[Page H4008]]
Marine Corps Air-Ground 132 Units.................... $23,891,000
Combat Center,
Twentynine Palms........
Marine Corps Base, Camp 171 Units.................... $22,518,000
Pendleton...............
Naval Air Station, 128 Units.................... $23,226,000
Lemoore.................
Naval Complex, San Diego. 94 Units..................... $13,500,000
Hawaii................................ Naval Complex, Pearl 84 Units..................... $17,900,000
Harbor..................
Louisiana............................. Naval Complex, New 100 Units.................... $11,930,000
Orleans.................
Texas................................. Naval Complex, Kingsville 212 Units.................... $22,250,000
and Corpus Christi......
Washington............................ Naval Complex, Bangor.... 118 Units.................... $15,700,000
---------------
Total...................... $179,796,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Planning and Design.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriation in section
2204(a)(5)(A), the Secretary of the Navy may carry out
architectural and engineering services and construction
design activities with respect to the construction or
improvement of military family housing units in an amount not
to exceed $15,100,000.
SEC. 2203. IMPROVEMENTS TO MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING UNITS.
Subject to section 2825 of title 10, United States Code,
and using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization
of appropriations in section 2204(a)(5)(A), the Secretary of
the Navy may improve existing military family housing units
in an amount not to exceed $214,282,000.
SEC. 2204. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, NAVY.
(a) In General.--Funds are hereby authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years beginning after September 30,
1997, for military construction, land acquisition, and
military family housing functions of the Department of the
Navy in the total amount of $2,053,025,000 as follows:
(1) For military construction projects inside the United
States authorized by section 2201(a), $524,267,000.
(2) For military construction projects outside the United
States authorized by section 2201(b), $66,120,000.
(3) For unspecified minor construction projects authorized
by section 2805 of title 10, United States Code, $9,960,000.
(4) For architectural and engineering services and
construction design under section 2807 of title 10, United
States Code, $46,659,000.
(5) For military family housing functions:
(A) For construction and acquisition, planning and design
and improvement of military family housing and facilities,
$409,178,000.
(B) For support of military housing (including functions
described in section 2833 of title 10, United States Code),
$976,504,000.
(6) For construction of bachelor enlisted quarters at Naval
Hospital, Great Lakes, Illinois, authorized by section
2201(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1997 (division B of Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat.
2766), $5,200,000.
(7) For construction of bachelor enlisted quarters at Naval
Station, Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico, authorized by section
2201(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1997 (division B of Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat.
2767), $14,600,000.
(8) For construction of a large anecohic chamber facility
at Patuxent River Naval Air Warfare Center, Maryland,
authorized by section 2201(a) of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (division B of Public
Law 102-484; 106 Stat. 2590), $9,000,000.
(b) Limitation on Total Cost of Construction Projects.--
Notwithstanding the cost variations authorized by section
2853 of title 10, United States Code, and any other cost
variation authorized by law, the total cost of all projects
carried out under section 2201 of this Act may not exceed the
total amount authorized to be appropriated under paragraphs
(1) and (2) of subsection (a).
(c) Adjustment.--The total amount authorized to be
appropriated pursuant to paragraphs (1) through (8) of
subsection (a) is the sum of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated in such paragraphs, reduced by $8,463,000, which
represents the combination of project savings resulting from
favorable bids, reduced overhead costs, and cancellations due
to force structure changes.
SEC. 2205. AUTHORIZATION OF MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT AT
NAVAL AIR STATION, PASCAGOULA, MISSISSIPPI, FOR
WHICH FUNDS HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATED.
(a) Authorization.--The table in section 2201(a) of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997
(division B of Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2766) is
amended--
(1) by striking out the amount identified as the total and
inserting in lieu thereof ``$594,982,000''; and
(2) by inserting after the item relating to Stennis Space
Center, Mississippi, the following new item:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval Air Station, $4,990,000
Pascagoula.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 2204(a) of such Act
(110 Stat. 2769) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding the paragraphs, by striking out
``$2,213,731,000'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``$2,218,721,000''; and
(2) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``$579,312,000'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``$584,302,000''.
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE
SEC. 2301. AUTHORIZED AIR FORCE CONSTRUCTION AND LAND
ACQUISITION PROJECTS.
(a) Inside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2304(a)(1), the Secretary of the Air Force may acquire real
property and carry out military construction projects for the
installations and locations inside the United States, and in
the amounts, set forth in the following table:
Air Force: Inside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation or
State Location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................ Maxwell Air Force Base. $14,874,000
Alaska......................... Clear Air Station...... $67,069,000
Eielson Air Force Base. $7,764,000
Indian Mountain........ $1,991,000
Arizona........................ Luke Air Force Base.... $10,000,000
Arkansas....................... Little Rock Air Force $3,400,000
Base.
California..................... Edwards Air Force Base. $2,887,000
Vandenberg Air Force $26,876,000
Base.
Colorado....................... Buckley Air National $6,718,000
Guard Base.
[[Page H4009]]
Falcon Air Force $10,551,000
Station.
Peterson Air Force Base $4,081,000
United States Air Force $15,229,000
Academy.
Florida........................ Eglin Auxiliary Field 9 $6,470,000
MacDill Air Force Base. $1,543,000
Georgia........................ Moody Air Force Base... $9,100,000
Robins Air Force Base.. $27,763,000
Idaho.......................... Mountain Home Air Force $17,719,000
Base.
Kansas......................... McConnell Air Force $11,669,000
Base.
Louisiana...................... Barksdale Air Force $19,410,000
Base.
Mississippi.................... Keesler Air Force Base. $30,855,000
Missouri....................... Whiteman Air Force Base $40,419,000
Nevada......................... Nellis Air Force Base.. $1,950,000
New Jersey..................... McGuire Air Force Base. $18,754,000
North Carolina................. Pope Air Force Base.... $20,656,000
North Dakota................... Grand Forks Air Force $8,560,000
Base.
Minot Air Force Base... $5,200,000
Ohio........................... Wright-Patterson Air $19,350,000
Force Base.
Oklahoma....................... Tinker Air Force Base.. $9,655,000
Vance Air Force Base... $6,700,000
South Carolina................. Shaw Air Force Base.... $6,072,000
South Dakota................... Ellsworth Air Force $6,600,000
Base.
Tennessee...................... Arnold Air Force Base.. $20,650,000
Texas.......................... Dyess Air Force Base... $10,000,000
Laughlin Air Force Base 4,800,000
Randolph Air Force Base $2,488,000
Utah........................... Hill Air Force Base.... $6,470,000
Virginia....................... Langley Air Force Base. $4,031,000
Washington..................... Fairchild Air Force $7,366,000
Base.
McChord Air Force Base. $9,655,000
CONUS Classified............... Classified Location.... $6,175,000
---------------
Total................ $511,520,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Outside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2304(a)(2), the Secretary of the Air Force may acquire real
property and carry out military construction projects for the
installations and locations outside the United States, and in
the amounts, set forth in the following table:
Air Force: Outside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation or
Country Location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Germany........................ Spangdahlem Air Base... $18,500,000
Italy.......................... Aviano Air Base........ $15,220,000
Korea.......................... Kunsan Air Base........ $10,325,000
Osan Air Base.......... $11,100,000
Portugal....................... Lajes Field, Azores.... $4,800,000
United Kingdom................. Royal Air Force, $11,400,000
Lakenheath.
Overseas Classified............ Classified Location.... $31,100,000
---------------
Total................ $102,445,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 2302. FAMILY HOUSING.
(a) Construction and Acquisition.--Using amounts
appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations
in section 2304(a)(5)(A), the Secretary of the Air Force may
construct or acquire family housing units (including land
acquisition) at the installations, for the purposes, and
in the amounts set forth in the following table:
Air Force: Family Housing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or Location Purpose Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona............................... Davis-Monthan Air Force 70 Units..................... $9,800,000
Base....................
California............................ Edwards Air Force Base... 95 Units..................... $16,800,000
Travis Air Force Base.... 70 Units..................... $9,714,000
Vandenberg Air Force Base 108 Units.................... $17,100,000
Delaware.............................. Dover Air Force Base..... Ancillary Facility........... $831,000
District of Columbia.................. Bolling Air Force Base... 46 Units..................... $5,100,000
[[Page H4010]]
Florida............................... MacDill Air Force Base... 58 Units..................... $10,000,000
Tyndall Air Force Base... 32 Units..................... $4,200,000
Georgia............................... Robins Air Force Base.... 60 Units..................... $6,800,000
Idaho................................. Mountain Home Air Force 60 Units..................... $11,032,000
Base....................
Kansas................................ McConnell Air Force Base. 19 Units..................... $2,951,000
McConnell Air Force Base. Ancillary Facility........... $581,000
Mississippi........................... Columbus Air Force Base.. 50 Units..................... $6,200,000
Keesler Air Force Base... 40 Units..................... $5,000,000
Montana............................... Malmstrom Air Force Base. 28 Units..................... $4,842,000
New Mexico............................ Kirtland Air Force Base.. 180 Units.................... $20,900,000
North Dakota.......................... Grand Forks Air Force 42 Units..................... $7,936,000
Base....................
Texas................................. Dyess Air Force Base..... 70 Units..................... $10,503,000
Goodfellow Air Force Base 3 Units...................... $500,000
Lackland Air Force Base.. 50 Units..................... $7,400,000
Sheppard Air Force Base.. 40 Units..................... $7,400,000
Wyoming............................... F. E. Warren Air Force 52 Units..................... $6,853,000
Base....................
---------------
Total...................... $172,443,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Planning and Design.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2304(a)(5)(A), the Secretary of the Air Force may carry out
architectural and engineering services and construction
design activities with respect to the construction or
improvement of military family housing units in an amount not
to exceed $11,971,000.
SEC. 2303. IMPROVEMENTS TO MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING UNITS.
Subject to section 2835 of title 10, United States Code,
and using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization
of appropriations in section 2304(a)(5)(A), the Secretary of
the Air Force may improve existing military family housing
units in an amount not to exceed $156,995,000.
SEC. 2304. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, AIR FORCE.
(a) In General.--Funds are hereby authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years beginning after September 30,
1997, for military construction, land acquisition, and
military family housing functions of the Department of the
Air Force in the total amount of $1,810,090,000 as follows:
(1) For military construction projects inside the United
States authorized by section 2301(a), $505,435,000.
(2) For military construction projects outside the United
States authorized by section 2301(b), $102,445,000.
(3) For unspecified minor construction projects authorized
by section 2805 of title 10, United States Code, $8,545,000.
(4) For architectural and engineering services and
construction design under section 2807 of title 10, United
States Code, $45,880,000.
(5) For military housing functions:
(A) For construction and acquisition, planning and design
and improvement of military family housing and facilities,
$341,409,000.
(B) For support of military family housing (including the
functions described in section 2833 of title 10, United
States Code), $830,234,000.
(b) Limitation on Total Cost of Construction Projects.--
Notwithstanding the cost variations authorized by section
2853 of title 10, United States Code, and any other cost
variation authorized by law, the total cost of all projects
carried out under section 2301 of this Act may not exceed--
(1) the total amount authorized to be appropriated under
paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a); and
(2) $11,000,000 (the balance of the amount authorized under
section 2301(a) for the construction of a B-2 low
observability restoration facility at Whiteman Air Force
Base, Missouri).
(c) Adjustment.--The total amount authorized to be
appropriated pursuant to paragraphs (1) through (5) of
subsection (a) is the sum of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated in such paragraphs, reduced by $23,858,000,
which represents the combination of project savings resulting
from favorable bids, reduced overhead costs, and
cancellations due to force structure changes.
SEC. 2305. AUTHORIZATION OF MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT AT
MCCONNELL AIR FORCE BASE, KANSAS, FOR WHICH
FUNDS HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATED.
(a) Authorization.--The table in section 2301(a) of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997
(division B of Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2771) is amended
in the item relating to McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas, by
striking out ``$19,130,000'' in the amount column and
inserting in lieu thereof ``$25,830,000''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 2304 of such Act (110
Stat. 2774) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding the paragraph, by striking out
``$1,894,594,000'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``$1,901,294,000'' and
(2) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``$603,834,000'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``$610,534,000''.
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES
SEC. 2401. AUTHORIZED DEFENSE AGENCIES CONSTRUCTION AND LAND
ACQUISITION PROJECTS.
(a) Inside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2405(a)(1), the Secretary of Defense may acquire real
property and carry out military construction projects for the
installations and locations inside the United States, and in
the amounts, set forth in the following table:
Defense Agencies: Inside the United States.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation or
Agency Location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Commissary Agency...... Fort Lee, Virginia..... $9,300,000
Defense Finance and Accounting Columbus Center, Ohio.. $9,722,000
Service.......................
Naval Air Station, $6,906,000
Millington, Tennessee.
Naval Station, Norfolk, $12,800,000
Virginia..............
Naval Station, Pearl $10,000,000
Harbor, Hawaii........
Defense Intelligence Agency.... Bolling Air Force Base, $7,000,000
District of Columbia..
Redstone Arsenal, $32,700,000
Alabama.
Defense Logistics Agency....... Defense Distribution $16,656,000
Depot--DDNV, Virginia.
[[Page H4011]]
Defense Distribution $15,500,000
New Cumberland--DDSP,
Pennsylvania..........
Defense Fuel Support $22,100,000
Point, Craney Island,
Virginia..............
Defense General Supply $5,200,000
Center, Richmond
(DLA), Virginia.......
Elmendorf Air Force $21,700,000
Base, Alaska..........
Naval Air Station, $9,800,000
Jacksonville, Florida.
Truax Field, Wisconsin. $4,500,000
Westover Air Reserve $4,700,000
Base, Massachusetts...
CONUS Various, CONUS $11,275,000
Various...............
Defense Medical Facilities Fort Campbell, Kentucky $13,600,000
Office........................
Fort Detrick, Maryland. $5,300,000
Fort Lewis, Washington. $5,000,000
Hill Air Force Base, $3,100,000
Utah.
Holloman Air Force $3,000,000
Base, New Mexico......
Lackland Air Force $3,000,000
Base, Texas...........
Marine Corps Combat Dev $19,000,000
Com, Quantico,
Virginia..............
McGuire Air Force Base, $35,217,000
New Jersey............
Naval Air Station, $2,750,000
Pensacola, Florida....
Naval Station, Everett, $7,500,000
Washington............
Naval Station, San $2,100,000
Diego, California.....
Naval Submarine Base, $2,300,000
New London,
Connecticut...........
Robins Air Force Base, $19,000,000
Georgia...............
Tinker Air Force Base, $6,500,000
Oklahoma..............
Wright-Patterson Air $2,750,000
Force Base, Ohio......
National Security Agency....... Fort Meade, Maryland... $29,800,000
Special Operations Command..... Eglin Auxiliary Field $6,100,000
3, Florida.
Fort Benning, Georgia.. $12,314,000
Fort Bragg, North $1,500,000
Carolina.
Hurlburt Field, Florida $2,450,000
Naval Amphibious Base, $7,400,000
Coronado, California..
---------------
Total................ $389,440,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Outside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2405(a)(2), the Secretary of Defense may acquire real
property and carry out military construction projects for the
installations and locations outside the United States, and in
the amounts, set forth in the following table:
Defense Agencies: Outside the United States.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation or
Agency Location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ballistic Missile Defense Pacific Missile Range, $4,565,000
Organization. Kwajalein Atoll.......
Defense Logistics Agency....... Defense Fuel Support $16,000,000
Point, Guam...........
Moron Air Base, Spain.. $14,400,000
Defense Medical Facilities Andersen Air Force $3,700,000
Office........................ Base, Guam............
---------------
Total................ $38,665,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 2402. MILITARY HOUSING PLANNING AND DESIGN.
Using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of
appropriations in section 2405(a)(13)(A), the Secretary of
Defense may carry out architectural and engineering services
and construction design activities with respect to the
construction or improvement of military family housing units
in an amount not to exceed $50,000.
SEC. 2403. IMPROVEMENTS TO MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING UNITS.
Subject to section 2825 of title 10, United States Code,
and using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization
of appropriation in section 2405(a)(12)(A), the Secretary of
Defense may improve existing military family housing units in
an amount not to exceed $4,900,000.
SEC. 2404. ENERGY CONSERVATION PROJECTS.
Using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of
appropriations in section 2405(a)(10), the Secretary of
Defense may carry out energy conservation projects under
section 2865 of title 10, United States Code.
SEC. 2405. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, DEFENSE AGENCIES.
(a) In General.--Funds are hereby authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years beginning after September 30,
1997, for military construction, land acquisition, and
military family housing functions of the Department of
Defense (other than the military departments), in the total
amount of $2,711,761,000 as follows:
(1) For military construction projects inside the United
States authorized by section 2401(a), $382,390,000
(2) For military construction projects outside the United
States authorized by section 2401(a), $34,965,000.
(3) For military construction projects at Anniston Army
Depot, Alabama, ammunition demilitarization facility,
authorized by section 2101(a) of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (division B of the
Public Law 102-484; 106 Stat. 2587), which was originally
authorized as an Army construction project, but which became
a Defense Agencies construction project by reason of the
amendments made by section 142 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337;
108 Stat. 2689), $9,900,000.
(4) For military construction projects at Walter Reed Army
Institute of Research, Maryland, hospital replacement,
authorized by section 2401(a) of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (division B of Public
Law 102-484; 106 Stat. 2599), $20,000,000.
(5) For military construction projects at Umatilla Army
Depot, Oregon, authorized by section 2401(a) of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (division
B of the Public Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 3040), as amended by
section 2407 of the Military Construction Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1996 (110 Stat. 539) and section 2407(2) of
this Act, $57,427,000.
[[Page H4012]]
(6) For military construction projects at Defense Finance
and Accounting Service, Columbus, Ohio, authorized by section
2401(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act of
Fiscal Year 1996 (division B of Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat.
535), $14,200,000.
(7) For contingency construction projects of the Secretary
of Defense under section 2804 of title 10, United States
Code, $9,844,000.
(8) For unspecified minor construction projects under
section 2805 of title 10, United States Code, $25,257,000.
(9) For architectural and engineering services and
construction design under section 2807 of title 10, United
States Code, $34,350,000.
(10) For Energy Conservation projects authorized by section
2403, $25,000,000.
(11) For base closure and realignment activities as
authorized by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of
1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C.
2687 note), $2,060,854,000.
(12) For military family housing functions:
(A) For improvement and planning of military family housing
and facilities, $4,950,000.
(B) For support of military housing (including functions
described in section 2833 of title 10, United States Code),
$32,724,000 of which not more than $27,673,000 may be
obligated or expended for the leasing of military family
housing units worldwide.
(b) Limitation of Total Cost of Construction Projects.--
Notwithstanding the cost variation authorized by section 2853
of title 10, United States Code, and any other cost
variations authorized by law, the total cost of all projects
carried out under section 2401 of this Act may not exceed the
total amount authorized to be appropriated under paragraphs
(1) and (2) of subsection (a).
SEC. 2406. CORRECTION IN AUTHORIZED USES OF FUNDS, MCCLELLAN
AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA.
In the case of amounts appropriated pursuant to the
authorization of appropriations in section 2405(a)(1) of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995
(division B of Public Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 3041) for a
military construction project involving the upgrade of the
hospital facility at McClellan Air Force Base, California,
the Secretary of Defense may use such amounts for the
following medical construction projects authorized by section
2401 of this Act:
(1) The Aeromedical Clinic Addition at Andersen Air Base,
Guam, in the amount of $3,700,000.
(2) The Occupational Health Clinic Facility at Tinker Air
Force Base, Oklahoma, in the amount of $6,500,000.
SEC. 2407. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT FISCAL YEAR
1995 PROJECTS.
The table in section 2401 of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (division B of Public
Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 3040), as amended by section 2407 of
the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1996 (division B of Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 539), under
the agency heading relating to Chemical Weapons and Munitions
Destruction, is further amended--
(1) in the item relating to Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas,
by striking out ``$115,000,000'' in the amount column and
inserting in lieu thereof ``$134,000,000''; and
(2) in the item relating to Umatilla Army Depot, Oregon, by
striking out ``$186,000,000'' in the amount column and
inserting in lieu thereof ``$187,000,000''.
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT
PROGRAM
SEC. 2501. AUTHORIZED NATO CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION
PROJECTS.
The Secretary of Defense may make contributions for the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment
program as provided in section 2806 of title 10, United
States Code, in an amount not to exceed the sum of the amount
authorized to be appropriated for this purpose in section
2502 and the amount collected from the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization as a result of construction previously financed
by the United States.
SEC. 2502. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, NATO.
Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
years beginning after September 30, 1997, for contributions
by the Secretary of Defense under section 2806 of title 10,
United States Code, for the share of the United States of the
cost of projects for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Security Investment program authorized by section 2501, in
the amount of $166,300,000.
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES
SEC. 2601. AUTHORIZED GUARD AND RESERVE CONSTRUCTION AND LAND
ACQUISITION PROJECTS.
(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1997, for the
costs of acquisition, architectural and engineering services,
and construction of facilities for the Guard and Reserve
Forces, and for contributions therefor, under chapter 1803 of
title 10, United States Code (including the cost of
acquisition of land for those facilities), the following
amounts:
(1) For the Department of the Army--
(A) for the Army National Guard of the United States,
$45,098,000; and
(B) for the Army Reserve, $69,831,000.
(2) For the Department of the Navy, for the Naval and
Marine Corps Reserve, $40,561,000.
(3) For the Department of the Air Force--
(A) for the Air National Guard of the United States,
$137,275,000; and
(B) for the Air Force Reserve, $34,443,000.
(b) Adjustment.--The amount authorized to be appropriated
pursuant to subsection (a)(1)(B) is reduced by $7,900,000,
which represents the combination of project savings resulting
from favorable bids, reduced overhead costs, and
cancellations due to force structure changes.
SEC. 2602. AUTHORIZATION OF MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
FOR WHICH FUNDS HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATED.
(a) Army National Guard, Hilo, Hawaii.--Paragraph (1)(A) of
section 2601 of the Military Construction Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1997 (division B of Public Law 104-201; 110
Stat. 2780) is amended by striking out ``$59,194,000'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``$65,094,000'' to account for a
project involving additions and alterations to an Army
aviation support facility in Hilo, Hawaii.
(b) Naval and Marine Corps Reserve, New Orleans.--Paragraph
(2) of such section is amended by striking out
``$32,779,000'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``$37,579,000''
to account for a project for the construction of bachelor
enlisted quarters at Naval Air Station, New Orleans,
Louisiana.
SEC. 2603. ARMY RESERVE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, SALT LAKE CITY,
UTAH.
With regard to the military construction project for the
Army Reserve concerning construction of a reserve center and
organizational maintenance shop in Salt Lake City, Utah, to
be carried out using funds appropriated pursuant to the
authorization of appropriations in section 2601(1)(B), the
Secretary of the Army may enter into an agreement with the
State of Utah under which the State agrees to provide
financial or in-kind contributions toward land acquisition,
site preparation, environmental assessment and remediation,
relocation, and other costs in connection with the project.
TITLE XXVII--EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS
SEC. 2701. EXPIRATION OF AUTHORIZATIONS AND AMOUNTS REQUIRED
TO BE SPECIFIED BY LAW.
(a) Expiration of Authorizations After Three Years.--Except
as provided in subsection (b), all authorizations contained
in titles XXI through XXVI for military construction
projects, land acquisition, family housing projects and
facilities, and contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization Security Investment program (and authorizations
of appropriations therefor) shall expire on the later of--
(1) October 1, 2000; or
(2) the date for the enactment of an Act authorizing funds
for military construction for fiscal year 2001.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to
authorizations for military construction projects, land
acquisition, family housing projects and facilities, and
contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Security Investment program (and authorizations of
appropriations therefor), for which appropriated funds have
been obligated before the later of--
(1) October 1, 2000; or
(2) the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds
for fiscal year 2001 for military construction projects, land
acquisition, family housing projects and facilities, or
contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Security Investment program.
SEC. 2702. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS OF CERTAIN FISCAL YEAR
1995 PROJECTS.
(a) Extension.--Notwithstanding section 2701 of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995
(division B of Public Law 103-337, 108 Stat.
3046), authorizations for the projects set forth in the
tables in subsection (b), as provided in section 2101,
2201, 2202, 2301, 2302, 2401, or 2601 of that Act, shall
remain in effect until October 1, 1998, or the date of the
enactment of an Act authorizing funds for military
construction for fiscal year 1999, whichever is later.
(b) Tables.--The tables referred to in subsection (a) are
as follows:
Army: Extension of 1995 Project Authorization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or Location Project Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California............................ Fort Irwin............... National Training Center $10,000,000
Airfield Phase I............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page H4013]]
Navy: Extension of 1995 Project Authorizations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or Location Project Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maryland.............................. Indian Head Naval Surface Upgrade Power Plant.......... $4,000,000
Warfare Center..........
Indian Head Naval Surface Denitrification/Acid Mixing $6,400,000
Warfare Center.......... Facility....................
Virginia.............................. Norfolk Marine Corps Bachelor Enlisted Quarters... $6,480,000
Security Force Battalion
Atlantic................
Washington............................ Naval Station Puget New Construction (Housing $780,000
Sound, Everett.......... Office).....................
Conus Classified...................... Classified Location...... Aircraft Fire/Rescue & $2,200,000
Vehicle Maintenance Facility
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Force: Extension of 1995 Project Authorizations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or Location Project Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California............................ Beale Air Force Base..... Consolidated Support Center.. $10,400,000
Los Angeles Air Force Family Housing (50 Units).... $8,962,000
Station.................
North Carolina........................ Pope Air Force Base...... Combat Control Team Facility. $2,400,000
Pope Air Force Base...... Fire Training Center......... $1,100,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Agencies: Extension of 1995 Project Authorizations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or Location Project Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................... Anniston Army Depot...... Carbon Filtration System..... $5,000,000
Arkansas.............................. Pine Bluff Arsenal....... Ammunition Demilitarization $115,000,000
Facility....................
California............................ Defense Contract Administrative Facility...... $5,100,000
Management Office, El
Segundo.................
Oregon................................ Umatilla Army Depot...... Ammunition Demilitarization $186,000,000
Facility....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page H4014]]
Army National Guard: Extension of 1995 Project Authorization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or Location Project Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California.............................. Camp Roberts.............. Combat Pistol Range....... $952,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval Reserve: Extension of 1995 Project Authorization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or Location Project Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia............................... Naval Air Station Training Center.............. $2,650,000
Marietta................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 2703. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS OF CERTAIN FISCAL YEAR
1994 PROJECTS.
(a) Extension.--Notwithstanding section 2701 of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994
(division B of Public Law 103-160, 107 Stat. 1880),
authorizations for the projects set forth in the table in
subsection (b), as provided in section 2201 of that Act and
extended by section 2702 of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (division B of Public
Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2783), shall remain in effect until
October 1, 1998, or the date of the enactment of an Act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
1999, whichever is later.
(b) Table.--The table referred to in subsection (a) is as
follows:
Navy: Extension of 1994 Project Authorizations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or Location Project Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California............................ Camp Pendleton Marine Sewage Facility.............. $7,930,000
Corps Base..............
Connecticut........................... New London Naval Hazardous Waste Facility..... $1,450,000
Submarine Base..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 2704. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS OF CERTAIN FISCAL YEAR
1993 PROJECTS.
(a) Extension.--Notwithstanding section 2701 of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993
(division B of Public Law 102-484; 106 Stat. 2602), the
authorizations for the projects set forth in the tables in
subsection (b), as provided in section 2101 or 2601 of that
Act and extended by section 2702 of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (division B of Public
Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 541) and section 2703 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (division
B of Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2784), shall remain in
effect until October 1, 1998, or the date of the enactment of
an Act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal
year 1999, whichever is later.
(b) Tables.--The tables referred to in subsection (a) are
as follows:
Army: Extension of 1993 Project Authorization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or location Project Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas................................ Pine Bluff Arsenal........ Ammunition $15,000,000
Demilitarization Support
Facility.................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard: Extension of 1993 Project Authorization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or Location Project Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................. Union Springs............. Armory.................... $813,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 2705. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS OF CERTAIN FISCAL YEAR
1992 PROJECTS.
(a) Extension.--Notwithstanding section 2701 of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1992
(division B of Public Law 102-190; 105 Stat. 1535),
authorizations for the projects set forth in the table in
subsection (b), as provided in section 2101 of that Act and
extended by section 2702 of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (division B of Public
Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 3047), section 2703 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (division
B of Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 543), and section 2704 of
the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1997 (division B of Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2784),
shall remain in effect until October 1, 1998, or the date of
the enactment of an Act authorizing funds for military
construction for fiscal year 1999, whichever is later.
(b) Table.--The table referred to in subsection (a) is as
follows:
Army: Extension of 1992 Project Authorizations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or location Project Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon.................................. Umatilla Army Depot....... Ammunition $3,600,000
Demilitarization Support
Facility.................
Umatilla Army Depot....... Ammunition $7,500,000
Demilitarization
Utilities................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 2706. EXTENSION OF AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF OVER-THE-HORIZON RADAR IN
PUERTO RICO.
Amounts appropriated under the heading ``Drug Interdiction
and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense'' in the Department of
Defense Appropriations Act, 1995 (Public Law 103-335; 108
Stat. 2615), and transferred to the ``Military Construction,
Navy'' appropriation for construction of a Relocatable Over-
the-Horizon Radar at Naval Station Roosevelt Roads, Puerto
Rico, shall remain available for obligation until October 1,
1998, or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing
funds for military
[[Page H4015]]
construction for fiscal year 1999, whichever is later.
SEC. 2707. EFFECTIVE DATE.
Titles XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, and XXVI shall take
effect on the later of--
(1) October 1, 1997; or
(2) the date of the enactment of this Act.
TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing
Changes
SEC. 2801. USE OF MOBILITY ENHANCEMENT FUNDS FOR UNSPECIFIED
MINOR CONSTRUCTION.
(a) Congressional Notification.--Subsection (b)(2) of
section 2805 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new sentence: ``This
paragraph shall apply even though the project is to be
carried out using funds made available to enhance the
deployment and mobility of military forces and supplies.''.
(b) Restriction on Use of Operation and Maintenance
Funds.--Subsection (c) of such section is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``paragraph (2)'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``paragraphs (2) and (3)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) The limitations specified in paragraph (1) shall not
apply if the unspecified minor military construction project
is to be carried out using funds made available to enhance
the deployment and mobility of military forces and
supplies.''.
(c) Technical Amendments.--Such section is further
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) by striking out ``minor military construction
projects'' in the first sentence and inserting in lieu
thereof ``unspecified minor military construction projects'';
(B) by striking out ``A minor'' in the second sentence and
inserting in lieu thereof ``An unspecified minor''; and
(C) by striking out ``a minor'' in the last sentence and
inserting in lieu thereof ``an unspecified minor'';
(2) in subsection (b)(1), by striking out ``A minor'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``An unspecified minor'';
(3) in subsection (b)(2), by striking out ``a minor'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``an unspecified minor''; and
(4) in subsection (c), by striking out ``unspecified
military'' each place it appears and inserting in lieu
thereof ``unspecified minor military''.
SEC. 2802. LIMITATION ON USE OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
FUNDS FOR FACILITY REPAIR PROJECTS.
Section 2811 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsections:
``(d) Congressional Notification.--When a decision is made
to carry out a repair project under this section with an
estimated cost in excess of $10,000,000, the Secretary
concerned shall submit to the appropriate committees of
Congress a report containing--
``(1) the justification for the repair project and the
current estimate of the cost of the project; and
``(2) the justification for carrying out the project under
this section.
``(e) Repair Project Defined.--In this section, the term
`repair project' means a project to restore a real property
facility, system, or component to such a condition that it
may effectively be used for its designated functional
purpose.''.
SEC. 2803. LEASING OF MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING, UNITED STATES
SOUTHERN COMMAND, MIAMI, FLORIDA.
(a) Leases to Exceed Maximum Rental.--Section 2828(b) of
title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking out ``paragraph (3)'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``paragraphs (3) and (4)'';
(2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new
paragraph:
``(4) The Secretary of the Army may lease not more than
eight housing units in the vicinity of Miami, Florida, for
key and essential personnel, as designated by the Secretary,
for the United States Southern Command for which the
expenditure for the rental of such units (including the cost
of utilities, maintenance, and operation, including security
enhancements) exceeds the expenditure limitations in
paragraphs (2) and (3). The total amount for all leases under
this paragraph may not exceed $280,000 per year, and no lease
on any individual housing unit may exceed $60,000 per
year.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (5) of such section,
as redesignated by subsection (a)(2), is amended by striking
out ``paragraphs (2) and (3)'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``paragraphs (2), (3), and (4)''.
SEC. 2804. USE OF FINANCIAL INCENTIVES PROVIDED AS PART OF
ENERGY SAVINGS AND WATER CONSERVATION
ACTIVITIES.
(a) Energy Savings.--Section 2865 of title 10, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking out ``and financial
incentives described in subsection (d)(2)'';
(2) in subsection (d)(2), by adding at the end the
following new sentence: ``Financial incentives received under
this paragraph or section 2866(a)(2) of this title shall be
credited to an appropriation account designated by the
Secretary of Defense.''; and
(3) in subsection (f), by adding at the end the following
new sentence: ``Each report shall also describe the types and
amount of financial incentives received under subsection
(d)(2) and section 2866(a)(2) of this title during the period
covered by the report and the appropriation account or
accounts to which the incentives were credited.''.
(b) Water Conservation.--Section 2866(b) of such title is
amended--
(1) by striking out ``Savings.--'' in the subsection
heading and inserting in lieu thereof ``Savings and Financial
Incentives.--(1)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Financial incentives received under this section
shall be used as provided in section 2865(d)(2) of this
title.''.
SEC. 2805. CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS REGARDING
USE OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HOUSING FUNDS FOR
INVESTMENTS IN NONGOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES.
Section 2875 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(e) Congressional Notification Required.--Amounts in the
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund or the
Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied Housing
Improvement Fund may be used to make a cash investment under
this section in a nongovernmental entity only after the end
of the 30-day period beginning on the date the Secretary of
Defense submits written notice of, and justification for, the
investment to the appropriate committees of Congress.''.
Subtitle B--Real Property And Facilities Administration
SEC. 2811. INCREASE IN CEILING FOR MINOR LAND ACQUISITION
PROJECTS.
(a) Increase.--Section 2672 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by striking out ``$200,000'' both places it
appears in subsection (a) and inserting in lieu thereof
``$500,000''.
(b) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The section heading for such
section is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 2672. Acquisition: interests in land when cost is not
more than $500,000''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 159
of such title is amended by striking out the item relating to
section 2672 and inserting in lieu thereof the following new
item:
``2672. Acquisition: interests in land when cost is not more than
$500,000.''.
SEC. 2812. ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES FOR CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY
TRANSACTIONS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 159 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``Sec. 2695. Acceptance of funds to cover administrative
expenses relating to certain real property transactions
``(a) Authority To Accept.--In connection with a real
property transaction described in subsection (b) with a non-
Federal person or entity, the Secretary of a military
department may accept amounts provided by the person or
entity to cover administrative expenses incurred by the
Secretary in entering into the transaction.
``(b) Covered Transactions.--Subsection (a) applies to the
following transactions:
``(1) The conveyance or exchange of real property.
``(2) The grant of an easement over, in, or upon real
property of the United States.
``(3) The lease or license of real property of the United
States.
``(c) Use of Amounts Collected.--Amounts collected under
subsection (a) for administrative expenses shall be credited
to the appropriation, fund, or account from which the
expenses were paid. Amounts so credited shall be merged with
funds in such appropriation, fund, or account and shall be
available for the same purposes and subject to the same
limitations as the funds with which merged.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 159 of such title is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``2695. Acceptance of funds to cover administrative expenses relating
to certain real property transactions.''.
SEC. 2813. DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS FROM SALE OF AIR FORCE
PLANT 78, BRIGHAM CITY, UTAH.
Notwithstanding subparagraph (A) of section 204(h)(2) of
the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949
(40 U.S.C. 485(h)(2)), the entire amount derived from the
sale of Air Force Plant 78 in Brigham City, Utah, and
deposited in the special account in the Treasury established
pursuant to such section shall, to the extent provided in
appropriations Acts, be available to the Secretary of the Air
Force for facility maintenance, repair, or environmental
restoration at other industrial plants of the Department of
the Air Force.
Subtitle C--Defense Base Closure and Realignment
SEC. 2821. CONSIDERATION OF MILITARY INSTALLATIONS AS SITES
FOR NEW FEDERAL FACILITIES.
(a) 1988 Law.--Section 204(b)(5) of the Defense
Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act
(Public Law 100-526; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking out ``subparagraph
(B)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``subparagraphs (B) and
(C)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C)(i) Before acquiring non-Federal real property as the
location for a new or replacement Federal facility of any
type, the head of the Federal agency acquiring the property
shall consult with the Secretary regarding the feasibility
and cost advantages of using Federal property or facilities
at a military installation to be closed or realigned under
this title as the location for the new or replacement
facility. In considering the availability and suitability of
a specific military installation, the Secretary and the head
of the Federal agency involved shall consult with the
redevelopment authority with
[[Page H4016]]
respect to the installation and comply with the redevelopment
plan for the installation.
``(ii) Not later than 30 days after acquiring non-Federal
real property as the location for a new or replacement
Federal facility, the head of the Federal agency acquiring
the property shall submit to Congress a report containing the
results of the consultation under clause (i) and the reasons
why military installations referred to in such clause that
are located within the area to be served by the new or
replacement Federal facility or within a 200-mile radius of
the new or replacement facility, whichever area is greater,
were considered to be unsuitable or unavailable for the site
of the new or replacement facility.''.
(b) 1990 Law.--Section 2905(b)(5) of the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-510; 10
U.S.C. 2687 note) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking out ``subparagraph
(B)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``subparagraphs (B) and
(C)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C)(i) Before acquiring non-Federal real property as the
location for a new or replacement Federal facility of any
type, the head of the Federal agency acquiring the property
shall consult with the Secretary regarding the feasibility
and cost advantages of using Federal property or facilities
at a military installation to be closed or realigned under
this part as the location for the new or replacement
facility. In considering the availability and suitability of
a specific military installation, the Secretary and the head
of the Federal agency involved shall consult with the
redevelopment authority with respect to the installation and
comply with the redevelopment plan for the installation.
``(ii) Not later than 30 days after acquiring non-Federal
real property as the location for a new or replacement
Federal facility, the head of the Federal agency acquiring
the property shall submit to Congress a report containing the
results of the consultation under clause (i) and the reasons
why military installations referred to in such clause that
are located within the area to be served by the new or
replacement Federal facility or within a 200-mile radius of
the new or replacement facility, whichever area is greater,
were considered to be unsuitable or unavailable for the site
of the new or replacement facility.''.
SEC. 2822. PROHIBITION AGAINST CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY AT
MILITARY INSTALLATIONS TO STATE-OWNED SHIPPING
COMPANIES.
(a) Prohibition Against Direct Conveyance.--In disposing of
real property in connection with the closure of a military
installation under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10
U.S.C. 2687 note), the Secretary of Defense may not convey
any portion of the property (by sale, lease, or other method)
to a State-owned shipping company.
(b) Prohibition Against Indirect Conveyance.--The Secretary
of Defense shall impose as a condition on each conveyance of
real property located at such an installation the requirement
that the property may not be subsequently conveyed (by sale,
lease, or other method) to a State-owned shipping company.
(c) Reversionary Interest.--If the Secretary determines at
any time that real property located at such an installation
and conveyed under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Act of 1990 has been conveyed to a State-owned shipping
company in violation of subsection (b) or is otherwise being
used by a State-owned shipping company in violation of such
subsection, all right, title, and interest in and to the
property shall revert to the United States, and the United
States shall have immediate right of entry thereon.
(d) Definition.--In this section, the term ``State-owned
shipping company'' means a commercial shipping company owned
or controlled by a foreign country.
Subtitle D--Land Conveyances
Part I--Army Conveyances
SEC. 2831. LAND CONVEYANCE, JAMES T. COKER ARMY RESERVE
CENTER, DURANT, OKLAHOMA.
(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army may
convey, without consideration, to Big Five Community
Services, Incorporated, a nonprofit organization operating in
Durant, Oklahoma, all right, title, and interest of the
United States in and to a parcel of real property located at
1500 North First Street in Durant, Oklahoma, and containing
the James T. Coker Army Reserve Center, if the Secretary
determines that the Reserve Center is excess to the needs of
the Armed Forces.
(b) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory
to the Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by
Big Five Community Services, Incorporated.
(c) Condition on Conveyance.--The conveyance authorized
under subsection (a) shall be subject to the condition that
Big Five Community Services, Incorporated, retain the
conveyed property for educational purposes.
(d) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines at any time
that the real property conveyed under subsection (a) is not
being used for the purpose specified in subsection (c), all
right, title, and interest in and to such real property,
including any improvements thereon, shall revert to the
United States, and the United States shall have the right of
immediate entry thereon.
(e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.
SEC. 2832. LAND CONVEYANCE, FORT A. P. HILL, VIRGINIA.
(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army may
convey to Caroline County, Virginia (in this section referred
to as the ``County''), all right, title, and interest of the
United States in and to a parcel of unimproved real property
consisting of approximately 10 acres located at Fort A. P.
Hill, Virginia. The purpose of the conveyance is to permit
the County to establish a solid waste transfer and recycling
facility on the property.
(b) Consideration.--As consideration for the conveyance
under subsection (a), the County shall permit the Army, at no
cost, to dispose of not less than 1,800 tons of solid waste
annually at the facility established on the conveyed
property. The obligation of the County to accept solid waste
under this subsection shall not commerce until after the
solid waste transfer and recycling facility on the conveyed
property becomes operational, and the establishment of a
solid waste collection and transfer site on the .36-acre
parcel described in subsection (d)(2) shall not be construed
to impose the obligation.
(c) Disclaimer.--The United States shall not be responsible
for the provision or cost of utilities or any other
improvements necessary to carry out the conveyance under
subsection (a) or to establish or operate the solid waste
transfer and recycling facility intended for the property.
(d) Reversion.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), if
the Secretary determines that a solid waste transfer and
recycling facility is not operational, before December 31,
1999, on the real property conveyed under subsection (a), all
right, title, and interest in and to such real property,
including any improvements thereon, shall revert to the
United States, and the United States shall have the right of
immediate entry thereon.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to a parcel
of approximately .36 acres of the approximately 10-acre
parcel to be conveyed under subsection (a), which is included
in the larger conveyance to permit the County to establish
a solid waste collection and transfer site for residential
waste.
(e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.
SEC. 2833. EXPANSION OF LAND CONVEYANCE, INDIANA ARMY
AMMUNITION PLANT, CHARLESTOWN, INDIANA.
(a) Additional Conveyance.--Subsection (a) of section 2858
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1996 (Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 571) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``The Secretary of the
Army''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) The Secretary may also convey to the State, without
consideration, an additional parcel of real property at the
Indiana Army Ammunition Plant consisting of approximately 500
acres located along the Ohio River.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Such section is further amended
by striking out ``conveyance'' both places it appears in
subsections (b) and (d) and inserting in lieu thereof
``conveyances''.
SEC. 2834. MODIFICATION OF LAND CONVEYANCE, LOMPOC,
CALIFORNIA.
(a) Change in Authorized Uses of Land.--Section 834(b)(1)
of the Military Construction Authorization Act, 1985 (Public
Law 98-407; 98 Stat. 1526), is amended by striking out
subparagraphs (A) and (B) and inserting in lieu thereof the
following new subparagraphs:
``(A) for educational and recreational purposes;
``(B) for open space; or''.
(b) Conforming Deed Changes.--With respect to the land
conveyance made pursuant to section 834 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act, 1985, the Secretary of the
Army shall execute and file in the appropriate office or
offices an amended deed or other appropriate instrument
effectuating the changes to the authorized uses of the
conveyed property resulting from the amendment made by
subsection (a).
SEC. 2835. MODIFICATION OF LAND CONVEYANCE, ROCKY MOUNTAIN
ARSENAL, COLORADO.
Section 5(c) of Public Law 102-402 (106 Stat. 1966) is
amended by striking out ``The transferred property shall be
sold in advertised sales'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``The Administrator shall convey the transferred property to
Commerce City, Colorado, in a negotiated sale,''.
SEC. 2836. CORRECTION OF LAND CONVEYANCE AUTHORITY, ARMY
RESERVE CENTER, ANDERSON, SOUTH CAROLINA.
(a) Identification of Recipient.--Subsection (a) of section
2824 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1997 (division B of Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat.
2793) is amended by striking out ``County of Anderson, South
Carolina (in this section referred to as the `County')'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``Board of Education, Anderson
County, South Carolina (in this section referred to as the
`Board')''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Subsections (b) and (c) of such
section are amended by striking out ``County'' each place it
appears and inserting in lieu thereof ``Board''.
SEC. 2837. LAND CONVEYANCE, FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA.
(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army may
convey, without consideration, to the Town of Spring Lake,
North Carolina (in this section referred to as the ``Town''),
all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to
a parcel of unimproved real property consisting of
approximately 50 acres located at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
The purpose of the
[[Page H4017]]
conveyance is to improve access by the Town to a waste
treatment facility and to permit economic development.
(b) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey
satisfactory to the Secretary. The cost of the survey
shall be borne by the Town.
(c) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.
SEC. 2838. LAND CONVEYANCE, GIBSON ARMY RESERVE CENTER,
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.
(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army may
convey, without consideration, to the Lawndale Business and
Local Development Corporation (in this section referred to as
the ``Corporation''), a nonprofit organization organized in
the State of Illinois, all right, title, and interest of the
United States in and to a parcel of real property, including
improvements thereon, that is located at 4454 West Cermak
Road in Chicago, Illinois, and contains the Gibson Army
Reserve Center.
(b) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory
to the Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by
the Corporation.
(c) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.
SEC. 2839. LAND CONVEYANCE, FORT DIX, NEW JERSEY.
(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army may
convey, without consideration, to the Borough of Wrightstown,
New Jersey (in this section referred to as the ``Borough''),
all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to
a parcel of real property (including improvements thereon)
consisting of approximately 44.69 acres located at Fort Dix,
New Jersey, for the purpose of permitting the Borough to
develop the parcel for educational and economic purposes.
(b) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory
to the Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by
the Borough.
(c) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.
Part II--Navy Conveyances
SEC. 2851. CORRECTION OF LEASE AUTHORITY, NAVAL AIR STATION,
MERIDIAN, MISSISSIPPI.
(a) Correction of Lessee.--Subsection (a) of section 2837
of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1997 (division B of Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2798)
is amended--
(1) by striking out ``State of Mississippi (in this section
referred to as the `State')'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``County of Lauderdale, Mississippi (in this section referred
to as the `County')''; and
(2) by striking out ``The State'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``The County''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Subsections (b) and (c) of such
section are amended by striking out ``State'' each place it
appears and inserting in lieu thereof ``County''.
Part III--Air Force Conveyances
SEC. 2861. LAND TRANSFER, EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA.
(a) Transfer.--Jurisdiction over the real property
withdrawn by Executive Order 4525, dated October 1, 1826,
which consists of approximately 440 acres of land at Cape San
Blas, Gulf County, Florida, and any improvements thereon, is
transferred from the administrative jurisdiction of the
Secretary of Transportation to the administrative
jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Air Force, without
reimbursement. Executive Order 4525 is revoked, and the
transferred real property shall be administered by the
Secretary of the Air Force pursuant to the Federal Property
and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 471 et
seq.) and such other laws as may be applicable to Federal
real property.
(b) Use of Property.--The real property transferred under
subsection (a) may be used in conjunction with operations at
Eglin Air Force Base, Florida.
(c) Legal Description.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be transferred under this
section shall be determined by a survey satisfactory to the
Secretary of the Air Force. The cost of the survey shall be
borne by the Secretary of the Air Force.
SEC. 2862. STUDY OF LAND EXCHANGE OPTIONS, SHAW AIR FORCE
BASE, SOUTH CAROLINA.
Section 2874 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 583) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(g) Study of Exchange Options.--To facilitate the use of
a land exchange to acquire the real property described in
subsection (a), the Secretary of the Air Force shall conduct
a study to identify real property in the possession of the
Air Force (located in the State of South Carolina or
elsewhere) that satisfies the requirements of subsection
(b)(2), is acceptable to the party holding the property to be
acquired, and is otherwise suitable for exchange under this
section. Not later than three months after the date of the
enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a
report containing the results of the study.''.
SEC. 2863. LAND CONVEYANCE, MARCH AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA.
(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Air Force
may convey to Air Force Village West, Incorporated (in this
section referred to as the ``Corporation''), of Riverside,
California, all right, title, and interest of the United
States in and to a parcel of real property located at March
Air Force Base, California, and consisting of approximately
75 acres, as more fully described in subsection (c).
(2) If the Secretary does not make the conveyance
authorized by paragraph (1) to the Corporation on or before
January 1, 2006, the Secretary shall convey the real property
instead to the March Joint Powers Authority, the
redevelopment authority established for March Air Force Base.
(b) Consideration.--As consideration for the conveyance
under subsection (a), the Corporation shall pay to the United
States an amount equal to the fair market value of the real
property, as determined by the Secretary.
(c) Land Description.--The real property to be conveyed
under this section is contiguous to land conveyed to the
Corporation pursuant to section 835 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act, 1985 (Public Law 98-407; 98
Stat. 1527), and lies within sections 27, 28, 33, and 34 of
Township 3 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Base and
Meridian, County of Riverside, California. The exact acreage
and legal description of the real property shall be
determined by a survey satisfactory to the Secretary. The
cost of the survey shall be borne by the party receiving the
property.
(d) Technical Corrections Regarding Previous Conveyance.--
Section 835 of the Military Construction Authorization Act,
1985 (Public Law 98-407; 98 Stat. 1527), is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by striking out ``subsection (b)''
and inserting in lieu thereof ``subsection (a)''; and
(2) in subsection (c), by striking out ``Clark Street,''
and all that follows through the period and inserting in lieu
thereof ``Village West Drive, on the west by Allen Avenue, on
the south by 8th Street, and the north is an extension of
11th Street between Allen Avenue and Clark Street.''.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
SEC. 2881. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT TO OPERATE NAVAL ACADEMY
DAIRY FARM.
(a) Operation.--(1) Chapter 603 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``Sec. 6976. Operation of Naval Academy dairy farm
``(a) Discretion Regarding Continued Operation.--(1)
Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary of the Navy may
terminate or reduce the dairy or other operations conducted
at the Naval Academy dairy farm located in Gambrills,
Maryland.
``(2) Notwithstanding the termination or reduction of
operations at the Naval Academy dairy farm under paragraph
(1), the real property containing the dairy farm (consisting
of approximately 875 acres)--
``(A) may not be declared to be excess real property to the
needs of the Navy or transferred or otherwise disposed of by
the Navy or any Federal agency; and
``(B) shall be maintained in its rural and agricultural
nature.
``(b) Lease Authority.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), to
the extent that the termination or reduction of operations at
the Naval Academy dairy farm permit, the Secretary of the
Navy may lease the real property containing the dairy farm,
and any improvements and personal property thereon, to such
persons and under such terms as the Secretary considers
appropriate. In leasing any of the property, the Secretary
may give a preference to persons who will continue dairy
operations on the property.
``(2) Any lease of property at the Naval Academy dairy farm
shall be subject to a condition that the lessee maintain the
rural and agricultural nature of the leased property.
``(c) Effect of Other Laws.--Nothing in section 6971 of
this title shall be construed to require the Secretary of the
Navy or the Superintendent of the Naval Academy to operate a
dairy farm for the Naval Academy in Gambrills, Maryland, or
any other location.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``6976. Operation of Naval Academy dairy farm.''.
(b) Conforming Repeal of Existing Requirements.--Section
810 of the Military Construction Authorization Act, 1968
(Public Law 90-110; 81 Stat. 309), is repealed.
SEC. 2882. LONG-TERM LEASE OF PROPERTY, NAPLES ITALY.
(a) Authority.--Subject to subsection (d), the Secretary of
the Navy may acquire by long-term lease structures and real
property relating to a regional hospital complex in Naples,
Italy, that the Secretary determines to be necessary for
purposes of the Naples Improvement Initiative.
(b) Lease Term.--Notwithstanding section 2675 of title 10,
United States Code, the lease authorized by subsection (a)
shall be for a term of not more than 20 years.
(c) Expiration of Authority.--The authority of the
Secretary to enter into a lease under subsection (a) shall
expire on September 30, 2002.
(d) Authority Contingent on Appropriations Acts.--The
authority of the Secretary to enter into a lease under
subsection (a) is available only to the extent or in the
amount provided in advance in appropriations Acts.
[[Page H4018]]
SEC. 2883. DESIGNATION OF MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING AT LACKLAND
AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS, IN HONOR OF FRANK
TEJEDA, A FORMER MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.
The military family housing developments to be constructed
at two locations on Government property at Lackland Air Force
Base, Texas, under the authority of subchapter IV of chapter
169 of title 10, United States Code, shall be designated by
the Secretary of the Air Force, at an appropriate time, as
follows:
(1) The northern development shall be designated as ``Frank
Tejeda Estates North''.
(2) The southern development shall be designated as ``Frank
Tejeda Estates South''.
TITLE XXIX--SIKES ACT IMPROVEMENT
SEC. 2901. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Sikes Act Improvement
Amendments of 1997''.
SEC. 2902. DEFINITION OF SIKES ACT FOR PURPOSES OF
AMENDMENTS.
In this title, the term ``Sikes Act'' means the Act
entitled ``An Act to promote effectual planning, development,
maintenance, and coordination of wildlife, fish, and game
conservation and rehabilitation in military
reservations'', approved September 15, 1960 (16 U.S.C.
670a et seq.), commonly referred to as the ``Sikes Act''.
SEC. 2903. CODIFICATION OF SHORT TITLE OF ACT.
The Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a et seq.) is amended by
inserting before title I the following new section:
``SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
``This Act may be cited as the `Sikes Act'.''.
SEC. 2904. INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS.
(a) Plans Required.--Section 101(a) of the Sikes Act (16
U.S.C. 670a(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking out ``is authorized to'' and inserting in
lieu thereof ``shall'';
(2) by striking out ``in each military reservation in
accordance with a cooperative plan'' and inserting in lieu
thereof the following: ``on military installations. Under the
program, the Secretary shall prepare and implement for each
military installation in the United States an integrated
natural resource management plan'';
(3) by inserting after ``reservation is located'' the
following: ``, except that the Secretary is not required to
prepare such a plan for a military installation if the
Secretary determines that preparation of such a plan for the
installation is not appropriate''; and
(4) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)'' and adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Consistent with essential military requirements to
enhance the national security of the United States, the
Secretary of Defense shall manage each military installation
to provide--
``(A) for the conservation of fish and wildlife on the
military installation and sustained multipurpose uses of
those resources, including hunting, fishing, and trapping;
and
``(B) public access that is necessary or appropriate for
those uses.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Title I of the Sikes Act is
amended--
(1) in section 101(b) (16 U.S.C. 670a(b)), in the matter
preceding paragraph (1), by striking out ``cooperative plan''
and inserting in lieu thereof ``integrated natural resource
management plan'';
(2) in section 101(b)(4) (16 U.S.C. 670a(b)(4)), by
striking out ``cooperative plan'' each place it appears and
inserting in lieu thereof ``integrated natural resource
management plan'';
(3) in section 101(c) (16 U.S.C. 670a(c)), in the matter
preceding paragraph (1) by striking out ``a cooperative
plan'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``an integrated natural
resource management plan'';
(4) in section 101(d) (16 U.S.C. 670a(d)), in the matter
preceding paragraph (1) by striking out ``cooperative plans''
and inserting in lieu thereof ``integrated natural resource
management plans'';
(5) in section 101(e) (16 U.S.C. 670a(e)), by striking out
``Cooperative plans'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``Integrated natural resource management plans'';
(6) in section 102 (16 U.S.C. 670b), by striking out ``a
cooperative plan'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``an
integrated natural resource management plan'';
(7) in section 103 (16 U.S.C. 670c), by striking out ``a
cooperative plan'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``an
integrated natural resource management plan'';
(8) in section 106(a) (16 U.S.C. 670f(a)), by striking out
``cooperative plans'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``integrated natural resource management plans''; and
(9) in section 106(c) (16 U.S.C. 670f(c)), by striking out
``cooperative plans'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``integrated natural resource management plans''.
(c) Contents of Plans.--Section 101(b) of the Sikes Act (16
U.S.C. 670a(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (C), by striking out ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(B) in subparagraph (D), by striking out the semicolon at
the end and inserting in lieu thereof a comma; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
``(E) wetland protection and restoration, and wetland
creation where necessary, for support of fish or wildlife,
``(F) consideration of conservation needs for all
biological communities, and
``(G) the establishment of specific natural resource
management goals, objectives, and time-frames for proposed
actions;'';
(2) by striking out paragraph (3);
(3) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3);
(4) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraph:
``(2) shall for the military installation for which it is
prepared--
``(A) address the needs for fish and wildlife management,
land management, forest management, and wildlife-oriented
recreation,
``(B) ensure the integration of, and consistency among, the
various activities conducted under the plan,
``(C) ensure that there is no net loss in the capability of
installation lands to support the military mission of the
installation,
``(D) provide for sustained use by the public of natural
resources, to the extent that such use is not inconsistent
with the military mission of the installation or the needs of
fish and wildlife management,
``(E) provide the public access to the installation that is
necessary or appropriate for that use, to the extent that
access is not inconsistent with the military mission of the
installation, and
``(F) provide for professional enforcement of natural
resource laws and regulations;''; and
(5) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking out ``collect the fees
therefor,'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``collect, spend,
administer, and account for fees therefor,''.
(d) Public Comment.--Section 101 of the Sikes Act (16
U.S.C. 670a) is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(f) Public Comment.--The Secretary of Defense shall
provide an opportunity for public comment on each integrated
natural resource management plan prepared under subsection
(a).''.
SEC. 2905. REVIEW FOR PREPARATION OF INTEGRATED NATURAL
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS.
(a) Review of Military Installations.--
(1) Review.--The Secretary of each military department
shall, by not later than nine months after the date of the
enactment of this Act--
(A) review each military installation in the United States
that is under the jurisdiction of that Secretary to determine
the military installations for which the preparation of an
integrated natural resource management plan under section 101
of the Sikes Act, as amended by this title, is appropriate;
and
(B) submit to the Secretary of Defense a report on those
determinations.
(2) Report to congress.--The Secretary of Defense shall, by
not later than 12 months after the date of the enactment of
this Act, submit to the Congress a report on the reviews
conducted under paragraph (1). The report shall include--
(A) a list of those military installations reviewed under
paragraph (1) for which the Secretary of Defense determines
the preparation of an integrated natural resource management
plan is not appropriate; and
(B) for each of the military installations listed under
subparagraph (A), an explanation of the reasons such a plan
is not appropriate.
(b) Deadline for Integrated Natural Resource Management
Plans.--Not later than two years after the date of the
submission of the report required under subsection (a)(2),
the Secretary of Defense shall, for each military
installation for which the Secretary has not determined under
subsection (a)(2)(A) that preparation of an integrated
natural resource management plan is not appropriate--
(1) prepare and begin implementing such a plan mutually
agreed to by the Secretary of the Interior and the head of
the appropriate State agencies under section 101(a) of the
Sikes Act, as amended by this title; or
(2) in the case of a military installation for which there
is in effect a cooperative plan under section 101(a) of the
Sikes Act on the day before the date of the enactment of this
Act, complete negotiations with the Secretary of the Interior
and the heads of the appropriate State agencies regarding
changes to that plan that are necessary for the plan to
constitute an integrated natural resource plan that complies
with that section, as amended by this title.
(c) Public Comment.--The Secretary of Defense shall provide
an opportunity for the submission of public comments on--
(1) integrated natural resource management plans proposed
pursuant to subsection (b)(1); and
(2) changes to cooperative plans proposed pursuant to
subsection (b)(2).
SEC. 2906. ANNUAL REVIEWS AND REPORTS.
Section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a) is amended by
adding after subsection (f) (as added by section 2904(d)) the
following new subsection:
``(g) Reviews and Reports.--
``(1) Secretary of defense.--The Secretary of Defense
shall, by not later than March 1 of each year, review the
extent to which integrated natural resource management plans
were prepared or in effect and implemented in accordance with
this Act in the preceding year, and submit a report on the
findings of that review to the committees. Each report shall
include--
``(A) the number of integrated natural resource management
plans in effect in the year covered by the report, including
the date on which each plan was issued in final form or most
recently revised;
``(B) the amount of moneys expended on conservation
activities conducted pursuant to those plans in the year
covered by the report, including amounts expended under the
Legacy Resource Management Program established under section
8120 of the Act of November 5, 1990 (Public Law 101-511; 104
Stat. 1905); and
``(C) an assessment of the extent to which the plans comply
with the requirements of subsection (b)(1) and (2), including
specifically the extent to which the plans ensure in
accordance with subsection (b)(2)(C) that there is no net
loss of lands to support the military missions of military
installations.
``(2) Secretary of the interior.--The Secretary of the
Interior, by not later than March 1 of each year and in
consultation with State
[[Page H4019]]
agencies responsible for conservation or management of fish
or wildlife, shall submit a report to the committees on the
amount of moneys expended by the Department of the
Interior and those State agencies in the year covered by
the report on conservation activities conducted pursuant
to integrated natural resource management plans.
``(3) Committees defined.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term `committees' means the Committee on Resources and
the Committee on National Security of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Armed Services and the
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate.''.
SEC. 2907. TRANSFER OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION FEES FROM CLOSED
MILITARY INSTALLATIONS.
Section 101(b)(4)(B) of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C.
670a(b)(4)(B)) is amended by inserting before the period at
the end the following: ``, unless that military installation
is subsequently closed, in which case the fees may be
transferred to another military installation to be used for
the same purposes''.
SEC. 2908. FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT OF INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT PLANS AND ENFORCEMENT OF OTHER LAWS.
Title I of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a et seq.) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating section 106, as amended by section
2904(b), as section 109; and
(2) by inserting after section 105 the following new
section:
``SEC. 106. FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT OF OTHER LAWS.
``All Federal laws relating to the conservation of natural
resources on Federal lands may be enforced by the Secretary
of Defense with respect to violations of those laws which
occur on military installations within the United States.''.
SEC. 2909. NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES.
Title I of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a et seq.) is
amended by inserting after section 106 (as added by section
2908) the following new section:
``SEC. 107. NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES.
``The Secretary of each military department shall ensure
that sufficient numbers of professionally trained natural
resource management personnel and natural resource law
enforcement personnel are available and assigned
responsibility to perform tasks necessary to comply with this
Act, including the preparation and implementation of
integrated natural resource management plans.''.
SEC. 2910. DEFINITIONS.
Title I of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a et seq.) is
amended by inserting after section 107 (as added by section
2909) the following new section:
``SEC. 108. DEFINITIONS.
``In this title:
``(1) Military installation.--The term `military
installation'--
``(A) means any land or interest in land owned by the
United States and administered by the Secretary of Defense or
the Secretary of a military department; and
``(B) includes all public lands withdrawn from all forms of
appropriation under public land laws and reserved for use by
the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of a military
department.
``(2) State fish and wildlife agency.--The term `State fish
and wildlife agency' means an agency of State government that
is responsible under State law for managing fish or wildlife
resources.
``(3) United states.--The term `United States' means the
States, the District of Columbia, and the territories and
possessions of the United States.''.
SEC. 2911. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.
(a) Cost Sharing.--Section 103a(b) of the Sikes Act (16
U.S.C. 670c-1(b)) is amended by striking out ``matching
basis'' each place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof
``cost-sharing basis''.
(b) Accounting.--Section 103a(c) of the Sikes Act (16
U.S.C. 670c-1(c)) is amended by inserting before the period
at the end the following: ``, and shall not be subject to
section 1535 of that title''.
SEC. 2912. REPEAL OF SUPERSEDED PROVISION.
Section 2 of the Act of October 27, 1986 (Public Law 99-
561; 16 U.S.C. 670a-1), is repealed.
SEC. 2913. CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.
Title I of the Sikes Act, as amended by this title, is
amended--
(1) in the heading for the title by striking out ``MILITARY
RESERVATIONS'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``MILITARY
INSTALLATIONS'';
(2) in section 101(a) (16 U.S.C. 670a(a)), by striking out
``the reservation'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the
installation'';
(3) in section 101(b)(4) (16 U.S.C. 670a(b)(4))--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking out ``the
reservation'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the
installation''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking out ``the military
reservation'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the military
installation'';
(4) in section 101(c) (16 U.S.C. 670a(c))--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``a military
reservation'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``a military
installation''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking out ``the reservation''
and inserting in lieu thereof ``the installation'';
(5) in section 102 (16 U.S.C. 670b), by striking out
``military reservations'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``military installations''; and
(6) in section 103 (16 U.S.C. 670c)--
(A) by striking out ``military reservations'' and inserting
in lieu thereof ``military installations''; and
(B) by striking out ``such reservations'' and inserting in
lieu thereof ``such installations''.
SEC. 2914. AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Programs on Military Installations.--Subsections (b)
and (c) of section 109 of the Sikes Act (as redesignated by
section 1408) are each amended by striking out ``1983'' and
all that follows through ``1993,'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``1983 through 2000,''.
(b) Programs on Public Lands.--Section 209 of the Sikes Act
(16 U.S.C. 670o) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking out ``the sum of
$10,000,000'' and all that follows through ``to enable the
Secretary of the Interior'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``$4,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2000, to
enable the Secretary of the Interior''; and
(2) in subsection (b), by striking out ``the sum of
$12,000,000'' and all that follows through ``to enable the
Secretary of Agriculture'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``$5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2000, to
enable the Secretary of Agriculture''.
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL
SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations
SEC. 3101. WEAPONS ACTIVITIES.
(a) Stockpile Stewardship.--Funds are hereby authorized to
be appropriated to the Department of Energy for fiscal year
1998 for stockpile stewardship in carrying out weapons
activities necessary for national security programs in the
amount of $1,733,400,000, to be allocated as follows:
(1) For core stockpile stewardship, $1,257,100,000, to be
allocated as follows:
(A) For operation and maintenance, $1,158,290,000.
(B) For plant projects (including maintenance, restoration,
planning, construction, acquisition, modification of
facilities, and the continuation of projects authorized in
prior years, and land acquisition related thereto),
$98,810,000, to be allocated as follows:
Project 97-D-102, dual-axis radiographic hydrotest
facility, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New
Mexico, $46,300,000.
Project 96-D-102, stockpile stewardship facilities
revitalization, Phase VI, various locations, $19,810,000.
Project 96-D-103, ATLAS, Los Alamos National Laboratory,
Los Alamos, New Mexico, $13,400,000.
Project 96-D-105, contained firing facility addition,
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore,
California, $19,300,000.
(2) For inertial fusion, $414,800,000, to be allocated as
follows:
(A) For operation and maintenance, $217,000,000.
(B) For the following plant project (including maintenance,
restoration, planning, construction, acquisition, and
modification of facilities, and land acquisition related
thereto), $197,800,000, to be allocated as follows:
Project 96-D-111, national ignition facility, location to
be determined, $197,800,000.
(3) For technology transfer and education, $61,500,000, to
be allocated as follows:
(A) For technology transfer, $52,500,000.
(B) For education, $9,000,000.
(b) Stockpile Management.--Funds are hereby authorized to
be appropriated to the Department of Energy for fiscal year
1998 for stockpile management in carrying out weapons
activities necessary for national security programs in the
amount of $2,024,150,000, to be allocated as follows:
(1) For operation and maintenance, $1,868,265,000.
(2) For plant projects (including maintenance, restoration,
planning, construction, acquisition, modification of
facilities, and the continuation of projects authorized in
prior years, and land acquisition related thereto),
$155,885,000, to be allocated as follows:
Project 98-D-123, stockpile management restructuring
initiative, tritium factory modernization and consolidation,
Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina, $11,000,000.
Project 98-D-124, stockpile management restructuring
initiative, Y-12 Plant consolidation, Oak Ridge, Tennessee,
$6,450,000.
Project 98-D-125, tritium extraction facility, Savannah
River Site, Aiken, South Carolina, $9,650,000.
Project 98-D-126, accelerator production of tritium,
various locations, $67,865,000.
Project 97-D-122, nuclear materials storage facility
renovation, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New
Mexico, $9,200,000.
Project 97-D-124, steam plant wastewater treatment facility
upgrade, Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, $1,900,000.
Project 96-D-122, sewage treatment quality upgrade (STQU),
Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas, $6,900,000.
Project 96-D-123, retrofit heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning and chillers for ozone protection, Y-12 Plant,
Oak Ridge, Tennessee, $2,700,000.
Project 95-D-122, sanitary sewer upgrade, Y-12 Plant, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee, $12,600,000.
Project 94-D-124, hydrogen fluoride supply system, Y-12
Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, $1,400,000.
Project 94-D-125, upgrade life safety, Kansas City Plant,
Kansas City, Missouri, $2,000,000.
Project 93-D-122, life safety upgrades, Y-12 Plant, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee, $2,100,000.
Project 92-D-126, replace emergency notification system,
various locations, $3,200,000.
Project 88-D-122, facilities capability assurance program,
various locations, $18,920,000.
[[Page H4020]]
(c) Program Direction.--Funds are hereby authorized to be
appropriated to the Department of Energy for fiscal year 1998
for program direction in carrying out weapons activities
necessary for national security programs in the amount of
$208,500,000.
SEC. 3102. ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND WASTE MANAGEMENT.
(a) Environmental Restoration.--Funds are hereby authorized
to be appropriated to the Department of Energy for fiscal
year 1998 for environmental restoration in carrying out
environmental restoration and waste management activities
necessary for national security programs in the amount of
$1,000,973,000, of which $388,000,000 shall be allocated to
the uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning
fund.
(b) Closure Projects.--Funds are hereby authorized to be
appropriated to the Department of Energy for fiscal year 1998
for closure projects carried out in accordance with section
3143 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2836; 42 U.S.C.
7274n) in the amount of $905,800,000.
(c) Waste Management.--Funds are hereby authorized to be
appropriated to the Department of Energy for fiscal year 1998
for waste management in carrying out environmental
restoration and waste management activities necessary for
national security programs in the amount of $1,536,344,000,
to be allocated as follows:
(1) For operation and maintenance, $1,455,576,000.
(2) For plant projects (including maintenance, restoration,
planning, construction, acquisition, modification of
facilities, and the continuation of projects authorized in
prior years, and land acquisition related thereto),
$80,768,000, to be allocated as follows:
Project 98-D-401, H-tank farm storm water systems upgrade,
Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina, $1,000,000.
Project 97-D-402, tank farm restoration and safe
operations, Richland, Washington, $13,961,000.
Project 96-D-408, waste management upgrades, various
locations, $8,200,000.
Project 95-D-402, install permanent electrical service,
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, Carlsbad, New Mexico, $176,000.
Project 95-D-405, industrial landfill V and construction/
demolition landfill VII, Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee,
$3,800,000.
Project 95-D-407, 219-S secondary containment upgrade,
Richland, Washington, $2,500,000.
Project 94-D-404, Melton Valley storage tank capacity
increase, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee, $1,219,000.
Project 94-D-407, initial tank retrieval systems, Richland,
Washington, $15,100,000.
Project 93-D-187, high-level waste removal from filled
waste tanks, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina,
$17,520,000.
Project 92-D-172, hazardous waste treatment and processing
facility, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas, $5,000,000.
Project 89-D-174, replacement high-level waste evaporator,
Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina, $1,042,000.
Project 86-D-103, decontamination and waste treatment
facility, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore,
California, $11,250,000.
(d) Technology Development.--Funds are hereby authorized to
be appropriated to the Department of Energy for fiscal year
1998 for technology development in carrying out environmental
restoration and waste management activities necessary for
national security programs in the amount of $182,881,000.
(e) Nuclear Materials and Facilities Stabilization.--Funds
are hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Department of
Energy for fiscal year 1998 for nuclear materials and
facilities stabilization in carrying out environmental
restoration and waste management activities necessary for
national security programs in the amount of $1,244,021,000,
to be allocated as follows:
(1) For operation and maintenance, $1,159,114,000.
(2) For plant projects (including maintenance, restoration,
planning, construction, acquisition, modification of
facilities, and the continuation of projects authorized in
prior years, and land acquisition related thereto),
$84,907,000, to be allocated as follows:
Project 98-D-453, plutonium stabilization and handling
system for plutonium finishing plant, Richland, Washington,
$8,136,000.
Project 98-D-700, road rehabilitation, Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory, Idaho, $500,000.
Project 97-D-450, Actinide packaging and storage facility,
Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina, $18,000,000.
Project 97-D-451, B-Plant safety class ventilation
upgrades, Richland, Washington, $2,000,000.
Project 97-D-470, environmental monitoring laboratory,
Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina, $5,600,000.
Project 97-D-473, health physics site support facility,
Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina, $4,200,000.
Project 96-D-406, spent nuclear fuels canister storage and
stabilization facility, Richland, Washington, $16,744,000.
Project 96-D-461, electrical distribution upgrade, Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho, $2,927,000.
Project 96-D-464, electrical and utility systems upgrade,
Idaho Chemical Processing Plant, Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory, Idaho, $14,985,000.
Project 96-D-471, chlorofluorocarbon heating, ventilation,
and air conditioning and chiller retrofit, Savannah River
Site, Aiken, South Carolina, $8,500,000.
Project 95-D-155, upgrade site road infrastructure,
Savannah River Site, South Carolina, $2,713,000.
Project 95-D-456, security facilities consolidation, Idaho
Chemical Processing Plant, Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory, Idaho, $602,000.
(f) Program Direction.--Funds are hereby authorized to be
appropriated to the Department of Energy for fiscal year 1998
for program direction in carrying out environmental
restoration and waste management activities necessary for
national security programs in the amount of $288,251,000.
(g) Policy and Management.--Funds are hereby authorized to
be appropriated to the Department of Energy for fiscal year
1998 for policy and management in carrying out environmental
restoration and waste management activities necessary for
national security programs in the amount of $20,000,000.
(h) Environmental Science Program.--Funds are hereby
authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Energy for
fiscal year 1998 for the environmental science program in
carrying out environmental restoration and waste management
activities necessary for national security programs in the
amount of $55,000,000.
(i) Hanford Tank Waste Vitrification.--Funds are hereby
authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Energy for
fiscal year 1998 for the Hanford Tank Waste Vitrification
project, subject to the provisions of section 3145, in the
amount of $70,000,000.
(j) Adjustment.--The total amount authorized to be
appropriated pursuant to this section is the sum of the
amounts authorized to be appropriated in subsections (a)
through (h) reduced by the sum of $20,000,000, to be derived
from non-safety-related contractor training expenses.
SEC. 3103. OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES.
Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated to the
Department of Energy for fiscal year 1998 for other defense
activities in carrying out programs necessary for national
security in the amount of $1,512,551,000, to be allocated as
follows:
(1) For verification and control technology, $428,600,000,
to be allocated as follows:
(A) For nonproliferation and verification research and
development, $190,000,000.
(B) For arms control, $205,000,000.
(C) For intelligence, $33,600,000.
(2) For nuclear safeguards and security, $47,200,000.
(3) For security investigations, $25,000,000.
(4) For emergency management, $17,000,000.
(5) For program direction, $68,900,000.
(6) For worker and community transition assistance,
$22,000,000, to be allocated as follows:
(A) For worker and community transition, $20,000,000.
(B) For program direction, $2,000,000.
(7) For fissile materials control and disposition,
$103,451,000, to be allocated as follows:
(A) For operation and maintenance, $99,451,000.
(B) For program direction, $4,000,000.
(8) For environment, safety, and health, defense,
$73,000,000, to be allocated as follows:
(A) For the Office of Environment, Safety, and Health
(Defense), $63,000,000.
(B) For program direction, $10,000,000.
(9) For the Office of Hearings and Appeals, $1,900,000.
(10) For nuclear energy, $47,000,000, to be allocated as
follows:
(A) For nuclear technology research and development
(electrometallurgical), $12,000,000.
(B) For international nuclear safety (Soviet-designed
reactors), $25,000,000.
(C) For Russian plutonium reactor core conversion,
$10,000,000.
(11) For naval reactors development, $678,500,000, to be
allocated as follows:
(A) For operation and maintenance, $648,920,000.
(B) For program direction, $20,080,000.
(C) For plant projects (including maintenance, restoration,
planning, construction, acquisition, modification of
facilities, and the continuation of projects authorized in
prior years, and land acquisition related thereto),
$9,500,000, to be allocated as follows:
Project 98-D-200, site laboratory/facility upgrade, various
locations, $1,200,000.
Project 97-D-201, advanced test reactor secondary coolant
refurbishment, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho,
$4,100,000.
Project 95-D-200, laboratory systems and hot cell upgrades,
various locations, $1,100,000.
Project 90-N-102, expended core facility dry cell project,
Naval Reactors Facility, Idaho, $3,100,000.
SEC. 3104. DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL.
Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated to the
Department of Energy for fiscal year 1998 for payment to the
Nuclear Waste Fund established in section 302(c) of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222(c)) in the
amount of $190,000,000.
Subtitle B--Recurring General Provisions
SEC. 3121. REPROGRAMMING.
(a) In General.--Until the Secretary of Energy submits to
the congressional defense committees the report referred to
in subsection (b) and a period of 30 days has elapsed after
the date on which such committees receive the report, the
Secretary may not use amounts appropriated pursuant to this
title for any program--
(1) in amounts that exceed, in a fiscal year--
(A) 110 percent of the amount authorized for that program
by this title; or
(B) $1,000,000 more than the amount authorized for that
program by this title; or
(2) which has not been presented to, or requested of,
Congress.
(b) Report.--(1) The report referred to in subsection (a)
is a report containing a full and complete statement of the
action proposed to be
[[Page H4021]]
taken and the facts and circumstances relied upon in support
of such proposed action.
(2) In the computation of the 30-day period under
subsection (a), there shall be excluded any day on which
either House of Congress is not in session because of an
adjournment of more than 3 days to a day certain.
(c) Limitations.--(1) In no event may the total amount of
funds obligated pursuant to this title exceed the total
amount authorized to be appropriated by this title.
(2) Funds appropriated pursuant to this title may not be
used for an item for which Congress has specifically denied
funds.
SEC. 3122. LIMITS ON GENERAL PLANT PROJECTS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Energy may carry out any
construction project under the general plant projects
authorized by this title if the total estimated cost of the
construction project does not exceed $2,000,000.
(b) Report to Congress.--If, at any time during the
construction of any general plant project authorized by this
title, the estimated cost of the project is revised because
of unforeseen cost variations and the revised cost of the
project exceeds $2,000,000, the Secretary shall immediately
furnish a complete report to the congressional defense
committees explaining the reasons for the cost variation.
SEC. 3123. LIMITS ON CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.
(a) In General.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2),
construction on a construction project may not be started or
additional obligations incurred in connection with the
project above the total estimated cost, whenever the current
estimated cost of the construction project, which is
authorized by section 3101, 3102, or 3103, or which is in
support of national security programs of the Department of
Energy and was authorized by any previous Act, exceeds by
more than 25 percent the higher of--
(A) the amount authorized for the project; or
(B) the amount of the total estimated cost for the project
as shown in the most recent budget justification data
submitted to Congress.
(2) An action described in paragraph (1) may be taken if--
(A) the Secretary of Energy has submitted to the
congressional defense committees a report on the actions and
the circumstances making such action necessary; and
(B) a period of 30 days has elapsed after the date on which
the report is received by the committees.
(3) In the computation of the 30-day period under paragraph
(2), there shall be excluded any day on which either House of
Congress is not in session because of an adjournment of
more than 3 days to a day certain.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to any
construction project which has a current estimated cost of
less than $5,000,000.
SEC. 3124. FUND TRANSFER AUTHORITY.
(a) Transfer to Other Federal Agencies.--The Secretary of
Energy may transfer funds authorized to be appropriated to
the Department of Energy pursuant to this title to other
Federal agencies for the performance of work for which the
funds were authorized. Funds so transferred may be merged
with and be available for the same purposes and for the same
period as the authorizations of the Federal agency to which
the amounts are transferred.
(b) Transfer Within Department of Energy; Limitations.--(1)
Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary of Energy may
transfer funds authorized to be appropriated to the
Department of Energy pursuant to this title between any such
authorizations. Amounts of authorizations so transferred may
be merged with and be available for the same purposes and for
the same period as the authorization to which the amounts are
transferred.
(2) Not more than five percent of any such authorization
may be transferred between authorizations under paragraph
(1). No such authorization may be increased or decreased by
more than five percent by a transfer under such paragraph.
(3) The authority provided by this section to transfer
authorizations--
(A) may only be used to provide funds for items relating to
weapons activities necessary for national security programs
that have a higher priority than the items from which the
funds are transferred; and
(B) may not be used to provide authority for an item that
has been denied funds by Congress.
(c) Notice to Congress.--The Secretary of Energy shall
promptly notify the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate
and the Committee on National Security of the House of
Representatives of any transfer of funds to or from
authorizations under this title.
SEC. 3125. AUTHORITY FOR CONCEPTUAL AND CONSTRUCTION DESIGN.
(a) Requirement for Conceptual Design.--(1) Subject to
paragraph (2) and except as provided in paragraph (3), before
submitting to Congress a request for funds for a construction
project that is in support of a national security program of
the Department of Energy, the Secretary of Energy shall
complete a conceptual design for that project. The Secretary
shall submit to Congress a report on each conceptual design
completed under this paragraph.
(2) If the estimated cost of completing a conceptual design
for a construction project exceeds $3,000,000, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a request for funds for the
conceptual design before submitting a request for funds for
the construction project.
(3) The requirement in paragraph (1) does not apply to a
request for funds--
(A) for a construction project the total estimated cost of
which is less than $2,000,000; or
(B) for emergency planning, design, and construction
activities under section 3126.
(b) Authority for Construction Design.--(1) Within the
amounts authorized by this title, the Secretary of Energy may
carry out construction design (including architectural and
engineering services) in connection with any proposed
construction project if the total estimated cost for such
design does not exceed $600,000.
(2) If the total estimated cost for construction design in
connection with any construction project exceeds $600,000,
funds for such design must be specifically authorized by law.
SEC. 3126. AUTHORITY FOR EMERGENCY PLANNING, DESIGN, AND
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.
(a) Authority.--The Secretary of Energy may use any funds
available to the Department of Energy pursuant to an
authorization in this title, including those funds authorized
to be appropriated for advance planning and construction
design under sections 3101, 3102, and 3103, to perform
planning, design, and construction activities for any
Department of Energy national security program construction
project that, as determined by the Secretary, must proceed
expeditiously in order to protect public health and safety,
to meet the needs of national defense, or to protect
property.
(b) Limitation.--The Secretary may not exercise the
authority under subsection (a) in the case of any
construction project until the Secretary has submitted to the
congressional defense committees a report on the activities
that the Secretary intends to carry out under this section
and the circumstances making such activities necessary.
(c) Specific Authority.--The requirement of section
3125(b)(2) does not apply to emergency planning, design, and
construction activities conducted under this section.
SEC. 3127. FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR ALL NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.
Subject to the provisions of appropriations Acts and
section 3121, amounts appropriated pursuant to this title for
management and support activities and for general plant
projects are available for use, when necessary, in connection
with all national security programs of the Department of
Energy.
SEC. 3128. AUTHORITY RELATING TO TRANSFERS OF DEFENSE
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT FUNDS.
(a) Transfer Authority for Defense Environmental Management
Funds.--The Secretary of Energy shall provide the manager of
each field office of the Department of Energy with the
authority to transfer defense environmental management funds
from a program or project under the jurisdiction of the
office to another such program or project. Any such transfer
may be made only once in a fiscal year to or from a program
or project, and the amount transferred to or from a program
or project may not exceed $5,000,000 in a fiscal year.
(b) Determination.--A transfer may not be carried out by a
manager of a field office pursuant to the authority provided
under subsection (a) unless the manager determines that such
transfer is necessary to address a risk to health, safety, or
the environment or to assure the most efficient use of
defense environmental management funds at that field office.
(c) Exemption From Reprogramming Requirements.--The
requirements of section 3121 shall not apply to transfers of
funds pursuant to subsection (a).
(d) Notification.--The Secretary of Energy, acting through
the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environmental
Management, shall notify Congress of any transfer of funds
pursuant to subsection (a) not later than 30 days after such
a transfer occurs.
(e) Limitation.--Funds transferred pursuant to subsection
(a) may not be used for an item for which Congress has
specifically denied funds or for a new program or project
that has not been authorized by Congress.
(f) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``program or project'' means, with respect to
a field office of the Department of Energy, any of the
following:
(A) A project listed in subsection (b) or (e) of section
3102 being carried out by the office.
(B) A program referred to in subsection (a), (b), (c), (e),
or (g) of section 3102 being carried out by the office.
(C) A project or program not described in subparagraph (A)
or (B) that is for environmental restoration or waste
management activities necessary for national security
programs of the Department of Energy, that is being carried
out by the office, and for which defense environmental
management funds have been authorized and appropriated before
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) The term ``defense environmental management funds''
means funds appropriated to the Department of Energy pursuant
to an authorization for carrying out environmental
restoration and waste management activities necessary for
national security programs.
(g) Duration of Authority.--The authority provided under
subsection (a) to a manager of a field office shall be in
effect for the period beginning on October 1, 1997, and
ending on September 30, 1998.
Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations
SEC. 3131. BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE NATIONAL LABORATORY
PROGRAM.
(a) Program.--The Secretary of Energy shall establish a
program for purposes of making available to the Secretary of
Defense the expertise of the national laboratories for the
ballistic missile defense programs of the Department of
Defense.
(b) Task Force.--The Secretary of Energy shall conduct the
program through a task force consisting of the directors of
the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Sandia National
Laboratories, and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
The chairmanship of the task force
[[Page H4022]]
shall rotate each year among the directors of the
laboratories. The director of the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory shall serve as the first chairman.
(c) Activities.--Under the program, the national
laboratories shall carry out those activities necessary to
respond to requests for assistance from the Secretary of
Defense with respect to the ballistic missile defense
programs of the Department of Defense. Such activities may
include the identification of technical modifications and
test techniques, the analysis of physics problems, the
consolidation of range and test activities, and the analysis
and simulation of theater missile defense deployment
problems.
(d) Funding.--Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated
by section 3101(a)(1), $50,000,000 shall be available only
for the program authorized by this section.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
SEC. 3141. PLAN FOR STEWARDSHIP, MANAGEMENT, AND
CERTIFICATION OF WARHEADS IN THE NUCLEAR
WEAPONS STOCKPILE.
(a) Plan Requirement.--The Secretary of Energy shall
develop and annually update a plan for maintaining the
nuclear weapons stockpile. The plan shall cover, at a
minimum, stockpile stewardship, stockpile management, and
program direction and shall be consistent with the
programmatic and technical requirements of the most recent
annual Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Memorandum.
(b) Plan Elements.--The plan and each update of the plan
shall set forth the following:
(1) The number of warheads (including active and inactive
warheads) for each type of warhead in the nuclear weapons
stockpile.
(2) The current age of each warhead type, and any plans for
stockpile lifetime extensions and modifications or
replacement of each warhead type.
(3) The process by which the Secretary of Energy is
assessing the lifetime, and requirements for lifetime
extension or replacement, of the nuclear and nonnuclear
components of the warheads (including active and inactive
warheads) in the nuclear weapons stockpile.
(4) The process used in recertifying the safety, security,
and reliability of each warhead type in the nuclear weapons
stockpile.
(5) Any concerns which would affect the ability of the
Secretary of Energy to recertify the safety, security, or
reliability of warheads in the nuclear weapons stockpile
(including active and inactive warheads).
(c) Annual Submission of Plan to Congress.--The Secretary
of Energy shall submit to Congress the plan developed under
subsection (a) not later than March 15, 1998, and shall
submit an updated version of the plan not later than March 15
of each year thereafter. The plan shall be submitted in both
classified and unclassified form.
(d) Repeal of Superseded Requirements.--The following
provisions of law are repealed:
(1) Subsection (d) of section 3138 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160;
107 Stat. 1947; 42 U.S.C. 2121 note).
(2) Section 3153 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 624; 42
U.S.C. 2121 note).
(3) Section 3159 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 626; 42
U.S.C. 7271b note).
(4) Section 3156 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2841; 42
U.S.C. 7271c).
SEC. 3142. REPEAL OF OBSOLETE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
The following provisions of law are repealed:
(1) Subsection (e) of section 1436 of the National Defense
Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1989 (Public Law 100-456; 102
Stat. 2075; 42 U.S.C. 2121 note).
(2) Section 3143 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (Public Law 101-189; 103 Stat.
1681; 42 U.S.C. 7271a).
(3) Section 3134 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484; 106 Stat. 2639).
SEC. 3143. REVISIONS TO DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES WORKFORCE
RESTRUCTURING PLAN REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Repeal of Period for Notification of Changes in
Workforce.--Section 3161(c)(1) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (42 U.S.C.
7274h(c)(1)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
and
(2) by striking out subparagraph (B).
(b) Repeal of Requirements for Plan Updates and Submission
to Congress.--Subsections (e) and (f) of section 3161 of such
Act are repealed.
(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds for Local Impact
Assistance.--None of the funds authorized to be appropriated
to the Department of Energy pursuant to section 3103(6) may
be used for local impact assistance from the Department of
Energy under section 3161(c)(6) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
7274h(c)(6)).
(d) Treatment of Federal Employees.--Section 3161 of such
Act, as amended by subsection (b), is further amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(e) Treatment of Federal Employees.--This section does
not apply to employees of the Department of Energy.''.
(e) Effect on USEC Privatization Act.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed as diminishing the obligations of
the Secretary of Energy under section 3110(a)(5) of the USEC
Privatization Act (Public Law 104-134; 110 Stat. 1321-341; 42
U.S.C. 2297h-8(a)(5)).
(f) Termination.--Section 3161 of such Act (42 U.S.C.
7274h) is repealed, effective on September 30, 1999.
SEC. 3144. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR APPOINTMENT OF CERTAIN
SCIENTIFIC, ENGINEERING, AND TECHNICAL
PERSONNEL.
Section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 3095; 42
U.S.C. 7231 note) is amended--
(1) by striking out subsection (c); and
(2) in subsection (d)(1), by striking out ``1997'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``1999''.
SEC. 3145. REPORT ON PROPOSED CONTRACT FOR HANFORD TANK WASTE
VITRIFICATION PROJECT.
(a) Prior Notice to Congressional Defense Committees Before
Entering Into Contract.--(1) The Secretary of Energy may not
enter into a contract for the Hanford Tank Waste
Vitrification project until--
(A) the Secretary submits a report on the proposed contract
to the congressional defense committees; and
(B) a period of 30 days of continuous session of Congress
has expired following the date on which the report is
submitted.
(2) For purposes of paragraph (1)(B), the continuity of a
session of Congress is broken only by an adjournment of the
Congress sine die, and the days on which either House is not
in session because of an adjournment of more than three days
to a day certain are excluded in the computation of such 30-
day period.
(b) Report.--A report under subsection (a)(1) shall include
the following:
(A) A description of the activities to be carried out under
the contract.
(B) A description of the funds expended, and the funds
obligated but not expended, as of the date of the report on
remediation of Hanford tank waste since 1989.
(C) A description of the contractual and financial aspects
of the contract, including any provisions relating to the
risk of nonperformance and risk assumption by the United
States and the contractor or contractors.
(D) An analysis of the cost to the United States of the
proposed contract, including a detailed analysis of the
annual budget authority and outlay requirements for the life
of the project.
(E) If the proposed contract contemplates construction of
two projects, an analysis of the basis for the selection of
the two projects, and a detailed analysis of the costs to the
United States of two projects compared to the costs to the
United States of one project.
(F) If the proposed contract provides for financing of the
project (or projects) by an entity or entities other than the
United States, a detailed analysis of the costs of such
financing compared to the costs of financing the project (or
projects) by the United States.
SEC. 3146. LIMITATION ON CONDUCT OF SUBCRITICAL NUCLEAR
WEAPONS TESTS.
The Secretary of Energy may not conduct any subcritical
nuclear weapons tests using funds available to the Secretary
for fiscal year 1998 until 30 days after the Secretary
submits to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and
the Committee on National Security of the House of
Representatives a detailed report on the manner in which
funds available to the Secretary for fiscal years 1996 and
1997 to conduct such tests were used.
SEC. 3147. LIMITATION ON USE OF CERTAIN FUNDS UNTIL FUTURE
USE PLANS ARE SUBMITTED.
(a) Limitation.--The Secretary of Energy may not use more
than 80 percent of the funds available to the Secretary
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
3102(f) (relating to policy and management) until the
Secretary submits the plans described in subsection (b).
(b) Plans.--The plans referred to in subsection (a) are the
draft future use plan and the final future use plan required
under section 3153(f) of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2840;
42 U.S.C. 7274k).
SEC. 3148. PLAN FOR EXTERNAL OVERSIGHT OF NATIONAL
LABORATORIES.
(a) Plan Requirement.--The Secretary of Energy, acting
through the Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs, shall
develop a plan for the external oversight of the national
laboratories.
(b) Plan Elements.--The plan shall--
(1) provide for the establishment of an external oversight
committee comprised of representatives of industry and
academia for the purpose of making recommendations to the
Secretary of Energy and the congressional defense committees
on the productivity of the laboratories and on the
excellence, relevance, and appropriateness of the research
conducted by the laboratories; and
(2) provide for the establishment of a competitive peer
review process for funding basic research at the
laboratories.
(c) Submission to Congress.--The Secretary of Energy shall
submit the plan to the congressional defense committees not
later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
(d) National Laboratories Covered.--For purposes of this
section, the national laboratories are--
(1) the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore,
California;
(2) the Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New
Mexico;
(3) the Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New
Mexico; and
(4) the Nevada Test Site.
SEC. 3149. UNIVERSITY-BASED RESEARCH CENTER.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) The maintenance of scientific and engineering
competence in the United States is vital to long-term
national security and the defense
[[Page H4023]]
and national security missions of the Department of Energy.
(2) Engaging the universities and colleges of the Nation in
research on long-range problems of vital national security
interest will be critical to solving the technology
challenges faced within the defense and national programs of
the Department of Energy in the next century.
(3) Enhancing collaboration among the national
laboratories, universities and colleges, and industry will
contribute significantly to the performance of these
Department of Energy missions.
(b) Center.--The Secretary of Energy shall establish a
university-based research center at a location that can
develop the most effective collaboration among national
laboratories, universities and colleges, and industry in
support of scientific and engineering advancement in key
Department of Energy defense program areas.
(c) Funding.--Of the funds authorized to be appropriated to
the Department of Energy in fiscal year 1998, the Secretary
shall make $5,000,000 available for the establishment and
operation of the Center.
SEC. 3150. STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Eliminating the threat posed by nuclear weapons to the
United States is an important national security goal.
(2) As long as nuclear threats remain, the nuclear
deterrent of the United States must be effective and
reliable.
(3) A safe, secure, effective, and reliable United States
nuclear stockpile is central to the current nuclear
deterrence strategy of the United States.
(4) The Secretary of Energy has undertaken a stockpile
stewardship and management program to ensure the safety,
security, effectiveness, and reliability of the nuclear
weapons stockpile of the United States, consistent with all
United States treaty requirements and the requirements of the
nuclear deterrence strategy of the United States.
(5) It is the policy of the current administration that new
nuclear weapon designs are not required to effectively
implement the nuclear deterrence strategy of the United
States.
(b) Policy.--It is the policy of the United States that--
(1) activities of the stockpile stewardship program shall
be directed toward ensuring that the United States possesses
a safe, secure, effective, and reliable nuclear stockpile,
consistent with the national security requirements of the
United States; and
(2) stockpile stewardship activities of the United States
shall be conducted in conformity with the terms of the Treaty
on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (TIAS 6839) and
the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty signed by the President on
September 24, 1996, when and if that treaty enters into
force.
SEC. 3151. REPORTS ON ADVANCED SUPERCOMPUTER SALES TO CERTAIN
FOREIGN NATIONS.
(a) Reports.--The Secretary of Energy shall require that
any company that is a participant in the Accelerated
Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI) program of the
Department of Energy report to the Secretary and to the
Secretary of Defense each sale by that company to a country
designated as a Tier III country of a computer capable of
operating at a speed in excess of 2,000,000 theoretical
operations per second (MTOPS). The report shall include a
description of the following with respect to each such sale:
(1) The anticipated end-use of the computer sold.
(2) The software included with the computer.
(3) Any arrangement under the terms of the sale regarding--
(A) upgrading the computer;
(B) servicing of the computer; or
(C) the furnishing of spare parts for the computer.
(b) Covered Countries.--For purposes of this section, the
countries designated as Tier III countries are the countries
listed as ``computer tier 3'' eligible countries in part
740.7 of title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as in
effect on June 10, 1997 (or any successor list).
(c) Quarterly Submission of Reports.--The Secretary of
Energy shall require that reports under subsection (a) be
submitted quarterly.
(d) Annual Report.--The Secretary of Energy shall submit to
Congress an annual report containing all information received
under subsection (a) during the preceding year. The first
annual report shall be submitted not later than July 1, 1998.
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
SEC. 3201. AUTHORIZATION.
There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year
1998, $17,500,000 for the operation of the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board under chapter 21 of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2286 et seq.).
SEC. 3202. PLAN FOR TRANSFER OF FACILITIES FROM JURISDICTION
OF DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD TO
JURISDICTION OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
(a) Plan Requirement.--(1) The Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board (in this section referred to as the ``Board'')
shall develop, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy
and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a plan for--
(A) increasing the authority of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission to include the regulation of Department of Energy
defense nuclear facilities; and
(B) decreasing or eliminating the functions of the Board
with respect to such facilities under chapter 21 of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2286 et seq.).
(2) The plan shall be submitted to Congress not later than
six months after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Plan Elements.--The plan shall include the following:
(1) A list of facilities as described in subsection (c).
(2) A schedule for the orderly transfer of such facilities
from the jurisdiction of the Board to the jurisdiction of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(3) Recommendations on the order in which the facilities
should be transferred, including such recommendations as the
Board considers appropriate with respect to the suitability
of the various facilities for transfer and the
appropriateness for the various facilities of the schedule
for conducting the transfer.
(4) Such other provisions as the Board considers necessary
to carry out an orderly transfer under paragraph (2).
(c) List of Facilities.--The plan shall contain a list of
all Department of Energy defense nuclear facilities, grouped
according to the following criteria:
(1) Facilities that are similar to facilities regulated by
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(2) Facilities that are in compliance with Department of
Energy nuclear safety requirements and Board recommendations
in existence on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(3) Facilities the regulation of which would involve the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission in unique national security
interests, including the classified design and configuration
of a nuclear weapon or explosive device.
(d) Facility Defined.--In this section, the term
``Department of Energy defense nuclear facility'' has the
meaning provided by section 318 of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 (42 U.S.C. 2286g), except that the term includes such a
facility that is under construction or is planned by the
Secretary of Energy to be constructed.
(e) Repeal of Prohibition on Use of Funds.--Section 210 of
the Department of Energy National Security and Military
Applications of Nuclear Energy Authorization Act of 1981 (42
U.S.C. 7272) is repealed.
TITLE XXXIII--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE
SEC. 3301. AUTHORIZED USES OF STOCKPILE FUNDS.
(a) Obligation of Stockpile Funds.--During fiscal year
1998, the National Defense Stockpile Manager may obligate up
to $73,000,000 of the funds in the National Defense Stockpile
Transaction Fund for the authorized uses of such funds under
section 9(b)(2) of the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock
Piling Act (50 U.S.C. 98h(b)(2)).
(b) Additional Obligations.--The National Defense Stockpile
Manager may obligate amounts in excess of the amount
specified in subsection (a) if the National Defense Stockpile
Manager notifies Congress that extraordinary or emergency
conditions necessitate the additional obligations. The
National Defense Stockpile Manager may make the additional
obligations described in the notification after the end of
the 45-day period beginning on the date Congress receives the
notification.
(c) Limitations.--The authorities provided by this section
shall be subject to such limitations as may be provided in
appropriations Acts.
SEC. 3302. DISPOSAL OF BERYLLIUM COPPER MASTER ALLOY IN
NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE.
(a) Disposal Authorization.--Pursuant to section 5(b) of
the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act (50
U.S.C. 98d(b)), the National Defense Stockpile Manager may
dispose of all beryllium copper master alloy from the
National Defense Stockpile provided for in section 4 of such
Act (50 U.S.C. 98c) as part of continued efforts to modernize
the Stockpile.
(b) Precondition for Disposal.--Before beginning the
disposal of beryllium copper master alloy under subsection
(a), the National Defense Stockpile Manager shall certify to
Congress that the disposal of beryllium copper master alloy
will not adversely affect the capability of the National
Defense Stockpile to supply the strategic and critical
material needs of the United States.
(c) Consultation With Market Impact Committee.--In
disposing of beryllium copper master alloy under subsection
(a), the National Defense Stockpile Manager shall consult
with the Market Impact Committee established under section
10(c) of the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling
Act (50 U.S.C. 98h-1(c)) to ensure that the disposal of
beryllium copper master alloy does not disrupt the domestic
beryllium industry.
(d) Extended Sales Contracts.--The National Defense
Stockpile Manager shall provide for the use of long-term
sales contracts for the disposal of beryllium copper master
alloy under subsection (a) so that the domestic beryllium
industry can re-absorb this material into the market in a
gradual and nondisruptive manner. However, no such contract
shall provide for the disposal of beryllium copper master
alloy over a period longer than eight years, beginning on the
date of the commencement of the first contract under this
section.
(e) Relationship to Other Disposal Authority.--The disposal
authority provided in subsection (a) is new disposal
authority and is in addition to, and shall not affect, any
other disposal authority provided by law regarding beryllium
copper master alloy.
(f) Beryllium Copper Master Alloy Defined.--For purposes of
this section, the term ``beryllium copper master alloy''
means an alloy of nominally four percent beryllium in copper.
SEC. 3303. DISPOSAL OF TITANIUM SPONGE IN NATIONAL DEFENSE
STOCKPILE.
(a) Disposal Required.--Subject to subsection (b), the
National Defense Stockpile Manager shall dispose of 34,800
short tons of titanium sponge contained in the National
Defense
[[Page H4024]]
Stockpile provided for in section 4 of the Strategic and
Critical Materials Stock Piling Act (50 U.S.C. 98c) and
excess to stockpile requirements.
(b) Consultation With Market Impact Committee.--In
disposing of titanium sponge under subsection (a), the
National Defense Stockpile Manager shall consult with the
Market Impact Committee established under section 10(c) of
the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act (50
U.S.C. 98h-1(c)) to ensure that the disposal of titanium
sponge does not disrupt the domestic titanium industry.
(c) Relationship to Other Disposal Authority.--The disposal
authority provided in subsection (a) is new disposal
authority and is in addition to, and shall not affect, any
other disposal authority provided by law regarding titanium
sponge.
SEC. 3304. CONDITIONS ON TRANSFER OF STOCKPILED PLATINUM
RESERVES FOR TREASURY USE.
(a) Imposition of Conditions.--Any transfer of platinum
contained in the National Defense Stockpile provided for in
section 4 of the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock
Piling Act (50 U.S.C. 98c) to the Secretary of the Treasury
for use to mint and issue bullion and proof platinum coins or
for any other purpose shall be subject to the conditions
contained in this section.
(b) Yearly Limitation.--The quantity of platinum
transferred from the stockpile to the Secretary of the
Treasury may not exceed 200,000 troy ounces during any fiscal
year, of which not more than 81,600 troy ounces per year may
be platinum of the highest quality specification.
(c) Replacement Upon Notice.--The Secretary of the Treasury
shall replace platinum received from the stockpile within one
year after receiving notice from the Secretary of Defense
specifying the quantity and quality of transferred platinum
to be replaced and the need for replacement.
(d) Costs.--Any transfer of platinum from the stockpile to
the Secretary of the Treasury shall be made without the
expenditure of any funds available to the Department of
Defense. The Secretary of the Treasury shall be responsible
for all costs incurred in connection with the transfer,
subsequent to the transfer, or in connection with the
replacement of the transferred platinum, such as
transportation, storage, testing, refining, or casting costs.
SEC. 3305. RESTRICTIONS ON DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN MANGANESE
FERRO.
(a) Requirement for Remelting by Domestic Ferroalloy
Producers.--High carbon manganese ferro in the National
Defense Stockpile that does not meet the National Defense
Stockpile classification of Grade One, Specification 30(a),
as revised May 22, 1992, may be sold only for remelting by a
domestic ferroalloy producer unless the President determines
that a domestic ferroalloy producer is not available to
acquire the material. After the date of the enactment of this
Act, the President may not reclassify high carbon manganese
ferro stored in the National Defense Stockpile as of that
date.
(b) Domestic Ferroalloy Producer Defined.--For purposes of
this section, the term ``domestic ferroalloy producer'' means
a company or other business entity that, as determined by the
President--
(1) is engaged in operations to upgrade manganese ores of
metallurgical grade or manganese ferro; and
(2) conducts a significant level of its research,
development, engineering, and upgrading operations in the
United States.
(c) Consultation With Market Impact Committee.--In
disposing of high carbon manganese ferro in the National
Defense Stockpile, the National Defense Stockpile Manager
shall consult with the Market Impact Committee established
under section 10(c) of the Strategic and Critical Materials
Stock Piling Act (50 U.S.C. 98h-1(c)) to ensure that the
disposal of high carbon manganese ferro does not disrupt the
domestic manganese ferro industry.
(d) Conforming Repeal.--Section 3304 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law
104-106; 110 Stat. 629) is repealed.
SEC. 3306. REQUIRED PROCEDURES FOR DISPOSAL OF STRATEGIC AND
CRITICAL MATERIALS.
Section 6(b) of the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock
Piling Act (50 U.S.C. 98e(b)) is amended in the first
sentence by striking out ``materials from the stockpile shall
be made by formal advertising or competitive negotiation
procedures.'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``strategic and
critical materials from the stockpile shall be made in
accordance with the next sentence.''.
TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES
SEC. 3401. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary of Energy $117,000,000 for fiscal year 1998 for the
purpose of carrying out activities under chapter 641 of title
10, United States Code, relating to the naval petroleum
reserves (as defined in section 7420(2) of such title). Funds
appropriated pursuant to such authorization shall remain
available until expended.
SEC. 3402. PRICE REQUIREMENT ON SALE OF CERTAIN PETROLEUM
DURING FISCAL YEAR 1998.
Notwithstanding section 7430(b)(2) of title 10, United
States Code, during fiscal year 1998, any sale of any part of
the United States share of petroleum produced from Naval
Petroleum Reserves Numbered 1, 2, and 3 shall be made at a
price not less than 90 percent of the current sales price, as
estimated by the Secretary of Energy, of comparable petroleum
in the same area.
SEC. 3403. TERMINATION OF ASSIGNMENT OF NAVY OFFICERS TO
OFFICE OF NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE
RESERVES.
(a) Termination of Assignment Requirement.--Section 2 of
Public Law 96-137 (42 U.S.C. 7156a) is repealed.
(b) Effect on Existing Assignments.--In the case of an
officer of the Navy assigned, as of the date of the enactment
of this Act, to a management position within the Office of
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves, the Secretary of the
Navy may continue such assignment notwithstanding the repeal
of section 2 of Public Law 96-137 (42 U.S.C. 7156a), except
that such assignment may not extend beyond the date of the
sale of Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 1 (Elk Hills)
pursuant to subtitle B of title XXXIV of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106;
10 U.S.C. 7420 note).
TITLE XXXV--PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION
Subtitle A--Authorization of Expenditures From Revolving Fund
SEC. 3501. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Panama Canal Commission
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998''.
SEC. 3502. AUTHORIZATION OF EXPENDITURES.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the Panama
Canal Commission is authorized to use amounts in the Panama
Canal Revolving Fund to make such expenditures within the
limits of funds and borrowing authority available to it in
accordance with law, and to make such contracts and
commitments, as may be necessary under the Panama Canal Act
of 1979 (22 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.) for the operation,
maintenance, improvement, and administration of the Panama
Canal for fiscal year 1998.
(b) Limitations.--For fiscal year 1998, the Panama Canal
Commission may expend from funds in the Panama Canal
Revolving Fund not more than $85,000 for official reception
and representation expenses, of which--
(1) not more than $23,000 may be used for official
reception and representation expenses of the Supervisory
Board of the Commission;
(2) not more than $12,000 may be used for official
reception and representation expenses of the Secretary of the
Commission; and
(3) not more than $50,000 may be used for official
reception and representation expenses of the Administrator of
the Commission.
SEC. 3503. PURCHASE OF VEHICLES.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the funds
available to the Commission shall be available for the
purchase and transportation to the Republic of Panama of
passenger motor vehicles built in the United States, the
purchase price of which shall not exceed $22,000 per vehicle.
SEC. 3504. EXPENDITURES ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH TREATIES.
Expenditures authorized under this subtitle may be made
only in accordance with the Panama Canal Treaties of 1977 and
any law of the United States implementing those treaties.
Subtitle B--Facilitation of Panama Canal Transition
SEC. 3511. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES.
(a) Short Title.--This subtitle may be cited as the
``Panama Canal Transition Facilitation Act of 1997''.
(b) References.--Except as otherwise expressly provided,
whenever in this subtitle an amendment or repeal is expressed
in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other
provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a
section or other provision of the Panama Canal Act of 1979
(22 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.).
SEC. 3512. DEFINITIONS RELATING TO CANAL TRANSITION.
Section 3 (22 U.S.C. 3602) is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
``(d) For purposes of this Act:
``(1) The term `Canal Transfer Date' means December 31,
1999, such date being the date specified in the Panama Canal
Treaty of 1977 for the transfer of the Panama Canal from the
United States of America to the Republic of Panama.
``(2) The term `Panama Canal Authority' means the entity
created by the Republic of Panama to succeed the Panama Canal
Commission as of the Canal Transfer Date.''.
PART I--TRANSITION MATTERS RELATING TO COMMISSION OFFICERS AND
EMPLOYEES
SEC. 3521. AUTHORITY FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE COMMISSION
TO ACCEPT APPOINTMENT AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF
THE PANAMA CANAL AUTHORITY.
(a) Authority for Dual Role.--Section 1103 (22 U.S.C. 3613)
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) The Congress consents, for purposes of the 8th clause
of article I, section 9 of the Constitution of the United
States, to the acceptance by the individual serving as
Administrator of the Commission of appointment by the
Republic of Panama to the position of Administrator of the
Panama Canal Authority. Such consent is effective only if
that individual, while serving in both such positions, serves
as Administrator of the Panama Canal Authority without
compensation, except for payments by the Republic of Panama
of travel and entertainment expenses, including per diem
payments.''.
(b) Waiver of Certain Conflict-of-Interest Statutes.--Such
section is further amended by adding at the end the following
new subsections:
``(d) The Administrator, with respect to participation in
any matter as Administrator of the Panama Canal Commission
(whether such participation is before, on, or after the date
of the enactment of the Panama Canal Transition Facilitation
Act of 1997), shall not be subject to section 208 of title
18, United States Code, insofar as the matter relates to
prospective employment as Administrator of the Panama Canal
Authority.
[[Page H4025]]
``(e) If the Republic of Panama appoints as the
Administrator of the Panama Canal Authority the individual
serving as the Administrator of the Commission and if that
individual accepts the appointment--
``(1) the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as
amended (22 U.S.C. 611 et seq.), shall not apply to that
individual with respect to service as the Administrator of
the Panama Canal Authority;
``(2) that individual, with respect to participation in any
matter as the Administrator of the Panama Canal Commission,
is not subject to section 208 of title 18, United States
Code, insofar as the matter relates to service as, or
performance of the duties of, the Administrator of the Panama
Canal Authority; and
``(3) that individual, with respect to official acts
performed as the Administrator of the Panama Canal Authority,
is not subject to the following:
``(A) Sections 203 and 205 of title 18, United States Code.
``(B) Effective upon termination of the individual's
appointment as Administrator of the Panama Canal Commission
at noon on the Canal Transfer Date, section 207 of title 18,
United States Code.
``(C) Sections 501(a) and 502(a)(4) of the Ethics in
Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), with respect to
compensation received for, and service in, the position of
Administrator of the Panama Canal Authority.''.
SEC. 3522. POST-CANAL TRANSFER PERSONNEL AUTHORITIES.
(a) Waiver of Certain Post-employment Restrictions for
Commission Personnel Becoming Employees of the Panama Canal
Authority.--Section 1112 (22 U.S.C. 3622) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(e) Effective as of the Canal Transfer Date, section 207
of title 18, United States Code, shall not apply to an
individual who is an officer or employee of the Panama Canal
Authority, but only with respect to official acts of that
individual as an officer or employee of the Authority and
only in the case of an individual who was an officer or
employee of the Commission and whose employment with the
Commission was terminated at noon on the Canal Transfer
Date.''.
(b) Consent of Congress for Acceptance by Reserve and
Retired Members of the Armed Forces of Employment by Panama
Canal Authority.--Such section is further amended by adding
after subsection (e), as added by subsection (a), the
following new subsection:
``(f)(1) The Congress consents to the following persons
accepting civil employment (and compensation for that
employment) with the Panama Canal Authority for which the
consent of the Congress is required by the last paragraph of
section 9 of article I of the Constitution of the United
States, relating to acceptance of emoluments, offices, or
titles from a foreign government:
``(A) Retired members of the uniformed services.
``(B) Members of a reserve component of the armed forces.
``(C) Members of the Commisioned Reserve Corps of the
Public Health Service.
``(2) The consent of the Congress under paragraph (1) is
effective without regard to subsection (b) of section 908 of
title 37, United States Code (relating to approval required
for employment of Reserve and retired members by foreign
governments).''.
SEC. 3523. ENHANCED AUTHORITY OF COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH
COMPENSATION OF COMMISSION OFFICERS AND
EMPLOYEES.
(a) Repeal of Limitations on Commission Authority.--The
following provisions are repealed:
(1) Section 1215 (22 U.S.C. 3655), relating to basic pay.
(2) Section 1219 (22 U.S.C. 3659), relating to salary
protection upon conversion of pay rate.
(3) Section 1225 (22 U.S.C. 3665), relating to minimum
level of pay and minimum annual increases.
(b) Savings Provision.--Section 1202 (22 U.S.C. 3642) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) In the case of an individual who is an officer or
employee of the Commission on the day before the date of the
enactment of the Panama Canal Transition Facilitation Act of
1997 and who has not had a break in service with the
Commission since that date, the rate of basic pay for that
officer or employee on or after that date may not be less
than the rate in effect for that officer or employee on the
day before that date of enactment except--
``(1) as provided in a collective bargaining agreement;
``(2) as a result of an adverse action against the officer
or employee; or
``(3) pursuant to a voluntary demotion.''.
(c) Cross-Reference Amendments.--(1) Section 1216 (22
U.S.C. 3656) is amended by striking out ``1215'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``1202''.
(2) Section 1218 (22 U.S.C. 3658) is amended by striking
out ``1215'' and ``1217'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``1202'' and ``1217(a)'', respectively.
SEC. 3524. TRAVEL, TRANSPORTATION, AND SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES
FOR COMMISSION PERSONNEL NO LONGER SUBJECT TO
FEDERAL TRAVEL REGULATION.
(a) Repeal of Applicability of Title 5 Provisions.--(1)
Section 1210 (22 U.S.C. 3650) is amended by striking out
subsections (a), (b), and (c).
(2) Section 1224 (22 U.S.C. 3664) is amended--
(A) by striking out paragraph (10); and
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (11) through (20) as
paragraphs (10) through (19), respectively.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 1210 is further
amended--
(A) by redesignating subsection (d)(1) as subsection (a)
and in that subsection striking out ``paragraph (2)'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``subsection (b)''; and
(B) by redesignating subsection (d)(2) as subsection (b)
and in that subsection--
(i) striking out ``Notwithstanding paragraph (1), an'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``An''; and
(ii) striking out ''referred to in paragraph (1)'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``who is a citizen of the Republic
of Panama''.
(2) The heading of such section is amended to read as
follows:
``air transportation''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on January 1, 1999.
SEC. 3525. ENHANCED RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION AUTHORITIES.
(a) Recruitment, Relocation, and Retention Bonuses.--
Section 1217 (22 U.S.C. 3657) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (e);
(2) in subsection (e) (as so redesignated), by striking out
``for the same or similar work performed in the United States
by individuals employed by the Government of the United
States'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``of the individual to
whom the compensation is paid''; and
(3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new
subsections:
``(c)(1) The Commission may pay a recruitment bonus to an
individual who is newly appointed to a position with the
Commission, or a relocation bonus to an employee of the
Commission who must relocate to accept a position, if the
Commission determines that the Commission would be likely, in
the absence of such a bonus, to have difficulty in filling
the position.
``(2) A recruitment or relocation bonus may be paid to an
employee under this subsection only if the employee enters
into an agreement with the Commission to complete a period of
employment with the Commission established by the Commission.
If the employee voluntarily fails to complete such period of
employment or is separated from service in such employment as
a result of an adverse action before the completion of such
period, the employee shall repay the entire amount of the
bonus.
``(3) A relocation bonus under this subsection may be paid
as a lump sum. A recruitment bonus under this subsection
shall be paid on a pro rata basis over the period of
employment covered by the agreement under paragraph (2). A
bonus under this subsection may not be considered to be
part of the basic pay of an employee.
``(d)(1) The Commission may pay a retention bonus to an
employee of the Commission if the Commission determines
that--
``(A) the employee has unusually high or unique
qualifications and those qualifications make it essential for
the Commission to retain the employee for a period specified
by the Commission ending not later than the Canal Transfer
Date, or the Commission otherwise has a special need for the
services of the employee making it essential for the
Commission to retain the employee for a period specified by
the Commission ending not later than the Canal Transfer Date;
and
``(B) the employee would be likely to leave employment with
the Commission before the end of that period if the retention
bonus is not paid.
``(2) A retention bonus under this subsection--
``(A) shall be in a fixed amount;
``(B) shall be paid on a pro rata basis (over the period
specified by the Commission as essential for the retention of
the employee), with such payments to be made at the same time
and in the same manner as basic pay; and
``(C) may not be considered to be part of the basic pay of
an employee.
``(3) A decision by the Commission to exercise or to not
exercise the authority to pay a bonus under this subsection
shall not be subject to review under any statutory procedure
or any agency or negotiated grievance procedure except under
any of the laws referred to in section 2302(d) of title 5,
United States Code.''.
(b) Educational Services.--Section 1321(e)(2) (22 U.S.C.
3731(e)(2)) is amended by striking out ``and persons'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``, to other Commission employees
when determined by the Commission to be necessary for their
recruitment or retention, and to other persons''.
SEC. 3526. TRANSITION SEPARATION INCENTIVE PAYMENTS.
Chapter 2 of title I (22 U.S.C. 3641 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end of subchapter III the following new
section:
``transition separation incentive payments
``Sec. 1233. (a) In applying to the Commission and
employees of the Commission the provisions of section 663 of
the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1997 (as contained in section 101(f) of
division A of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-383),
relating to voluntary separation incentives for employees of
certain Federal agencies (in this section referred to as
`section 663')--
``(1) the term `employee' shall mean an employee of the
Commission who has served in the Republic of Panama in a
position with the Commission for a continuous period of at
least three years immediately before the employee's
separation under an appointment without time limitation and
who is covered under the Civil Service Retirement System or
the Federal Employees' Retirement System under subchapter III
of chapter 83 or chapter 84, respectively, of title 5, United
States Code, other than--
``(A) an employee described in any of subparagraphs (A)
through (F) of subsection (a)(2) of section 663; or
``(B) an employee of the Commission who, during the 24-
month period preceding the date
[[Page H4026]]
of separation, has received a recruitment or relocation bonus
under section 1217(c) of this Act or who, within the 12-month
period preceding the date of separation, received a retention
bonus under section 1217(d) of this Act;
``(2) the strategic plan under subsection (b) of section
663 shall include (in lieu of the matter specified in
subsection (b)(2) of that section)--
``(A) the positions to be affected, identified by
occupational category and grade level;
``(B) the number and amounts of separation incentive
payments to be offered; and
``(C) a description of how such incentive payments will
facilitate the successful transfer of the Panama Canal to the
Republic of Panama;
``(3) a separation incentive payment under section 663 may
be paid to a Commission employee only to the extent necessary
to facilitate the successful transfer of the Panama Canal by
the United States of America to the Republic of Panama as
required by the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977;
``(4) such a payment--
``(A) may be in an amount determined by the Commission not
to exceed $25,000; and
``(B) may be made (notwithstanding the limitation specified
in subsection (c)(2)(D) of section 663) in the case of an
eligible employee who voluntarily separates (whether by
retirement or resignation) during the 90-day period beginning
on the date of the enactment of this section or during the
period beginning on October 1, 1998, and ending on
December 31, 1998;
``(5) in the case of not more than 15 employees who (as
determined by the Commission) are unwilling to work for the
Panama Canal Authority after the Canal Transfer Date and who
occupy critical positions for which (as determined by the
Commission) at least two years of experience is necessary to
ensure that seasoned managers are in place on and after the
Canal Transfer Date, such a payment (notwithstanding
paragraph (4))--
``(A) may be in an amount determined by the Commission not
to exceed 50 percent of the basic pay of the employee; and
``(B) may be made (notwithstanding the limitation specified
in subsection (c)(2)(D) of section 663) in the case of such
an employee who voluntarily separates (whether by retirement
or resignation) during the 90-day period beginning on the
date of the enactment of this section; and
``(6) the provisions of subsection (f) of section 663 shall
not apply.
``(b) A decision by the Commission to exercise or to not
exercise the authority to pay a transition separation
incentive under this section shall not be subject to review
under any statutory procedure or any agency or negotiated
grievance procedure except under any of the laws referred to
in section 2302(d) of title 5, United States Code.''.
SEC. 3527. LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS.
Section 1271 (22 U.S.C. 3701) is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:
``(c)(1) This subsection applies to any matter that becomes
the subject of collective bargaining between the Commission
and the exclusive representative for any bargaining unit of
employees of the Commission during the period beginning on
the date of the enactment of this subsection and ending on
the Canal Transfer Date.
``(2)(A) The resolution of impasses resulting from
collective bargaining between the Commission and any such
exclusive representative during that period shall be
conducted in accordance with such procedures as may be
mutually agreed upon between the Commission and the exclusive
representative (without regard to any otherwise applicable
provisions of chapter 71 of title 5, United States Code).
Such mutually agreed upon procedures shall become effective
upon transmittal by the Chairman of the Commission to the
Congress of notice of the agreement to use those procedures
and a description of those procedures.
``(B) The Federal Services Impasses Panel shall not have
jurisdiction to resolve any impasse between the Commission
and any such exclusive representative in negotiations over a
procedure for resolving impasses.
``(3) If the Commission and such an exclusive
representative do not reach an agreement concerning a
procedure for resolving impasses with respect to a bargaining
unit and transmit notice of the agreement under paragraph (2)
on or before July 1, 1998, the following shall be the
procedure by which collective bargaining impasses between the
Commission and the exclusive representative for that
bargaining unit shall be resolved:
``(A) If bargaining efforts do not result in an agreement,
the parties shall request the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service to assist in achieving an agreement.
``(B) If an agreement is not reached within 45 days after
the date on which either party requests the assistance of the
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service in writing (or
within such shorter period as may be mutually agreed upon by
the parties), the parties shall be considered to be at an
impasse and shall request the Federal Services Impasses Panel
of the Federal Labor Relations Authority to decide the
impasse.
``(C) If the Federal Services Impasses Panel fails to issue
a decision within 90 days after the date on which its
services are requested (or within such shorter period as may
be mutually agreed upon by the parties), the efforts of the
Panel shall be terminated.
``(D) In such a case, the Chairman of the Panel (or another
member in the absence of the Chairman) shall immediately
determine the matter by a drawing (conducted in such manner
as the Chairman (or, in the absence of the Chairman, such
other member) determines appropriate) between the last offer
of the Commission and the last offer of the exclusive
representative, with the offer chosen through such drawing
becoming the binding resolution of the matter.
``(4) In the case of a notice of agreement described in
paragraph (2)(A) that is transmitted to the Congress as
described in the second sentence of that paragraph after July
1, 1998, the impasse resolution procedures covered by that
notice shall apply to any impasse between the Commission and
the other party to the agreeement that is unresolved on the
date on which that notice is transmitted to the Congress.''.
SEC. 3528. AVAILABILITY OF PANAMA CANAL REVOLVING FUND FOR
SEVERANCE PAY FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES SEPARATED
BY PANAMA CANAL AUTHORITY AFTER CANAL TRANSFER
DATE.
(a) Availability of Revolving Fund.--Section 1302(a) (22
U.S.C. 3712(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(10) Payment to the Panama Canal Authority, not later
than the Canal Transfer Date, of such amount as is computed
by the Commission to be the future amount of severance pay to
be paid by the Panama Canal Authority to employees whose
employment with the Authority is terminated, to the extent
that such severance pay is attributable to periods of service
performed with the Commission before the Canal Transfer Date
(and assuming for purposes of such computation that the
Panama Canal Authority, in paying severance pay to terminated
employees, will provide for crediting of periods of service
with the Commission).''.
(b) Stylistic Amendments.--Such section is further
amended--
(1) by striking out ``for--'' in the matter preceding
paragraph (1) and inserting in lieu thereof ``for the
following purposes:'';
(2) by capitalizing the initial letter of the first word in
each of paragraphs (1) through (9);
(3) by striking out the semicolon at the end of each of
paragraphs (1) through (7) and inserting in lieu thereof a
period; and
(4) by striking out ``; and'' at the end of paragraph (8)
and inserting in lieu thereof a period.
PART II--TRANSITION MATTERS RELATING TO OPERATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF
CANAL
SEC. 3541. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROCUREMENT SYSTEM AND BOARD OF
CONTRACT APPEALS.
Title III of the Panama Canal Act of 1979 (22 U.S.C. 3601
et seq.) is amended by inserting after the title heading the
following new chapter:
``Chapter 1--Procurement
``procurement system
``Sec. 3101. (a) Panama Canal Acquisition Regulation.--(1)
The Commission shall establish by regulation a comprehensive
procurement system. The regulation shall be known as the
`Panama Canal Acquisition Regulation' (in this section
referred to as the `Regulation') and shall provide for the
procurement of goods and services by the Commission in a
manner that--
``(A) applies the fundamental operating principles and
procedures in the Federal Acquisition Regulation;
``(B) uses efficient commercial standards of practice; and
``(C) is suitable for adoption and uninterrupted use by the
Republic of Panama after the Canal Transfer Date.
``(2) The Regulation shall contain provisions regarding the
establishment of the Panama Canal Board of Contract Appeals
described in section 3102.
``(b) Supplement to Regulation.--The Commission shall
develop a Supplement to the Regulation (in this section
referred to as the `Supplement') that identifies both the
provisions of Federal law applicable to procurement of goods
and services by the Commission and the provisions of Federal
law waived by the Commission under subsection (c).
``(c) Waiver Authority.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the
Commission shall determine which provisions of Federal law
should not apply to procurement by the Commission and may
waive those laws for purposes of the Regulation and
Supplement.
``(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the Commission may not
waive--
``(A) section 27 of the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 423);
``(B) the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), other than section 10(a) of such Act (41 U.S.C
609(a)); or
``(C) civil rights, environmental, or labor laws.
``(d) Consultation With Administrator for Federal
Procurement Policy.--In establishing the Regulation and
developing the Supplement, the Commission shall consult with
the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy.
``(e) Effective Date.--The Regulation and the Supplement
shall take effect on the date of publication in the Federal
Register, or January 1, 1999, whichever is earlier.
``panama canal board of contract appeals
``Sec. 3102. (a) Establishment.--(1) The Secretary of
Defense, in consultation with the Commission, shall establish
a board of contract appeals, to be known as the Panama Canal
Board of Contract Appeals, in accordance with section 8 of
the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 607). Except as
otherwise provided by this section, the Panama Canal Board of
Contract Appeals (in this section referred to as the `Board')
shall be subject to the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) in the same manner as any other agency
board of contract appeals established under that Act.
``(2) The Board shall consist of three members. At least
one member of the Board shall be licensed to practice law in
the Republic of Panama. Individuals appointed to the Board
shall take an oath of office, the form of which shall be
prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.
``(b) Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Appeals.--
Notwithstanding section 10(a)(1) of the Contract Disputes Act
of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 609(a)(1)) or any other provision of law,
the Board shall have exclusive jurisdiction to decide
[[Page H4027]]
an appeal from a decision of a contracting officer under
section 8(d) of such Act (41 U.S.C. 607(d)).
``(c) Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Protests.--The Board
shall decide protests submitted to it under this subsection
by interested parties in accordance with subchapter V of
title 31, United States Code. Notwithstanding section 3556 of
that title, section 1491(b) of title 28, United States Code,
and any other provision of law, the Board shall have
exclusive jurisdiction to decide such protests. For purposes
of this subsection--
``(1) except as provided in paragraph (2), each reference
to the Comptroller General in sections 3551 through 3555 of
title 31, United States Code, is deemed to be a reference to
the Board;
``(2) the reference to the Comptroller General in section
3553(d)(3)(C)(ii) of such title is deemed to be a reference
to both the Board and the Comptroller General;
``(3) the report required by paragraph (1) of section
3554(e) of such title shall be submitted to the Comptroller
General as well as the committees listed in such paragraph;
``(4) the report required by paragraph (2) of such section
shall be submitted to the Comptroller General as well as
Congress; and
``(5) section 3556 of such title shall not apply to the
Board, but nothing in this subsection shall affect the right
of an interested party to file a protest with the appropriate
contracting officer.
``(d) Procedures.--The Board shall prescribe such
procedures as may be necessary for the expeditious decision
of appeals and protests under subsections (b) and (c).
``(e) Commencement.--The Board shall begin to function as
soon as it has been established and has prescribed procedures
under subsection (d), but not later than January 1, 1999.
``(f) Transition.--The Board shall have jurisdiction under
subsection (b) and (c) over any appeals and protests filed on
or after the date on which the Board begins to function. Any
appeals and protests filed before such date shall remain
before the forum in which they were filed.
``(g) Other Functions.--The Board may perform functions
similar to those described in this section for such other
matters or activities of the Commission as the Commission may
determine and in accordance with regulations prescribed by
the Commission.''.
SEC. 3542. TRANSACTIONS WITH THE PANAMA CANAL AUTHORITY.
Section 1342 (22 U.S.C. 3752) is amended--
(1) by designating the text of the section as subsection
(a); and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
``(b) The Commission may provide office space, equipment,
supplies, personnel, and other in-kind services to the Panama
Canal Authority on a nonreimbursable basis.
``(c) Any executive department or agency of the United
States may, on a reimbursable basis, provide to the Panama
Canal Authority materials, supplies, equipment, work, or
services requested by the Panama Canal Authority, at such
rates as may be agreed upon by that department or agency and
the Panama Canal Authority.''.
SEC. 3543. TIME LIMITATIONS ON FILING OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES.
(a) Filing of Administrative Claims With Commission.--
Sections 1411(a) (22 U.S.C. 3771(a)) and 1412 (22 U.S.C.
3772) are each amended in the last sentence by striking out
``within 2 years after'' and all that follows through ``of
1985,'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``within one year after
the date of the injury or the date of the enactment of the
Panama Canal Transition Facilitation Act of 1997,''.
(b) Filing of Judicial Actions.--The penultimate sentence
of section 1416 (22 U.S.C. 3776) is amended--
(1) by striking out ``one year'' the first place it appears
and inserting in lieu thereof ``180 days''; and
(2) by striking out ``claim, or'' and all that follows
through ``of 1985,'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``claim or
the date of the enactment of the Panama Canal Transition
Facilitation Act of 1997,''.
SEC. 3544. TOLLS FOR SMALL VESSELS.
Section 1602(a) (22 U.S.C. 3792(a)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking out ``supply ships,
and yachts'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``and supply
ships''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new sentence:
``Tolls for small vessels (including yachts), as defined by
the Commission, may be set at rates determined by the
Commission without regard to the preceding provisions of this
subsection.''.
SEC. 3545. DATE OF ACTUARIAL EVALUATION OF FECA LIABILITY.
Section 5(a) of the Panama Canal Commission Compensation
Fund Act of 1988 (22 U.S.C. 3715c(a)) is amended by striking
out ``Upon the termination of the Panama Canal Commission''
and inserting in lieu thereof ``By March 31, 1998''.
SEC. 3546. APPOINTMENT OF NOTARIES PUBLIC.
Section 1102a (22 U.S.C. 3612a) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following new
subsection:
``(g)(1) The Commission may appoint any United States
citizen to have the general powers of a notary public to
perform, on behalf of Commission employees and their
dependents outside the United States, any notarial act that a
notary public is required or authorized to perform within the
United States. Unless an earlier expiration is provided by
the terms of the appointment, any such appointment shall
expire three months after the Canal Transfer Date.
``(2) Every notarial act performed by a person acting as a
notary under paragraph (1) shall be as valid, and of like
force and effect within the United States, as if executed by
or before a duly authorized and competent notary public in
the United States.
``(3) The signature of any person acting as a notary under
paragraph (1), when it appears with the title of that
person's office, is prima facie evidence that the signature
is genuine, that the person holds the designated title, and
that the person is authorized to perform a notarial act.''.
SEC. 3547. COMMERCIAL SERVICES.
Section 1102b (22 U.S.C. 3612b) is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:
``(e) The Commission may conduct and promote commercial
activities related to the management, operation, or
maintenance of the Panama Canal. Any such commercial activity
shall be carried out consistent with the Panama Canal Treaty
of 1977 and related agreements.''.
SEC. 3548. TRANSFER FROM PRESIDENT TO COMMISSION OF CERTAIN
REGULATORY FUNCTIONS RELATING TO EMPLOYMENT
CLASSIFICATION APPEALS.
Sections 1221(a) and 1222(a) (22 U.S.C. 3661(a), 3662(a))
are amended by striking out ``President'' and inserting in
lieu thereof ``Commission''.
SEC. 3549. ENHANCED PRINTING AUTHORITY.
Section 1306(a) (22 U.S.C. 3714b(a)) is amended by striking
out ``Section 501'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``Sections
501 through 517 and 1101 through 1123''.
SEC. 3550. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) Clerical Amendments.--The table of contents in section
1 is amended--
(1) by striking out the item relating to section 1210 and
inserting in lieu thereof the following:
``Sec. 1210. Air transportation.'';
(2) by striking out the items relating to sections 1215,
1219, and 1225;
(3) by inserting after the item relating to section 1232
the following new item:
``Sec. 1233. Transition separation incentive payments.'';
and
(4) by inserting after the item relating to the heading of
title III the following:
``Chapter 1--Procurement
``Sec. 3101. Procurement system.
``Sec. 3102. Panama Canal Board of Contract Appeals.''.
(b) Amendment To Reflect Prior Change in Compensation of
Administrator.--Section 5315 of title 5, United States Code,
is amended by striking out the following:
``Administrator of the Panama Canal Commission.''.
(c) Amendments To Reflect Change in Travel and
Transportation Expenses Authority.--(1) Section 5724(a)(3) of
title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking out ``,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,'' and all that follows
through ``Panama Canal Act of 1979'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico''.
(2) Section 5724a(j) of such title is amended--
(A) by inserting ``and'' after ``Northern Mariana
Islands,''; and
(B) by striking out ``United States, and'' and all that
follows through the period at the end and inserting in lieu
thereof ``United States.''.
(3) The amendments made by this subsection shall take
effect on January 1,1999.
(d) Miscellaneous Technical Amendments.--
(1) Section 3(b) (22 U.S.C. 3602(b)) is amended by striking
out ``the Canal Zone Code'' and all that follows through
``other laws'' the second place it appears and inserting in
lieu thereof ``laws of the United States and regulations
issued pursuant to such laws''.
(2)(A) The following provisions are each amended by
striking out ``the effective date of this Act'' and inserting
in lieu thereof ``October 1, 1979'': sections 3(b), 3(c),
1112(b), and 1321(c)(1).
(B) Section 1321(c)(2) is amended by striking out ``such
effective date'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``October 1,
1979''.
(C) Section 1231(c)(3)(A) (22 U.S.C. 3671(c)(3)(A)) is
amended by striking out ``the day before the effective date
of this Act'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``September 30,
1979''.
(3) Section 1102a(h), as redesignated by section 3546(1),
is amended by striking out ``section 1102B'' and inserting in
lieu thereof ``section 1102b''.
(4) Section 1110(b)(2) (22 U.S.C. 3620(b)(2)) is amended by
striking out ``section 16 of the Act of August 1, 1956 (22
U.S.C. 2680a),'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``section 207
of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 3927)''.
(5) Section 1212(b)(3) (22 U.S.C. 3652(b)(3)) is amended by
striking out ``as last in effect before the effective date of
section 3530 of the Panama Canal Act Amendments of 1996'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``as in effect on September 22,
1996''.
(6) Section 1243(c)(2) (22 U.S.C. 3681(c)(2)) is amended by
striking out ``retroactivity'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``retroactively''.
(7) Section 1341(f) (22 U.S.C. 3751(f)) is amended by
striking out ``sections 1302(c)'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``sections 1302(b)''.
TITLE XXXVI--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
SEC. 3601. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
1998.
Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 1998, to be available without fiscal year limitation if
so provided in appropriations Act, for the use of the
Department of Transportation for the Maritime Administration
as follows:
[[Page H4028]]
(1) For expenses necessary for operations and training
activities, $70,000,000.
(2) For expenses under the loan guarantee program
authorized by title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46
App. U.S.C. 1271 et seq.), $39,000,000 of which--
(A) $35,000,000 is for the cost (as defined in section
502(5) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C.
661a(5))) of loan guarantees under the program; and
(B) $4,000,000 is for administrative expenses related to
loan guarantee commitments under the program.
SEC. 3602. REPEAL OF OBSOLETE ANNUAL REPORT REQUIREMENT
CONCERNING RELATIVE COST OF SHIPBUILDING IN THE
VARIOUS COASTAL DISTRICTS OF THE UNITED STATES.
(a) Repeal.--Section 213 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936
(46 App. U.S.C. 1123), is amended by striking out paragraph
(c).
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Such section is further
amended--
(1) by striking out ``on--'' in the matter preceding
paragraph (a) and inserting in lieu thereof ``on the
following:'';
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (a) and (b) as paragraphs
(1) and (2), respectively;
(3) by striking out the semicolon at the end of each of
those paragraphs and inserting in lieu thereof a period; and
(4) by realigning those paragraphs so as to be indented 2
ems from the left margin.
SEC. 3603. PROVISIONS RELATING TO MARITIME SECURITY FLEET
PROGRAM.
(a) Authority of Contractors To Operate Self-Propelled Tank
Vessels in Noncontiguous Domestic Trades.--Section 656(b) of
the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 App. U.S.C. 1187e(b)) is
amended by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(b)'', and by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Subsection (a) shall not apply to operation by a
contractor of a self-propelled tank vessel in a noncontiguous
domestic trade, or to ownership by a contractor of an
interest in a self-propelled tank vessel that operates in a
noncontiguous domestic trade.''.
(b) Relief from Delay in Certain Operations Following
Documentation.--Section 652(c) of the Merchant Marine Act,
1936 (46 U.S.C. 1187a(c)) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``The third sentence of section 901(b)(1) shall
not apply to a vessel included in an operating agreement
under this subtitle.''.
SEC. 3604. AUTHORITY TO UTILIZE REPLACEMENT VESSELS AND
CAPACITY.
Section 653(d)(1) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 App.
U.S.C. 1187c(d)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
``(1) a contractor or other person that commits to make
available a vessel or vessel capacity under the Emergency
Preparedness Program or another primary sealift readiness
program approved by the Secretary of Defense may, during the
activation of that vessel or capacity under that program,
operate or employ in foreign commerce a foreign-flag vessel
or foreign-flag vessel capacity as a temporary replacement
for the activated vessel or capacity; and''.
SEC. 3605. AUTHORITY TO CONVEY NATIONAL DEFENSE RESERVE FLEET
VESSEL.
(a) Authority To Convey.--The Secretary of Transportation
may convey all right, title, and interest of the United
States Government in and to the vessel GOLDEN BEAR (United
States official number 239932) to the Artship Foundation,
located in Oakland, California (in this section referred to
as the ``recipient''), for use as a multi-cultural center for
the arts.
(b) Terms of Conveyance.--
(1) Delivery of vessel.--In carrying out subsection (a),
the Secretary shall deliver the vessel--
(A) at the place where the vessel is located on the date of
conveyance;
(B) in its condition on that date; and
(C) at no cost to the United States Government.
(2) Additional terms.--The Secretary may require such
additional terms in connection with the conveyance authorized
by this section as the Secretary considers appropriate.
(c) Other Unneeded Equipment.--The Secretary may convey to
the recipient of the vessel conveyed under this section any
unneeded equipment from other vessels in the National Defense
Reserve Fleet, for use to restore the vessel conveyed under
this section to museum quality.
The CHAIRMAN. No amendments to the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute are in order except amendments printed in House Report
105-137, amendments considered printed in the report, and amendments en
bloc described in section 3 of the resolution.
Except as specified in section 5 of the resolution, each amendment
shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered
as having been read, and shall not be subject to a demand for a
division of the question.
Unless otherwise specified in the report or in the resolution, each
amendment printed in the report shall be debatable for 10 minutes,
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent of the
amendment, and shall not be subject to amendment, except that the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on National
Security each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of
further debate on any pending amendment.
Consideration of amendments 8 and 9 printed in part 1 of the report
shall begin with an additional period of general debate, which shall be
confined to the subject of the United States forces in Bosnia and shall
not exceed 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member.
It shall be in order at any time for the chairman of the Committee on
National Security or his designee to offer amendments en bloc
consisting of amendments printed in part 2 of the report not earlier
disposed of or germane modifications of any such amendment. The
amendments en bloc shall be considered as having been read, except that
modifications shall be reported, shall be debatable for 20 minutes,
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the committee, or their designees, shall not be subject to
amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the
question.
The original proponent of an amendment included in the amendments en
bloc may insert a statement in the Congressional Record immediately
before disposition of the amendments en bloc.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request
for a recorded vote on any amendment made in order by the resolution
and may reduce to not less than 5 minutes the time for voting by
electronic device on any postponed question that immediately follows
another vote by electronic device without intervening business,
provided that the time for voting by electronic device on the first in
any series of questions shall not be less than 15 minutes.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may recognize for
consideration of amendments made in order by the resolution out of the
order in which they are printed, but not sooner than 1 hour after the
chairman of the Committee on National Security or a designee announces
from the floor a request to that effect.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in part 1 of
House Report 105-137.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Sanders
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Sanders:
At the end of the bill (page 540, after line 21) insert the
following new section:
SEC. 3606. REDUCTION OF OVERALL AUTHORIZED SPENDING LEVELS
The total amount provided under Divisions A, B, and C
respectively of this bill shall each be reduced by 5% in each
of the fiscal years 1998 and 1999.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Vermont [Mr.
Sanders] and a Member opposed, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr.
Spence] each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this bill provides for $268 billion in defense spending
for fiscal year 1998, $2.6 billion more than was requested by President
Clinton. My amendment provides for an across-the-board 5 percent cut in
overall defense spending as authorized by this bill. It will cut $13.4
billion.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about national priorities and is the
only amendment that has been allowed on the floor which calls for a cut
in military spending.
The bottom line that we are discussing here is pretty simple. At a
time when the cold war is over, when the Soviet Union no longer exists,
when we are militarily outspending all of our so-called enemies by huge
amounts, we do not need to continue spending this kind of money for the
military. We do not need to fund the military at almost the same level
it was at the heart of the cold war.
Mr. Chairman, when we talk about U.S. military spending, we must also
put it in the context of the current world situation. While we are now
spending $264 billion, our NATO allies are also spending over $200
billion. Combined, we and our allies are spending close to $500 billion
on the military.
[[Page H4029]]
How much are our so-called enemies spending? Cuba, $300 million;
Libya, $1.4 billion; Syria, $1.8 billion; North Korea, $2.4 billion;
Iraq, $2.7 billion; Iran, $3.4 billion; China, I do not know that China
is an enemy, I gather they are going to get MFN status, they are
spending $32 billion. I do not believe that Russia is also our enemy,
being that we are heavily funding them, but they are spending $82
billion, just to mention.
What all of this means is that the United States alone is spending
many times more than all of our so-called enemies combined, and if we
add NATO into the equation, the numbers become absurd. Cuba, Libya,
Syria, North Korea, Iraq, and Iran combined spend $12 billion a year on
the military, while we are proposing in this budget $268 billion, more
than 20 times the combined spending of all of these so-called enemies.
{time} 1645
Further, this budget does not include the tens of billions we spend
on the intelligence budget.
Mr. Chairman, the question that all of us must ask is when is enough
enough?
Yes, all of us want the United States to have the strongest military
in the world, but when we spend so much on defense, we are adding to a
very large national debt and are terribly ignoring the pressing
domestic needs that tens and tens of millions of Americans are facing,
needs which are getting worse.
Let us get our priorities straight.
Mr. Chairman, when we spend this much money on the military, we have
to cut Medicare by $115 billion. That is wrong. When we spend this much
money on the military, we are asked to cut veterans' benefits,
veterans' health care over the next 5 years by $5 billion. So we are
spending money on B-2 bombers and star wars, and we say, ``Thank you,''
to the men and women who served in World War II, Korea and Vietnam.
``We don't care about you; we're worried about B-2 bombers and star
wars.'' That is wrong. When we spend this much money on the military,
we are cutting back $13 billion on Medicaid for hospitals that serve
the poorest people in America. Yes, let us spend a $100 billion dollars
defending Europe, but when someone is poor, they need to go into a
hospital, Uncle Sam is not there for them. And when we spend this much
money on the military, drastic cut backs take place in housing and
other important needs.
There are some people on this Congress who are proposing cuts in
Social Security. Yes, more money for B-2 bombers; cutbacks in Social
Security. Millions of American families, thousands in the State of
Vermont, cannot afford to send their kids to college. We spend $30
billion for higher education, and we are proposing $268 billion for the
military. In my view those priorities are absolutely wrong.
Mr. Chairman, this is a great Nation, but our priorities are wrong.
People on the other side and on this side talk about balancing the
budget. Well, do my colleagues know what? Military spending has
something to do with the deficit, too. So I hope that our deficit hawks
who talk about the $5 trillion debt will come on board and say, no, if
we are serious about moving toward a balanced budget, we have got to
cut military spending.
Mr. Chairman, bottom line is priorities, we are spending too much.
Let us cut military spending by 5 percent and still retain by far the
strongest military on earth.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might
consume.
(Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Vermont. This
amendment would impose a 5 percent reduction across each of the three
major parts of the bill and would have a devastating impact. This
amendment would reduce the bill's funding levels by $13.4 billion,
leaving us with a bill $10 billion less than even the President asked
for.
The amendment would impose draconian cuts to important quality of
life modernization and readiness programs that are so critical to
insuring that our military forces remain the best trained and equipped
in the world. In one stroke it would undo all of Congress' efforts over
the last 2 years in trying to revitalize our military forces.
Several weeks ago the House adopted the fiscal year 1998 budget
resolution and agreed to abide by spending restrictions. H.R. 1119
complies with the budget agreement and the budget resolution, and
representing a real decline of 1.3 percent relative to current spending
is not enough in this gentleman's mind. However this Congress reached a
bipartisan agreement with the White House on a plan to balance the
budget by 2002, and H.R. 1119 complies with the agreement. It is
refreshing, it is a refreshing change, to be able to say that the
President is not contesting this point.
The amendment distributes the $13 billion in cuts as a 5 percent
reduction in each of the three major divisions of the bill. The result
would be to slash military construction and family housing projects
critical to providing a decent quality of life to our military
personnel and their families by over $450 million. We heard Mr. Hefley
talk about what we are doing right now in that area.
The amendment would also cut over $12.3 billion from already
underfunded modernization readiness and personnel accounts further
widening the dangerous gap between our Nation's military strategy and
its defense program. Such a reduction would require the wholesale
cancellation of programs, drastic curtailment of operations and
possibly the involuntary separation of service personnel.
Finally, as drafted, this amendment would reduce Department of Energy
national security and environmental programs by almost $600 million.
I urge all Members to think carefully about the message this
amendment sends to our men and women who are throughout this world
trying to defend this country. At a time when they are spending more
time away from their families supporting forward deployments and
contingency operations around the world this amendment will hit them
hard, below the belt I might add. Instead of cutting their resources,
we should be taking positive steps to insure that military personnel
are getting what they need to do their demanding jobs and provide for
their families.
I urge Members to demonstrate their commitment to the men and women
in our armed services by opposing this amendment and supporting H.R.
1119.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dellums], my friend and colleague.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, first let me say that I rise in support of my
distinguished colleague's amendment. Given the constrained balanced
budget environment within which we are operating and debating this bill
and the strategic realities, we can indeed reduce the military budget
by the modest of articulated by my distinguished colleague.
We did our own QDR, Mr. Chairman, and we determined independently
that without drastic changes that these cuts could indeed be achieved
without the draconian notions that have recently been articulated that
has been argued would be the result of the gentleman's amendment.
Now let me underscore for emphasis something that my distinguished
colleague who offered the amendment pointed out. Mr. Chairman, people
may not know this, but if we balanced on a balanced scale what the
United States spends on its military budget and the military budget
collectively of the rest of the world, it would be roughly even. We
spend as much as every other nation in the world.
Now many of those other nations in the world are our friends and
allies in treaties with us, in cooperative relationships. We take them
off the other end and place them with us. America and its allies spent
in excess of 80 percent of the world's military budget, which means
even worse case scenario America and its friends out spend the rest of
the world four to one.
Where is our fear? We can indeed cut this budget. This is a modest
cut.
I urge my colleagues: the only time we have an opportunity to step up
to this and make a cut that American
[[Page H4030]]
people understand viscerally the military budget can be cut, the cold
war is over, Mr. Chairman, and we need to move on with it. We are
spending an extraordinary amount of money, and we can sustain this kind
of cut. I urge my colleagues to support the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Skelton].
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak against the amendment.
The military of the United States is not some amorphous thing, it is
not a green glob of protoplasm. Mr. Chairman, it is people, my
neighbors, my colleagues' neighbors, mostly young men and young women.
In speaking against this amendment I speak for the young sergeants and
petty officers who come from all across America. In cutting this budget
by $13 billion it would cut into the personnel accounts, it would cause
that mother of that sergeant to have that sergeant/husband gone more
often because the operational tempo would increase. It would cut the
O&M that has the ability to fix the appliances in their rundown place
in Germany. It would not allow them to live as they should.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Filner].
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Vermont [Mr.
Sanders], and I thank him for his amendment.
My colleagues, recently this House approved a balanced budget deal.
That budget was and is a bad deal for the residents of my town of San
Diego and a bad deal for America. Yes, we balance the budget, but we
balance the budget on the backs of our Nation's veterans, our children,
our elderly, and our working families. That deal put a deep freeze on
funding for our Nation's veterans and cut real dollars from our
Department of Veterans Affairs. It cut pensions for the neediest of
veterans, froze funding for the veterans hospitals for the next 5
years, and permanently cut compensation for service connected disabled
veterans.
Mr. Chairman, what happened to the promise that America made with our
Nation's veterans? That promise was forgotten in the budget deal, and
that budget deal compromises those promises to the past but ignores
also our commitments to the future. It underfunds the Nation's
infrastructure needs by billions of dollars and dramatically cuts
investments in our Nation's future workers. Head Start, summer jobs,
education funding, which serve to give all children an opportunity for
a brighter future, are cut in this budget deal, and it makes the
transition from welfare to work more difficult by eliminating jobs for
job training and child care and housing.
Half of the Nation's 10 million uninsured children remain uninsured
in that budget, while lavish tax cuts are doled out to those making
$500,000 a year. Medicaid is cut $13 billion. Medicaid is cut $115
billion.
Americans deserve a better deal, a real balanced budget through kept
promises, shared sacrifices and necessary investments in the future. We
should support the Sanders amendment so we Americans can get a better
budget deal.
I thank the gentleman for his amendment.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon].
(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
this amendment.
The ultimate irony here is that I have in fact joined my colleague on
efforts involving protecting working people. What he fails to mention
is that in our defense in aerospace cuts we have, in fact, caused 1
million union workers in this country to lose their jobs.
Now he talks about compassion. What he does not mention in his
amendment are the additional hundreds of thousands of UAW, IAM, IEU,
IBEW workers and building trades workers who will walk the streets with
the other 1 million workers that have been displaced because of what he
wants to do in additional cuts.
Now let me also correct the gentleman. He said that we added over $2
billion above what the President asked for. Well, I would submit to the
gentleman he has not done his homework, because after the President
gave us his budget he came back and asked for $1 billion of additional
money beyond that.
Now if the gentleman would bother to ask the committee, he would have
found out that the President asked for $474 million this year, $2.3
billion for everything. That was the President's request after his
budget. Or he would have found out the President asked for $300 million
for flying hours above his budget. The gentleman would have found out
he asked for $30 million for the THEL program above what his budget
suggested.
So to stand up here and put out misinformation is just flat out
wrong, and to say the Soviet Union no longer exists, I have been to 50
classified briefings this year. I do not know how many the gentleman
has been in attendance of, but let me tell you that is not the
impression I have. Maybe the gentleman knows about Yermentau Mountain.
Maybe he has visited Beloretsk 15 and 16. Maybe he knows what that city
of 65,000 people in the Urals has been doing for the past 18 years,
spending billions of dollars.
{time} 1700
Maybe the gentleman knows all of those answers. Maybe the gentleman
knows the instability occurring in the Middle East. Maybe the gentleman
is aware of what is happening in North Korea. What we have done, what
we have done, is provided for the best defense we can within the budget
constraints, and it should be based on fact and not rhetoric for
tomorrow morning's newspaper.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
One listening to this debate would think that there is not one penny
that can be cut from the Pentagon budget without hurting our
preparedness, or ignoring the needs of our enlisted families or the
working people of America. This cut would total $13.4 billion. That is
a lot of money.
However, the Pentagon has $14.6 billion in unneeded inventory that
exceeds the war needs of the United States for more than 100 years, and
they still have a computer over there placing more orders. Not a penny.
This 1 year's cut could be absorbed by their unneeded inventory.
We heard we would have a gap between our strategy and the military
program. Well, the strategy is absurd. We are going to fight two wars
at once with no allies. Two World War II's at once with no allies. Our
budget is two times the total of all our enemies combined. And they are
saying we cannot depend on our allies, so we have to be able to fight
two wars at once. If we cannot depend on our allies, why are we
spending billions of dollars to expand NATO to former Soviet bloc
countries.
At one time in my life, we had a great warrior in the White House,
and this warrior said it better than anybody else will say it here
today. Dwight David Eisenhower. ``This world in arms, it is not
spending money alone, it is spending the sweat of our labors, the
genius of our scientists, the hopes of our children.''
That is what this debate is all about. Every gun made, every warship
launched, every rocket fired is, in a final sense, a theft from those
who hunger, those who are not fed, and those who are cold and not
clothed. That was a great warrior, Dwight David Eisenhower, a general
who led us to victory in World War II. If he were here today, he would
urge Members to support these justified cuts in the bloated Pentagon
budget.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Pickett].
Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time. I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The funding for the defense program for 1998 is essentially a level
funding. To take out 5 percent at this point would create undue
turbulence. It would mean reductions in essential programs that could
not be replaced.
[[Page H4031]]
Today the United States has the finest military in the Nation's
history. We need to keep it that way. The Sanders amendment will
undermine our effort to attract and retain our quality of people, it
will undermine our today's readiness by undercutting the operations and
maintenance program, and it will undermine tomorrow's readiness by
compromising our modernization program.
Our Nation, by providing leadership and shaping the international
security environment, can continue to help with the spread of peace and
prosperity throughout the world. Only by maintaining our military
posture to defend and advance U.S. interests and underwrite our
commitments can we retain our preeminent position.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens].
(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I hope that this amendment sponsored by the
gentleman from Vermont is not just another ceremony where we are
talking to the wind. I think that the American people, the polls have
shown the American people are gradually beginning to understand where
the waste is in government. The waste is in the defense budget and we
are not doing anything to help national security.
National security right now, the primary component of national
security is education. How well-educated our Americans are will
determine where we go in the future with respect to our military might,
our commercial might, right across the board. A better educated
population is what is needed to guarantee that America will be the
leader in all areas for the future.
Mr. Chairman, $13.5 billion, we are talking about. Let us stop for a
moment and consider the comparative costs. Five percent of the defense
budget comes out to $13.5 billion per year, $13.5 billion. One can buy
a lot of computers for schools for $13.5 billion. One can wire all the
schools in America for $13.5 billion.
We have shown that one of the goals of Congressional Black Caucus
budget is to have every child eligible for Head Start, actually be able
to go into Head Start by the year 2002. Well, we could get there right
away because it would only cost $11 billion to cover every child
eligible in America for Head Start. We have a paltry sum of $5 billion
that the President proposed for construction, renovation and repair of
schools, $5 billion over a 5-year period. The paltry sum of $5 billion
was booted out of the budget agreement. It is too much.
Now, ask the American people to take a look at comparative costs.
Five percent of the defense budget is $13.5 billion for 1 year. We
cannot afford to have a construction initiative sponsored by the
President, $5 billion for 5 years? There is something radically wrong.
We are blind men and women of the Congress continuing to go down the
same road. If we put military in front of something or behind
something, we are all for it, but it really has nothing to do with
national security. National security means better education for
America's future, and for that you have to spend money.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, to quote Ronald Reagan, there you go again.
Every year, liberals in this body think we can reach into the defense
budget and take money for whatever the good things are that we want to
do and our defense can continue to absorb the loss. The gentleman from
New York [Mr. Owens] talks about let us spend it on education. Mr.
Chairman, let me tell the gentleman, we spend over $300 billion a year
on education in this country, more than we spend on the Department of
Defense.
Let me point out that this is real money that has real ramifications.
Let me just talk about the area that I am most familiar with.
The Sanders amendment would compel a $457 million reduction in
military construction and military family housing. What would that
mean? The amount is equivalent to the entire Navy and Marine Corps
family housing construction program and the added funds the committee
recommends for the Army family housing construction. Take all of that
away. This amendment will mean a cut of funding for 3,345 family
housing units, or 41 percent of the housing improvements in this bill.
Mr. Chairman, a $457 million cut is equivalent to wiping out every
American barracks project in the President's request and the entire
$2,000 added to committee recommendations for all of the services. It
is roughly equal to all of the MILCON provided in this bill for the
reserve components, and the added funding recommended by the committee
for the Army military construction.
This amendment will severely damage the Nation's military
infrastructure. It is easy to be cavalier and say, let us get it out of
defense, but it does not work when you boil it down to what it actually
means in the defense budget.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a no, no, no on the Sanders amendment.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Owens].
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, there are 80,000 jobs, high-tech jobs, that
cannot be filled right now that are available in America; 80,000, and
the number is growing. Our weapons are very sophisticated. If we do not
pay more attention to education, we are going to have to call in the
Chinese and the Russians to man our weapons, because they will be too
sophisticated for our operators to run them.
Education is the number one component of defense and security.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The previous speaker said real money and real people, so let me tell
my colleagues about real money and real people. While we outspent our
so-called enemies 20-to-1, 22 percent of the children in this country
live in poverty.
We have the highest rate of poverty in the industrialized world, and
yet we spend the money on B-2 bombers and star wars and other exotic
weapons systems that are not needed today. Real money, real people.
Millions of families in America cannot afford to send their kids to
college. The gentleman said $300 million on education; he forgot to say
that was at the local level. Local property taxes, State taxes, $30
billion at the Federal level, 8 times more on the military than we
spend on education. That is absurd.
Real money, real people. Tens of millions of Americans have no health
insurance. They do not know what to do when they get sick, and they are
saying, yes, let us take care of the people back home, rather than
spending $100 billion a year defending Europe and Asia. Real money,
real people.
Real money, real people. Why did my colleagues on the other side cut
veterans' programs? They are the people who defended this country. Now
they are 70 and 80 and they are dying at VA hospitals. We have cut back
on health care for veterans, and yet we have money for exotic weapons
systems that we do not need.
Bottom line, Mr. Chairman, we want the strongest military in the
world, we have the strongest military in the world, but let us get our
priorities straight. Let us talk about health care, education, protect
our seniors, protect our veterans, and let us do the right thing and
pass, pass, pass this amendment.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Sisisky].
(Mr. SISISKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman from Vermont, I
am interested in the same things that he is. Head Start is very
important to me. I can assure the gentleman that education is very
important to me, so important that I do not want a decline in the
education in the military.
I spoke in the general debate a little while ago about the quality of
life in the military by making these trips around and what we found.
The gentleman would not be very proud of how we are treating the
families. Sixty-eight percent, 68 percent of the Army now is married,
but guess what is happening?
Let me just tell the gentleman, the biggest thrill that I have, I dug
a hole
[[Page H4032]]
in the ground in an Army post to build three-, four-, and five-bedroom
homes. The smiles on those people's faces was unbelievable.
The gentleman talks about education. If he goes aboard an Aegis
cruiser, Aegis destroyer or submarine, it is not the captain of the
ship that explains the Aegis system, it is the third-class petty
officer that explains it. And why? Because of the education we are
giving in the military. This is one Member that does not want to
decline the education in the military.
Talk about health care. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves. We are
pulling back on the retirees in this country in health care. We are not
treating the people as we promised them, and now the gentleman wants to
cut just a paltry $13.5 billion.
Sure, there is money wasted in the Department of Defense, but I
challenge the gentleman or anybody in this room to see where money is
not wasted in some of these other programs, including education that we
could save money in.
Please, the gentleman from Colorado said no, no, no on this
amendment; I say no, no, no, no, no on this amendment. Please vote
against it.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, everybody agrees, even the proponents of
this amendment, that we have to have a national defense, and the
question is how much? They have cited that we outspend other countries
in the world for defense, and therefore, we should be able to take a
$13 billion cut without pain and without effect on our military
readiness.
But there is another Congress that thought the same thing.
{time} 1715
It was a Congress that voted to put together a defense budget just a
few months before South Korea was invaded on June 25, 1950. I have read
the transcripts from the testimony that came before that Congress. In
fact, the Senate was so convinced that we were on top of the world,
that we were so powerful, that we had nuclear weapons, high-tech, like
the gentleman speaks of, that nobody would mess with us.
So on June 25, 1950, we were invaded by North Korea, and within 3
days they had taken Seoul and were driving south until we met them at
the Puchon perimeter right at the tip of the Peninsula and gradually
started to push them back up. We were unready for Korea. We committed 7
army divisions to Korea, but we were unready for it, and 50,000 of
those working Americans that the gentleman from Vermont who has
propounded this amendment cares about so much came home in body bags.
The folks that fight the wars are the working people of this country,
and the greatest benefit we can give them is their return home. We give
them a return home when we have overwhelming force, which is what we
had in Desert Storm.
We were too strong in Desert Storm. That was the argument. We were
too powerful. We had come up with all of these weapons systems that
received daily criticism in the Washington Post, like the Apache attack
helicopter, the M-1 tank that did not get enough gas mileage, the
Patriot missile system that took too long to develop. But when we put
those systems in the field, we came home with a minimum of American
casualties because we were ready.
We used seven divisions in Korea. We used eight divisions in Desert
Storm. So we fought these two regional contingencies. That makes 15
army divisions. We only have 10 today. We have cut from 18 to 10 since
Desert Storm. We have cut from 24 to 13 fighter air wings. We have cut
from 545 Navy ships to 345.
The President of the United States thinks that our procurement
modernization budget should go to $60 billion. I can tell the Members
what it was this year, it was $42.6. It was almost $18 billion less
than President Clinton thought it should be, and his military advisors.
Let us do what Hallmark Cards says about sending thanks to your
friends with respect to our young people in the military. Because we
care about them, let us send them the very best, the very best in
equipment, and that means that we have to keep this defense budget at a
minimum at the level that we have right now. We have really cut too
deep.
``Peace through strength'' was a motto that we had all the way
through the cold war, and it worked. We brought the Soviet Union to the
bargaining table because we were strong. We are going to be able to
maintain the peace in the future because we are strong. Please vote
against this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 89,
noes 332, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 214]
AYES--89
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Blumenauer
Bonior
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Carson
Clay
Coyne
Cummings
Danner
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Delahunt
Dellums
Doggett
Duncan
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gilchrest
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hooley
Jackson (IL)
Kennedy (MA)
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Klug
Kucinich
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Markey
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Millender-McDonald
Minge
Mink
Nadler
Neal
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pascrell
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Petri
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Rivers
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Stark
Stokes
Tierney
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Woolsey
Yates
NOES--332
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Ensign
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fazio
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Hill
Hilleary
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Maloney (CT)
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
[[Page H4033]]
Pickett
Pitts
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ryun
Salmon
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--13
Ackerman
Conyers
DeGette
Dooley
Gephardt
Herger
Lipinski
Miller (CA)
Oberstar
Pombo
Pomeroy
Schiff
Torres
{time} 1737
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, and Messrs.
RYUN, SAWYER, GREENWOOD, SMITH of Michigan, WYNN, and BRADY changed
their vote from ``aye" to ``no.''
Mr. SHAYS and Mrs. ROUKEMA changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. SPENCE was allowed to speak out of order.)
Order of Business
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to proceed out of order for
the purpose of informing Members of the schedule for the remainder of
the evening.
Mr. Chairman, in order that Members might be able to plan for the
evening, I would like to inform our membership that we plan to continue
working. We have had many inquiries as to what our plans are for the
evening from many Members.
I would like to inform everyone that we intend to continue working on
amendments tonight but to roll the votes until approximately 9. At that
time we would vote on whatever amendments we have to vote on. Depending
on how much debate there is on the amendments, we might get through 3
or 4 amendments in this order: the Spence-Dellums amendment on reform;
the Spence-Dellums amendment on supercomputers; the Harman amendment on
abortion; the Shays-Frank on burdensharing.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed
in part 1 of House Report 105-137.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Spence
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Spence:
Strike out section 308 (page 47, lines 14 through 21) and,
at the end of division A (page 379, after line 19), insert
the following new titles:
TITLE XIII--DEFENSE PERSONNEL REFORMS
SEC. 1301. REDUCTION IN PERSONNEL ASSIGNED TO MANAGEMENT
HEADQUARTERS AND HEADQUARTERS SUPPORT
ACTIVITIES.
(a) In General.--(1) Chapter 3 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``Sec. 130a. Management headquarters and headquarters support
activities personnel: limitation
``(a) Limitation.--Effective October 1, 2001, the number of
management headquarters and headquarters support activities
personnel in the Department of Defense may not exceed the 75
percent of the baseline number.
``(b) Phased Reduction.--The number of management
headquarters and headquarters support activities personnel in
the Department of Defense--
``(1) as of October 1, 1998, may not exceed 90 percent of
the baseline number;
``(2) as of October 1, 1999, may not exceed 85 percent of
the baseline number; and
``(3) as of October 1, 2000, may not exceed 80 percent of
the baseline number.
``(c) Baseline Number.--In this section, the term `baseline
number' means the number of management headquarters and
headquarters support activities personnel in the Department
of Defense as of October 1, 1997.
``(d) Management Headquarters and Headquarters Support
Activities Personnel Defined.--In this section:
``(1) The term `management headquarters and headquarters
support activities personnel' means military and civilian
personnel of the Department of Defense who are assigned to,
or employed in, functions in management headquarters
activities or in management headquarters support activities.
``(2) The terms `management headquarters activities' and
`management headquarters support activities' have the
meanings given those terms in Department of Defense Directive
5100.73, entitled `Department of Defense Management
Headquarters and Headquarters Support Activities', as in
effect on November 12, 1996.
``(e) Limitation on Reassignment of Functions.--In carrying
out reductions in the number of personnel assigned to, or
employed in, management headquarters and headquarters support
activities in order to comply with this section, the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the military
departments may not reassign functions in order to evade the
requirements of this section.
``(f) Flexibility.--If the Secretary of Defense determines,
and certifies to Congress, that the limitation in subsection
(b) with respect to any fiscal year would adversely affect
United States national security, the Secretary may waive the
limitation under that subsection with respect to that fiscal
year. If the Secretary of Defense determines, and certifies
to Congress, that the limitation in subsection (a) during
fiscal year 2001 would adversely affect United States
national security, the Secretary may waive the limitation
under that subsection with respect to that fiscal year. The
authority under this subsection may be used only once, with
respect to a single fiscal year.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``130a. Management headquarters and headquarters support activities
personnel: limitation.''.
(b) Implementation Report.--Not later than January 15,
1998, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a
report--
(1) containing a plan to achieve the personnel reductions
required by section 130a of title 10, United States Code, as
added by subsection (a); and
(2) including the recommendations of the Secretary
regarding--
(A) the revision, replacement, or augmentation of
Department of Defense Directive 5100.73, entitled
``Department of Defense Management Headquarters and
Headquarters Support Activities'', as in effect on November
12, 1996; and
(B) the revision of the definitions of the terms
``management headquarters activities'' and ``management
headquarters support activities'' under that Directive so
that those terms apply uniformly throughout the Department of
Defense.
(c) Codification of Prior Permanent Limitation on OSD
Personnel.--(1) Chapter 4 of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end a new section 143 consisting
of--
(A) a heading as follows:
``Sec. 143. Office of the Secretary of Defense personnel:
limitation'';
and
(B) a text consisting of the text of subsections (a)
through (f) of section 903 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201;
110 Stat. 2617).
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``143. Office of the Secretary of Defense personnel: limitation.''.
(3) Section 903 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2617) is
repealed.
SEC. 1302. ADDITIONAL REDUCTION IN DEFENSE ACQUISITION
WORKFORCE.
(a) In General.--(1) Chapter 87 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``Sec. 1765. Limitations on number of personnel
``(a) Limitation.--Effective October 1, 2001, the number of
defense acquisition personnel may not exceed the baseline
number reduced by 124,000.
``(b) Phased Reduction.--The number of the number of
defense acquisition personnel--
``(1) as of October 1, 1998, may not exceed the baseline
number reduced by 40,000;
``(2) as of October 1, 1999, may not exceed the baseline
number reduced by 80,000; and
``(3) as of October 1, 2000, may not exceed the baseline
number reduced by 102,000.
``(c) Baseline Number.--For purposes of this section, the
baseline number is the total number of defense acquisition
personnel as of October 1, 1997.
``(d) Defense Acquisition Personnel Defined.--(1) In this
section, the term `defense acquisition personnel' means
military and civilian personnel (other than civilian
personnel described in paragraph (2)) who are assigned to, or
employed in, acquisition organizations of the Department of
Defense (as specified in Department of Defense Instruction
numbered 5000.58 dated January 14, 1992).
``(2) Such term does not include civilian employees of the
Department of Defense who are employed at a maintenance
depot.''.
[[Page H4034]]
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``1765. Limitations on number of personnel.''.
(b) Implementation Report.--Not later than January 15,
1998, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a
report--
(1) containing a plan to achieve the personnel reductions
required by section 1765 of title 10, United States Code, as
added by subsection (a); and
(2) containing any recommendations (including legislative
proposals) that the Secretary considers necessary to fully
achieve such reductions.
(c) Technical Reference Correction.--Section 1721(c) of
title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking out
``November 25, 1988'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``November 12, 1996''.
SEC. 1303. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR SEPARATION PAY FOR
DEFENSE ACQUISITION PERSONNEL.
Of the amount authorized to be appropriated pursuant to
section 301(5) for operation and maintenance for Defense-wide
activities, $100,000,000 shall be available only for the
payment of separation pay under section 5597 of title 5,
United States Code, to civilian employees of the Department
of Defense who are defense acquisition personnel (as defined
in section 1765(d) of title 10, United States Code).
SEC. 1304. PERSONNEL REDUCTIONS IN UNITED STATES
TRANSPORTATION COMMAND.
(a) Purpose of Reduction.--The purpose of the reduction in
the number of United States Transportation Command personnel
is to recognize and continue the effort of the Secretary of
Defense to achieve the United States Transportation Command
reengineering reform plan to eliminate administrative
duplication and process inefficiencies.
(b) Reduction in United States Transportation Command
Personnel.--(1) Effective October 1, 1998, the number of
United States Transportation Command personnel may not exceed
the number equal to the baseline number reduced by 1,000.
(2) For purposes of this section, the baseline number is
the total number of United States Transportation Command
personnel as of September 30, 1997.
(c) United States Transportation Command Personnel
Defined.--For purposes of this section, the term ``United
States Transportation Command personnel'' means military and
civilian personnel who are assigned to, or employed in, the
United States Transportation Command Headquarters, Air Force
Air Mobility Command, Navy Military Sealift Command, Army
Military Traffic Management Command, and Defense Courier
Service.
(d) Source of Reductions.--In reducing the number of United
States Transportation Command personnel as required by
subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense shall limit such
reductions to the United States Transportation Command
personnel who are in the following occupational
classifications established to group similar occupations and
work positions into a consistent structure:
(1) Enlisted members in the Functional Support and
Administration classification (designated as occupational
code 5XX), as described in Department of Defense Instruction
1312.1, dated August 9, 1995, regarding ``Department of
Defense Occupational Information Collection and Reporting''.
(2) Officers in the General Officers and Executives
classification (designated as occupational code 1XX),
Administrators (designated as occupational code 7XX), and
Supply, Procurement, and Allied Officers classification
(designated as occupational code 8XX), as described in such
instruction.
(3) Civilian personnel in the Program Management
classification (designated as occupational code GS-0340),
Accounting and Budget classification (designated as
occupational code GS-0500 and related codes), Business and
Industry classification (designated as occupational code GS-
1100 and related codes), and Supply classification
(designated as occupational code GS-2000 and related codes),
as described in Office of Personnel Management document El-
12, dated November 1, 1995, entitled ``Federal Occupational
Groups''.
(e) Waiver Authority.--The Secretary of Defense may waive
or suspend operation of this section in the event of a war or
national emergency.
TITLE XIV--DEFENSE BUSINESS PRACTICES REFORMS
Subtitle A--Competitive Procurement Requirements
SEC. 1401. COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT OF FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING
SERVICES.
(a) Competitive Procurement Required.--Chapter 165 of title
10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``Sec. 2784. Competitive procurement of finance and
accounting services
``(a) Study and Report.--(1) Not later than December 1,
1997, the Secretary of Defense shall initiate a study
regarding the competitive procurement of finance and
accounting services for the Department of Defense, including
non-appropriated fund instrumentalities of the Department of
Defense. The study shall analyze the conduct of competitions
among private-sector sources and the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service and other interested Federal agencies.
``(2) Not later than June 1, 1998, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to Congress a report containing the results of
the study conducted under paragraph (1).
``(b) Competitive Procurement Required.--Beginning not
later than October 1, 1999, the Secretary of Defense shall
competitively procure finance and accounting services for the
Department of Defense, including nonappropriated fund
instrumentalities of the Department of Defense. The Secretary
shall conduct competitions among private-sector sources and
the Defense Finance and Accounting Service and other
interested Federal agencies. Such a competition shall not
involve competition between components of the Defense Finance
and Accounting Service.
``(c) Improvement of Competitive Ability.--Before
conducting a competition under subsection (b) for the
procurement of finance and accounting services that are being
provided by a component of the Defense Finance and Accounting
Service, the Secretary of Defense shall provide the component
with an opportunity to establish its most efficient
organization.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``2784. Competitive procurement of finance and accounting services.''.
SEC. 1402. COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT OF SERVICES TO DISPOSE OF
SURPLUS DEFENSE PROPERTY.
(a) Competitive Procurement Required.--(1) Chapter 153 of
title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after
section 2572 the following new section:
``Sec. 2573. Competitive procurement of services to dispose
of surplus property
``(a) Competitive Procurement of Services.--Beginning not
later than October 1, 1998, the Secretary of Defense shall
competitively procure services for the Department of Defense
in connection with the disposal of surplus property at each
site at which the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service
operates. The Secretary shall conduct competitions among
private-sector sources and the Defense Reutilization and
Marketing Service and other interested Federal agencies for
the performance of all such services at a particular site.
``(b) Improvement of Competitive Ability.--Before
conducting a competition under subsection (a) for the
procurement of services described in such subsection that are
being provided by a component of the Defense Reutilization
and Marketing Service, the Secretary of Defense shall provide
the component with an opportunity to establish its most
efficient organization.
``(c) Reporting Requirements.--Not later than 90 days after
the end of each fiscal year in which services for the
disposal of surplus property are competitively procured under
subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense shall submit to
Congress a report specifying--
``(1) the type and volume of such services procured by the
Department of Defense during that fiscal year from the
Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service and from other
sources;
``(2) the former sites of the Defense Reutilization and
Marketing Service operated during that fiscal year by
contractors (other than the Defense Reutilization and
Marketing Service); and
``(3) the total amount of any fees paid by such contractors
in connection with the performance of such services during
that fiscal year.
``(d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed to alter the requirements regarding the
identification or demilitarization of an item of excess
property or surplus property of the Department of Defense
before the disposal of the item.
``(e) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `surplus property' means any personal excess
property which is not required for the needs and the
discharge of the responsibilities of all Federal agencies and
the disposal of which is the responsibility of the Department
of Defense.
``(2) The term `excess property' means any personal
property under the control of the Department of Defense which
is not required for its needs and the discharge of its
responsibilities, as determined by the Secretary of
Defense.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section
2572 the following new item:
``2573. Competitive procurement of services to dispose of surplus
property.''.
(b) Implementation Report.--Not later than March 1, 1998,
the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report--
(1) containing a plan to implement the competitive
procurement requirements of section 2573 of title 10, United
States Code, as added by subsection (a); and
(2) identifying other functions of the Defense
Reutilization and Marketing Service that the Secretary
considers suitable for performance by private-sector sources.
SEC. 1403. COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT OF FUNCTIONS PERFORMED BY
DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY.
(a) Competitive Procurement Required.--Chapter 146 of title
10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``Sec. 2474. Competitive procurement of information services
``(a) Study and Report.--(1) Not later than December 1,
1997, the Secretary of Defense shall initiate a study
regarding the competitive procurement of those commercial and
[[Page H4035]]
industrial type functions performed before the date of the
enactment of this Act by the Defense Information Systems
Agency, with particular regard to the functions performed at
the entities known as megacenters. The study shall analyze
the conduct of competitions among private-sector sources and
the Defense Information Systems Agency and other interested
Federal agencies.
``(2) Not later than June 1, 1998, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to Congress a report containing the results of
the study conducted under paragraph (1).
``(b) Competitive Procurement Required.--Beginning not
later than October 1, 1999, the Secretary of Defense shall
competitively procure those commercial and industrial type
functions performed before that date by the Defense
Information Systems Agency. The Secretary shall conduct
competitions among private-sector sources and the Defense
Information Systems Agency and other interested Federal
agencies.
``(c) Improvement of Competitive Ability.--Before
conducting a competition under subsection (b) for the
procurement of information services that are being provided
by a component of the Defense Information Systems Agency, the
Secretary of Defense shall provide the component with an
opportunity to establish its most efficient organization.
``(d) Exception for Classified Functions.--(1) The
requirement of subsection (b) shall not apply to the
procurement of services involving a classified function
performed by the Defense Information Systems Agency.
``(2) In this subsection, the term `classified function'
means any telecommunications or information services that--
``(A) involve intelligence activities;
``(B) involve cryptologic activities related to national
security;
``(C) involve command and control of military forces;
``(D) involve equipment that is an integral part of a
weapon or weapons system; or
``(E) are critical to the direct fulfillment of military or
intelligence missions (other than routine administrative and
business applications, such as payroll, finance, logistics,
and personnel management applications).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``2474. Competitive procurement of information services.''.
SEC. 1404. COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT OF PRINTING AND
DUPLICATION SERVICES.
(a) Extension.--Subsection (a) of section 351 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 266) is amended--
(1) by striking out ``and 1997'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``through 1998''; and
(2) by striking out ``Defense Printing Service'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``Defense Automation and Printing
Service''.
(b) Prohibition on Surcharge for Services.--Such section is
further amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(d) Prohibition on Imposition of Surcharge.--The Defense
Automation and Printing Service may not impose a surcharge on
any printing and duplication service for the Department of
Defense that is procured from a source outside of the
Department.''.
SEC. 1405. COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT OF CERTAIN OPHTHALMIC
SERVICES.
(a) Competitive Procurement Required.--Beginning not later
than October 1, 1998, the Secretary of Defense shall
competitively procure from private-sector sources, or other
sources outside of the Department of Defense, all ophthalmic
services related to the provision of single vision and
multivision eyeware for members of the Armed Forces, retired
members, and certain covered beneficiaries under chapter 55
of title 10, United States Code, who would otherwise receive
such ophthalmic services through the Department of Defense.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the
extent that the Secretary of Defense determines that the use
of sources within the Department of Defense to provide such
ophthalmic services--
(1) is necessary to meet the readiness requirements of the
Armed Forces; or
(2) is more cost effective.
(c) Completion of Existing Orders.--Subsection (a) shall
not apply to orders for ophthalmic services received on or
before September 30, 1998.
SEC. 1406. COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT OF COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL TYPE FUNCTIONS BY DEFENSE AGENCIES .
(a) Competition Required.--Section 2461 of title 10, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following new
subsection:
``(g) Competitive Procurement By Defense Agencies.--(1)
Beginning not later than September 30, 1999 (unless an
earlier effective date is otherwise required for a specific
Defense Agency), the Secretary of Defense shall competitively
procure those commercial and industrial type functions
performed before that date by a Defense Agency. The Secretary
shall conduct competitions among private-sector sources and
the Defense Agency involved and other interested Federal
agencies.
``(2) Before conducting a competition under subsection (a)
for the procurement of a commercial or industrial type
function that is being performed by a component of a Defense
Agency, the Secretary of Defense shall provide the component
with an opportunity to establish its most efficient
organization.
``(3) In this subsection, the term `Defense Agency' means a
program activity specified in the table entitled `Program and
Financing' for operation and maintenance, Defense-wide
activities, in the budget of the President transmitted to
Congress for fiscal year 1998 pursuant to section 1105 of
title 31 (and any successor of such activity).''.
(b) Implementation Report.--Not later than March 1, 1998,
the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report
containing a plan to implement the competitive procurement
requirements of section 2461(g) of title 10, United States
Code, as added by subsection (a).
Subtitle B--Reform of Conversion Process
SEC. 1411. DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARD FORMS REGARDING
PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT AND REQUEST FOR
PROPOSAL FOR CONVERSION OF CERTAIN OPERATIONAL
FUNCTIONS OF MILITARY INSTALLATIONS.
(a) Standard Forms Required.--Chapter 146 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by inserting after section
2474, as added by section 1403, the following new section:
``Sec. 2475. Military installations: use of standard forms in
conversion process
``(a) Standardization of Requirements.--(1) The Secretary
of Defense shall develop standard forms (to be known as a
`standard performance work statement' and a `standard request
for proposal') to be used in the consideration for conversion
to contractor performance of those commercial services and
functions at military installations that have been converted
to contractor performance at a rate of 50 percent or more, as
determined under subsection (c).
``(2) A separate standard form shall be developed for each
service and function covered by paragraph (1) and the forms
shall be used throughout the Department of Defense in lieu of
the performance work statement and request for proposal
otherwise required under the procedures and requirements of
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 (or any
successor administrative regulation or policy).
``(3) The Secretary shall develop and implement the
standard forms not later than October 1, 1998.
``(b) Inapplicability of Elements of OMB Circular A-76.--On
and after October 1, 1998, the procedures and requirements of
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 regarding
performance work statements and requests for proposals shall
not apply with respect to the conversion to contractor
performance at a military installation of a service or
function for which a standard form is required under
subsection (a).
``(c) Determination of Contractor Performance Percentage.--
In determining the percentage at which a particular
commercial service or function at military installations has
been converted to contractor performance, the Secretary of
Defense shall take into consideration all military
installations and use the final estimate of the percentage of
contractor performance of services and functions contained in
the most recent commercial and industrial activity inventory
database established under Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-76.
``(d) Exclusion of Multi-Function Conversion.--If a
commercial service or function for which a standard form is
developed under subsection (a) is combined with another
service or function (for which such a form is not required)
for purposes of considering the services and functions at the
military installation for conversion to contractor
performance, a standard form developed under subsection (a)
may not be used in the conversion process in lieu of the
procedures and requirements of Office of Management and
Budget Circular A-76 regarding performance work statements
and requests for proposals.
``(e) Effect on Other Laws.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed to supersede any other requirements or
limitations, specifically contained in this chapter, on the
conversion to contractor performance of activities performed
by civilian employees of the Department of Defense.
``(f) Military Installation Defined.--In this section, the
term `military installation' means a base, camp, post,
station, yard, center, homeport facility for any ship, or
other activity under the jurisdiction of the Department of
Defense, including any leased facility.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 2474, as added by section 1403, the
following new item:
``2475. Military installations: use of standard forms in conversion
process.''.
SEC. 1412. STUDY AND NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CONVERSION
OF COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL TYPE FUNCTIONS TO
CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE.
(a) Notification.--Section 2461 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by striking out subsections (a) and (b) and
inserting in lieu thereof the following new subsections:
``(a) Notification of Conversion Study.--(1) In the case of
a commercial or industrial type function of the Department of
Defense that on October 1, 1980, was being performed by
Department of Defense civilian employees, the Secretary of
Defense shall notify Congress of any decision to study the
function for possible conversion to performance
[[Page H4036]]
by a private contractor. The notification shall include
information regarding the anticipated length and cost of the
study.
``(2) A study of a commercial or industrial type function
for possible conversion to contractor performance shall
include the following:
``(A) A comparison of the performance of the function by
Department of Defense civilian employees and by private
contractor to determine whether contractor performance will
result in savings to the Government over the life of the
contract.
``(B) An examination of the potential economic effect on
employees who would be affected by the conversion, and the
potential economic effect on the local community and the
United States if more than 75 employees perform the function.
``(C) An examination of the effect of contracting for
performance of the function on the military mission of the
function.
``(b) Notification of Conversion Decision.--If, as a result
of the completion of a study under subsection (a) regarding
the possible conversion of a function to performance by a
private contractor, a decision is made to convert the
function to contractor performance, the Secretary of Defense
shall notify Congress of the conversion decision. The
notification shall--
``(1) indicate that the study conducted regarding
conversion of the function to performance by a private
contractor has been completed;
``(2) certify that the comparison required by subsection
(a)(2)(A) as part of the study demonstrates that the
performance of the function by a private contractor will
result in savings to the Government over the life of the
contract;
``(3) certify that the entire comparison is available for
examination; and
``(4) contain a timetable for completing conversion of the
function to contractor performance.''.
(b) Waiver for Small Functions.--Subsection (d) of such
section is amended by striking out ``45 or fewer'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``20 or fewer''.
SEC. 1413. COLLECTION AND RETENTION OF COST INFORMATION DATA
ON CONTRACTED OUT SERVICES AND FUNCTIONS.
(a) Collection and Retention Required.--Section 2463 of
title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (a) and (b) as subsections
(b) and (c), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after the section heading the following
new subsection:
``(a) Requirements In Connection With Conversion to
Contractor Performance.--With respect to each contract
converting the performance of a service or function of the
Department of Defense to contractor performance (and any
extension of such a contract), the Secretary of Defense shall
collect, during the term of the contract or extension, but
not to exceed five years, cost information data regarding
performance of the service or function by private contractor
employees. The Secretary shall provide for the permanent
retention of information collected under this subsection.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Such section is further
amended--
(1) in subsection (b), as redesignated by subsection
(a)(1)--
(A) by striking out the subsection heading and inserting in
lieu thereof ``Requirements In Connection With Return to
Employee Performance.--''; and
(B) by striking out ``to which this section applies'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``described in subsection (c),'';
and
(2) in subsection (c), as redesignated by subsection
(a)(1)----
(A) by striking out the subsection heading and inserting in
lieu thereof ``Covered Fiscal Years.--''; and
(B) by striking out ``This section'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``Subsection (b)''.
(c) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The heading of such section
is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 2463. Collection and retention of cost information
data on contracted out services and functions
(2) The item relating to such section in the table of
sections at the beginning of chapter 146 of title 10, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``2463. Collection and retention of cost information data on contracted
out services and functions.''.
Subtitle C--Other Reforms
SEC. 1421. REDUCTION IN OVERHEAD COSTS OF INVENTORY CONTROL
POINTS.
(a) Reduction in Costs Required.--The Secretary of Defense
shall take such actions as may be necessary to reduce the
annual overhead costs of the supply management activities of
the Defense Logistics Agency and the military departments
(known as Inventory Control Points) so that the annual
overhead costs are not more than eight percent of annual net
sales at standard price by the Inventory Control Points.
(b) Time To Achieve Reduction.--The Secretary shall achieve
the cost reductions required by subsection (a) not later than
September 30, 2000.
(c) Implementation Plan.--Not later than March 1, 1998, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a plan to
achieve the reduction in overhead costs required by
subsection (a).
(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
(1) The term ``overhead costs'' means the total expenses of
the Inventory Control Points, excluding--
(A) annual materiel costs; and
(B) military and civilian personnel related costs, defined
as personnel compensation and benefits under the March 1996
Department of Defense Financial Management Regulations,
Volume 2A, Chapter 1, Budget Account Title File (Object
Classification Name/Code), object classifications 200, 211,
220, 221, 222, and 301.
(2) The term ``net sales at standard price'' has the
meaning given that term in the March 1996 Department of
Defense Financial Management Regulations, Volume 2B, Chapter
9, and displayed in ``Exhibit Fund--14 Revenue and Expenses''
for the supply management business areas.
SEC. 1422. CONSOLIDATION OF PROCUREMENT TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
AND ELECTRONIC COMMERCE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.
(a) Consolidation of Assistance.--Chapter 142 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended as follows:
(1) Sections 2412, 2414, 2417, and 2418 are each amended by
inserting ``and electronic commerce'' after ``procurement''
each place it appears.
(2) Section 2413 is amended--
(A) in subsection (b), by striking out ``procurement
technical assistance'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``both
procurement technical assistance and electronic commerce
technical assistance''; and
(B) in subsection (c), by inserting ``and electronic
commerce'' after ``procurement''.
(b) Requirement To Use Competitive Procedures.--Section
2413 of such title is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(d) The Secretary shall use competitive procedures in
entering into cooperative agreements under subsection (a).''.
(c) Limitation on Use of Funds.--Section 2417 of such title
is amended--
(1) by striking out ``The Director'' and inserting in lieu
thereof the following: ``(b) Administrative Costs.--The
Director''; and
(2) by inserting before subsection (b) (as designated by
paragraph (1)) the following:
``(a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--In any fiscal year the
Secretary of Defense may use for the program authorized by
this chapter only funds specifically appropriated for the
program for that fiscal year.''.
(d) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The heading for chapter 142
of such title is amended to read as follows:
``CHAPTER 142--PROCUREMENT AND ELECTRONIC COMMERCE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM''.
(2) The tables of chapters at the beginning of subtitle A,
and at the beginning of part IV of subtitle A, of such title
are each amended by striking out the item relating to chapter
142 and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
``142. Procurement and Electronic Commerce Technical Assista2411''.gram
(3) The heading for section 2417 of such title is amended
to read as follows:
``Sec. 2417. Funding provisions''.
(4) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 142
of such title is amended by striking out the item relating to
section 2417 and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
``2417. Funding provisions.''.
SEC. 1423. PERMANENT AUTHORITY REGARDING CONVEYANCE OF
UTILITY SYSTEMS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 159 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 2687 the
following new section:
``Sec. 2688. Utility systems: permanent conveyance authority
``(a) Conveyance Authority.--The Secretary of a military
department may convey a utility system, or part of a utility
system, under the jurisdiction of the Secretary to a
municipal, private, regional, district, or cooperative
utility company or other entity. The conveyance may consist
of all right, title, and interest of the United States in the
utility system or such lesser estate as the Secretary
considers appropriate to serve the interests of the United
States.
``(b) Utility System Defined.--In this section, the term
`utility system' includes the following:
``(1) Electrical generation and supply systems.
``(2) Water supply and treatment systems.
``(3) Wastewater collection and treatment systems.
``(4) Steam or hot or chilled water generation and supply
systems.
``(5) Natural gas supply systems.
``(6) Sanitary landfills or lands to be used for sanitary
landfills.
``(7) Similar utility systems.
``(c) Consideration.--(1) The Secretary of a military
department may accept consideration received for a conveyance
under subsection (a) in the form of a cash payment or a
reduction in utility rate charges for a period of time
sufficient to amortize the monetary value of the utility
system, including any real property interests, conveyed.
``(2) Cash payments received shall be credited to an
appropriation account designated as appropriate by the
Secretary of Defense. Amounts so credited shall be available
for the same time period as the appropriation credited and
shall be used only for the purposes authorized for that
appropriation.
``(d) Congressional Notification.--A conveyance may not be
made under subsection (a) until--
[[Page H4037]]
``(1) the Secretary of the military department concerned
submits to the appropriate committees of Congress (as defined
in section 2801(c)(4) of this title) a report containing an
economic analysis (based upon accepted life-cycle costing
procedures approved by the Secretary of Defense) which
demonstrates that the full cost to the United States of the
proposed conveyance is cost-effective when compared with
alternative means of furnishing the same utility systems; and
``(2) a period of 21 days has elapsed after the date on
which the report is received by the committees.
``(e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary of
the military department concerned may require such additional
terms and conditions in a conveyance entered into under
subsection (a) as the Secretary considers appropriate to
protect the interests of the United States.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 2687 the following new item:
``2688. Utility systems: permanent conveyance authority.''.
TITLE XV--MISCELLANEOUS ADDITIONAL DEFENSE REFORMS
SEC. 1501. LONG-TERM CHARTER CONTRACTS FOR ACQUISITION OF
AUXILIARY VESSELS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE.
(a) Program Authorization.--Chapter 631 of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following
new section:
``Sec. 7233. Auxiliary vessels: authority for long-term
charter contracts
``(a) Authorized Contracts.--After September 30, 1998, the
Secretary of the Navy, subject to subsection (b), may enter
into a contract for the long-term lease or charter of a newly
built surface vessel, under which the contractor agrees to
provide a crew for the vessel for the term of the long-term
lease or charter, for any of the following:
``(1) The combat logistics force of the Navy.
``(2) The strategic sealift program of the Navy.
``(3) Other auxiliary support vessels for the Department of
Defense.
``(b) Contracts Required To Be Authorized by Law.--A
contract may be entered into under this section with respect
to specific vessels only if the Secretary is specifically
authorized by law to enter into such a contract with respect
to those vessels.
``(c) Funds for Contract Payments.--The Secretary may make
payments for contracts entered into under this section using
funds available for obligation during the fiscal year for
which the payments are required to be made. Any such contract
shall provide that the United States will not be required to
make a payment under the contract (other than a termination
payment, if required) before October 1, 2000.
``(d) Budgeting Provisions.--Any contract entered into
under this section shall be treated as a multiyear service
contract and as an operating lease for purposes of any
provision of law relating to the Federal budget and Federal
budget accounting procedures, including part C of title II of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985
(2 U.S.C. 900 et seq.), and any regulation or directive
(including any directive of the Office of Management and
Budget) prescribed with respect to the Federal budget and
Federal budget accounting procedures.
``(e) Term of Contract.--In this section, the term `long-
term lease or charter' means a lease, charter, service
contract, or conditional sale agreement with respect to a
vessel the term of which (including any option period) is for
a period of 20 years or more.
``(f) Option To Buy.--A contract entered into under the
authority of this section may contain options for the United
States to purchase one or more of the vessels covered by the
contract at any time during, or at the end of, the contract
period (including any option period) upon payment of an
amount not in excess of the unamortized portion of the cost
of the vessels plus amounts incurred in connection with the
termination of the financing arrangements associated with the
vessels.
``(g) Domestic Construction.--The Secretary shall require
in any contract entered into under this section that each
vessel to which the contract applies--
``(1) shall have been constructed in a shipyard within the
United States; and
``(2) upon delivery, shall be documented under the laws of
the United States.
``(h) Vessel Crewing.--The Secretary shall require in any
contract entered into under this section that the crew of any
vessel to which the contract applies be comprised of private
sector commercial mariners.
``(i) Contingent Waiver of Other Provisions of Law.--A
contract authorized by this section may be entered into
without regard to section 2401 or 2401a of this title if the
Secretary of Defense makes the following findings with
respect to that contract:
``(1) The need for the vessels or services to be provided
under the contract is expected to remain substantially
unchanged during the contemplated contract or option period.
``(2) There is a reasonable expectation that throughout the
contemplated contract or option period the Secretary of the
Navy (or, if the contract is for services to be provided to,
and funded by, another military department, the Secretary of
that military department) will request funding for the
contract at the level required to avoid contract
cancellation.
``(3) The use of such contract or the exercise of such
option is in the interest of the national defense.
``(j) Source of Funds for Termination Liability.--If a
contract entered into under this section is terminated, the
costs of such termination may be paid from--
``(1) amounts originally made available for performance of
the contract;
``(2) amounts currently available for operation and
maintenance of the type of vessels or services concerned and
not otherwise obligated; or
``(3) funds appropriated for those costs.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``7233. Auxiliary vessels: authority for long-term charter
contracts.''.
SEC. 1502. FIBER-OPTICS BASED TELECOMMUNICATIONS LINKAGE OF
MILITARY INSTALLATIONS.
(a) Installation Required.--In at least one metropolitan
area of the United States containing multiple military
installations of one or more military department or Defense
Agency, the Secretary of Defense shall provide for the
installation of fiber-optics based telecommunications
technology to link as many of the installations in the area
as practicable in a privately dedicated telecommunications
network. The Secretary shall use a competitive process to
provide for the installation of the telecommunications
network through one or more new contracts.
(b) Features of Network.--The telecommunications network
shall provide direct access to local and long distance
telephone carriers, allow for transmission of both classified
and unclassified information, and take advantage of the
various capabilities of fiber-optics based telecommunications
technology.
(c) Time for Installation.--The telecommunications network
or networks to be installed under this section shall be
installed and operational not later than September 30, 1999.
(d) Report on Implementation.--Not later than March 1,
1998, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the
congressional defense committees a report on the
implementation of subsections (a) and (b), including the
metropolitan area or areas selected for the
telecommunications network, the estimated cost of the
network, and potential areas for the future use of such
fiber-optics based telecommunications technology.
SEC. 1503. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT FOR CONTRACTOR GUARANTEES ON
MAJOR WEAPON SYSTEMS.
(a) Repeal.--Section 2403 of title 10, United States Code,
is repealed.
(b) Clerical and Conforming Amendments.--(1) The table of
sections at the beginning of chapter 141 of such title is
amended by striking out the item relating to section 2403.
(2) Section 803 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2604; 10
U.S.C. 2430 note) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking out ``2403,'';
(B) by striking out subsection (c); and
(C) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (c).
SEC. 1504. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO MICRO-PURCHASES OF
COMMERCIAL ITEMS.
(a) In General.--Section 2304 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(l) Micro-Purchases.--(1) A contracting officer may not
award a contract or issue a purchase order to buy commercial
items for an amount equal to or less than the micro-purchase
threshold unless a member of the Senior Executive Service or
a general or flag officer makes a written determination
that--
``(A) the source or sources available for the commercial
item do not accept a preferred micro-purchase method, and the
contracting officer is seeking a source that does accept such
a method; or
``(B) the nature of the commercial item necessitates a
contract or purchase order so that terms and conditions can
be specified.
``(2) In this subsection:
``(A) The term `micro-purchase threshold' has the meaning
provided in section 32 of the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 428).
``(B) The term `preferred micro-purchase method' means the
use of the Government-wide commercial purchase card or any
other method for carrying out micro-purchases that Secretary
of Defense prescribes in the regulations implementing this
subsection.
``(3) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations
to implement this subsection. The regulations shall include
such additional preferred methods of carrying out micro-
purchases, and such exceptions to the requirement of
paragraph (1), as the Secretary considers appropriate.''.
(b) Effective Date.--Subsection (l) of section 2304 of
title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a),
shall apply with respect to micro-purchases made on or after
October 1, 1997.
SEC. 1505. AVAILABILITY OF SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURES TO
COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCUREMENTS.
(a) Armed Services Acquisitions.--Section 2304(g) of title
10, United States Code, is amended in paragraph (1)(B) by
striking out ``only''.
(b) Civilian Agency Acquisitions.--Section 303(g) of the
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41
U.S.C.
[[Page H4038]]
253(g)) is amended in paragraph (1)(B) by striking out
``only''.
SEC. 1506. TERMINATION OF THE ARMED SERVICES PATENT ADVISORY
BOARD.
(a) Termination of Board.--The organization within the
Department of Defense known as the Armed Services Patent
Advisory Board is terminated. No funds available for the
Department of Defense may be used for the operation of that
Board after the date specified in subsection (c).
(b) Transfer of Functions.--All functions performed on the
day before the date of the enactment of this Act by the Armed
Services Patent Advisory Board (including performance of the
responsibilities of the Department of Defense for security
review of patent applications under chapter 17 of title 35,
United States Code) shall be transferred to the Defense
Technology Security Administration.
(c) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) shall take effect at
the end of the 120-day period beginning on the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 1507. COORDINATION OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATIONS AND AUDITS.
(a) Board on Criminal Investigations.--Chapter 7 of title
10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``Sec. 182. Board on Criminal Investigations
``(a) Establishment.--(1) There is in the Department of
Defense a Board on Criminal Investigations. The Board
consists of the following officials:
``(A) The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command,
Control, Communications, and Intelligence.
``(B) The head of the Army Criminal Investigation Command.
``(C) The head of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service.
``(D) The head of the Air Force Office of Special
Investigations.
``(2) To ensure cooperation between the military department
criminal investigative organizations and the Defense Criminal
Investigative Service, the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense shall serve as a nonvoting member of
the Board.
``(b) Functions of Board.--The Board shall provide for
coordination and cooperation between the military department
criminal investigative organizations so as to avoid
duplication of effort and maximize resources available to the
military department criminal investigative organizations.
``(c) Regional Working Groups.--The Board shall establish
working groups at the regional level to address and resolve
issues of jurisdictional responsibility that may arise
regarding criminal investigations involving a military
department criminal investigative organization. A working
group shall consist of managers or supervisors of the
military department criminal investigative organizations who
have the authority to make binding decisions regarding which
organization will conduct a particular criminal investigation
or whether a criminal investigation should be conducted
jointly.
``(d) Authority of Assistant Secretary.--In the event that
a regional working group or the Board is unable to resolve an
issue of investigative responsibility, the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications,
and Intelligence shall have the responsibility to make a
final determination regarding the issue.
``(e) Military Department Criminal Investigative
Organization Defined.--In this section, the term `military
department criminal investigative organization' means any of
the following:
``(1) The Army Criminal Investigation Command.
``(2) The Naval Criminal Investigative Service.
``(3) The Air Force Office of Special Investigations.''.
(b) Board on Audits.--Such chapter is further amended by
inserting after section 182, as added by subsection (a), the
following new section:
``Sec. 183. Board on Audits
``(a) Establishment.--(1) There is in the Department of
Defense a Board on Audits. The Board consists of the
following officials:
``(A) The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller).
``(B) The Auditor General of the Army.
``(C) The Auditor General of the Navy.
``(D) The Auditor General of the Air Force.
``(E) The director of the Defense Contract Audit Agency.
``(2) To ensure cooperation between the defense auditing
organizations and the Office of the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense, the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense shall serve as a nonvoting member of
the Board.
``(b) Functions of Board.--The Board shall provide for
coordination and cooperation between the defense auditing
organizations so as to avoid duplication of effort and
maximize resources available to the defense auditing
organizations.
``(c) Regional Working Groups.--The Board shall establish
working groups at the regional level to address and resolve
issues of jurisdictional responsibility that may arise
regarding audits involving a defense auditing organization. A
working group shall consist of managers or supervisors of the
defense auditing organizations who have the authority to make
binding decisions regarding which defense auditing
organization will conduct a particular audit or whether an
audit should be conducted jointly.
``(d) Authority of Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller).--In the event that a regional working group or
the Board is unable to resolve an issue of jurisdictional
responsibility, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
shall have the responsibility to make a final determination
regarding the issue.
``(e) Defense Auditing Organization Defined.--In this
section, the term `defense auditing organization' means any
of the following:
``(1) The Army Audit Agency.
``(2) The Naval Audit Service.
``(3) The Air Force Audit Agency.
``(4) The Defense Contract Audit Agency.''.
(c) Working Guidance.--Not later than December 31, 1997,
the Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such policies as may
be necessary for the operation of the Board on Criminal
Investigations and the Board on Audits established pursuant
to the amendments made by this section.
(d) Clerical Amendments.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new items:
``182. Board on Criminal Investigations.
``183. Board on Audits.''.
SEC. 1508. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND
ADVISORY COMMITTEES.
(a) Termination of Existing Advisory Committees.--(1)
Effective December 31, 1998, any advisory committee
established in, or administered or funded (in whole or in
part) by, the Department of Defense that (A) is in existence
on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act, and
(B) was not established by law, or expressly continued by
law, after January 1, 1995, is terminated.
(2) For purposes of this section, the term ``advisory
committee'' means an entity that is subject to the provisions
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).
(b) Report on Committees For Which Continuation Is
Requested.--Not later than March 1, 1998, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to Congress a report setting forth those
advisory committees subject to subsection (a) that the
Secretary proposes to continue. The Secretary shall include
in the report, for each such committee, the justification for
continuing the committee and a statement of the costs of such
continuation over the next four fiscal years. The Secretary
shall include in the report a proposal for any legislation
that may be required for the continuations proposed in the
report.
(c) Policy for Future DOD Advisory Committees.--(1) Chapter
7 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after section 183, as added by section 1507(b), the following
new section:
``Sec. 184. Boards, commissions, and other advisory
committees: limitations
``(a) Limitation on Establishment.--No advisory committee
may be established in, or administered or funded (in whole or
in part) by, the Department of Defense except as specifically
provided by law after the date of the enactment of this
section.
``(b) Termination of Advisory Committees.--Each advisory
committee of the Department of Defense (whether established
by law, by the President, or by the Secretary of Defense)
shall terminate not later than the expiration of the four-
year period beginning on the date of its establishment or on
the date of the most recent continuation of the advisory
committee by law.
``(c) Exception for Temporary Advisory Committees.--
Subsection (a) does not apply to an advisory committee
established for a period of one year or less for the purpose
(as set forth in the charter of the advisory committee) of
examining a matter that is critical to the national security
of the United States.
``(d) Annual Report.--Not later than March 1 of each year
(beginning in 1999), the Secretary of Defense shall submit to
Congress a report on advisory committees of the Department of
Defense. In each such report, the Secretary shall identify
each advisory committee that the Secretary proposes to
support during the next fiscal year and shall set forth the
justification for each such committee and the projected costs
for that committee for the next fiscal year. In the case of
any advisory committee that is to terminate in the year
following the year in which the report is submitted pursuant
to subsection (b) and that the Secretary proposes be
continued by law, the Secretary shall include in the report a
request for continuation of the committee and a justification
and cost estimate for such continuation.
``(e) Advisory Committee Defined.--In this section, the
term `advisory committee' means an entity that is subject to
the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. App.).''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section
183, as added by section 1507(d), the following new item:
``184. Boards, commissions, and other advisory committees:
limitations.''.
SEC. 1509. ADVANCES FOR PAYMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES.
(a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 2396 of title
10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking out ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2);
(2) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (3)
and inserting in lieu thereof ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
[[Page H4039]]
``(4) public service utilities.''.
(b) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The heading of such section
is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 2396. Advances for payments for compliance with
foreign laws, rent in foreign countries, tuition, public
utility services, and pay and supplies of armed forces of
friendly foreign countries''.
(2) The item relating to such section in the table of
sections at the beginning of chapter 141 of such title is
amended to read as follows:
``2396. Advances for payments for compliance with foreign laws, rent in
foreign countries, tuition, public utility services, and
pay and supplies of armed forces friendly foreign
countries.''.
TITLE XVI--COMMISSION ON DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND STREAMLINING
SEC. 1601. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.
(a) Establishment.--There is hereby established a
commission to be known as the ``Commission on Defense
Organization and Streamlining'' (hereinafter in this title
referred to as the ``Commission'').
(b) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of nine
members, appointed as follows:
(1) Two members shall be appointed by the chairman of the
Committee on National Security of the House of
Representatives.
(2) Two members shall be appointed by the ranking minority
party member of the Committee on National Security of the
House of Representatives.
(3) Two members shall be appointed by the chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.
(4) Two members shall be appointed by the ranking minority
party member of the Committee on Armed Services of the
Senate.
(5) One member, who shall serve as chairman of the
Commission, shall be appointed by at least three of the
Members of Congress referred to paragraphs (1) through (4)
acting jointly.
(c) Qualifications.--Members of the Commission shall be
appointed from among private United States citizens with
knowledge and expertise in organization and management
matters.
(d) Period of Appointment; Vacancies.--Members shall be
appointed for the life of the Commission. Any vacancy in the
Commission shall be filled in the same manner as the original
appointment.
(e) Initial Organization Requirements.--(1) All
appointments to the Commission shall be made not later than
30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) The Commission shall convene its first meeting not
later than 30 days after the date on which all members of the
Commission have been appointed.
(f) Security Clearances.--The Secretary of Defense shall
expedite the processing of appropriate security clearances
for members of the Commission.
SEC. 1602. DUTIES OF COMMISSION.
(a) In General.--(1) The Commission shall examine the
missions, functions, and responsibilities of the Office of
the Secretary of Defense, the management headquarters and
headquarters support activities of the military departments
and Defense Agencies, and the various acquisition
organizations of the Department of Defense (and the
relationships among such Office, activities, and
organizations).
(2) On the basis of such examination, the Commission shall
propose alternative organizational structures and alternative
allocations of authorities as it considers appropriate.
(b) Duplication and Redundancy.-- In carrying out its
duties, the Commission shall identify areas of duplication
and recommend options to streamline, reduce, and eliminate
redundancies.
(c) Special Requirements Regarding Office of Secretary.--
The examination of the missions, functions, and
responsibilities of the Office of the Secretary of Defense
shall include the following:
(1) An assessment of the appropriate functions of the
Office and whether the Office of the Secretary of Defense or
some of its component parts should be organized along mission
lines.
(2) An assessment of the adequacy of the present
organizational structure to efficiently and effectively
support the Secretary in carrying out responsibilities in a
manner that ensures civilian authority in the Department of
Defense.
(3) An assessment of the extent of unnecessary duplication
of functions between the Office of the Secretary of Defense
and the Joint Staff.
(4) An assessment of the extent of unnecessary duplication
of functions between the Office of the Secretary of Defense
and the military departments.
(5) An assessment of the appropriate number of Under
Secretaries of Defense, Assistant Secretaries of Defense,
Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense, and Deputy Assistant
Secretaries of Defense.
(6) An assessment of any benefits or efficiencies derived
from decentralizing certain functions currently performed by
the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
(d) Special Requirements Regarding Headquarters.--The
examination of the missions, functions, and responsibilities
of the management headquarters and headquarters support
activities of the military departments and Defense Agencies
shall include the following:
(1) An assessment on the adequacy of the present
headquarters organization structure to efficiently and
effectively support the mission of the military departments
and the Defense Agencies.
(2) An assessment of options to reduce the number of
personnel assigned to such headquarters staffs and
headquarters support activities.
(3) An assessment of the extent of unnecessary duplication
of functions between the Office of the Secretary of Defense
and headquarters staffs of the military departments and the
Defense Agencies.
(4) An assessment of the possible benefits that could be
derived from further functional consolidation between the
civilian secretariat of the military departments and the
staffs of the military service chiefs.
(5) An assessment of the possible benefits that could be
derived from reducing the number of civilian officers in the
military departments who are appointed by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate.
(e) Special Requirements Regarding Acquisition
Organizations.--The examination of the missions, functions,
and responsibilities of the various acquisition organizations
of the Department of Defense shall include the following:
(1) An assessment of benefits of consolidation or selected
elimination of Department of Defense acquisition
organizations.
(2) An assessment of the opportunities to streamline the
defense acquisition infrastructure that were realized as a
result of the enactment of the Federal Acquisition
Streamlining Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-355) and the
Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (divisions D and E of Public Law
104-106) or as result of other acquisition reform initiatives
implemented administratively during the period from 1993
through 1997.
(3) An assessment of such other defense acquisition
infrastructure streamlining or restructuring options as the
Commission considers appropriate.
(f) Cooperation From Government Officials.--In carrying out
its duties, the Commission should receive the full and timely
cooperation of the Secretary of Defense and any other United
States Government official responsible for providing the
Commission with analyses, briefings, and other information
necessary for the fulfillment of its responsibilities.
SEC. 1603. REPORTS.
The Commission shall submit to Congress an interim report
containing its preliminary findings and conclusions not later
than March 15, 1998, and a final report containing its
findings and conclusions not later than July 15, 1998.
SEC. 1604. POWERS.
(a) Hearings.--The Commission or, at its direction, any
panel or member of the Commission, may, for the purpose of
carrying out the provisions of this title, hold hearings, sit
and act at times and places, take testimony, receive
evidence, and administer oaths to the extent that the
Commission or any panel or member considers advisable.
(b) Information.--The Commission may secure directly from
the Department of Defense and any other Federal department or
agency information that the Commission considers necessary to
enable the Commission to carry out its responsibilities under
this title.
SEC. 1605. COMMISSION PROCEDURES.
(a) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the
Chairman.
(b) Quorum.--(1) Five members of the Commission shall
constitute a quorum other than for the purpose of holding
hearings.
(2) The Commission shall act by resolution agreed to by a
majority of the members of the Commission.
(c) Commission.--The Commission may establish panels
composed of less than full membership of the Commission for
the purpose of carrying out the Commission's duties. The
actions of each such panel shall be subject to the review and
control of the Commission. Any findings and determinations
made by such a panel shall not be considered the findings and
determinations of the Commission unless approved by the
Commission.
(d) Authority of Individuals To Act for Commission.--Any
member or agent of the Commission may, if authorized by the
Commission, take any action which the Commission is
authorized to take under this title.
SEC. 1606. PERSONNEL MATTERS.
(a) Pay of Members.--Members of the Commission shall serve
without pay by reason of their work on the Commission.
(b) Travel Expenses.--The members of the Commission shall
be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies
under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States
Code, while away from their homes or regular places of
business in the performance of services for the Commission.
(c) Staff.--(1) The chairman of the Commission may, without
regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code,
governing appointments in the competitive service, appoint a
staff director and such additional personnel as may be
necessary to enable the Commission to perform its duties. The
appointment of a staff director shall be subject to the
approval of the Commission.
(2) The chairman of the Commission may fix the pay of the
staff director and other personnel without regard to the
provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of
title 5, United States Code, relating to classification of
positions and General Schedule
[[Page H4040]]
pay rates, except that the rate of pay fixed under this
paragraph for the staff director may not exceed the rate
payable for level V of the Executive Schedule under section
5316 of such title and the rate of pay for other personnel
may not exceed the maximum rate payable for grade GS-15 of
the General Schedule.
(d) Detail of Government Employees.--Upon request of the
chairman of the Commission, the head of any Federal
department or agency may detail, on a nonreimbursable basis,
any personnel of that department or agency to the Commission
to assist it in carrying out its duties.
(e) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
The chairman of the Commission may procure temporary and
intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5,
United States Code, at rates for individuals which do not
exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay
payable for level V of the Executive Schedule under section
5316 of such title.
SEC. 1607. MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.
(a) Postal and Printing Services.--The Commission may use
the United States mails and obtain printing and binding
services in the same manner and under the same conditions as
other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
(b) Miscellaneous Administrative and Support Services.--The
Secretary of Defense shall furnish the Commission, on a
reimbursable basis, any administrative and support services
requested by the Commission.
SEC. 1608. FUNDING.
Funds for activities of the Commission shall be provided
from amounts appropriated for the Department of Defense for
operation and maintenance for Defense-wide activities for
fiscal year 1998. Upon receipt of a written certification
from the Chairman of the Commission specifying the funds
required for the activities of the Commission, the Secretary
of Defense shall promptly disburse to the Commission, from
such amounts, the funds required by the Commission as stated
in such certification.
SEC. 1609. TERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION.
The Commission shall terminate 60 days after the date of
the submission of its final report under section 1603.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from South Carolina
[Mr. Spence] and a Member opposed, each will control 30 minutes.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, since no one rises in opposition to the
amendment and it is not my intention to rise in opposition, I am in
support, but with that explanation, I would ask unanimous consent that
the balance of the time be yielded to this gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] will be
recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence].
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.
(Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I join the ranking Democrat on the
Committee on National Security, the gentleman from California [Mr.
Dellums] in jointly offering this amendment.
This amendment is essentially H.R. 1778, the Defense Reform Act of
1997, which was reported out of the House Committee on National
Security last week by voice vote with some minor modifications and
without provisions in that bill addressing environmental reforms.
Mr. Chairman, I offer this important amendment in the hope and
expectation that it will move us closer to effecting significant and
much-needed reform of the Department of Defense. At the appropriate
time, I will insert in the Record the applicable report language
explaining the legislative history and intent of the provisions
contained in this amendment.
{time} 1745
Mr. Chairman, defense spending has suffered 13 consecutive years of
real decline. At the same time, the Department of Defense is facing
billions of dollars in readiness, quality of life, and modernization
shortfalls. Complicating this situation, our military forces have been
reduced by one-third over the last 10 years, and the recently released
Quadrennial Defense Review recommends further force reductions even
though our forces are busier than they have ever been.
These realities have dramatically increased the imperative to
aggressively pursue reforms in how the Department of Defense is
organized, resourced and conducts its day-to-day business.
The Spence-Dellums amendment builds on past committee initiatives to
reform the Department of Defense, and it contains a number of
organizational, business practice, acquisition, and policy reforms
intended to compel the Department of Defense to operate more
efficiently. According to the Congressional Budget Office, just the
provisions of this amendment dealing with the downsizing of the
bureaucracy will save $15.5 billion over the next 5 years and $5
billion the year thereafter. This does not count any of the expected
savings resulting from the various business practices and acquisition
reforms contained in the bill.
This amendment proposes action on several fronts: First, it addresses
work force reductions. Over the past several years the committee has
focused attention on the disproportionate size of the work force
assigned to the Office of the Secretary of Defense headquarters staff
and acquisition organizations. Retaining such an overstaffed
bureaucracy is untenable when troops have been reduced by 33 percent.
Second, this amendment also recognizes that there are many commercial
functions which are currently performed by the Department which are
neither inherently governmental nor directly related to the war-
fighting mission. Accordingly, it imposes business practice reforms by
mandating that a number of commercial activities of the department,
such as finance and accounting, information services and property
disposal, be competitively procured. It does not mandate privatization,
just competition. And in recognition of the fact that the private
sector is not always more cost-effective than the public sector, the
bill ensures that the existing work force will be able to compete.
Spending on infrastructure and support services account for nearly 60
percent of the defense budget. According to GAO, 45 percent of all
active duty military personnel are assigned to infrastructure
functions. This trend must be reversed. As the war-fighting element or
the tooth of the military services becomes smaller by comparison to the
infrastructure/support or tail, the risk of a hollow force becomes
real. In the current budget environment, maintaining an effective
combat capability demands a defense establishment that is smaller, more
efficient and able to maintain critical war-fighting capability at a
lower cost.
This amendment has received the endorsement of the council for
Citizens Against Government Waste and Americans For Tax Reform. I pause
after that. That should be of interest to everyone, many of whom vote
on the recommendations of these two organizations.
Mr. Chairman, the imperative to reform how the Department of Defense
conducts its business has never been greater. The Defense Reform Act of
1997, and this amendment, achieves this goal. I strongly urge a ``yes''
vote on the Spence-Dellums defense reform amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the report language referred to above, follows
herewith:
Purpose and Background
Consistent with the recently concluded bipartisan balanced
budget agreement, the fiscal year 1998 defense budget will
represent the 13th straight year of real decline
in defense spending. However, persistent shortfalls in
critical defense modernization, readiness and quality of life
accounts totaling billions of dollars over the Future Years
Defense Program remain with no realistic prospect of solution
within the existing budgetary framework. Exacerbating the
situation, U.S. military forces have been reduced by one-
third over the last ten years and the recently released
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) recommends further force
reductions, even though U.S. forces are busier than they have
ever been.
The starkness of the realities facing the defense budget
have dramatically increased the imperative to aggressively
pursue reforms in how the Department of Defense is organized,
resourced and conducts its day to day business. While the
drive to achieve meaningful defense reform has existed for
decades, the results have been mixed with only marginal
improvements achieved.
During the 104th Congress, the House National
Security Committee initiated a number of reforms in the areas
of acquisition policy, infrastructure and support services,
and DOD organization. These reforms were intended to increase
the overall efficiency of the Department while, at the same
time, preserving the critical military combat capability.
In the acquisition policy area, the committee streamlined
and made more cost efficient
[[Page H4041]]
the acquisition process through reforms of a number of
antiquated and restrictive federal acquisition laws. The
committee also mandated numerous studies and pilot programs
in the area of infrastructure and support services in an
effort to determine the benefits of shifting responsibility
for providing certain support services from the public sector
to the private. Given the Department's critical national
security mission, the committee recognizes there will always
be important support functions that must be performed, in
part or in whole, by DOD employees. However, with spending on
infrastructure and support services accounting for nearly 60
percent of the defense budget, the committee believes that
reality should not stand in the way of moving aggressively to
achieve greater efficiencies in non-critical support
functions such as printing, payroll and travel, just to cite
a few.
With respect to DOD organization, the committee is
disappointed and concerned that its efforts to effect reform
in this area, undertaken with a cooperative spirit, have been
met with hostility and consistent non-compliance with
statutory direction. The facts underlying the need for DOD
organizational reform have not changed. In the same ten year
period that active duty military forces have been reduced by
33 percent, the size of the staff and support personnel
assigned to the Office of the Secretary of Defense has
increased by over 40 percent. This trend of growth in the
administrative support functions of the Department undermine
the credibility of any internal effort to attack the widely
recognized imbalance between combat forces and support
infrastructure.
The committee acknowledges the QDR's review of defense
reform issues and resulting initiatives. However, the
committee notes with disappointment the lack of detail and
specifics on implementation of these initiatives. Further,
while the committee commends Secretary Cohen's commitment to
taking on defense reform through the establishment of the
Task Force on Defense Reform, the committee notes that the
results of that new review will not be known until late this
year.
This legislation builds on past committee initiatives to
effect reform in the Department of Defense. It undertakes a
number of organizational, structural, defense business
practice, acquisition and policy reforms that will make the
Department operate more efficiently.
The committee notes that, in implementing the provisions of
this bill, the Secretary of Defense may apply any applicable
workyear reductions resulting from sections 1401, 1402, 1403,
1405, 1406, and 1421 of this bill to the relevant
headquarters reductions and acquisition workforce reductions
required by sections 1301 and 1302. Further, the committee is
aware that there may be a ``double counting'' effect, whereby
a position being eliminated may, for example, fall into both
an acquisition workforce and headquarters definition. It is
the committee's intent that reductions in the workforce
resulting from this bill shall count toward all relevant
affected functions or organizations.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Title XIII--Defense Personnel Reforms
section 1301--reduction in personnel assigned to management
headquarters and headquarters support activities
This section would require a 25 percent reduction in
management headquarters and headquarters support personnel,
as defined in DOD Instruction 5100.73, over four years and
implemented on an annual basis. In execution of this section,
the Department would base its reductions upon personnel
levels as of October 1, 1997. This section would also require
the Secretary of Defense to examine DOD Instruction 5100.73
and make recommendations to Congress by January 15, 1998 on a
revised directive that uniformly applies a DOD-wide
definition of management headquarters and headquarters
support functions.
The committee continues to be concerned with the size and
cost of the Department's management headquarters and
headquarters support activities. Ten years after the
enactment of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense
Reorganization Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-433), the committee
believes that the Department requires a further reexamination
of the structure and size of its management headquarters and
headquarters support activities to eliminate unnecessary
duplication, outdated modes of organization, and wasteful
inefficiencies.
The committee unsuccessfully sought to engage the
Department in the 104th Congress on the appropriate size,
composition and structure of its Military Department
Headquarters staffs. The committee notes with concern that
the Department has yet to submit the report and
recommendations required by section 904 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law
104-201). While the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) has
cited reducing and streamling management headquarters and
headquarters support activities as a priority, it has
postponed implementation of reductions until another internal
study reviews the issue and makes recommendations to the
Secretary of Defense by August 29, 1997.
The committee is encouraged with the QDR's assertion that
the reduction of layers of oversight at headquarters and
operational commands and elimination of management and
support personnel will yield 10,000 military and 14,000
civilian positions. The committee concurs with the need to
drawdown unnecessary infrastructure and supports the
Department in this regard. However, the committee is
concerned the Department may not have an accurate
understanding of the costs associated with management
headquarters and headquarters support activities.
Specifically, the committee questions whether the Department
is relying upon the proper definition and whether the
governing DOD directive is being adequately implemented. The
committee is aware of several organizations that have not
been reported by DOD as management headquarters or
headquarters support, but appear to be performing those
functions. These organizations include the Air Force Studies
and Analyses Agency, U.S. Army's Forces Command Field Support
Activity, Air Combat Command's Studies and Analyses Squadron,
and the U.S. Atlantic Command's Information Systems Support
Group. Furthermore, the committee understands only a portion
of the headquarters staffs of the DOD Inspector General and
some Defense Agencies are reported by DOD as being management
headquarters or headquarters support. In addition, none of
the headquarters of the numbered air forces are currently
reported (although they were in the past), and the Navy's
Program Executive Offices apparently have not been reported
in spite of the DOD directive requiring their inclusion.
The committee understands the Department intends to address
the inadequacies of the current definition of management
headquarters and headquarters support activities in its
August 29, 1997 report to the Secretary and looks forward to
specific recommendations to rectify this situation.
Section 1302--Additional Reduction in Defense Acquisition Workforce
This section would require the Department of Defense to
reduce its acquisition workforce by 42 percent by October 1,
2001, based upon projected fiscal year 1997 end-strength, in
order to achieve the reductions necessary to take full
advantage of legislated acquisition reforms, free up
resources for other unfunded priorities and spur needed
streamlining in the defense acquisition infrastructure. This
provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to
submit an implementation plan to Congress by January 15,
1998, containing any recommendations to include legislative
proposals the Secretary considers necessary to fully achieve
such reductions.
In the 104th Congress, the committee addressed specific
concerns with the size and number of acquisition
organizations and positions relative to the declining
Department of Defense (DOD) budget and modernization program.
Many of the acquisition reforms initiated by the committee
were intended to ultimately reduce costs both to the private
sector as well as the federal government. Full implementation
of acquisition reforms can, and should, also result in
fundamental changes and reductions in the structure of the
Department's acquisition organizations. Specifically, it was
the intent of the committee in relieving the Department from
the burden of administering various antiquated and
restrictive federal procurement laws that substantially fewer
acquisition personnel would be required.
In seeking to establish a balance between the Department's
diminished modernization program and the Department's
acquisition bureaucracy, the committee supported moderate
reductions in acquisition personnel in section 906 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(Public Law 104-106) and section 902 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201).
The committee understands that in implementing these
reductions, the Department exceeded the Congressional
mandates in fiscal year 1996 and plans to do so again in
fiscal year 1997.
In addition to seeking overall reductions in personnel, the
committee sought to engage the Department in determining the
appropriate structure of its future acquisition workforce.
Section 906 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) required the Department
to examine consolidation and reorganization options and
report to Congress on its recommendations. Unfortunately, the
report provided by the Department demonstrated no real effort
to consider the various organizational and management options
identified by the law and, not surprisingly, failed to
propose significant alternations to the current acquisition
infrastructure.
The committee notes that the 1995 Commission on Roles and
Missions (CORM) sharply criticized the Department's
acquisition organizations for maintaining redundant staffs
and facilities for many types of common acquisition support
activities. Therefore, the committee rejects the Department's
conclusion in its report to Congress pursuant to section 906
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1996 (Public Law 104-106) that it has adequately assessed
and implemented options for restructuring its acquisition
organizations for the purposes of improved efficiency.
The committee strongly disagrees with the Department's
assertion that increased downsizing of the workforce would
place at risk the ability of the Department to equip combat
forces and modernize against future threats. Rather, the
committee regards the disproportionate size of the defense
acquisition personnel workforce and infrastructure relative
to the dramatically reduced procurement accounts as a serious
drain upon current and future resources. The committee
[[Page H4042]]
believes that the Department's continued refusal to
restructure and streamline acquisition infrastructure will
result in the continued squandering of limited resources
urgently needed to address modernization, readiness and
quality of life shortfalls. In order to obtain independent
analysis of these issues and develop specific alternative
organizational options, elsewhere in this report, the
committee recommends a provision establishing the Commission
on Defense Organization and Streamlining to examine these
critical issues.
The committee understands the Department's current plan
will result in an acquisition workforce of approximately
269,000 by October 1, 2000, using the definition included in
section 906 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106). Further, the
Department has stated plans to reduce its acquisition
workforce in excess of 20,000 positions in fiscal year 1997.
This section would result in a reduction of 95,000
acquisition positions in excess of the Department's current
plan over the next four years and, specifically, reduce
40,000 personnel in fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and 22,000 in
fiscal years 2000 and 2001.
The provision would exempt from the required reductions
personnel who are employed at maintenance depots. In
addition, the committee expects the personnel covered under
the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act of 1990
(DAWIA) will be protected, to the extent possible, from
overall reductions required in this section.
section 1303--availabiity of funds for separation pay for defense
acquisition personnel
This section would make $100 million available for payment
of separation pay incentives only to defense acquisition
personnel who separate from the Department of Defense as a
result of reductions mandated by section 1302. The committee
believes the Department should be provided appropriate
management devices to implement these reductions equitably
while retaining the necessary skill levels and organizational
capacity. The committee expects the Secretary of Defense to
distribute these funds to the military departments, agencies
and organizations which ultimately are responsible for
offering the separation pay incentives, and will closely
monitor how these additional resources are expended.
section 1304--personnel reductions in united states transportation
command
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
reduce administrative duplication and inefficiencies in the
United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) and
eliminate 1,000 administrative positions across USTRANSCOM
components in addition to the reductions identified in the
fiscal year 1998 budget request.
Despite the creation of USTRANSCOM, studies by the General
Accounting Office and USTRANSCOM, have reported that traffic
management processes within the Department of Defense (DOD)
remain fragmented, duplicative, and inefficient, primarily
due to the lack of integrated and standard business
practices. Personnel in each transportation component
continue to perform similar and duplicative functions,
resulting in different component staff separately negotiating
rates and processing claims often related to the same
shipment.
The committee is aware that USTRANSCOM is reviewing options
to improve the management of customer requirements and
billing through contracted studies and the Joint Mobility
Control Group. Both options utilize standard business
practices which should improve transportation services,
transportation and financing systems, and allocation of
scarce resources. As these programs are fully implemented,
they will eliminate much of the duplicative work that exists.
The committee believes that as workload is reduced so should
the personnel performing such workload.
As a result, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to reduce the workers assigned to USTRANSCOM to 70,755, or
1,000 workers below the estimated fiscal year 1997
endstrength levels. The Secretary should also take care to
ensure that the smaller components in USTRANSCOM do not
receive an disproportionate share of this reduction. These
reductions would not affect the Department's overall
endstrength level.
Title XIV--Defense Business Practices Reforms
Subtitle A--Competitive Procurement Requirements
section 1401--competitive procurement of finance and accounting
services
This section would require that the Secretary of Defense
study the competitive procurement of the finance and
accounting services currently provided by the Defense Finance
and Accounting Service and provide a report, by June 1, 1998,
on the results of the study. The section also requires the
Secretary of Defense to competitively procure, consistent
with current procurement laws and regulation, DFAS services
starting in fiscal year 2000.
It is the committee's view that there exists a robust
capability for the provision of financial and accounting
services in the private sector. There are no unique
requirements of the Department of Defense for finance and
accounting services that preclude the provision of such
services by the private sector. In light of these
considerations, the committee believes that a full and open
competition, consistent with current procurement laws and
regulations, between both government and private sector
sources for the provision of such services is appropriate.
The study undertaken during fiscal year 1998 should be
consistent with current laws.
section 1402--competitive procurement of services to dispose of surplus
defense property
This section would direct that the Secretary of Defense to
competitively procure the Defense Reutilization and Marketing
Service (DRMS) function of disposing of surplus property, by
October 1, 1998, and provide a plan, by March 1, 1998, for
implementing this section and to identify other DRMS
functions that lend themselves to outsourcing.
Studies by both the Department of Defense (DOD) and the
National Performance Review identified DRMS as a non-
inherently governmental function to be considered for
outsourcing. The committee is aware that the Defense
Logistics Agency announced a streamlining strategy for DRMS
in April 1997. In support of this strategy, the committee
recommends competing, consistent with current procurement
laws and regulations, all of the DRMS surplus property sales
functions starting in fiscal year 1999.
The sale of surplus property is the last step in the DRMS
process, following the proper coding, demilitarization,
reutilization, transfer, and donation of property as
performed by DRMS federal employees. Prior to this date, the
committee directs the Secretary to allow the affected agency
or programs to establish their most efficient organizational
structure in order to compete with the private sector. The
committee expects that standard management systems will be
implemented in the surplus sales function to ensure adequate
oversight of the function by DRMS, and that all necessary
information should be made available to the private sector in
order to fully support the sale of surplus property.
section 1403--Competitive Procurement of Functions Performed by Defense
Information Systems Agency
This section would require that the Secretary of Defense
study the competitive procurement of all of the Defense
Information System Agency's (DISA) unclassified, non-
inherently governmental commercial and industrial type
activities and provide a report, by June 1, 1998, on the
results of the study. The section also requires the Secretary
of Defense to competitively procure, consistent with current
procurement laws and regulations, DISA services starting in
fiscal year 2000.
The committee recognizes that DISA has played a crucial
role in providing information technology support to the
Department of Defense. Today, however, most of DISA's
services are widely available in the private sector, often at
significantly lower costs. Current DISA services duplicated
by the private sector include data processing operations,
automated systems support, technical support, help centers,
software development, telecommunications, and executive
software management.
The study undertaken during fiscal year 1998 should be
consistent with current laws. As part of the competition
process beginning in fiscal year 2000, the Secretary shall
allow the affected program to establish their most efficient
organizational structure for the competitions. In order to
ensure continuity of customer service, the committee
recommends allowing DISA to complete all customer orders
received by September 30, 1999.
section 1404--Competitive Procurement of Printing and Duplication
Services
This section would extend, through fiscal year 1998,
section 351 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201) which directed the
Defense Printing Service, now known as the Defense Automation
and Printing Service (DAPS), to competitively procure at
least 70 percent of its printing and duplication work from
private sector sources. This section would also eliminate the
current surcharges levied by the DAPS for handling printing
orders that are sent to the Government Printing Office (GPO)
or to private contractors.
Although DAPS successfully outsourced 70 percent of its
services in fiscal year 1996, the committee has received few
assurances that this success represents a permanent change in
DAPS business practices. Additionally, the committee has
learned that DAPS has placed a surcharge on all customer
orders DAPS passes on to its contractors. According to the
Air Force and Army, DAPS does not provide any direct value-
added services for this surcharge.
section 1405--competitive procurement of certain ophthalmic services
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
contract for ophthalmic services related to providing
military members with single vision and multi-vision eyewear,
except those services needed to meet readiness requirements
or those that can be accomplished more cost-effectively by
the Department of Defense. This provision is based on a
recommendation made jointly by the U.S. Army Audit Agency and
Naval Audit Service.
section 1406--competitive procurement of commercial and industrial type
functions by defense agencies
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
competitively procure the defense agency commercial and
industrial functions by fiscal year 2000 and provide, by
March 1,
[[Page H4043]]
1998, a plan to accomplish the requirements of this section.
The committee is concerned that competition is not being
fully explored by the defense agencies. According to the
Department of Defense, the defense agencies will outsource an
estimated 14 percent of its commercial activities in fiscal
year 1997. In comparison, during the same period, the
military departments outsourced between 33 to 61 percent of
their commercial activities. For these reasons, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to compete these functions,
consistent with current procurement laws and regulations.
Subtitle B--Reform of Conversion Process
section 1411--Development of Standard Forms Regarding Performance Work
Statement and Request for Proposal for Conversion of Certain
Operational Functions of Military Installations
This section would require, by October 1, 1998, the
creation of standard Office of Management and Budget Circular
A-76 performance work statement (PWS) and request for
proposal (RFP) requirements for each base operations function
and service that the military departments have previously
studied and currently outsource on an average of 50 percent
or more across all the military departments. The standard PWS
and RFP would render the A-76 requirements, as they relate to
PWS and RFP, inapplicable at that time. The committee is
aware that within the military services, there is little
consistency for outsourcing non-inherently governmental base
operations functions and services. Specifically, the military
services conduct A-76 studies on activities that are similar,
if not exactly the same, as extensively studied and
outsourced functions in their own service or in the other
military services. This practice unnecessarily duplicates
effort and is costly.
As discussed in a General Accounting Office report, ``Base
Operations: Challenges Confronting DOD as It Renews Emphasis
on Outsourcing,'' (GAO NSIAD 97-86), the development of
standard ``templates'' based on previous A-76 studies of
similar functional areas, would save the military services
time and resources in outsourcing these functions. The
following chart illustrates the base operations commercial
activities that were outsourced in fiscal year 1996,
highlighting the activities that were outsourced an average
of 50 percent or more.
[In percent]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Marine
Base operating activity Force Army Corps Navy
------------------------------------------------------------\1\---------
Natural resource......................... (\2\) 45 0 64
Advertising and public relations......... (\2\) 0 0 1
Financial and Payroll.................... 10 0 0 29
Debt collection.......................... (\2\) 0 (\2\) 1
Bus services............................. (\2\) 48 0 32
Laundry and dry cleaning................. 100 85 81 94
Custodial services....................... 100 88 82 86
Pest management.......................... 23 22 0 37
Refuse collection and disposal services.. 96 84 67 81
Food services............................ 88 88 42 39
Furniture repair......................... 0 10 (\2\) 100
Office equipment maintenance and repair.. 100 75 18 100
Motor vehicle operation.................. 51 16 0 11
Motor vehicle maintenance................ 47 30 0 21
Fire prevention and protection........... 1.4 3 0 1
Military clothing........................ (\2\) 24 58 0
Guard service............................ 5 22 0 14
Electrical plants and systems O&M........ 18 17 .02 4
Heating plants and systems O&M........... 0 38 .01 5
Water plants and systems O&M............. (\2\) 32 .02 14
Sewage and waste plants O&M.............. 14 27 0 18
Air conditioning and refrigeration plants 7 15 30 37
Other utilities O&M...................... 21 25 0 24
Supply operations........................ 26 9 .03 12
Warehousing and distribution of (\2\) 0 0 7
publications............................
Transportation management services....... 25 6 .02 9
Museum operations........................ (\2\) 4 0 0
Contractor-operated parts stores and 100 71 100 (\2\)
civil engineering supply stores.........
Other installation services.............. 8 10 14 22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Marine Corps figures are as of July 1996; all others are as of the
end of fiscal year 1996.
\2\ Not reported.
Note.--Percentages represent the portion of the workforce that is
outsourced for a given function.
Source: GAO analysis of services' commercial activities inventory
databases.
Section 1412--Study and Notification Requirements for Conversion of
Commercial and Industrial Type Functions to Contractor Performance
This section would amend section 2461 of title 10, United
States Code, to streamline the Department of Defense
reporting to Congress on outsourcing activities. The
committee believes that the current reporting requirements
are burdensome to the point of impeding certain outsourcing
reviews.
Section 1413--Collection and Retention of Cost Information Data on
Contracted Out Services and Functions
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
collect cost information on all outsourced activities for
five years after a contract is awarded and create a permanent
storage site for the data.
The committee is concerned with the poor and often lacking
data collection for outsourced activities. Department of
Defense (DOD) regulations currently require only three years
collection of cost information data for all outsourced
activities. According to the General Accounting Office, only
the Department of the Air Force consistently follows the data
collection guidelines. As a result of these inconsistencies,
DOD rarely collects or keeps data on outsourced activities.
The committee believes that data collection of previous and
ongoing outsourcing activities within the DOD is crucial to
identifying and developing accurate savings estimates of
these activities.
Subtitle C--Other Reforms
Section 1421--Reduction in Overhead Costs of Inventory Control Points
This section would require the Department of Defense (DOD)
inventory control points (ICP) to reduce their overhead costs
to eight percent of net sales by the end of fiscal year 2000,
and provide a plan, by March 1, 1998, for achieving this
goal.
The current costs of overhead within the DOD inventory
control points is significantly greater than the private
sector. Even after taking into account the need to maintain a
wartime capacity, these costs are excessive. The committee
believes that the ICP management and work processes are ideal
business re-engineering candidates, given the extensive
commercial market for these services and the recent
improvements in private sector practices. In doing so, DOD is
encouraged to review the General Accounting Office reports
comparing DOD's inventory management practices with leading
industry practices (GAO/NSIAD 96-5 and 96-156) for revising
the way ICPs provide supply services. DOD should make
extensive use of such commercial options as consolidation and
outsourcing--particularly prime vendor and virtual prime
vendor deliveries for most repairable, hardware, and
consumable items. The use of prime and virtual prime vendors
provide the benefit of lowering distribution, warehousing,
and inventory costs, which reduces the customer rates in the
supply and distribution business areas of the working capital
funds.
Section 1422--Consolidation of Procurement Technical Assistance and
Electronic Commerce Technical Assistance
This section would create the Procurement and Electronic
Commerce Technical Assistance Program by combining services
of the current Electronic Commerce Resource Centers (ECRC)
and the Procurement Technical Assistance Centers (PTAC).
During the last couple of years, the acquisition community
has instituted several reforms aimed at streamlining and
removing barriers to the federal acquisition process. The
passage of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994
(Public Law 103-335) and the Federal Acquisition Reform Act
of 1996 (Division D of Public Law 104-106), along with
administrative actions taken by the Executive Branch to
streamline the acquisition process have helped to
fundamentally change the federal acquisition system. However,
despite these reforms, little has changed for the DOD
programs that support small business, particularly ECRC and
PTAC.
Recent findings by the DOD Office of Inspector General
(OIG) (Electronic Commerce Resource Centers, Report No. 97-
090 and Department of Defense Procurement Technical
Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program, report No. 97-007)
argue that the ECRC ``has not been efficient or cost
effective in promoting'' the use of electronic commerce or
electronic data interchange technologies between small
businesses and government organizations. The DOD-OIG also
states that PTAC is not complying with its authorizing
language in section 2415 of title 10, United States Code,
regarding the requirement to award grants based on the
comparative ranking of applicants and equitably distribute
grants across the Defense Contract Administration Service
regions. Finally, the OIG concluded that both ECRC and PTAC
functions overlap with services provided elsewhere in the
government. For these reasons, the committee believes the
programs should be consolidated to improve service delivery
and ensure the future of the program is consistent with the
rest of the acquisition community.
Section 1423--Permanent Authority Regarding Conveyance of Utility
Systems
This section would authorize the secretary of a military
department to convey, with or without consideration, a
utility system, or part of a utility system, to a municipal,
private, regional, district, or cooperative utility company
or other entity. Such utility systems may include electrical
generation and supply systems, water supply and treatment
systems, wastewater collection and treatment system, steam,
hot or chilled water generation and supply systems, natural
gas supply systems, and sanitary landfills or lands to be
used for sanitary landfills. The provision would require the
secretary concerned to submit a 21-day notice-and-wait
announcement, to include a report containing an economic
analysis of the proposed conveyance, to Congress prior to
entering into any agreement to convey a utility system.
Title XV--Miscellaneous Additional Defense Reforms
section 1501--long term charter contracts for acquisition of auxiliary
vessels for the department of defense
This section would remove several restrictions placed on
the Secretary of Defense that currently impede his ability to
enter into contracts for the long-term charter of ships built
in the United States to meet Department of Defense (DOD)
auxiliary fleet requirements. Specifically, this section
would grant the Secretary of the Navy general and permanent
authority to enter into contracts for the long term charter
of certain classes of logistics, sealift and other support
vessels. The Secretary would, however, be required to receive
Congressional authorization to enter into contracts for
specific vessels. It would also remove the requirement to
include the termination liability in the budget request for a
20-year lease or charter, would allow the Secretary to
request funds to cover only the annual lease payment of a
vessel in the fiscal year in which the payment will actually
be made, and would eliminate the role
[[Page H4044]]
of the Office of Management and Budget in reviewing DOD long-
term charter proposals.
By removing these and other restrictions, the Secretary
would be able to enter into long-term charters for DOD
auxiliary ships which have been built with private sector
funds. This program would be virtually identical to the
highly successful build and charter program which was used to
provide the Marine Corps with its maritime prepositioning
ships in the mid-1980s and the Military Sealift Command (MSC)
with its T-5 tankers. It would offer the opportunity to
replace the aging fleet of MSC auxiliary ships and to replace
the prepositioned ammunition container ships for the Army and
Air Force in a timely manner.
section 1502--fiber-optics based telecommunications linkage of military
installations
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
competitively procure and install a dedicated fiber-optics-
based network telecommunication service at a minimum of one
high military density locale, and report by March 1, 1998 on
the implementation of this section.
The communications market has witnessed a rapid change in
the last decade. Driven by such proven technologies as fiber-
optics and semiconductors, this change has also significantly
reduced the cost of telecommunication services while
providing greater flexibility and security. Fiber-optics
technology, in particular, is used extensively for
telecommunications services by the nation's intelligence
agencies and to upgrade the base telecommunications
infrastructure at four Marine Corps bases in fiscal year
1998.
The committee is aware that fiber-optics technology can
also be used to create continuous telecommunication links in
areas where there are several similar Department of Defense
(DOD) users. Such links could eliminate all Federal
Communication Commission (FCC) regulated tolls for
communication between the DOD customers and reduce the access
tolls for local and long distance calls. In August 1996, the
Department of the Navy implemented a pilot study linking, by
fiber-optics, the telecommunications services at eleven
installations in the Norfolk, Virginia area. An April 1997
Department of the Navy audit report concluded that improved
management and services related to this pilot could generate
an estimated $21 million in savings, or 22 percent of total
costs, over the next six years.
The committee is concerned that DOD has not demonstrated
sufficient vision and planning to take full advantage of
these cost-effective technologies and a deregulated
telecommunications market. Therefore, this section would
require the Secretary of Defense to compete among both
regulated and unregulated companies for the installation, in
at least one area within the United States that contains
multiple military facilities and installations, a fiber-
optics based telecommunications network linking identified
military facilities and installations and achieve operational
capability for this network on or before September 30, 1999.
The committee is aware that such networks are capable of
providing all forms of communication including voice
telephony, data applications, video teleconferencing,
imaging, and video transmission. The committee believes that
the Secretary, in contracting for this fiber-optics
telecommunications network, should take advantage of the
range of capabilities of this technology wherever feasible
and affordable.
section 1503--repeal of requirement for contractor guarantees on major
weapon systems
This section would repeal section 2403 of title 10, United
States Code, which requires that a contract for the
production of a weapon system contain written guarantees
unless a waiver is obtained at the Assistant Secretary of
Defense level. It also requires Congressional notification in
certain circumstances.
Based on work performed by the General Accounting Office
and other analysis, the committee is convinced that this
provision has not contributed to the effective protection of
the taxpayer's interests. To the contrary, the body of
evidence supports the conclusion that this provision has led
to sizable expenditures by the Department of Defense in the
course of purchasing contractor guarantees with little or no
concomitant benefit in return. In recommending the repeal of
this provision, however, the committee is cognizant of the
continuing ability of the Secretary of Defense to pursue
contractor guarantees on weapon system acquisitions where it
is determined that such an arrangement would protect the
government's interest and encourages the Secretary to take
such a step wherever warranted.
section 1504--requirements relating to micro-purchases of commercial
items
This section would impose a limitation on the use of
contracts or purchase orders for commercial items of a value
equal to or below the micro-purchase threshold of $2,500
unless a member of the Senior Executive Service or a general
or flag office makes a written determination such a contract
is necessary. The provision would also grant the Secretary of
Defense the discretion to prescribe regulations specifying
any further circumstances that may necessitate the used
contracts or purchase order below the micro-purchase
threshold.
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has
not taken advantage of the authorities provided by the
Federal Acquisition and Streamlining Act of 1994 (Public Law
103-712) in dispensing with the administrative burden
associated with transactions which occur at or below the
micro-purchase threshold. While representing the bulk of
the contract actions processed by the Department's
financial and contract management bureaucracy, such
purchases constitute a small fraction of the value of
transactions executed by the Department on an annual
basis. The committee believes that aggressive
implementation of the micro-purchase threshold authority
and of this provision could yield significant savings in
eliminating a portion of the administrative overhead
associated with defense purchases.
section 1505--availability of simplified procedures to commercial item
procurements
This section would amend existing law to modify the
circumstances under which a contracting officer could utilize
simplified procedures for the procurement of commercial
items. Currently, the authority to utilize simplified
procedures above the simplified acquisition threshold of
$100,000 is limited by a requirement for the contracting
officer to make a determination that ``only'' commercial
items will be proposed for a given procurement. Given that
this kind of prospective determination is difficult to make,
the restriction serves as an impediment to utilizing above-
threshold simplified procedures as intended by the Clinger-
Cohen Act of 1996 (Division D of Public Law 104-106). This
situation is particularly critical given that this authority
for above-threshold simplified procedures was extended by
Congress on a three-year test basis. Therefore, the committee
believes it is critical that the Department be afforded a
realistic opportunity to implement the flexibility and
potential benefits realized through the use simplified
procedures for commercial item procurements above the
simplified acquisition threshold in order to determine
whether such authority should be considered on a more
permanent basis.
section 1506--termination of the armed services patent advisory board
This section would terminate the Armed Services Patent
Advisory Board and transfer its functions to the Defense
Technology Security Administration (DTSA). The Armed Services
Patent Advisory Board is currently responsible for
coordinating security reviews of patent applications to
determine if they contain sensitive technical information,
the public release of which would be detrimental to national
security. In performing this function, the Board fulfills the
role assigned to the Department of Defense under chapter 17
of title 35, United States Code. The Patent Advisory Board is
an unfunded program and as such, is staffed with personnel
from the legal offices of the military departments.
The committee notes that DTSA carries out nearly the same
technology security review function when reviewing export
license applications to determine if the technologies
involved would harm national security if exported to foreign
entities. In fact, DTSA and the Patent Advisory Board confer
with many of the same technical experts at field activities
of the military departments. The DTSA staff possesses
technical knowledge that enable it to prescreen items before
resorting to military field activities for analyses. A DTSA
review can therefore be more expeditious than reviews
coordinated by the Patent Advisory Board, since Board
personnel are primarily legal staff members with limited
knowledge of defense technologies. While the committee
recognizes that as an unfunded program the Board's
termination would not necessarily result in cost savings, the
committee believes that transfer of the security review
function to DTSA would result in more expeditious and
thorough reviews.
section 1507--coordination of department of defense criminal
investigations and audits
This section would authorize the Department of Defense
(DOD) Criminal Investigative Service's Board on
Investigations with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence as
executor. This provision would also create a similar board
for the audit agencies with the DOD Undersecretary for
Defense (Comptroller) as its executor.
The committee commends the DOD criminal investigative
services on their efforts to increase coordination, reduce
duplication, and improve the overall management of resources
through the Board on Investigations and the Regional Fraud
Working Groups. The committee believes the creation of a
Board on Audit would generate the same benefits, allowing DOD
to better handle the increasing workload from the Chief
Financial Officers Act and the changing accounting systems.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to finalize
the working guidance for the operation of both boards no
later than December 31, 1997. The committee believes that DOD
is best served by a productive and coordinated effort between
the service departments and the DOD Office of Inspector
General.
section 1508--department of defense boards, commissions, and advisory
committees
This section would eliminate, by December 31, 1998, all
governing authorities for Department of Defense (DOD)
advisory committees other than those established in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(Public Law 104-106) or subsequent authorizations. This
provision would also require DOD to submit to Congress a
report
[[Page H4045]]
and a legislative proposal, due March 1, 1998, identifying
advisory committees that warrant support and including
justification and projected costs associated with specific
advisory committees.
The committee is aware the Department has, in response to
Presidential Executive Order 12838, ``Termination and
Limitation of Federal Advisory Committees,'' reduced
discretionary boards and commissions by almost one-third
since 1993. In compliance with section 1054 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law
104-106), the Department submitted a report to Congress on
the merits of remaining DOD boards and commissions. The
Department failed, however, to propose any significant
further elimination of its advisory committees. The committee
notes the current 53 discretionary and statutorily
established boards and commissions, to include the Advisory
Group on Electron Devices, Armed Forces Epidemiological
Board, and Inland Waterways Users Board, will cost an
estimated $16.2 million in fiscal year 1997. The committee is
concerned that many of the Department's remaining statutory
and discretionary boards and commissions may have outlived
their original purpose.
The committee recognizes the value of readily available
expertise in the execution of the Department's duties.
Accordingly, this section would allow the Department of
Defense to establish advisory committees for one year or less
in duration without Congressional authorization for the
stated purpose of examining issues critical to national
security.
section 1509--advances for payment of public services
This section would expand the list of items that the
Department of Defense may pay in advance, from available
appropriations, to include public utility services. This
provision should lower administrative costs associated with
metering and billing for these services.
Title XVI--Commission on Defense Organization and Streamling
overview
The post-Cold War global security environment has witnessed
dramatic reductions in the size and capability of the U.S.
military force structure while the organizational composition
of the Department, especially at the management level, has
remained largely unchanged. Since 1987, the Army has lost
eight active divisions, the Navy has decommissioned three
carriers and over 200 ships, and the Air Force has cut 12
active and five reserve tactical wings. Notably, 1997 active
duty personnel levels are actually equivalent to 1950 pre-
Korean War levels. Meanwhile, from 1985 to 1996, the Office
of the Secretary increased its staff 40 percent, military
department headquarters continue to maintain redundant
staffs, and, in spite of a 70 percent drop in procurement
accounts since 1985, the Department's acquisition
infrastructure has remained largely static.
The committee maintains that the Department currently has
sufficient authority to reorganize and restructure itself but
has demonstrated little willingness to pursue such reforms.
Not since the passage of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-433) has
the defense establishment undergone significant scrutiny and
reform.
To address these trends, the committee undertook a number
of initiatives during the 104th Congress to encourage and
compel the Department to focus on these matters and arrive at
its own options and solutions. The committee deliberately
chose not to legislate specific prescriptive remedies on the
belief that the Department was better suited to develop such
detail on its own. Therefore the committee provided the
Department with broad guidance and, where possible, relief
from existing statutory limitations and dictates on
organizational matters. To the committee's continuing
disappointment, the Department's response to these efforts
has ranged from passive resistance to outright defiance of
statutory direction. After two years of attempting a
preferred approach of cooperation and collaboration, the
committee finds itself no further along in effecting the
necessary change in the Department's management and
organizational structure.
section 1601--establishment of commission
In an effort to increase understanding and provide the
Congress with implementation options for reforming the
Department of Defense, this subtitle would establish a
commission to be known as the ``Commission on Defense
Reorganization and Streamling.'' The committee believes an
independent commission would serve to further the cause of
fundamental and much-needed defense organizational reform.
The commission would consist of nine members who are private
citizens with knowledge and expertise in organization and
management matters. Two members would be appointed by the
chairman of the House National Security Committee, two
members would be appointed by the ranking member of the House
National Security Committee, two members would be appointed
by the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and
two members would be appointed by the ranking member of the
Senate Armed Services Committee.
This section would also provide for three of the four
appointing chairmen and ranking members to designate a
commission chairman. In addition, this section provides for
filling vacancies, and describes the initial organizational
requirements of the commission. It would require that all
members of the commission be required to hold appropriate
security clearance. The committee notes, however, that it is
not the intent of this subsection to disqualify those
individuals who do not currently hold clearances but who
could be provided appropriate clearances in a short period of
time. The committee expects that in such circumstances the
government would move to secure the necessary clearances as
expeditiously as possible.
section 1602--duties of commission
This section would establish the duties of the commission,
which would be to make recommendations to increase overall
organizational effectiveness of the Department of Defense.
The commission shall examine the missions, functions,
responsibilities, and relationship therein, of the Office of
the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the management headquarters
and headquarters support activities of the Military
Departments and the Defense Agencies, and the Department's
various acquisition organizations and propose alternative
organizational structures and alternative allocation of
authorities where it deems appropriate. In carrying out its
duties, the commission shall identify areas of duplication
and recommend options to streamline, reduce, and eliminate
redundancies.
This section would also require that the commission receive
full and timely cooperation of any U.S. government official
responsible for providing the commission with information
necessary to the fulfillment of its responsibilities.
section 1603--reports
This section would direct the commission to submit an
interim report to the Congress by March 15, 1998, and a final
report by July 15, 1998, on its findings and conclusions,
with a provision for the incorporation of dissenting views.
Section 1604--Powers
This section would establish the commission's authority to
hold hearings, take testimony, and receive evidence. The
provision would also authorize the commission to secure any
information from the Department of Defense and other federal
agencies as the commission deems necessary to carry out its
responsibilities.
Section 1605--Commission Procedures
This section would establish the procedures by which the
commission shall conduct its business, describe the number of
members required for a quorum and authorize the commission to
establish panels for the purpose of carrying out the
commission's duties.
Section 1606--Personnel Matters
This section would establish personnel policies for the
commission. Members of the commission would serve without
pay. The provision would authorize:
(1) Reimbursement of expenses, including per diem in lieu
of subsistence, for travel in the performance of services for
the commission;
(2) The chairman to appoint a staff director, subject to
the approval of the commission, and such additional personnel
as may also be necessary for the commission to perform its
duties;
(3) The pay of the staff director and other personnel;
(4) Federal government employees to be detailed to the
commission on a nonreimbursable basis and;
(5) The chairman to procure temporary and intermittent
services.
Section 1607--Miscellaneous Administrative Provisions
This section would allow the commission to use the United
States mails and to obtain printing and binding services in
accordance with the procedures used by other federal
agencies. The provision would also require the Secretary of
Defense to furnish the commission with administrative and
support services, as requested, on a reimbursable basis.
Section 1608--Funding
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
provide such sums as may be necessary for the activities of
the commission in fiscal year 1998.
Section 1609--Termination of the Commission
This section would terminate the commission 60 days after
the date of the submission of its report.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my distinguished colleague the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. Spence] has already laid out the specifics of the bill. I
shall not be redundant. I simply want to first commend the gentleman
from South Carolina for making a significant effort at the very outset
to make this reform package a bipartisan effort.
We both would agree that in its present form it is not perfect.
Because this was on a fast track, we are only recently hearing from
stakeholders in this reform legislation. We have made an effort to
respond to them. I would say to my colleagues on this side of the
[[Page H4046]]
aisle that, while not perfect, I think this product can and should be
supported as we move forward further into the legislative process,
further having the opportunity to refine this process.
I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina for heeding the
notion that while there was a yeoman effort to make reforms in
fundamental environmental legislation, that because of the controversy
and jurisdictional issues, that they saw the wisdom to withdraw title
III. I deeply appreciate that.
Third, I want to thank and commend the staff persons on both sides of
the aisle who, I believe, negotiated with each other in good faith,
sometimes when we were not here, negotiated with each other with the
characteristics of transparency and openness and conviction. Those are
very important factors.
Mr. Chairman, as I have said on more than one occasion, any Member of
Congress or any committee that thinks they can operate without
competent and capable staff are living in a Never-Never Land. So I want
to applaud both the competence, the capability, the integrity and the
cooperation that took place between the two staffs as we arrived at
this bipartisan effort. I think it was an excellent one.
Given the fact that from time to time this is a contentious place,
this may very well be a model of how both parties can work and function
and operate when we are of one mind, attempting to address a myriad of
problems that need to be discussed.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Bateman].
Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer my strongest endorsement to the
build and charter provision in this package of reforms.
This provision is relatively simple and straightforward. It provides
the Secretary of the Navy with authority to enter into long-term
charters for auxiliary and naval support vessels built in U.S.
shipyards. It is modeled after the highly successful build and charter
program which allowed the Navy to retain its T-5 tankers and the Marine
Corps to obtain its 13 maritime prepositioned vessels.
These ships will be built in privately owned U.S. shipyards using
private capital. Upon completion of these vessels, the shipowners will
sign a long-term lease with the Navy to provide a fully crewed vessel.
This provision will simply allow the Navy to request funding for the
lease payments for these vessels in the year in which those payments
are required to be paid. Under current practice, the Navy is required
to request the budget authority in the first year of the lease for all
of the payments due over the next 20 years. Without the ability to
spread these payments over the term of the lease, the Navy will simply
be unable to obtain the support capability it needs over the next 10
years.
The Navy will need 10 new fast combat dry cargo support ships just
after the year 2000. Requirements for ammunition ships for the Air
Force and Army have also been identified, as well as towed-array sensor
ships. The reason I mention these various types of vessels is this
provision will not only provide the opportunity for the Department of
Defense to obtain the needed sealift support, but it also offers U.S.-
based shipyards the opportunity to build these vessels in sufficient
quantities to gain the efficiencies needed to provide an economical
product for the Navy.
The amendment will not just benefit large shipyards but also many
small shipyards throughout the country. The Navy is considering using
this program for towed-array sensor ships, for replacing this aging
class of ships. These ships range in length from 220 to 265 feet, a
length that is well within the capability of smaller shipyards.
Thus, this section in the reform amendment benefits large shipyards
as well as the smaller yards and American merchant mariners and our
national security. I urge my colleagues' support.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to allow the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] the opportunity to manage the
balance of the time on this side of the aisle.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I thank the ranking member for yielding time to me and for giving
me this opportunity, I again commend him for his professionalism,
passion and poetry in the leadership role he serves on this committee.
It is also an honor to serve with him and with our chairman, the
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], and to rise in enthusiastic
support of this bipartisan amendment.
Mr. Chairman, we just voted down overwhelmingly an amendment to
provide a 5-percent across-the-board cut in our defense budget. I voted
against that amendment because I think that that form of cutting is not
responsible. But it does not mean that all forms of cutting are not
responsible. In fact, the pending amendment would cut at least $5.5
billion from our defense budget and that is very responsible.
I commend to those who voted for the Sanders amendment and to those
who voted against the Sanders amendment this particular bipartisan
Dellums-Spence amendment.
I spoke earlier in general debate, and I said that I support more
effective, less costly defense that is ready for the next war, not the
last one. I want the Pentagon to take full advantage of the revolution
in military affairs as it modernizes equipment and doctrine for future
conflicts, because that will ultimately bring costs down and
effectiveness up.
But modernizing requires an initial investment. In today's tight
budgetary climate, funding for that investment must come from
reductions. And logically, those reductions should be in excess
infrastructure and ossified management practices. Right now the
Pentagon spends too much on activities that have nothing to do with
national security. I repeat, they have nothing to do with national
security.
Sixty percent of the defense budget and 45 percent of all military
personnel are dedicated to support, not to war-fighting. No business
could survive with that ratio of overhead to production. Those of us on
the Committee on National Security know that the tooth-to-tail ratio is
way out of line, and many other Members know that too.
Reform-minded Pentagon officials need our support. Just before he
released the QDR, Secretary Cohen told me that it is important for
Congress to keep the pressure on, to help his management team overcome
internal resistance to reform. The amendment before us is the best way
of keeping the pressure on, to help the Pentagon modernize its
management procedures and to bring the tooth-to-tail ratio back to
reality.
This amendment has broad support not only within Congress and the
civilian leadership in the Department but among concerned outside
groups, too. One of these is BENS, Business Executives for National
Security, a nonpartisan organization of Democratic and Republican
business leaders whose advisers include people like former Secretary of
Defense Bill Perry.
In a letter distributed to all Members, BENS urges support of this
amendment and underscores the need to reduce headquarters staff. This
amendment would reduce those staffs by 25 percent, cut the cost of
financial management, encourage cost saving public-private competition,
and simplify acquisition procedures.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment moves us toward the objectives of the
QDR. It continues the important work on acquisition reform that I think
is the cornerstone of the legacy of former Secretary of Defense Bill
Perry.
{time} 1800
Modernizing our forces to take advantage of the revolution in
military affairs requires what Secretary Cohen calls a revolution in
business affairs. This amendment provides the ammunition for that
revolution.
It makes good defense sense and it makes good business sense to pass
this amendment. Let us take advantage of the opportunity it presents,
and let us make a real difference in how the Pentagon does business. We
can do better, and it can cost us less.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon].
[[Page H4047]]
(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
the amendment, and I want to again thank the chairman and the ranking
member for their leadership in helping us address the need to reduce
the infrastructure and better manage the Department of Defense.
The changes that are recommended in this amendment are very serious,
they are substantive, and they are needed. It allows us to bring down
the cost of those people who oversee purchasing. The DOD civilian
personnel, that is still too high. It allows us to make management
reforms to bring in privatization where possible.
But let me talk about one portion of this amendment that we dropped,
Mr. Chairman, and that deals with environmental costs. Earlier I spoke
about one of the most rapidly increasing portions of the defense
budget, and that is the cost for environmental protection. I cited a
ballpark figure at that time of $12 billion. The actual amount, Mr.
Chairman, is $6 billion for DOE environmental costs, $4.8 billion for
DOD costs. And those figures do not include the hundreds of millions of
dollars that we spend either locally at our bases on research programs,
through accounts that are managed by DARPA and a number of other
agencies. So, when we add all of that up within DOD, we are spending
close to $12 billion.
Mr. Chairman, I take great pride in my environmental voting record,
support for things like endangered species, wetlands protection, clean
air. But we have to find a way to better utilize defense dollars to
clean up our sites. And what we are not addressing in this amendment,
but which I know our chairman supports, is an effort down the road to
address the increasing environmental costs.
Let me also add that under our chairman and ranking member, we have
taken great steps. In fact, we introduced a whole new coordinating
initiative with the oceanographic community in this country, not
actually spending new money, but having the Navy work with nine other
Federal agencies to better coordinate the money they spend on
understanding the ocean ecosystem.
It is a better use of DOD's assets, which are primarily for defense
and for national security, but which also offers tremendous
environmental opportunities. That is in the bill. And that is the kind
of success that we take along with our efforts to help solve problems
like the nuclear waste disposition problem in the Arctic by the
Russians.
So we are not saying that we should not be environmentally sensitive,
and we are not saying that we should not be concerned. And where
possible, the military, when it does its primary purpose, can also
benefit us environmentally, we should take advantage of it. But we have
to get control of the increasing costs. We have to find a way to
provide flexibility so that, when we shut these bases down, and when
one day we have kids playing in a playground or going to school on a
military base and the next day after the base is closed we say it is a
toxic waste site, that is just unacceptable.
It is causing us to take more money from programs and from quality of
life that is important. And I applaud my chairman and the ranking
member of the leadership and I ask for consideration of this in the
future.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I just listened to the last speaker, my good friend,
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], and would like to thank
him for years of bipartisan cooperation under his leadership in the
Subcommittee on Military Research and Development. I happen to agree
with him that environmental issues need to be considered down the line.
I was the sole vote on my side of the aisle against deleting all
environmental issues from the base bill on which this amendment is
based. I did so because, although the provisions in this original bill
may not have been perfect, there are provisions that we should pass.
There are ways to revise the Superfund law particularly and to provide
for less costly, I think less costly, remediation of some of these
closed bases and other sites, which will not only save scarce dollars
but will get these lands back to community use faster.
So I applaud what he is saying, and I pledge to work with him and
anyone else on responsible ways to change the existing environmental
practices so that they are more modern, less costly, and better for all
the taxpayers.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr.
Abercrombie].
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, today represents a culmination of 7
years of effort, bipartisan I would like to say, nonpartisan effort. I
particularly want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Virginia
[Mr. Bateman]. This has been a dream of his since before I came into
the Congress. I have been privileged to work with him on this issue,
been privileged to work with the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter]
and the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] to try and put together
this legislation which will renew and revitalize American shipbuilding.
Mr. Chairman, people expect in the United States of America that our
strategic interests are going to be met, that our national interests
are understood in a context of having a modern merchant marine
industry. And yet we do not have it. On the contrary, it has been
virtually wiped out.
I do not believe, Mr. Chairman, that the average American understood
that, even at this time. Yet this legislation and this reform package
that has been put together under the leadership of the gentleman from
South Carolina [Mr. Spence] and the gentleman from California [Mr.
Dellums] is going to achieve that.
As a result of the passage of this reform bill, we are going to see
American ships built in American shipyards by American workers, flagged
in America, and sailed by American seafarers. That is what is going to
be accomplished today. We are doing it in a context that marries the
public and the private sector. This takes us into a new age of
shipbuilding, the revitalization of the American merchant marine.
A vibrant, prosperous American merchant marine is in the direct
strategic interests of the United States. Without it, the national
interests of the United States, as manifested in military doctrine and
material, are served in name only.
Mr. Chairman, by voting for the reform bill today in support of the
chairman's innovative amendment, we will give the Navy the authority to
enter into long-term charters for the construction of strategic sealift
and special mission auxiliary ships. This authority is absolutely
essential because the Navy must replace these types of ships in its
fleet.
Many of these ships are near the end of their useful life. In fact,
the average age of 21 of them is over 30 years. Just as a car, an older
ship needs maintenance, Mr. Chairman, it gets more expensive by the
age, it becomes less reliable. Unlike our personal cars, however, these
ships have a critical mission. And we can ill afford to place our young
men and women in harm's way and not have the sealift capability to
provide them with the supplies and equipment that are essential during
the perilous hours of need.
It does not make good sense to throw good money after bad in trying
to make Bandaid repairs to extend the life of a ship that is operating
past its time. We are in a new era of fiscal responsibility that is
recognized by the chairman where a premium must be placed on finding
innovative ways to provide the Navy with the ships they need now, this
century, not the next.
Charter and build is the cost-effective answer that will permit the
Navy to replace their aging sealift on auxiliary ships. For the last
several years, Mr. Chairman, acquisition reform has received well-
deserved attention and most particularly in our Committee on National
Security. Charter and build is in total keeping with the spirit and
intent of acquisition reform; and equally important, it allows the
private sector to participate in providing a cost-effective means to
meet the auxiliary requirements of the Department of defense. It
creates U.S. jobs, which will be filled by taxpayers who fuel the
Treasury and our Government with revenue that allows us to provide for
the common defense.
For all of these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I request of all of the
membership
[[Page H4048]]
today that they pay close attention to the sea change, no pun intended,
Mr. Chairman, that is going to take place with the passage of the
reform bill. After today, we will have taken the effective first step
in seeing to it that not just reform has come to the American merchant
marine, but that a new day, a new dawn is here for the American
merchant marine.
We have the chairman to thank. We have all the Members to thank, the
gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], as I said, the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Bateman]. I hope that the first ship that comes out will
take into consideration the chairman of our merchant marine panel, who
has been so crucial in seeing to it that this day has finally come.
Mr. Chairman, this is one of the proud days for this House, I think.
We will have taken the steps necessary to see to it that an American
merchant marine is reborn. Mr. Chairman, I ask for the full
consideration of this reform bill by all the Members.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Hampshire [Mr. Bass].
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I guess, as with everyone else here today, I
rise in strong support of the chairman's amendment on procurement
reform. I am proud to serve as chairman of the Defense Work Group of
the Committee on the Budget, and I can say that this is precisely the
kind of reform that the committee has supported over the years.
As one who has endorsed and introduced procurement reform
legislation, I am pleased to see that the Committee on National
Security is moving forward with this effort. We assume, and I think it
is great, that we are going to see a reduction of 25 percent in the
defense managed headquarters. Over 4 years, we will see a reduction of
42 percent in defense acquisition work force over 4 years, and it is
not all at the very end. According to the amendment, it will result in
a 40,000 person reduction of personnel in fiscal year 1998 alone.
Now, my distinguished colleague from California and others have
talked about the fact that our military strength is reduced by 33
percent and we now have 45 percent of those left in support functions,
and that is too high. The amendment will save $15\1/2\ billion over 5
years and $5 billion each year thereafter. And this responsible
amendment does, in fact, free up the necessary resources that we need
for readiness, for modernization, and for overdue improvements in pay
and benefits for military personnel.
I would just like to say that I rise in strong support of this
amendment and urge the House to adopt it.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York [Mrs. Maloney].
(Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding, and I rise in opposition to a provision in the Spence
amendment that threatens one of the basic tenets of our economy, full
and open competition. And I hope that this particular provision is
revised and improved as the legislation moves through the system.
Section 1505 of the amendment of the gentleman from South Carolina
[Mr. Spence] would allow the Government to limit competition when it
buys noncommercial goods and services. Those are things that are
specific to government needs, like aircraft engine spare parts, and
government computer programs.
Current law allows simplified procurement procedures for commercial
goods and services. That is because prices of these items can be
compared in the commercial marketplace. We all know how much to pay for
a car, office supplies or furniture, and we can buy it off the shelf.
It is anyone's guess how much that spare engine part is worth.
Full and open competition guarantees lower prices, competitive
bidding, provides an even playing field for businesses, and helps weed
out fraud, favoritism, and abuse. It guarantees the Government the best
price and value, while at the same time ensuring the integrity of the
system and protecting taxpayers' dollars.
The Government spends $200 billion a year on goods and services. That
is $800 for every American taxpayer in the procurement system. The way
that money is spent is extremely important. This particular provision,
which removes full and open competition for noncommercial items, I
believe is bad policy. I hope that this is changed. Otherwise, I
support the amendment.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Foley].
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, let me state very strongly that there is no
stronger advocate for national security veterans' issues or active duty
personnel than the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence]. His fine
amendment will bring the Pentagon into the 21st century.
I think they are still living in the fifties over there. They are the
world's largest bureaucracy. And I think, with this amendment, we will
save considerable resources, $15 billion over the next 5 years, $5
billion a year thereafter, streamlining the work force, making more
prudent use of expenditures on everything that is involved with the
Department of Defense.
Clearly, this is an outstanding amendment. It should be supported by
every Member of Congress to be able to use the limited resources we
have to make certain our military personnel are adequately served in
the field rather than those serving outside of the beltway.
{time} 1815
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Horn].
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time
to me.
The gentleman has done a terrific job in putting this amendment
together, and I urge my colleagues, regardless of party, ideology
within the party, to support the Spence amendment. It is long overdue.
Its passage will result in savings for the average taxpayer. Equally
important, the Spence amendment will result in an efficient, well run
Department of Defense.
Now many of the Armed Services have already faced up to substantial
downsizing. Parts of the Pentagon have shaped up as a result of some
downsizing. But the fact is that Defense has too many people on the
civilian side. They need to learn what every major corporation in
America has learned, every large institution has learned.--Whether
hospitals or universities--that when one streamlines the central
administration, a more efficient organization results. There are less
barriers in terms of the internal communications within a management
system. And that is exactly what is needed.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Management,
Information, and Technology, I have reviewed the Department of Defense
on a number of occasions. It has 49 different accounting systems. That
has created substantial chaos in trying to account for funds. No one
has stolen them, to our knowledge, but no one can match up the
expenditures with the purchase orders, the inventory, and all the rest
of it that one needs.
The Pentagon needs to learn more about privatizing. The Army has done
that in some cases and has become very efficient in certain fleet
management areas.
So we need to support the Spence amendment because it is right for
the country. It is right for the military. It is right for our defense.
And, best of all, it is right for the taxpayers' pockets.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen] who is the son of the Mr. Frelinghuysen I
served with earlier.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the chairman's
and ranking member's amendment which incorporates many of the
provisions of the Defense Reform Act, including a provision that will
give the Navy the authority to enter into long-term charters for the
construction of combat logistics force, strategic sealift, and special
mission auxiliary ships.
The Navy currently has 21 replenishment ships that average over 30
years of age. They are at the end of their useful lives and must be
replaced. Continued operation of these old ships have resulted in
increased operating costs,
[[Page H4049]]
decreased operating tempos, and additional maintenance and repair
expenses.
Through long-term charters, the Navy can afford to begin the
replacement of these ships. Construction of Navy auxiliary ships in the
United States will create thousands of shipyard jobs and help to
sustain the Navy's core shipbuilding industrial base. This acquisition
approach will also maximize the role of the private sector in providing
the most cost-effective means of meeting the Department of Defense
auxiliary fleet requirements.
Again, I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to speak on behalf
of his amendment.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Hunter].
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank our great chairman for
putting this package together, and the gentlewoman from California [Ms.
Harman] who has worked so hard on it and all the Members on both sides
of the aisle.
I think one theme that we have heard this year on the floor with this
national security bill is bipartisanship. We have had to have that
because we have had very tough times, the dollars are very scarce, and
we have had to come together and find ways to save money so that we can
modernize and buy the equipment that everybody, including the Clinton
administration, says we need for our people in uniform.
I just wanted to mention one thing that I know Ms. Harman has an
interest in, and I do. It is the fact that while we have pulled our
Army down from 18 divisions to 10 divisions, and almost nobody knows
about it, we did it almost under the cover of darkness, we pulled our
fighter air wings down from 24 fighter air wings to 13, and our Navy
ships from 546 to 346. We have kept an army, literally two Marine Corps
of shoppers, of professional acquisition folks, in DOD, and we thought
it was prudent and reasonable to have the professional shopping corps
in DOD no bigger than the United States Marine Corps. And this reform
bill does that. It brings it down to the same force level as the U.S.
Marine Corps.
I think that is going to be beneficial, and I think when those end
strength cuts come to the tail part of the Pentagon just like they have
already come to the tooth part of the Pentagon; that is, the guys that
actually carry the weapons and fight the wars, when we pare down the
bureaucracy the same way we have pared down the people that are in the
field, they are going to get together, and they are going to figure out
ways to handle the contract with less than 15 people working that
contract. Maybe they can handle it with five, to use computerization,
to use simulation to do a lot of things that will bring about
efficiencies so that when we have an extra defense dollar, we buy some
ammo for that guy in the front lines, we buy that extra piece of
equipment, we buy that high-technology equipment that all my colleagues
are concerned about.
I thank the gentleman for the time, and I thank the gentlewoman for
all the work she has done.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, let me raise, since no one else is, some
concerns about this bill.
There are some breathtaking changes here. This bill would cut
management personnel in the Department of Defense by 25 percent; it
would cut people classified as acquisition management personnel by 42
percent.
Now I think that we need to impose external pressure on the Pentagon,
the Department of Defense, in order to effect these cuts so that the
overhead, the white-collar workers, are reduced commensurate with the
reduction in force of the guys and women that fight the wars, but is 45
percent, 42 percent, a sustainable number?
Exactly whom are we cutting? Engineers? Accountants? And when we cut
these people, will we emasculate program management to the point where
we cannot oversee defense contractors, costing us money, buying things
imprudently, $600 toilet seats again?
And when we find that we have cut too far, if we have, will we go
back out and contract the very same people who are now in a different
guise as civilians, and we will pay them more because they will earn
more and they will have bigger overhead themselves? Are we saving money
or are we not?
I do not think we have weighed sufficiently, the pros and cons,
delved sufficiently into the Department of Defense to know whether or
not we can sustain without some lasting damage a 25 percent cut in
management personnel or a 42 percent cut. We are taking 124,000
acquisition management workers off of 269,000.
Then there is the enormous increase from $100,000 to $5 million where
we will not have free and open competition. Is that a good idea? Have
we adequately explored the risk inherent in that, or what is there?
We have a letter, my colleagues can check everyone's office right
now, a letter from the Chamber of Commerce expressing its concern that
we are dispensing with free and open competition which is the best way
to buy things.
I may vote for it but I hope this is not the last word because I
think there are some assumptions made here that have yet to be
validated.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 11 minutes.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to first of all thank the
gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] and the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Harman] for their contribution in this effort.
As has been mentioned before, it is truly a bipartisan effort.
This thing just did not happen. People have talked about reform of
this kind for a long time. As a matter of fact, we have had acquisition
already. Mr. Clinger and I co-authored a bill on acquisition reform in
1996, that will help us save billions of dollars, as has been pointed
out by various people.
We went further than that. We asked people in DOD and GAO and
business how we can do things better to save more money, to put where
it is needed more, and things that were not inherently military and
that the Pentagon was doing, how we can get rid of those things.
We have got ten recommendations from various groups, including, as I
said, even DOD itself, GAO, businesses, and others. We put it out for
everybody to shoot at for a couple of weeks, to offer amendments to and
to give us their ideas about.
But the main thing I wanted to do is just commend the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dellums] and the gentlewoman from California [Ms.
Harman] and the others on that side of the aisle for the
bipartisanship, for the way in which they have handled this process.
This is why it is jointly called the Spence-Dellums amendment, and why
it is a bipartisan amendment. I ask our colleagues to vote in favor of
the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. Spence].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 169, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr.
Spence] will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 3 printed in part 1 of
House Report 105-137.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Spence
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Spence:
Page 371, after line 20, insert the following:
Subtitle A--General Matters
At the end of title XII (page 379, after line 19), insert
the following new section:
Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Prevention of Technology Diversion
SEC. 1231. FINDINGS.
Congress finds as follows:
(1) There have been numerous reports of United States-
origin supercomputers being obtained by countries of
proliferation concern for use in weapon development programs.
(2) China is considered by the United States Government to
be a country of proliferation concern.
[[Page H4050]]
(3) According to United States officials, China has
acquired at least 47 United States-origin supercomputers.
(4) Recent reports indicate that China has purchased
hundreds of supercomputers for use in its weapons programs
and that the United States is unsure of the location of those
supercomputers or the purposes for which they are being used.
(5) China has refused to allow the United States to conduct
post-shipment verifications of dual-use items exported from
the United States to ensure that those items are not diverted
to military use.
(6) China has in the past diverted dual-use items intended
for civilian use to military purposes.
SEC. 1232. EXPORT APPROVALS FOR SUPERCOMPUTERS.
(a) Prior Approval of Exports and Reexports.--The President
shall require that no digital computer with a composite
theoretical performance of more than 2,000 millions of
theoretical operations per second (MTOPS) may be exported or
reexported to a country specified in subsection (b) without
the prior written approval of the Secretary of Commerce, the
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary
of State, and the Director of the Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency.
(b) Covered Countries.--For purposes of subsection (a), the
countries specified in this subsection are the countries
listed as ``computer tier 3'' eligible countries in section
740.7(d) of title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as
in effect on June 10, 1997.
(c) Time Limit.--The Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary
of Defense, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of State,
and the Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
shall provide a written response to an application for export
approval under subsection (a) within 10 days after the
application is received. If any such Secretary or the
Director declines to approve the export of a computer, the
computer may be exported or reexported only pursuant to a
license issued by the Secretary of Commerce under the Export
Administration Regulations of the Department of Commerce, and
without regard to the licensing exceptions otherwise
authorized under section 740.7 of title 15 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, as in effect on June 10, 1997.
SEC. 1233. REPORT ON EXPORTS OF SUPERCOMPUTERS.
(a) Report.--Not later than 30 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the President shall provide to the
congressional committees specified in subsection (d) a report
identifying all exports of digital computers with a composite
theoretical performance of over 2,000 millions of theoretical
operations per second (MTOPS) to all countries since January
25, 1996. For each export, the report shall identify--
(1) whether an export license was applied for and whether
one was granted;
(2) the date of the transfer of the computer;
(3) the United States manufacturer and exporter of the
computer;
(4) the MTOPS level of the computer; and
(5) the recipient country and end user.
(b) Additional Information on Exports to Certain
Countries.--In the case of exports to countries specified in
subsection (c), the report under subsection (a) shall
identify the intended end use for the exported computer and
the assessment by the executive branch of whether the end
user is a military end user or an end user involved in
activities relating to nuclear, chemical, or biological
weapons or missile technology. Information provided under
this subsection may be submitted in classified form if
necessary.
(c) Covered Countries.--For purposes of subsection (b), the
countries specified in this subsection are--
(1) the countries listed as ``computer tier 3'' eligible
countries in section 740.7(d) of title 15 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, as in effect on June 10, 1997; and
(2) the countries listed in section 740.7(e) of title 15 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on June 10,
1997
(d) Congressional Committees.--For purposes of subsection
(a), the congressional committees specified in this
subsection are the following:
(1) The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.
(2) The Committee on International Relations and the
Committee on National Security of the House of
Representatives.
SEC. 1234. POST-SHIPMENT VERIFICATION OF EXPORT OF
SUPERCOMPUTERS.
(a) Required Post-Shipment Verification.--The Secretary of
Commerce shall conduct post-shipment verification of each
supercomputer that is exported from the United States, on or
after the date of the enactment of this Act, to a country
specified in subsection (c).
(b) Covered Supercomputers.--Subsection (a) applies with
respect to a digital computer with a composite theoretical
performance in excess of 2,000 millions of theoretical
operations per seconds (MTOPS).
(c) Covered Countries.--For purposes of subsection (a), the
countries specified in this subsection are the countries
listed as ``computer tier 3'' eligible countries in section
740.7 of title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as in
effect on June 10, 1997.
(d) Annual Report.--The Secretary of Commerce shall submit
to the congressional committees specified in subsection (f)
an annual report on the results of post shipment
verifications conducted under this section during the
preceding year. Each such report shall include a list of all
such items exported from the United States to such countries
during the previous year and, with respect to each such
export, the following:
(1) The destination country.
(2) The date of export.
(3) The intended end use and intended end user.
(4) The results of the post-shipment verification.
(c) Explanation When Verification Not Conducted.--If a
post-shipment verification has not been conducted in
accordance with subsection (a) with respect to any such
export during the period covered by a report, the Secretary
shall include in the report for that period a detailed
explanation of the reasons why such a post-shipment
verification was not conducted.
(f) Congressional Committees.--For purposes of subsection
(a), the congressional committees specified in this
subsection are the following:
(1) The Committee on National Security and the Committee on
International Relations of the House of Representatives.
(2) The Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from South Carolina
[Mr. Spence] and a Member opposed each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] and the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo] each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield half my time to the gentleman
from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson] and I ask unanimous consent that he be
permitted to control that time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
There was no objection.
{time} 1830
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes of my time to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] and I ask unanimous consent
that he be permitted to control that time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
South Carolina?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The time will be distributed in the following manner:
The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] for 10 minutes; the
gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] for 10 minutes; the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo] for 10 minutes; and the gentleman from
Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson] for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence].
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
(Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I join the gentleman from California [Mr.
Dellums] in offering this amendment to halt the diversion of sensitive
technologies to potential adversaries.
This amendment will fix a serious national security problem caused by
the administration's decision last year to decontrol the export of so-
called supercomputers. Among many uses, supercomputers can help other
countries design, build and test nuclear weapons, and to develop
advanced conventional munitions. The administration's decision to relax
exports controls has allowed the U.S. supercomputers to be exported to
countries of proliferation concern without appropriate safeguards on
how they are used.
Earlier this year, the head of Russia's Ministry of Atomic Energy
confirmed that Russia had obtained U.S. supercomputers for use at two
of Russia's premier nuclear weapons research laboratories. According to
the Russian Energy Minister, these supercomputers are 10 times more
powerful than any computers the Russians have.
In addition, U.S. officials have stated that at least 47 U.S.
supercomputers have been sold to China. At least some of these, it has
been reported, are under the control of the Chinese Academy of
Sciences, which is involved in nuclear weapons and missile research. In
fact, according to a report earlier this week, China has obtained
hundreds of U.S. supercomputers, most of which cannot be accounted for
by our U.S. officials and could easily be used for Chinese weapons
research and development.
[[Page H4051]]
As the New York Times, citing intelligence sources, reported earlier
this month, the newly acquired computers could be used by the Chinese
to design more efficient or lighter nuclear warheads that could be put
on missiles capable of reaching the United States. The supercomputers
sold to China would allow the country to significantly improve its
nuclear weapons.
The Spence-Dellums amendment would put Government officials back into
the decision loop before such exports can occur. This amendment would
reverse the administration's current honor system policy that relies on
industry to figure out who should or should not receive this critical
technology.
Mr. Chairman, the national security implications of exporting these
technologies are too significant, and the stakes too high, for U.S.
policy to be one that leaves our Government blind, deaf and dumb to
where our supercomputers are going. The Spence-Dellums amendment would
put Government officials back to where they belong, protecting our
security interests instead of remaining on the sidelines while Russia,
China, and other nations of proliferation concern go on a shopping
spree.
Vote ``yes'' on the Spence-Dellums amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Gilman].
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I rise in reluctant opposition to the Spence amendment. I have a high
regard for the gentleman from South Carolina and I want to make
certain, I want him to understand that my concern is more with the
jurisdiction of this measure.
This amendment, as drafted and submitted to the Committee on Rules,
falls truly within the jurisdiction of the House Committee on
International Relations. While the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr.
Spence] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] have held
several hearings and briefings on the issue of supercomputer exports,
they have not introduced any separate legislation or held any markups
of this legislative proposal. In fact, this proposal was drafted and
presented to our committee staff only after the conclusion of their
markup process of the defense authorization bill.
A spirited debate has already started about the implications of
certain provisions contained within this amendment, particularly with
respect to proposed changes in the export licensing and approval
process. Many of these issues should have been resolved in the normal
legislative process, and, I would add, they still can be with
discussions among the members of the Committee on International
Relations, which has sole jurisdiction over the export licensing and
review process.
Concerns have been raised in this debate that the adoption of this
amendment is going to create a recipe for bureaucratic gridlock where
the energies of our Bureau for Export Administration and the Commerce
Department will be focused on reregulation and bureaucratic infighting,
rather than on the monitoring and verification of supercomputer exports
in countries of concern.
Mr. Chairman, in light of the large number of the so-called tier 3
target countries and their great diversity, ranging from Russia to
China to Israel and to many of the countries in the Middle East and
Eastern Europe, this amendment's one-size-fits-all approach to
supercomputer licensing fails to prioritize among the proliferation
threats in these very different countries.
In regard to these very serious allegations of the unauthorized
reexport of certain supercomputers to Russian nuclear weapons labs, the
proposed amendment would only lead to a process where individual
validated licenses would be required for the export or reexport of
these items. But a presumption of denial or an outright policy of
denial might well be needed in instances where there is a military end
user or end use of the supercomputer.
On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, an across-the-board de facto
requirement for a validated license for all supercomputers over the
2,000 MTOPS range for all military and civilian end uses and users for
all of these countries is too far-reaching. Moreover, it fails to
distinguish the real from the apparent proliferation threats.
Mr. Chairman, in light of these views and my standing offer to meet
with its authors and direct the Committee on International Relations to
hold immediate hearings on and report out legislation addressing this
critically important issue of supercomputer exports, I request that my
colleagues defeat the amendment.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This amendment
proposes to kill a gnat with a bazooka. The amendment sounds good, but
ignores technological reality on the world scene.
First, some facts. Fact: Computers of between 2,000 and 7,000 MTOPS
are widely available on the world market through individual computers,
upgrade boards, parallel processing, and networking. We cannot turn
back the technological clock.
Fact: Computers in this range are not supercomputers. Supercomputers
are far more advanced, with performance power in the hundreds of
thousands of MTOPS, reaching as high as 1 million MTOPS.
Fact: Increasing power levels of computers does not enable anyone to
do anything unique. Our entire nuclear weapons arsenal and our pilot
space program were designed on computers of two MTOPS or less.
Increasing the MTOPS levels does not accomplish any new task. It just
simply processes information at a faster rate. If we want to stop
foreign military from developing weapons of mass destruction, we do not
target computers, we focus on other technologies.
Fact: Personal computers like those we have in our offices or at home
will soon cross the 2,000 MTOPS barrier next year. Are we prepared to
have the Secretaries of Defense, Commerce, State, Energy, and the
Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency give written
approval every time someone wishes to sell a personal computer overseas
to a tier 3 country?
That brings me to my fifth point. Tier 3 countries consist of 50
nations, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and India. Are we
prepared to turn all of these markets over to our foreign competitors?
Are we prepared to have four Cabinet Secretaries sign off on every
computer sale of over 2,000 MTOPS to 50 countries? It will be a
paperwork nightmare without any measurable reduction in the spread of
weapons of mass destruction.
We have to remember the last time we bungled supercomputer export
control policy. The United States Government took so long to review a
proposed Cray supercomputer sale to India that India turned around and
created its own supercomputer industry. Now American firms compete
against Indian firms selling so-called supercomputers all over the
world, including China and Russia.
I urge my colleagues to cut through the rhetoric and look at the
facts. This amendment will not accomplish the goal we all aim to
achieve, which is reducing the proliferation threat. I urge its defeat.
Otherwise, Congress will surrender America's most innovative industry
to our foreign competitors.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that control of the balance of
the time delegated to me be given to the gentleman from Connecticut
[Mr. Gejdenson].
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment, and one might
criticize it for not going far enough, because it only deals with
computers that have a theoretical performance of more than 2,000
millions of theoretical operations per second, but there are computers
with less stated capacity that can be upgraded beyond that and perform
the same functions, and they are not covered.
[[Page H4052]]
This is a simple amendment that says, these are significant
resources. We are transferring them and losing track of them. There are
no end users. We do not know where they go, what purpose they are put
to. We do know they are capable of helping countries design nuclear
weapons faster and more accurately, and to transfer technology that is
so advanced without knowing what its purpose is or where it ends up is
just wrong. It is stupid.
So this amendment, bipartisanly, seeks to correct that by asking for
prior written approval of the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of
Defense, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of State, and the
Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
Now, one may say that that is a lot of paperwork and a lot of hoops
to jump through. Well, there ought to be a lot of hoops. Somebody in
these sensitive agencies ought to recognize that this transfer of this
technology to a country like China or the former Soviet Union countries
has consequences, serious consequences.
So I am very pleased to support the amendment of the gentleman from
South Carolina [Mr. Spence] and the gentleman from California [Mr.
Dellums]. I note that it is bipartisan, and it will remedy a dangerous
situation that we ought not let persist.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I rise in support of this bipartisan
amendment. I am the other side of the amendment, Spence-Dellums.
I want my colleagues to know that I entered into this process as a
person committed to arms control and committed to nonproliferation. I
am not here nation-bashing, but I am an arms control person. I walked
in the door 26\1/2\ years ago believing that we ought to deal with the
issue of nonproliferation.
Now, there has been a lot of talk about one-size-fits-all. There
already is as we speak a licensing regime in place for the sale of
high-end computers at the level of 2,000 MTOPS.
{time} 1845
Mr. Chairman, there are four different combinations of user and end
use: Military to military, license required; military to civilian,
license required; civilian to military, license required. So what are
we dealing with here? Civilian user to civilian end use, one aspect of
a regime that already requires licensing. You already have one size
fits all for tier-III countries, all of them. Let us lay that reality
on the table. We can talk about that.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the recent sale of a supercomputer to Russia is
what brings us here. It calls into question, in this gentleman's
opinion, the ability of the current export management system to catch
errant sales of these high performance computers. Something must be
done to ensure that technology we wish to control is indeed controlled
in a way we require.
The amendment, Mr. Chairman, would simply provide the Government with
a 10-day opportunity with a peek, if you will, at civilian use to
civilian end users to determine whether or not the proposed sale poses
any proliferation concerns.
Members ought to be concerned about the transfer of technology that
can enhance the problem of proliferation, and if so, require the
submission of a license application, the way you have to do in the
other three, anyway. This would prevent the mistakes, as I said
further. It would provide the Government with the assurance that its
national security goal for nonproliferation will be adhered to.
We are not here simply about selling, to make money. We are the
Government. We have a responsibility to protect and preserve the
prerogatives and the well-being of our people, so we are in the
business of national security. Proliferation is a threat.
Further, Mr. Chairman, by requiring postsale verification we can
monitor where in fact these computers go, and if they are not ending up
where they belong, we can develop new mechanisms to protect our
nonproliferation goals. Contrary to the arguments of some, we cannot
publish a comprehensive list of all nonsites of proliferation concerns.
To do so would probably compromise sources and methods of intelligence.
They know that and so do I. Take that off the table. It is a
meaningless suggestion. To provide less than a comprehensive list,
however, would mislead us into a false sense of confidence that it was
sufficient to avoid sites on disclosed lists.
For those who argue, look, computers are moving quickly; six months
from now 2000 MTOPS will be obsolete, 7,000, 10,000. Let us just sell
them. They can get these things on the open market.
The answer to those who argue that the computing power at these
levels of capability is ubiquitous, that is to say, is available
everywhere, Mr. Chairman, and that we are not preventing capability
from going to a nation but only providing U.S. firms with an
opportunity to effectively do business, then have the debate on the
issue of raising the threshold for control, if required. That is the
answer to that question, lift the threshold. If we have a technology
problem and technology is moving quickly, it is not to acquiesce, to
say, gee, it is ubiquitous. We are about the business of control, so
lift the level.
Further, this amendment would require the administration to put
regulations into effect for computers it has decided should be
controlled. It only makes these controls more efficient. We can achieve
these changes through legislation or administrative order, but they
should be achieved for so long as we would continue to decide that the
technology should be controlled.
Mr. Chairman, this may not be a perfect instrument, but this is not
the end of the process. We would move to conference. There are
opportunities to deal with these matters.
Finally, I want to share with my colleagues a slight vignette. I met
yesterday or the day before with members of the administration to talk
about this matter. I am a reasonable person. I am not here with a
cannon to shoot a fly. I want to work these things out. But then I sat
and I listened to brilliant people in the administration, and they kept
saying, it will not work here, we cannot do this, nobody would want to
put themselves on the line, et cetera; we would end up doing this,
that, and the other.
We had a brilliant conversation. I suddenly said, you know what? It
occurs to me why the brilliance of this form of government, why there
are independent branches of government: because you can get so close to
this issue that you cannot see how to work your way out of it. You talk
about a thousand reasons why it will not work, but that is why some of
us have to take an arm's length approach, Mr. Chairman, and be policy
makers who challenge the administration to figure out how to do it
right.
Because if we all were administrators, if we all just sat there
saying there is no way to do it, some of us have to be optimists and
idealists and hopeful people who put pressure on the process. That is
what this amendment seeks to do. It is not perfect, but it puts it out
there. It forces the administration to come to terms, or it forces us
to deal with this issue with some kind of legislative clarity. At the
end of the day it is our job to protect the American people, put
pressure on the process. That is what we have done. I ask my colleagues
to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California [Ms. Harman].
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me, and I rise in reluctant opposition to a well-intended amendment
offered by my colleagues, the ranking member and chairman of the
Committee on National Security.
Let me explain. I share their goal of preventing harmful
proliferation. Of course I share it. As a member of the committee on
National Security I spend much of my time, and we all do, trying to
protect our country against harmful proliferation. But I do not think
this legislation achieves the goal.
In January, 1996, the United States decontrolled export of computers
up to a speed of 7,000 MTOPS to so-called tier-III countries. This was
done as a consequence of a study by independent experts commissioned by
the United States government to determine what level of computer
technology existed
[[Page H4053]]
outside the United States, and what level needed to be controlled for
national security purposes.
It was believed, correctly, in my view, that continuing to rigorously
license widely available computer technology would undermine efforts to
control truly significant technology. That is what is at issue here:
how do we control truly significant technology. We all want to keep
certain computer technology out of the hands of China and Russia, but
this amendment would apply to a much broader group of countries,
including Israel, one of our closest allies. It is overkill.
I suggest that the best way to go is to support the existing export
control laws. That is right, support the existing laws. Those who
violate our export control laws, the ones on the books now, could face
a prohibition of all exports for the company of up to 20 years, 10
years in prison, and a $50,000 fine for each violation.
Mr. Chairman, these are strict penalties. Enforcing existing
sanctions is the right way to go. This unilateral approach to deny
widely available technology will only hurt American companies, and will
not help national security.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Porter Goss], chairman of the Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
South Carolina, the chairman, for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, my concern is that we should err on the side of caution.
While I know that there are very good arguments that are being made by
other people, including the distinguished chairman, and this is a
debate that is very worthy, it is the same as the debate on encryption,
in my view, where we have to make a balance in this House between
national security, law enforcement, and our export opportunities and
our economic opportunities and our economic muscle overseas.
My view is based on the reports I have. We have three facts. One is
that the administration has in fact relaxed controls twice. Where they
have relaxed those controls in the case of the Russians, they have
given the Russians a capability 10 times greater than anything they
ever had before with regard to nuclear weapons. That is what concerns
me.
Secondly, I am very concerned that the Chinese academy of sciences,
which is involved in nuclear weapons and missile research, has access
to these computers also. That is a fact. That bothers me.
Reports, there are reports we have that things are a little out of
control in terms of areas of proliferation. This is not a good place to
have things out of control. Proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction is probably the single biggest categorical threat to our
Nation that I can think of.
So I think we ought to err on the side of caution. I think that the
proposals in the amendment are definitely reasonable. I do not see
anything in there, when talking about approvals and verifications,
those are things that seem reasonable to me. I realize this is not the
last word on this. I realize there are other sides to be heard on it as
well, but I am going to support this amendment because I think it errs
on the side of caution, which is where we ought to be on this issue.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Jacksonville, FL [Mrs. Fowler].
(Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support
for this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it also. It is
unfortunate that this administration has sacrificed long-term national
security for short-term economic gain. That is the bottom line.
It has been verified that the supercomputers that have been sold to
the Peoples Republic of China and to Russia can be turned around and
used militarily against our young men and women, that we have allowed
them to advance their technology by millions of times over what they
would have been able to do. This is inexcusable, and we are going to
pay the price for it. Our young men and women will pay the price for
it.
We need to support this amendment. It is a valid amendment, because
the loosening of these export controls is what is going to be doing in
our young men and women in uniform.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support for this
amendment and urge my colleagues to support it also. One of the great
advantages the U.S. military has always had in the past was our
technological superiority. U.S. troops have known that they were not
only the best-trained in the world, but the best-equipped--and that
gave them an edge on the battlefield. To preserve that edge, we
carefully guarded much of our sophisticated technology to keep it from
falling into the wrong hands.
Unfortunately over the last several years, export controls on
sensitive technology have been loosened to such a degree that we are
eroding our own technological superiority. And the current rules on
supercomputers are one of the worst aspects of the policy.
I am particularly concerned about this policy with regard to the
People's Republic of China. As revealed in a recent congressional
hearing, the decontrol of highspeed supercomputers has led to the sale
of at least 47 of them to the PRC over the last 15 months--and every
one of those computers is at least four times as powerful as those
currently in use by the majority of U.S. military systems. In addition,
recent news reports indicate that perhaps hundreds of other computers
nearly as powerful as those 47 have also been sold to China. Since
China is not only doing everything possible to increase its military
power projection and develop an indigenous military production
capability, but is also a major proliferator of arms and technology
throughout the world--this situation should be of serious concern to
all Americans.
Supercomputers can provide a user with the ability to essentially
build a bomb in the basement--in other words, to design and test
nuclear weapons without ever leaving the lab. This cuts down the time
and expense involved in such activities dramatically--and also
eliminates the tell-tale evidence of physical testing that our
intelligence organizations can detect. Other uses include:
Sophisticated weather forecasting, which is often crucial to military
operations, and is very important in conducting studies for the use of
chemical and biological weapons; making and breaking codes;
miniaturizing nuclear weapons; and finding submarines on the ocean
floor.
The present regulations allow high performance computers to be
exported without individual export licenses, which must be reviewed by
the Department of Defense, and there is no follow-up on the sale. This
means we don't know where the computers will end up, or even if they
have been sold to another country. Since China has become a regular
arms bazaar for rogue nations like Iran, Iraq, and Libya, this is a
serious concern, and one which could have an impact on U.S. troops in
the near future.
By allowing what are, in effect, indiscriminate sales of powerful
computers, the U.S. is giving a high-tech shot in the arm not only to
the nation that none-too-gently reminded us last year that it has
nuclear weapons pointed at our west coast, but to terrorist nations
around the globe who have no respect for human life and who are of even
greater concern to our national security in the near future.
Mr. Chairman, I am a strong supporter of business and I believe in
free trade. I also think the United States should remain engaged with
China, which is an emerging superpower. However, we must not forget
that it is a Communist country that is arming itself at a rapid rate
and engaging in proliferation activities around the globe--and we
should not be assisting with either of those activities. Free trade is
to be desired, but commerce at all costs is not--especially when it
provides a more level battlefield.
This amendment will require notification of the Federal Government
and more rigorous examination of any sales of computers rated at 2,000
MTOPS (M-tops) and above to countries which may violate non-
proliferation agreements. It will not put an onerous burden on
businesses, since it provides for timely evaluation of such requests;
and it also contains a provision which will enable us to gain a more
accurate picture of just how many supercomputers have gone to China and
other nations since the current policy was established. I will vote for
it, and I wholeheartedly encourage my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California [Ms. Lofgren].
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge a no vote on the amendment
before us. Much has been said about the change in export regulations.
[[Page H4054]]
I would point out that the change to the current policy followed an
uncontroverted study that determined it was not helpful to anyone to
control the export of technology that you could go buy off the shelf
someplace abroad.
The change in policy was approved by the Department of Defense, by
the State Department, by the Department of Commerce. I would like to
quote two other individuals who urged that the policy be changed.
In a letter to President Clinton signed by the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] and the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich],
they said that ``it is difficult to understand the utility of
controlling equipment and technology when it is so easily available to
those from whom we are trying to keep it. Yet, by imposing controls, we
are limiting the ability of American business to export some of their
most marketable items.''
That was true when the gentleman from Georgia and the gentleman from
Missouri wrote to the President, and it is true today. Much has been
said about the Chinese who have purchased an American computer that was
really not all that super. I would like to note that today in the wire
service it has been reported that the Chinese themselves are prepared
and have developed a 13,000 MTOP computer for their own use and
potentially for later sale. So if a 2,700 MTOP computer was indeed sold
to the Chinese, perhaps it was a bargain, but they certainly do not
need us to acquire a 13,000 MTOP computer.
Mr. Chairman, I am very opposed to the proliferation of nuclear arms.
I love our country and I want us to be safe. But I do not see the point
in jeopardizing an entire sector of our economy to gain nothing by way
of safety; to preclude the export of equipment that anyone can buy that
is produced by rival companies in Italy, in France, in the United
Kingdom, in Japan.
This amendment does great damage to the economy for no value
whatsoever to our security. I urge a ``no'' vote.
{time} 1900
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California [Mrs. Tauscher].
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut
for yielding time to me.
I rise reluctantly to oppose the amendment by the gentleman from
South Carolina [Mr. Spence] and the gentleman from California [Mr.
Dellums]. There is no question that we must be diligent about guarding
sensitive technology from countries that possess or we believe they
possess nuclear weapons. Controlling the spread of nuclear weapons must
be our top priority. But it makes no sense whatsoever to impose
burdensome regulations on the export of computer technology that is
widely available on the world market.
Requiring American companies to secure export licenses which can take
anywhere from 3 to 6 months will put them at a competitive
disadvantage. The Clinton administration recognized in January 1996
that permitting the export of computers that perform up to 7000 MTOPS
should not require a license unless the exporter believed that the end
use of the computer would be for proliferation purposes. Adequate civil
penalties encourage companies not to violate the law.
Mr. Chairman, current law appropriately balances the interests in
selling computers with the need for national security. I urge my
colleagues to oppose the Spence-Dellums amendment.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, we have a very clear situation here. We have lived
through it before. The Defense Department at one time told American
manufacturers of machine tools, you cannot export these, the quality is
too good. Do you know what happened several years later? The Defense
Department said, we want to get Japanese machine tools because they are
more precise than American machine tools.
This country does not live at the bottom of technology. If we are
going to build the last decade's technology, it is going to come from
lots of places around the globe. So this is not as if we are hampering
just a few little sales at the top. What we are doing is killing the
future of our technical ability. Why? We have been successful as a
Nation, not because we have put an iron curtain around our technology
understanding that today it is easier and easier to copy it. What we
have done is profited off those systems and then developed the
technology that has kept us ahead.
Now, COCOM is gone. We have a new group. We are not quite sure what
they are doing in Wassenegger. But every time we had a restriction,
guess what, the Germans, the French, the English, the Japanese, they
sold better stuff than we had. If we think Siemens and Olivetti and
Japanese and French and English companies are going to be impressed by
the action on the floor today, they will. Just as that German company
Brocat was impressed, they said: Thank you, America; we have built a
multimillion-dollar company because of your restrictions.
Now, the end result of what will happen here is we will move
intelligence and capital offshore so they do not have to come to
America's rules and regulations and the Defense Department for a
computer that operates at a speed which will be a home computer in 2 or
3 years. This is no place for the Defense Department that has never
been able to discern effectively the kind of technical issues at hand.
I remember 6 years ago, Secretary Mosbacher decontrolled 286
computers. Secretary Cheney went ballistic. He says, oh my God. What do
we do with a 286 computer today? We could not figure out what to do
with it.
We have a situation here where the policies on this floor will drive
away the kind of capital that our companies get to stay out in front.
There is an American company today that ships its product to Russia so
the Russians can add the control portion and then sell it worldwide.
Those are jobs and developments that would happen here.
When we take this action on the floor, if this legislation succeeds
in the process, we will hurt the largest, most important industry in
America, and we will do nothing for national security. By my
colleague's own admission, the Chinese already have computers with this
capability. The only thing we are going to do is turn the high speed
computer market out of this country, hurt America's future and give
somebody else control.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I would hope that everyone involved in the debate has read the
legislation. If they have, it says that the President shall establish
the process of prior approval. The President. So read the legislation.
Now, I have already pointed out, Mr. Chairman, that there is already
a licensing regime in place. What we have found is that in one aspect
of it there, it is alike.
Now, let me establish another fact. The Commerce Department on behalf
of the interagency process, not DOD, the five agencies involved here,
Department of Defense, ACDA, Energy, Department of State, and Commerce,
the five agencies, move away from the rhetoric, deal with the facts.
The Commerce has commissioned a study on the question of appropriate
threshold levels for control. That study hopefully will look at whether
or not 2000 MTOPS is appropriate or whether it is 3, 5, 7, 10 or
whatever. At that particular point, all we are saying is, once you have
established a level of threshold control, you need to be able to
control it. We do not have to be too bright to understand that.
The debate ought to be over what should be the threshold level. If
the argument is that 2000 is obsolete, Commerce has commissioned an
independent study to address that question. That is what the debate
ought to be about, raising the level. But we are also charged with a
fiduciary responsibility. We are the government. At whatever level the
threshold is, we ought to agree that we ought to be able to control it.
That is all this gentleman says. I am not unreasonable.
Final point, Mr. Chairman, this is one part of the process. This is
not the end of the process. We move from here to the conference. We
engage. Hopefully the administration engages. And in the give and take,
we figure out
[[Page H4055]]
what is in the best interest of the country. I walk away. But I have a
responsibility, as all of us do, to impact the process.
So, A, this is interagency; B, there is also a licensing regime; C,
we ought to be talking about threshold levels and not these other
extraneous matters. Once we establish a threshold level, whatever it
is, we ought to be able to say that we ought to be able to control it.
We have struck in this legislation some midground. Maybe it is not
perfect. But we stepped up to our responsibility, and I believe that we
stepped up to a midground that at least ought to allow the process to
go to the next step. Let us engage both on a bicameral, bipartisan
basis and hopefully across the two branches of government and at the
end of the day do what is in the best interest of the American people.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The government and the private sector together made the decision that
these systems were not controllable. So for all the rhetoric about our
desires, the reality is, when the United States says no, this is buried
somewhere in an interagency debate between DOD and Commerce, whether or
not this 2000 MTOPS computer is to be sold, the process does not stop.
What they do is they knock at another door.
Can my colleagues imagine this debate in the Diet in Japan, the
Germans, the French? I do not think so. And even the English.
It makes sense for the United States to take actions that have a
consequence. The consequence ought to be denying critical technologies
to nations whose policies we do not trust. The action we are taking
here today does not achieve that goal because what is clearly and
universally available is the very same technology across the globe. The
Bulgarians make supercomputers today and have for some time.
So what we are going to do here today is say, well, we are going to
ignore what has occurred in the past, the review, we are going to
ignore that and we are hoping that somewhere in that whole other
conference, it will get better.
Do not bet on it getting better. Do not vote for this which is not
defendable, I believe, on the facts, hoping that something good is
going to come out of conference. It will only encourage Members who
have never had the ability to make that tough decision. At what point
are we just hurting ourselves? This is the point where we hurt
ourselves.
American industry and the American military have succeeded because we
have been at the front end of technology, because we made those sales
and we made them carefully. But some of the debates get a little silly.
286 computers? 2000 MTOPS will be our home PC in the next 4 years.
So what we are going to do here today is we are going to raise the
proliferation banner, the national security banner wrongly, because I
believe this will hurt our ability to compete.
Where we saw one article from one company in Germany saying thank you
America for your regulations, we will see more. We will slowly transfer
the fastest growing, most important industry in this country offshore.
Do Members think that companies that are going to be restricted by this
are American hostages? Even the American companies have operations in
France and England and across the globe? So what we will simply do is
transfer talent, money, resource, and intelligence outside the borders
of this country.
We saw it before. The Defense Department would not let Americans
export machine tools. And within a 5- to 6-year period, the Japanese
had made so much progress, maximizing their markets, that the Defense
Department was telling people, buy Japanese machine tools, they are
better than ours.
I do not want to be back here in 4 or 5 years trying to figure out
how to resuscitate the most important piece of equipment in the
information age because we took an easy shot across the bow of
technology. We cannot put it back in the bottle. We cannot stop the
Germans from selling it. We cannot stop the French from selling it. We
cannot stop the Italians from selling it, and we are not going to stop
the English from selling it. And we are sure not going to stop the
Japanese from selling it.
So what are we going to achieve? We are going to move the profits on
these sales to foreign corporations and those corporations will develop
the new technologies so that the next time we are debating this issue
we will have to say, we hope the Japanese will sell us modern enough
computers for America to compete.
We have lost other industries as we sat by in electronics, in
television, in machine tools, in so many others because we stumbled.
Let us make sure the stumble does not occur here on the floor of the
Congress. There are more jobs today in the information computer
industry than there are in the automotive industry. They are growing
faster and they are paying better. But we only succeed at the top end
of technology because there are lots of developing countries and others
who take the bottom of technology. The Chinese, the Indians, they can
do it.
Let me close with one other observation. This administration is a
good administration. I agree with them on lots of things. When they got
elected they denied the Chinese a telephone switching system because it
was too fast. They were making ones faster in China and other countries
were selling ones even faster. Let us not shoot ourselves in the foot.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
As the chairman who held the hearing serving the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dellums] and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr.
Spence] on this supercomputer transfer issue, let me say that they are
absolutely right. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson] and
others who have spoken in a number of areas are absolutely wrong.
Let us just walk through these. First, it was stated that these sales
have been made carefully. They have not been made carefully. The first
sales to the Soviet Union, the individuals who made the sales have
been, according to the briefings that I have gotten, have been fired
for making the sales. There are potential criminal actions for making
the sales. So these were not prudent private people making sales.
In interviewing the CEO's who were involved with these companies,
there are two things here. First, they say they are confused by our
supercomputer policy. Because as the gentleman from California [Mr.
Dellums] points out, if we are selling the supercomputer to the
agriculture department in China, ostensibly that is OK. But we all know
that is a fiction because the military in China accesses everything.
{time} 1915
So we have to presume conclusively it is going to the military. If
they put military on the shipping order, then it is illegal. If they
put Agriculture Department on the shipping order, then it is okay.
Second, these sales damaged American security. We have talked to the
experts, to our best scientists at our weapons laboratories, and they
said two things.
They said the sales to the Soviet Union that the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. McHale] held a press conference on, he was so proud
about getting this American supercomputer, he did not get a Bulgarian
computer or a French computer or Japanese computer. The Japanese have
been pretty good about this. He got an American computer, and he was so
proud about it that he held a press conference on having that
particular computer. Our scientists said that helped the Russians only
marginally because they have fairly sophisticated nuclear weapons
capability.
They said further, however, that the sales of the 47 supercomputers
to China have helped China substantially in their military efforts and
their nuclear weapons efforts.
The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] and the gentleman from
South Carolina [Mr. Spence] are absolutely right with this amendment.
Please vote for this amendment.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Spence-Dellums
amendment to this bill.
[[Page H4056]]
Last fall, four supercomputers that are powerful enough to design
nuclear weapons were sold by an American company to the premier nuclear
weapons facility in Russia--Chelyabinsk 70, a place whose very
existence was top secret until the end of the cold war. The company
said that it didn't know that the facility was a weapons lab, and that
they had been told that the supercomputers would be used to forecast
the weather. But the only clouds these computers will be modeling will
be the mushroom cloud of a nuclear blast. In fact, after the sale was
disclosed, Viktor Mikhailov, head of Russia's Ministry of Atomic
Energy, or Minatom, which controls the Nation's weapons labs, bragged
that Russia had the supercomputers, admitting that they would be useful
for mathematical modeling of nuclear blasts. The CEO of the American
company had this to say: ``It is possible we were duped.'' I guess so.
U.S. law currently calls for an export license on these powerful
supercomputers to be requested by the company seeking the license only
if it is suspect that the intended recipient might be a suspicious
customer. As the Russian case shows, this honor system method just
isn't working. Other than the most infamous foreign weapons facilities,
American companies often have no way of knowing which recipients are
the weather forecasters and which are the would-be proliferators. Once
supercomputers get into the wrong hands, there is absolutely nothing we
can do to recover them--all we can do is sit and hope that the nuclear
weapons they are designing are never aimed at us.
The Spence-Dellums amendment requires that every supercomputer
exported to countries of proliferation concern--like Pakistan, India,
China, Russia, and Syria--be accompanied by letters of approval from
the Secretaries of Energy, Commerce, Defense and State, and from the
Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. Moreover, it calls
for a report to be provided to Congress which lists all exports of such
supercomputers since January 25, 1996. If a supercomputer that is being
proposed for export really will be used to forecast the weather, the
sale will be approved. But if it is determined by the Government
agencies charged with collecting such intelligence that the
supercomputer sale would endanger U.S. national security, the sale will
be denied. What's wrong with that? Let's take the export control job
away from private industry and give it back to the people who should be
doing it--the U.S. Government. Support the Spence-Dellums amendment.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Spence-
Dellums amendment.
This amendment would reimpose on certain U.S.-made computers export
licensing requirements that the President decided could be safely
eliminated last year.
The amendment will put U.S. computer manufacturers at a competitive
disadvantage in 50 foreign countries, without doing anything to promote
U.S. nonproliferation goals or national security.
In this era of high-technology weaponry, our computer sector is
critical to the strength of our defense industrial base. As several
speaker have pointed out, if computers fall into the wrong hands, they
can be put to military uses that can threaten our security. That is why
our Government continues to impose conditions on their export.
Technology and weapons programs are always changing, and U.S. export
controls need to adapt. Last year, following a review by experts at
Stanford University, the administration, with the support of the
Defense Department, reached two important conclusions about computers
that perform at and above the levels affected by this amendment First,
these computers are widely available from numerous foreign suppliers.
Second, only the most powerful of these computers have military
applications that pose serious threats to U.S. national security.
On the basis of this review, the administration decided to permit
computers below that militarily critical level to be exported without
individual approvals to civilian customers. Sales to military customers
in 50 countries of concern still have to be individually licensed, a
process that requires a Defense Department review.
Earlier this year, we learned that a United States firm had sold
high-performance computers to two Russian nuclear weapons labs--a clear
violation of the new export control policy. If my understanding is
correct, the Spence-Dellums amendment was inspired in part by this
improper sale.
But the facts assembled so far do not justify the costly reversal of
policy this amendment would require.
The Justice Department and the Customs Service are still
investigating the Russian sale. The Commerce Department and our
intelligence agencies are still trying to determine whether other high-
performance computers have ended up in the wrong hands. So far that
does not appear to be the case.
Before it has been proved that this problem extends beyond a single
firm and a single country, this amendment proposes to impose burdensome
new licensing requirements. This would be a new burden on an entire
industry on its sales to 50 different foreign countries, several of
which, like Israel, are close friends of the United States.
This amendment is premature and unwarranted. It seeks to fix
something that nobody has proved is broken. It seeks to turn back the
technological clock. It will reimpose controls on computers that are
widely available from foreign suppliers and pose little threat to the
United States. This amendment won't make us more secure, but it will
hurt our computer industry and the people it employs.
I urge members to oppose the Spence-Dellums amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 169, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr.
Spence] will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in part 1 of
House Report 105-137.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Harman
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 offered by Ms. Harman:
At the end of subtitle A of title VII (page 267, after line
19), insert the following new section:
SEC. 703. RESTORATION OF POLICY AFFORDING ACCESS TO CERTAIN
HEALTH CARE PROCEDURES FOR FEMALE MEMBERS OF
THE ARMED FORCES AND DEPENDENTS AT DEPARTMENT
OF DEFENSE FACILITIES.
Section 1093 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking out ``(a) Restriction on
Use of Funds.--''; and
(2) by striking out subsection (b).
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from California
[Ms. Harman] and a Member opposed each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer] rises in
opposition to the amendment and will be recognized for 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman].
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I am the mother of four children. I chose motherhood
under the constitutional protections and access to medical care
guaranteed by Roe versus Wade. Our service women and their dependents
deserve the same chances to make their own choices.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would do this. It would give U.S. service-
women stationed overseas access to Department of Defense health
facilities by repealing a provision of law which bars these women from
using their own funds to obtain legal abortion services in military
hospitals.
Mr. Chairman, women who volunteer to serve in our armed forces
already give up many freedoms and risk their lives to defend our
country. They should not have to sacrifice their privacy, their health
and their basic constitutional rights to a policy with no valid
military purpose.
This is about women's health.
Local facilities in foreign nations are not equipped to safely handle
certain procedures, and medical standards may be far lower than those
in the United States. We are putting some of our own at risk.
And it is about fairness, too. Service-women and military dependents
stationed abroad do not expect special treatment, only the right to
receive the same services guaranteed to American women under Roe versus
Wade, at their own expense, that are available in this country.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment does not permit taxpayer-funded abortions
at military hospitals, nor does it compel any doctor who opposes
abortion on principle or as a matter of conscience to perform an
abortion. The amendment merely reinstates the policy that was in effect
from 1973 to 1988 and again from 1993 to 1996.
This is an issue with broad bipartisan support, including a majority
of women
[[Page H4057]]
Members of this House and the bipartisan cochairs of our Women's
Caucus.
My amendment also has strong support from health care providers,
organizations like the American Nurses Association, the American Public
Health Association, the American Medical Women's Association, the
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Planned
Parenthood Federation of America. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is also
supported by the Department of Defense.
In sum, Mr. Chairman, this is not about public funding. My amendment
only permits women to pay for their choices. The issue is simple:
Service-women and military dependents deserve equal access to health
care procedures regardless of where they are stationed.
Equal access to health care for women, that is the title of this
amendment. That ought to be one of the principal objectives of our
military in which women play so prominent a part.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
Over the past three decades, the availability of abortion services at
military medical facilities has been subjected to numerous changes and
interpretations.
In January of 1993, President Clinton signed an Executive Order
directing the Department of Defense to permit privately funded
abortions to be performed in military treatment facilities. The changes
ordered by the President, however, did not have the effect of greatly
increasing access to abortion services. Few abortions were performed at
military treatment facilities overseas for two principal reasons:
First, the military had a difficult time finding health care
professionals in uniform willing to perform abortions. In 1993, this
policy permitting abortionists, when it was first promulgated, these
military physicians refused to perform or assist in elective abortions.
In response, the administration sought to hire a civilian doctor to do
abortions in military facilities.
So we have to ask the question: If the Harman amendment is adopted,
not only would taxpayer-funded facilities overseas be used to support
abortion on demand, but new personnel would be hired simply so that
abortions could, in fact, be performed. Are all the expenses of
searching for, hiring and supporting an abortionist to travel from base
to base going to be picked up by the private funds? It is an
interesting question to ask.
Second, military doctors must in fact obey the laws of the countries
where they are providing services, so that they still could not perform
abortions in locations where abortions are not permitted even if the
Harman amendment were in fact adopted.
The current law is in fact consistent with the Hyde language. It
allows military women and dependents to receive abortions in military
facilities in cases of rape, incest, or when it is necessary to save
the life of the mother. This is the same policy that has been in effect
from June of 1988 until President Clinton signed the Executive Order.
The House has voted several times to ban abortions in overseas
military hospitals. In fact, between the 1996 defense authorization
bill and the defense appropriations bill, the House voted eight times
in favor of the ban. Furthermore, the House voted down the fiscal year
1996 defense appropriation conference report because it did not contain
an amendment to ban abortions in the military.
In those overseas areas where the female beneficiaries do not have
access to safe, legal abortions, beneficiaries have the option of using
the space available travel for returning to the United States or
traveling to another overseas location for the purpose of obtaining an
abortion.
Mr. Chairman, I would say that this is not an issue of whether it is
women's rights or of men's rights, this is an issue of life and the use
of those taxpayer funded facilities.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just to point out
to my colleague and good friend from Indiana, who is a lawyer himself,
that section 1093(a) of title X, which remains in effect, which is not
repealed by my amendment, says, ``Restriction on use of funds: Funds
available to the Department of Defense may not be used to perform
abortions except where the life of the mother would be endangered if
the fetus were carried to term.''
We are not using Federal funds for abortions. We are not repealing
that section of law.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Dellums], the ranking member of the Committee on National Security and
my good friend.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to express my strong support for the amendment
offered by my distinguished colleague from California. The ban in
current law discriminates against women who have volunteered to serve
their country by prohibiting them from exercising their legally
protected right to choose simply because they are stationed overseas.
In the United States abortion is a legal medical procedure. Whether
one agrees with that or not, that is the reality. However, in many of
the countries where our troops are stationed abortion is outlawed.
Faced with a crisis pregnancy, a military woman or dependent would have
to choose between risking an illegal abortion overseas or paying for
transportation back to the United States. Sometimes that is not
convenient or they do not have the resources.
While DOD policy respects host country laws regarding abortion, to
the extent feasible and consistent with legal obligations, service
women stationed overseas should have the same access to abortion
services as do women in the United States. Women who serve in our
military deserve safe and sanitary medical care. They should not have
to risk their health because they are forbidden to have access to
American military hospitals for a procedure that is constitutionally
protected. Now, we may agree or disagree with that, but that is the
fact.
This ban may cause a woman stationed overseas, who is facing an
unintended pregnancy, to be forced to delay that procedure several
weeks until she can travel to a location where safe, adequate care is
available. For each week an abortion is delayed, the risk to the
woman's health increases.
Mr. Chairman, beyond the issues of health and access to medical care,
I would argue that this is a fundamental and basic issue of equity. An
American service woman should not have to lose any of the
constitutional protections she has while serving the military simply
because she is deployed to a U.S. military facility in another country.
We should not deprive these women of the very rights they are assigned
to protect when we send them overseas.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered
by the distinguished gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman].
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to respond to the
gentlewoman that I thoroughly understand that this is an issue about
the restrictions on the use of the facilities.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Hyde] the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
(Mr. Hyde asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
My friend from California, [Mr. Dellums], said this is an equity
issue, and he is right. I listened carefully to his debate, I listened
to the gentlewoman from California's debate, and I daresay I listened
to everybody on that side in the debate, and none of them will mention
a baby. All they mention is the woman. The woman has a problem, the
woman wants her privacy, she wants her health taken care of, she has
constitutional rights.
What about the baby? The forgotten man or woman. The little tiny
innocent human life struggling to live. No, they want to use taxpayer
facilities, forget who is going to pay for it. This is the use of
taxpayer facilities to kill an innocent unborn child. Some of us find
that abhorrent.
I know the woman has rights. I know Roe versus Wade has declared open
season on unborn children, but if there is any way this legislation
narrows it
[[Page H4058]]
down and gives that little girl or little boy, even though unborn, a
shot at living, we are for it and I am against abortions. It is not a
question of funds.
So the gentlewoman talks about choice. Choice? What are you choosing,
vanilla, strawberry? Who has the right to choose to kill an innocent
unborn child, even if it is their own? They do not own that child. So
abortion is wrong.
We are not in the business of having the military facilitate
abortion. We are in the business of having the military win wars, not
making war on an innocent little baby in the womb.
{time} 1930
The choice was exercised when the woman got pregnant. And because you
drape her in a uniform does not change the equation of a human life at
stake. And another tiny, defenseless, voiceless cannot rise up, cannot
vote, cannot escape human being, who ought to have the right to life as
promised in our Declaration of Independence.
I oppose the amendment of the gentlewoman of California [Ms. Harman],
and I implore my colleagues on the other side to occasionally think
about the baby and whether the little baby ought to have the right to
live.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
I just would like to say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]
that I respect his deeply held views, and I assume he respects mine.
The law of the land is Rowe versus Wade, which was carefully decided by
the Supreme Court almost 30 years ago, and that is what is at issue
here.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Olver].
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California [Ms.
Harman] profoundly for her leadership on this issue, which is so vital
to the needs of American servicewomen.
Mr. Chairman, denying our military servicewomen their constitutional
right to seek safe medical treatment, whether overseas or at home, is
wrong. The Harman amendment is not about supporting or paying for
abortion. The Government will not put down one single penny to pay for
these medical services. This amendment is about restoring access to
health care to women in the military while they are away from home.
Restricting access to medical treatment while in a foreign land
threatens the very lives of our American servicewomen. Women that are
denied health care which can be effectively and safely provided at our
military bases will either seek unsafe treatment or will be forced to
leave their service duties. Both scenarios undermine our military
services.
I urge my colleagues to support this important measure to restore
safe and legal abortion to the women who dedicate their lives to
serving our country.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Stearns], chairman of the Subcommittee on Health of the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, well, here we go again. We have had this
debate before and we had this amendment and we won overwhelmingly in
the 104th Congress. This evening, this House is going to spend the
greater part of the evening and perhaps all tomorrow talking about
where are we going to spend billions and billions of dollars for
defense. We will probably be covering over 50 amendments to the defense
authorization bill. Some will adjust the levels up and down and will be
having great debate.
Mr. Chairman, the vote we take today should be made in an effort to
provide our Nation with the best defense capabilities in the world. In
fact, all but one vote will. What is that lone vote? Surprise, it is an
abortion amendment. After overwhelmingly defeating this amendment in
the 104th Congress and now putting this into law, we are faced again
with this debate.
I ask my colleagues tonight, does the abortion debate have any place
in the authorization of billions of dollars for national defense? Of
course not. Here is another question: Do they as taxpayers have any
place funding facilities to provide abortions? Of course not.
Abortion proponents argue that this is not an issue of taxpayer
funding for abortion, that this amendment would require the woman to
pay for her own abortion. Well, then, if taxpayers' dollars are not
involved, where exactly would these procedures take place? If taxpayers
are not involved, then this amendment would have no place in the
defense authorization bill. Would it?
The amendment to this bill exists because a part of what we are
debating today is a funding level for the U.S. military medical
facilities, precisely the place where the abortions must occur. Yes,
taxpayers' dollars are very involved in this issue.
Mr. Chairman, let us keep the contents of this bill dedicated to the
subject at hand, to provide for a strong national defense in order to
protect ourselves and our children. I oppose the Harman amendment and
urge my colleagues to do the same.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Woolsey].
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, first let me thank my friend, the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] for her leadership on this
issue. She is truly a fighter for equal treatment for women in the
military.
Mr. Chairman, make no mistake about it, that is what this issue is
really about. It is about equal treatment for servicewomen stationed
overseas. This amendment is not about Federal support for abortion
services. It is about giving women who have volunteered to serve their
country the same protections that civilian women have here at home.
Last Congress, the majority told servicewomen stationed overseas that
they could not even spend their own money on abortion services in
military hospitals. They sent a message loud and clear to each American
servicewoman that their political agenda was more important than her
health and her safety. Mr. Chairman, these women fight for our freedom
every day. Let us not take their freedoms away.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Bartlett], a member of the committee.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make just two
very simple points, and I rise in strong opposition to the Harman
amendment.
The first point is that the law assures complete health care for our
women in the military. If they have a pregnancy problem and their life
is at risk, they are assured complete health care. But let me say very
emphatically that killing preborn babies is not health care. Let me say
it again. Killing preborn babies is not health care.
The second point I want to make is that our military physicians and
our military hospitals do not want to perform these abortions. They did
not do it when we did not have a law precluding them from doing it.
They do not want to do this. I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment. The American people are opposed to it. We need to vote it
down.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to our colleague, the
gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me the time.
I rise in strong support of this amendment. I think that the law that
this Congress put into being is outrageous. It says that if she is a
woman in the military serving in Washington, DC, and she needs medical
services and the Government will not pay for them, she can use her own
money. She can go down to local hospitals and go get that service, but
if we put her in uniform overseas in foreign soil, she cannot get that
service. If her health is at risk, she cannot get those services. It is
outrageous.
It says if she chooses to defend our Constitution, do not expect the
Constitution to apply to her if she serves overseas. This is bad law.
We ought to amend it. That is what this amendment does. I urge everyone
to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in the debate on the Harman amendment.
I think this debate is really not about abortion. I think it is about
our national security.
National security assumes that you will have personal security.
Existing law puts women in uniform at risk with their own health care
when they serve our country on foreign soil.
This amendment corrects that injustice which prohibits these same
women in uniform from access to health care when they are in service
abroad, even if they use their own money.
[[Page H4059]]
Think about it. Women in uniform have pledged to uphold the
Constitution of this country, which grants those women choice in these
procedures.
But because of existing misguided law which access at home but not
abroad when they serve overseas it is taken away from them.
We must not discriminate against women simply because they serve in
the defense of our country.
I urge support for this amendment.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Kentucky [Mr. Lewis], a member of the committee.
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to
the amendment of Representative Harman. It allows abortions at overseas
military bases. I commend my colleague on her bipartisan efforts to
promote a strong national defense and her hard work on the Committee on
National Security. However, this is an issue where I must respectfully
disagree.
I have said it before, and I will say it again: Government should not
spend one penny to fund abortions. It is an emotionally charged debate
that divides this great Nation. Due to that fact alone, it is not just
for our Government to spend taxpayers' dollars on an issue that pits so
many Americans against each other. Regardless of reimbursement, no
Federal facility should be used to end the life of the unborn.
Mr. Chairman, what is the purpose of our medical personnel in the
military? Is it to take lives, or is it to protect lives? I believe the
military's medical community is in the business of protecting the lives
of innocent people. It nurtures those who are injured. It shelters the
sick and the weak. And it seeks to make sure lives are saved, and that
includes the life of the unborn. We should not stand by and allow
abortions on military bases because it contradicts why we have
personnel in our military.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield one minute to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro], a former member of the Committee on National
Security and a leader in this fight last year.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment restores the freedom to
choose for military women serving overseas. It is fundamental that
those who risk their lives to defend the rights of American citizens
should, in fact, enjoy those same rights. Without this amendment,
American women living overseas due to service in our military will be
discriminated against. Their right to choose, a right which is
protected by the Constitution and the Supreme Court, will be denied.
This is not a question of using taxpayers' money to perform abortion.
Women will pay for their abortions out of their own pockets. This is
not a question requiring doctors to perform procedures with which they
do not agree, because this amendment preserves the conscience clause.
This is not a question of imposing a new policy. This has been the
policy of this Government.
This amendment ensures that women will have access to safe, sanitary
medical care even when they are stationed abroad. This debate is,
purely and simply, a question of a woman's right to choose. If American
military women living overseas can be denied that right, what will
protect the rights of American women living in this country?
I urge my colleagues to support the Harman amendment.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. Pappas], a member of the committee.
Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California was soundly defeated by a vote of 22 to 33 in the Committee
on National Security. As has been the case in previous years, this
amendment was defeated because Members recognized that Americans do not
want their hard earned tax dollars paying for abortions.
The funds that we appropriate for the Defense Department should be
used to support our national security and not for other purposes.
Americans do not support the use of public funds to support military
hospitals where abortions would be performed. This amendment could mean
taxpayer funds could be used to hire personnel to perform abortions as
well as subsidies to the facilities where abortions would take place.
Today's debate on the defense bill will be marked by having many
Members debating about the lack of funding for certain aspects of our
national defense. The Harman amendment would add more expenses to an
otherwise tight budget.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. Our military hospitals
are dedicated to healing and nurturing human life. They should not be
forced to facilitate the taking of the most innocent of human life.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I mentioned that this amendment has
bipartisan support. I would now like to yield 1 minute to our colleague
from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Harman amendment. It
would restore the guarantee that those members serving in our Armed
Forces can exercise their full range of constitutionally protected
rights. This amendment is not about using U.S. taxpayers' dollars to
finance abortion. Rather, it is an effort to assure that service
members and their dependents based in countries that do not allow
abortion will be able to access the medical facilities which we provide
for them to attend to their own medical needs as they see fit.
Even if other servicemen and women are serving in developing
countries where abortion is legal, they are not likely to find the same
high standards of cleanliness, safety, and medical expertise that is
available at a U.S. facility.
The Harman amendment would simply allow service members and their
dependents to obtain the same range of health services at those
facilities that they can now obtain at home. This is not a complicated
issue. The amendment would assure that those in our armed forces need
not sacrifice their constitutional rights to serve their country.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Hostettler], a member of the committee.
(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
{time} 1945
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Just as
the Supreme Court said in 1857 in the now infamous Dred Scott decision,
that slavery was constitutional, that same institution has told us that
for the time being we have to allow the killing of pre-born children.
It has not, however, told us that Government has an obligation to
provide this service. This amendment would do just that.
This amendment obligates the United States to make sure abortion
services and facilities are available at U.S. military bases. It is
this obligation that I believe the Committee on National Security and
the House soundly rejected last year on so many occasions and should
again reject.
Abortion remains a very decisive practice in America and indeed the
world. Allowing abortions to be performed on military installation
would bring that discord and dissension right on to our military bases
complete with pickets and the like.
The core principle at issue today, whether the Government is
obligated to provide what is merely a right, is a serious issue with
serious ramifications. Does the freedom of the press guaranteed by the
first amendment obligate the Federal Government to provide every
interested American with a printing press? Does the right to distribute
pornography, which has been upheld by the court, obligate the military
to distribute it to the troops? I think not.
Congress has the clear responsibility under the Constitution to
provide for the rules and regulations of the military. We must not make
it the policy of the United States to use its military facilities to
destroy an innocent pre-born life.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Pelosi].
[[Page H4060]]
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I too want to add my accommodation to the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] for her exceptional leadership
in fighting this fight for America's service women; really, really for
all women in America, and I rise in strong support of the Harman
amendment to the defense authorization bill to repeal the provision in
this bill prohibiting abortion services in U.S. military hospitals
overseas. This provision is a clear threat to the health and safety of
women military personnel and military families and a threat to the
constitutional rights of all American women.
Mr. Chairman, women stationed overseas in service to their country
depend on base hospitals for medical care. Access to comprehensive
reproductive health is essential for all women, civilian or military.
These women are citizens ready and willing to sacrifice their lives for
our country. Under the bill, as it currently stands, however, these
women are treated as second-class citizens. Under this bill these brave
women would be denied access to safe medical care.
The Harman amendment is not an issue of taxpayer funding. Women in
the military had previously used and would continue to be required to
use their own funds to obtain abortion services at military hospitals.
The Harman amendment is not an issue of coercing medical providers to
perform abortion services. The Harman amendment maintains the conscious
clause already in effect. It is, however, the intent of the language in
this bill to deny more women the right to choose.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Alabama [Mr. Aderholt].
(Mr. ADERHOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Harman
amendment to the national security authorization bill and in support of
current law which prohibits abortions in military facilities abroad.
The Harman amendment would turn U.S. military hospitals into abortion
clinics. How can we justify using U.S. military hospitals, military
personnel and hard earned tax dollars for the destruction of innocent
human life? Despite the arguments that these abortions would be
privately funded, there would be some costs to the taxpayer.
In 1993, when President Clinton argued that the military's policy to
allow abortions on these U.S. facilities made many outraged military
physicians refuse to perform this procedure. They rightly believe that
this is simply not a procedure that should be performed in U.S.
military hospitals.
As Pope John Paul once stated, a nation which kills its own children
is a nation without a future. I stand today with those who oppose the
Harman amendment and support life.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York [Mrs. Lowey].
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Harman
amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The fiscal year 1996 Defense Authorization Act went much further than
a limitation on the use of government funds for abortion. It actually
barred military women and dependents from using their own money to pay
for abortion services at military bases, just as they would use their
own funds to pay for those services if they were in the United States.
The current law puts the health of our military women at risk. Many
of these women are stationed in countries where there is just no access
to safe and legal abortions outside of the military hospitals. A woman
forced to seek an abortion at local facilities or forced to wait to
travel to apply safe abortion services faces tremendous health risks.
This amendment does not force the Department of Defense to pay for
abortion. It simply gives women access to health care that they could
receive if they were at home. It is unimaginable to me and to the
American people that Congress would reward the American service women
who have volunteered to serve this Nation by violating their
constitutional right to assess abortion.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Hunter].
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this
time to me, and I want to thank the gentleman for his extraordinary
leadership of this subcommittee and just echo his feelings here and
those that have been given by many Members who are against allowing
abortions to take place in military hospitals.
Mr. Chairman, let us not involve the military in abortion. Is that a
double standard? Yes, it is a double standard, and the military has a
double standard in a number of areas with respect to marital fidelity,
with respect to pornography on base, and yes, with respect to abortion.
We have our young people focused on duty, honor and country, and that
involves a higher standard sometimes than the general public.
But do my colleagues know something? The general public likes that.
They respect the military more than any other institution because they
have the higher standard. Let us keep that higher standard, and let us
stick with the committee's position, and I thank the gentleman for his
extraordinary leadership on this issue.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from
California for not giving up on this fight. This is very important to
women all over this country. Prohibiting women from using their own
funds to obtain abortion services at overseas U.S. military facilities
endangers their health simply plain and simple. American women
stationed overseas depend on their base hospitals for medical care and
are often situated in areas where local facilities are inadequate or
unavailable. If the defense authorization bill is enacted without this
amendment, American military personnel overseas would face the prospect
of a long medically dangerous wait to return to the United States if
stationed in countries that ban abortions or the prospect of having the
procedure done in an unsafe unsanitary foreign hospital, perhaps
causing a woman facing crisis pregnancy to seek out a illegal unsafe
abortion. This ban may cause a woman stationed overseas who is facing
an unintended pregnancy to be forced to delay the procedure and again
travel very dangerously.
Let me make a point. No medical providers will be forced to perform
these abortions if they do not desire. All three branches of the
military have conscience clauses that do not allow them to do it if
they do not desire to do so.
Let me say that we need to give fair and equal treatment to the women
in the military service. Let us support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Harman amendment
repealing recently enacted provisions of current law that prohibits
privately funded abortions at overseas Department of Defense medical
facilities and to thank Congresswoman Harman for her leadership in
bringing this amendment to the House floor.
The ban on privately funded abortions at overseas Department of
Defense medical facilities discriminates against women who have
volunteered to serve their country by prohibiting them from exercising
their legally protected right to choose simply because they are
stationed overseas. We must ensure that American female military
personnel and dependents of military personnel stationed overseas can
exercise the same constitutional right to choose that is available to
women in this country.
Prohibiting women from using their own funds to obtain abortion
services at overseas U.S. military facilities endangers their health.
American women stationed overseas depend on their base hospitals for
medical care, and are often situated in areas where local facilities
are inadequate or unavailable. If the defense authorization bill is
enacted without this amendment, American military personnel overseas
would face the prospect of a long, medically dangerous wait to return
to the United States if stationed in countries that bans abortions, or
the prospect of having the procedure done in an unsafe, unsanitary
foreign hospital perhaps causing a woman facing a crisis pregnancy to
seek out an illegal, unsafe procedure.
This ban may cause a woman stationed overseas who is facing an
unintended pregnancy to be forced to delay the procedure for several
weeks until she can travel to a location where safe, adequate care is
available. For each week an abortion is delayed, the risk to the
woman's health increases.
This is not an issue of taxpayer funding for abortions. Under the
amendment the patient,
[[Page H4061]]
not the Federal Government, would pay for the procedure.
No medical providers will be forced to perform abortions. All three
branches of the military have conscience clause provisions which permit
medical personnel who have moral, religious, or ethical objections to
abortion not to participate in the procedure. These conscience clauses
remain intact.
Simply put, current law does not ensure equal health service access
for all members of the United States armed services. Barring women
living overseas from using their own funds to receive reproductive
health care procedures legally available in the United States, is at
best hypocritical and at worst a serious danger to their health.
Women in the armed services have committed themselves to protecting
the constitutional rights of all the citizens of the United States, yet
we choose time and time again to deny them the same rights that we
extend to women on U.S. soil.
I urge my colleagues to support the Harman amendment.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Barcia].
Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California's amendment, and I urge my colleagues to
support current policy that prevents Department of Defense medical
treatment facilities from being used to perform abortions. The current
policy does contain exceptions. If the life of the mother is in danger
or in the case of rape or in the case of incest abortion is not
prohibited.
Yes, the Supreme Court upheld the woman's right to choose. However,
the Supreme Court did not require nor commit U.S. taxpayers to pay for
the procedure for military personnel or civilians.
When this policy was repealed in 1993, a majority of military
physicians refused to perform or assist in elective abortions. Our
military doctors should not be obligated or forced to perform
abortions, particularly if they are morally opposed to abortion.
Pro-life Americans believe that it is improper that any tax dollars
are used to perform abortions. We in Congress should not support any
policy that ignores our citizens' unyielding belief in the right to
life.
Support current military policy. Support the ideals of our American
citizens. Oppose this amendment.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Nadler].
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the Harman amendment
which would reverse the shameful policy of forbidding women in our
armed services from using their own money to pay for an abortion in a
safe U.S. medical facility abroad. It is disgraceful that we require
women who are serving their country to risk their health and lives to
exercise their constitutional right to choose an abortion.
Why should not women in the Armed Forces enjoy the same fundamental
rights that all other women in the United States enjoy?
This bill would deny our Nation's service women stationed abroad a
right they are absoltely entitled to and can exercise when in the
United States, but if they are stationed abroad, they are forced to
wait until they can return to the United States for an abortion or to
go what in many countries are substandard and unsafe foreign medical
facilities.
Whatever anyone in this Chamber may think about abortion, it is a
constitutionally protected right of every American woman. Our service
women are prepared to risk their lives to defend our values and to
protect our freedoms. We should not require them to risk their lives to
exercise their constitutional right to an abortion.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment and expunge the shame
from our statute books.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds to say that I
believe it is shameful and a disgraceful as a policy of the United
States, since none of the military doctors would perform an abortion,
for us to use taxpayer funds to hire an abortionist. That would be a
shameful policy if this Harman amendment would pass.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr.
Taylor].
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my
subcommittee chairman for making this possible.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Harman amendment. That is
not what our Nation should be about, and for those of of my colleagues
who come to the floor on an annual basis, and this seems to be the only
thing in the military that one can speak on, I would encourage my
colleagues, if they really want to help the troops, why do you not try
to help us find the funds so that we can get those 13,000 soldiers,
sailors, airmen, and marines who are on food stamps, and two-thirds of
whom have families of their own and children of their own, at least pay
them enough so they are not eligible for food stamps?
Where I come from there is a stigma to being on food stamps, and no
one who serves our country should have to live with that kind of a
stigma.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York [Mrs. Maloney].
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, only under a Republican
Congress can a woman sign up to serve her country and have her rights
denied in return. Last time I looked it was still legal for a woman to
have the right to choose in this country, but only if she remains in
this country. If she decides to serve her country overseas, then she
loses that constitutional right.
If a male member of the armed services needs medical attention
overseas, he receives the best. If a female member of the armed
services needs a specific medical procedure overseas, then she has to
come back to the United States to get that procedure or go to a foreign
hospital that may be unsanitary.
This bill will not cost taxpayers one cent. The women will pick up
the tab. All they want is the right to do it, and women have waited
long enough to receive equal treatment in the military.
I hope my colleagues will support the Harman amendment and give these
most deserving soldiers back that which is rightfully theirs.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Smith].
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, today because virtually every
military physician deployed around the globe, as a matter of deep
conviction and conscience, has refused to facilitate a 1993 Clinton
Executive Order on abortion, and because the Dornan amendment was
signed into permanent law a few years later on February 10, 1996,
overseas military hospitals continue to be havens of healing, nuturing
and disease eradication, not baby killing centers.
The Harman amendment, if enacted, would turn these healing facilities
into abortion mills where unborn children could be dismembered or
chemically poisoned on demand. The Harman amendment makes a false
distinction based not on what happens in an abortion, a baby is
violently killed, but in who provides the cash. It also completely
overlooks costs borne by the taxpayers to facilitate that abortion,
like the provision of operating rooms, the hiring of abortionists and
the procurement of poisons and potions and suction machines.
{time} 2000
This amendment says, in effect, it is okay to tear an unborn child,
to rip an unborn child from limb to limb or to apply that baby with
deadly poisons using a hypodermic needle, so long as somebody else
seems to be footing most of the bill.
Somebody earlier said that this is not about abortion. We hear that
kind of excuse and defense every time we hear this on the floor. When
the D.C. appropriations bill is up, it is a matter of home rule. When
the Federal employees health benefits program ban on abortion comes up,
it is labor-management negotiations. When the Hyde amendment comes up,
it is a matter of rich versus poor women. Of course, that underscores
the fact that the unborn of the poor seem to be more able to be
discarded and are more expendable.
Mr. Chairman, let me conclude. The Harman amendment facilitates the
killing of unborn children, and there is no doubt about that. It treats
helpless, defenseless infant baby boys and girls as a disease, or a
cyst, or a tumor that can be excised at will.
Medicine is all about curing and mitigating diseases. This is not
maternal health care, this is not prenatal
[[Page H4062]]
health care, this is killing of unborn children and the exploitation of
their mothers.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the Harman amendment.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Moran].
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, how arrogant for comfortable male
Members of Congress to stand here in such self-righteous judgment over
the lives of women who choose to serve our country in the military. We
ought to be honest about it. Let us be honest about it. What this bill
does is to prevent women, even victims of rape, from being able to
exercise the same civil rights that they are granted by law in this
country. We are punishing them for choosing to serve in the military,
and we know from recent experience that this is not an uncommon
situation.
Every one of my colleagues know that they are being hypocritical. If
it was their daughter serving in the military who was the victim of a
rape, they would not stand in such self-righteous judgment over her.
Grant women who choose to serve our country the same rights that they
would be entitled to as American citizens.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, this is the Hyde language, which is the
exception for rape. I just wanted to let the gentleman know.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this is the
bill that says that it only applies if the life of the woman would be
in danger. This is the bill I was given, and it does not apply to rape.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, it does.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. If I could just
have a copy of the code that the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran]
was referring to, I would like to read that right now.
Mr. Chairman, the restriction on the use of funds says, the one that
remains in the code, ``except where the life of the mother would be
endangered.'' There is no exception for rape and incest. I would like
to put that in the Record.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], the cochair of the Women's Caucus.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] is
recognized for 3 minutes.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support
of the Harman amendment. Is this taxpayer funding of abortions? No, it
is not. It is the hard-earned dollars of the service men and service
women of America choosing, electing, to have a medical procedure. They
are paying for it themselves.
Now my colleagues say, but the hospital is there. What hospital in
America does not allocate charges for overhead into their charges for a
procedure? No hospital does not allocate overhead charges. So do not
tell me they are not paying for whole freight, they are paying their
whole freight. This is not taxpayer-funded abortions, this is privately
funded abortions that women in our armed services overseas may choose
or need to have for medical reasons.
What about military personnel? Do we have to hire doctors? Of course
we will not. These are overseas bases, service women, serve the
dependents, and so they have obstetricians. And all obstetricians are
trained, whether my colleagues like it or not, to do abortions as well
as to do many other things. So one is not going to hire physicians.
This is not taxpayer-funded abortion. This is far more than that.
There was one other argument that was brought up here that I want to
speak to. The military has a higher standard. Boy, I would never touch
that argument, folks. It is not a higher standard to deny service men
and women the same rights as the citizens they defend. That is an
abomination of the concept of higher standards in the military, and I
believe the military does command of its people very high standards.
So what is this about? It is about discrimination. If one is a
colonel or a major, if one is an officer, one can afford to fly home,
one can afford to fly one's wife home; one can afford to fly one's 16-
year-old daughter that got in trouble home. If one is an enlisted man,
one cannot. One is on space available.
I see it as economic discrimination. Officers are not going to be
affected, enlisted men are. But what is this really about? Listen to
the language of all of the speakers. This is about abortion, pure and
simple. This is not about taxpayer-funded abortions, this is about
abortion.
Now, I challenge the pro-life Members of this Congress, for God's
sakes, bring a bill to the floor that bans all abortions in America,
and if they can win it, fine. Then we will not have to keep debating
these things. But as long as abortion is legal, let servicemen have the
same access to abortion as other citizens do have.
Not one of my colleagues who has spoken today, this is so distressing
to me, because I believe it is unconscionable. Not one of my colleagues
who has spoken today has introduced a bill that bans all abortions at
all institutions. My colleagues want to ban abortions at a military
hospital so military service women and the wives of enlisted men have
no rights, because they are too far away, unless they want to go to the
local hospital and risk death.
I have made my points. If some want to ban abortion, do it, but do
not do it selectively and leave military people without the rights of
real Americans.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to close this
debate to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon], former United States
Army doctor.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly urge all of
my colleagues to vote no on the Harman amendment. I can bring some
perspective to this issue because I was in the United States Army
Medical Corps when President Reagan ordered that abortions stop in
military facilities, an order that was reversed by Bill Clinton in
1993; and then this Congress corrected it. I can tell my colleagues
that the men and women, the doctors and nurses in the Army Medical
Corps supported the President because they did not want to have
anything to do with this procedure. And the reason the people in the
healing arts do not want to have anything to do with this procedure is
because they know what it is. Even those who claim to be pro-choice
will say to me, I would never perform one. And the reason for that is
very clear. It is the destruction of a human life.
We have no business in this Congress having anything to do with
supporting abortion at military facilities, and I strongly urge my
colleagues, let us not roll the clock back. Support the language in the
law, oppose the Harman amendment.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support for the
Harman amendment and thank my colleague for her leadership in the fight
to repeal the ban on privately funded abortions for servicewomen and
their dependents at overseas military hospitals.
Our servicewomen have volunteered to defend our country, which is a
patriotic calling to be admired and, for which, we should be grateful.
So how do we thank them? By denying them basic rights that are extended
to all other American women--reproductive rights.
This amendment is an access to health care amendment to repeal a
harmful public policy for women who deserve our utmost protection. We
are talking about women who are serving in countries that do not share
America's standards of quality in health care. Furthermore, some of the
countries in which they serve do not share America's affection for
human rights--especially women's rights.
Some members of this body claim to not want American tax dollars
going to abortion, and that claim in this matter would be fine if it
were accurate. But we are talking about privately funded abortions.
In addition, no medical provider in the military will be forced to
perform an abortion, for all branches of government have a conscience
clause permitting medical personnel who have moral, religious or
ethical objections to abortion not to participate in the procedure.
How dare we claim not to be a discriminating country and then
continue this ban that clearly singles out patriotic women serving the
United States of America overseas. We should be ashamed of ourselves.
Support the Harman amendment and repeal this misguided and injurious
public policy.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong
opposition to the Harman amendment.
[[Page H4063]]
In 1996, the people of the United States assured us that they are
firmly opposed to having tax dollars which are allocated for the
defense of our country, used to perform abortions.
Currently, Federal law prohibits abortions in military facilities,
except when the life of the mother would be endangered if the unborn
child were carried to term, or in cases of rape or incest. I could
stand up here and speak to all of you about how this is a matter of
preserving the law, the reason the law was enacted and the amount of
times abortion amendments have been voted down in the past few years.
None of that matters however, if the folks in our country feel as
though their safety is at issue because we spent funding to allow
abortions to be performed at the expense of protecting our country.
Military hospitals are important to the health and life of our
military. As a result, they are important for the health and well-being
of our national security. If individuals feel less protected based upon
the funding of our defense dollars, then our military could be less
prepared and ready to defend our Nation.
Just as we need to preserve the strength of human life, it is equally
important to preserve the security that people have in our Nation's
defensive capabilities. Today in Congress, we have the opportunity to
assure the people that we will spend their dollars in a responsible and
meaningful way. This is the matter before Congress, and this is why we
must make certain to continue to enforce that no Federal taxpayer
dollars will be used to finance abortions in Department of Defense
funding.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Harman
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Harman].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 169, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms.
Harman] will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in part 1 of
House Report 105-137.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Shays
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Shays:
At the end of title XII (page 379, after line 19), insert
the following new section:
SEC. . DEFENSE BURDENSHARING.
(a) Efforts To Increase Allied Burdensharing.--The
President shall seek to have each nation that has cooperative
military relations with the United States (including security
agreements, basing arrangements, or mutual participation in
multinational military organizations or operations) take one
or more of the following actions:
(1) For any nation in which United States military
personnel are assigned to permanent duty ashore, increase its
financial contributions to the payment of the nonpersonnel
costs incurred by the United States Government for stationing
United States military personnel in that nation, with a goal
of achieving by September 30, 2000, 75 percent of such costs.
An increase in financial contributions by any nation under
this paragraph may include the elimination of taxes, fees, or
other charges levied on United States military personnel,
equipment, or facilities stationed in that nation.
(2) Increase its annual budgetary outlays for national
defense as a percentage of its gross domestic product by 10
percent or at least to a level commensurate to that of the
United States by September 30, 1998.
(3) Increase its annual budgetary outlays for foreign
assistance (to promote democratization, economic
stabilization, transparency arrangements, defense economic
conversion, respect for the rule of law, and internationally
recognized human rights) by 10 percent or at least to a level
commensurate to that of the United States by September 30,
1998.
(4) Increase the amount of military assets (including
personnel, equipment, logistics, support and other resources)
that it contributes, or would be prepared to contribute, to
multinational military activities worldwide.
(b) Authorities To Encourage Actions by United States
Allies.--In seeking the actions described in subsection (a)
with respect to any nation, or in response to a failure by
any nation to undertake one or more of such actions, the
President may take any of the following measures to the
extent otherwise authorized by law:
(1) Reduce the end strength level of members of the Armed
Forces assigned to permanent duty ashore in that nation.
(2) Impose on that nation fees or other charges similar to
those that such nation imposes on United States forces
stationed in that nation.
(3) Reduce (through rescission, impoundment, or other
appropriate procedures as authorized by law) the amount the
United States contributes to the NATO Civil Budget, Military
Budget, or Security Investment Program.
(4) Suspend, modify, or terminate any bilateral security
agreement the United States has with that nation, consistent
with the terms of such agreement.
(5) Reduce (through rescission, impoundment or other
appropriate procedures as authorized by law) any United
States bilateral assistance appropriated for that nation.
(6) Take any other action the President determines to be
appropriate as authorized by law.
(c) Report on Progress in Increasing Allied
Burdensharing.--Not later than March 1, 1998, the Secretary
of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on--
(1) steps taken by other nations to complete the actions
described in subsection (a);
(2) all measures taken by the President, including those
authorized in subsection (b), to achieve the actions
described in subsection (a);
(3) the difference between the amount allocated by other
nations for each of the actions described in subsection (a)
during the period beginning on March 1, 1996, and ending on
February 28, 1997, and during the period beginning on March
1, 1997, and ending on February 28, 1998; and
(4) the budgetary savings to the United States that are
expected to accrue as a result of the steps described under
paragraph (1).
(d) Report on National Security Bases for Forward
Deployment and Burdensharing Relationships.--(1) In order to
ensure the best allocation of budgetary resources, the
President shall undertake a review of the status of elements
of the United States Armed Forces that are permanently
stationed outside the United States. The review shall include
an assessment of the following:
(A) The alliance requirements that are to be found in
agreements between the United States and other countries.
(B) The national security interests that support
permanently stationing elements of the United States Armed
Forces outside the United States.
(C) The stationing costs associated with the forward
deployment of elements of the United States Armed Forces.
(D) The alternatives available to forward deployment (such
as material prepositioning, enhanced airlift and sealift, or
joint training operations) to meet such alliance requirements
or national security interests, with such alternatives
identified and described in detail.
(E) The costs and force structure configurations associated
with such alternatives to forward deployment.
(F) The financial contributions that allies of the United
States make to common defense efforts (to promote
democratization, economic stabilization, transparency
arrangements, defense economic conversion, respect for the
rule of law, and internationally recognized human rights).
(G) The contributions that allies of the United States make
to meeting the stationing costs associated with the forward
deployment of elements of the United States Armed Forces.
(H) The annual expenditures of the United States and its
allies on national defense, and the relative percentages of
each nation's gross domestic product constituted by those
expenditures.
(2) The President shall submit to Congress a report on the
review under paragraph (1). The report shall be submitted not
later than March 1, 1998, in classified and unclassified
form.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Connecticut
[Mr. Shays] and a Member opposed each will control 15 minutes.
Who seeks time in opposition to the amendment?
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I do.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], who is an equal partner in this
amendment, control half of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Connecticut?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] each will control 7\1/2\
minutes. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] will control 15
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, at this time we bring forth an amendment
that seeks to have our allies pay more of the share of supporting
troops that we have stationed overseas. Presently Japan spends over
$3.7 billion a year in direct contributions to the United States to pay
for the nonsalaried costs of our troops in the Japanese theater.
[[Page H4064]]
The total amount, Mr. Chairman, is almost $4.7 billion when we combine
it with in-kind contributions.
Korea pays 63 percent of our nonpersonnel costs, our nonsalaried
costs. They contribute a total of $1.8 billion, and in direct
contributions, $359 million for 37,000 troops. In Japan, we have 45,000
troops.
Europe, on the other hand, contributes 24 percent of the nonpersonnel
costs, $2 billion; but that is quite misleading, because for the
116,000 troops, only $46 million of the amount is in direct cash
contribution.
Here we have Japan that contributes in direct payment $3.7 billion,
Korea $359 million, and all the European nations $46 million. Our
amendment seeks to have the President of the United States negotiate
with our European allies and have them pay a greater amount of the
nonsalaried costs of our maintaining troops in Europe.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, while I am personally opposed to this
amendment in its present form, I am prepared to accept it and continue
to work with the sponsors as we move toward the conference with the
other body.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, that is the toughest argument to counter I have ever
been presented with, and I will confess to my friend from South
Carolina, I have no answer for him, but I will work on one.
I do want to talk about why this is so important, and I appreciate
his spirit of cooperation. The gentleman from Connecticut and I have
been working on this. We kind of inherited this from the former Member,
the gentleman from Colorado, and others. What we are saying is very
important, and we want to get this into the Record.
We have signed a budget deal. The budget deal includes some difficult
choices. Some of us have rejected it, a great majority have accepted
it, but obviously, among those who have accepted it, they are aware, in
fact, they are proud of the fact that it will cause some difficulty, it
will impose some restraints.
One big set of constraints comes in discretionary spending. Military
spending is half of that. Many of those who support a strong military
think we are allocating too little to the military. Some of us feel
that the military is getting too much and that is constraining other
programs. We ought to have virtual unanimity on this point.
If we could get our wealthy allies who are now doing so little in
comparison to the American taxpayer to provide for the common defense,
we could make funds available that we could use for defense, we could
use for domestic discretionary, we could use for foreign economic
cooperation; we could use those funds.
I sent out over the weekend, or I sent out on Monday an article from
the Washington Post which reported the trend of our European allies,
our wealthy and powerful European allies, to cut their military budget.
And Klaus Naumann, the Chairman of the NATO military committee, pointed
out that the disparity in military spending, both in dollars and as a
percentage of gross domestic product between the United States and the
Western Europeans, is so great that a little disconnect has grown up.
{time} 2015
We spend so much greater a percentage of our gross domestic product
on the military than Germany and France and England and Norway and
Denmark and Belgium, et cetera, that we no longer have a genuinely
integrated military. We have gone too far ahead of them.
Obviously, there are places in this world where the United States
must bear the burden: In the Middle East; we must stand by South Korea
facing that terrible regime in North Korea. But there is no good reason
for the American taxpayer to subsidize Western Europe.
This amendment repeats an amendment that was adopted overwhelmingly
by the House in the last budget, with one very important change. We,
after conference, for the first time got into law some legislation
requiring the administration to try burden-sharing. Let me say, one of
the problems we have had, Mr. Chairman, is this administration, as all
of its predecessors, has failed to do its job in trying to get an
adequate share from the allies.
Mr. Chairman, we set up some criteria to measure what our allies are
doing. The administration was told to report, and guess what, Mr.
Chairman? This administration, like every previous administration,
reported that the allies were doing terrific. They are just wonderful
people.
They note that the best is Japan, and by the way, it is not an
accident that Japan gives us the most. As my friend, the gentleman from
Connecticut [Mr. Shays] points out, Japan gives us significantly more
than any other country because this Congress singled out Japan and
insisted that it does. The time has come now to make sure others do.
The point I want to make is on page 3 of this amendment there is a
critical new section beginning on line 21. It now sets up a series of
comparisons. We have this year's report. What we hope to do is to now
get a series by which we can measure the extent to which
administrations have successfully pressed our allies to contribute
more.
Mr. Chairman, it is important for us to continue this, to let the
administration know and our allies know that especially now that we
have so constrained spending here, we do not think it appropriate for
the American taxpayers to carry a disproportionate share of the burden.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Connecticut [Mr. Shays] for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of
the Shays-Frank-Upton-Gephardt-Foley-Dellums and I suppose almost
everybody, now, amendment.
Clearly, Mr. Chairman, Americans benefit from having our troops
strategically stationed around the globe. These men and women protect
U.S. interests even as they protect world peace. But these troops also
provide enormous benefits to their host countries, not only economic
benefits but obviously security benefits. There is no reason why those
allies should not pay a greater share, a proportionate share, of the
costs.
Mr. Chairman, honestly, I have opposed this amendment sometimes, and
I am now supporting it because I believe it is an important statement
to the rest of the world as we continue to bear a burden here. And we
talk about our taxpayers' burden. This amendment directs the President
to ensure that our allies meet at least one of four criteria for
sufficient burden-sharing.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak about one country, and the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] mentioned South Korea. I
believe that it is important that we have a presence in South Korea.
But I also believe that it is important that South Korea bear its
burden.
Frankly, we are not universally popular in South Korea, interestingly
enough. However, meetings between President Clinton and President Kim
Yong-sam in other negotiations, mutual agreement has been reached to
increase their support for our troops. Support has already risen, Mr.
Chairman, from $150 million in 1991 to $300 million in 1995. That
amount is scheduled to increase by 10 percent in each of the next few
years.
Mr. Chairman, this is movement in the right direction, but in my
opinion it is not enough. Even while troop deployments in other parts
of the world are being cut back, we have continued, appropriately, a
strong presence in South Korea because of the threat from North Korea.
With United States support, South Korea joined the United Nations in
1992, and in 1995 was added as a nonpermanent member of the United
States Security Council. Many South Koreans, nevertheless, still resent
the American presence, especially at the base near Seoul. While this
makes it tough for the Government to pay its
[[Page H4065]]
fair share, there is no question that the South Korean economy is
strong and positively advantaged by having United States troops in the
country.
Mr. Chairman, as I said, I support this amendment. I support it
because I think it sends an appropriate message. It does give
flexibility, and it does say that America is continuing and will
continue to bear its burden, to play its role on which the world
relies, and which advantages the United States as well.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this time to rise and I appreciate the
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] yielding me the time in support
of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Shays-Frank-Upton-Gephardt-Foley-
Dellums amendment.
Clearly, Americans benefit from having our troops strategically
stationed around the globe. These men and women protect U.S. interests
even as they protect world peace.
But these troops also provide enormous benefits to their host
countries and there is no reason why those allies should not pay a
greater share of the costs.
This amendment directs the President to ensure that our allies meet
at least one of four criteria for sufficient burdensharing.
I am especially concerned about South Korea.
Through meetings between President Clinton and President Kim Young
Sam and other negotiations, mutual agreement has been reached to
increase their support for our troops.
Support has already risen--from $150 million in 1991 to $300 million
in 1995. That amount is scheduled to increase by 10 percent in each of
the next few years.
This is movement in the right direction but it is not enough. Even
while troop deployments in other parts of the world are being cut back
we have continued a strong presence in South Korea because of the
threat from North Korea.
With United States support, South Korea joined the United Nations in
1992 and, in 1995, was added as a nonpermanent member of the U.N.
Security Council.
Despite all of this assistance, many South Koreans resent the
American presence, especially at the base near Seoul.
While this makes it tough for the Government to pay its fair share,
there is no question that the South Korean economy is strong and
positively advantaged by having United States troops in the country.
I support this amendment which will continue the pressure on South
Korea and other allies to recognize the enormous value of our highly
trained Armed Forces.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr.
Shays], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Upton], the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt],
the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. Foley], and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] very
much. This is an important discussion. It shows the mutual seriousness
that all of us have in ensuring the safety and security of this Nation,
but the recognition of the importance of the involvement at a more
heightened level of our European friends.
Let me say, having visited Europe recently, I agree that there is
great prosperity emerging, and certainly existing in Europe today.
In addition, along with our other sites, we can look to Europe to
have a unified currency. Therefore, I think it is adequate that this
particular amendment gives flexibility to the President to assess how
we would in fact increase benefit-sharing. What that means is that a
greater amount of moneys are contributed by our allies to this national
and world defense.
Let me also say if we are concerned about military personnel,
housing, the fact that many of our enlisted men and women are on food
stamps, the reordering of funding, taking it away from the hard nuts
and bolts of maintaining troops overseas and focusing on military
salaries, housing, and the ability to pay our military personnel, it
will be a real boost for the morale of our men and women in the United
States military, who every day by their commitment offer their lives
for our freedom.
So I thank the gentlemen for this very thoughtful amendment that
allows the freedom and the expression to do several things in order to
assure that there is a balanced perspective on the funding of our
defense. I hope that all of my colleagues will support this amendment.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Foley].
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Connecticut
[Mr. Shays] for this very fine amendment, and also the spirit that is
being exhibited on the floor today by both sides of the aisle in
recognizing that we do need assistance from our friends and allies in
the payment of our expensive defense, to assist them in the defense of
their countries.
The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings] and I traveled to Korea, to
the DMZ, and met with our troops, our fine men and women who make up
our military. One of the things they asked us is to come back to
Washington and look out for them; look out for their pay; look out for
their housing; think about their families. So we are here today to find
a way to strengthen our budget for the military and the personnel of
this Nation.
I appreciate the comments of the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-
Lee], because clearly if we are able to get our allies to contribute a
greater share of our peacekeeping mission, we will then be able to
deploy the assets we are currently spending on our personnel, those
that desperately deserve it.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not call for U.S. troop withdrawal
from overseas. It does ask our allies to contribute more to our mutual
defense. Although Japan contributes 77 percent of the nonpersonnel
costs for the stationing of U.S. troops in that country, our European
allies contribute less than 25 percent toward these costs. This
amendment ends this discrepancy by calling on all of our allies to
gradually bring contributions to 75 percent.
It is in the best interests of the United States to maintain American
troops in Europe and Asia to provide for mutual defense. No one denies
that fact. But it is time that they step up to the plate, assist in
their fair responsibility so we can continue our commitment to
providing safety and security for people around the globe. That is what
America has been known for. That is one of our greatest strengths.
Our friendship we bring to the international community is because of
our strength, the strength of our defense, but again, clearly, if we
have extra dollars they should go to military personnel and allow our
allies to pay more of the burden.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] is
recognized for 2 minutes
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No one is arguing, Mr. Chairman, that
there is no benefit to the United States from our presence in Europe.
What we are arguing is that there is at least as much benefit to the
Europeans. They simply have not been doing a fair share.
The gentleman from Florida who just spoke cited the contribution we
get from the Japanese, but that is a direct result of this Congress,
over the objections of the administration then in power, mandating that
the Japanese pay us some part of the nonpersonnel costs. I believe we
ought to be doing the same with Western Europe.
There is an enormous disparity between the percentage of the American
gross domestic product that goes to the military and that of our
European allies, and it is all the more important that we do this now,
because the Europeans are now facing pressure to cut their budgets, to
get their deficits down to 3 percent so they can get into the common
European currency.
If we do not send a strong message to this administration, which has
been as sadly reluctant as its predecessors seriously to represent the
American taxpayers' interest in equity here, then we will see a
continued drop in what the Europeans do, with an expectation that we
will continue to do more.
Members have noted that we have been promised we would be out of
[[Page H4066]]
Bosnia some time ago. We are there because the Europeans simply will
not live up to their responsibilities. We are not asking Europe to
replace us in the Middle East where we take on the burden. We are not
asking them to replace us in South Korea. We are not asking them to
replace us in many other parts of the world. We are not asking for
European troops to come to the United States.
What we are saying is that where we are talking about military
presence in Western Europe, it is simply illogical for the United
States taxpayer to be doing so much compared to the Western Europeans
that do so little. These nations are prosperous, they face no
overpowering enemy, they are populous.
We started the policy of America basically picking up all the tab 45
or 50 years ago when Europe was poor and they faced a strong enemy.
They are no longer poor and they no longer face a strong enemy. We
should not still be picking up so disproportionate a part of the tab.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] is
recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I would say that this amendment allows for
burden-sharing. It is similar in essence to the amendment we passed
last year, which passed by a vote of 353 to 62. It is seeking to get
the European nations primarily to contribute more to the nonmilitary
costs of our troops stationed in Europe, or to provide more defense
spending, or to increase their foreign aid, or to increase their funds
to national military operations in the United Nations. It is an
attempt, a very good attempt, to get the Europeans to do more for the
defense of this world and the free world.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer] is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a step back here. One, I want to
compliment the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]. I am not really speaking in opposition.
What I want to talk about is a little bit about history and our foreign
policy dollars and where we are going from here.
When I think about the United States and our emergence upon the world
scene, not only from World War I, and in particular World War II, and
then how the United States, not only in the Marshall Plan and what we
did in Europe, but also in particular what we did in the Pacific Rim
and MacArthur and his assistance in helping draft a constitution in
Japan, and setting forth different agreements in burden-sharing in
Japan, much different than what we find on the Korean Peninsula.
{time} 2030
So now over the last 50 years, the United States, while in the cold
war, have been providing security and that blanket was a pretty good
size in the Pacific, and it was a pretty good size in Europe. We
provided their security. We grew the economies of Europe. We grew the
economies in the Pacific to the point where they were highly
competitive with the United States, to the point where today a lot of
the electronic components, highly competitive coming at us from the
Pacific Rim. A lot of the Airbus and other things happening in our
competition from the European sector. The United States now finds
itself the sole remaining superpower in the world.
Now, let us talk about our foreign policy for a second, talk about
how it ties into burden sharing. The United States is the sole
remaining superpower. I believe, as a vision of foreign policy, the
United States, what we should have is, the United States should not
engage itself in every little corner of the world and every little hot
spot. We in the United States should engage and encourage our regional
allies to quiet, to enter regional conflicts that have no tendency to
destabilize a region of the world. That is in difference with the
administration. I understand that.
But what this issue and what the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Frank] and the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] are talking about
is asking for our allies to have an increased share of the burden.
Increased share of the burden of what? For security. Not the United
States carrying the big stick always swooping in. So Bosnia comes to
the attention. We are going to debate that here in a few days. We are
asking our European allies for a greater share.
My good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], is
sitting over here. I would love to ask him, Mr. Chairman, if George
Foreman was his bodyguard, would he lift weights? He would not have to.
The United States, we are the George Foreman. These other countries do
not want to have to lift weights so long as we are there providing
their security. They do not want to increase the share of the burden.
Let me extend some compliments. I was with the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. Spence] a few years ago when we were in Norway. We signed
new burden sharing agreements that were negotiated by the ambassador of
burden sharing of the Clinton administration. We were there. They
signed them. It did not make the European allies very happy. But that
is a good thing. That is a good thing, because we want them to increase
their share and their burdens.
I am a little uncomfortable here about the measures and the points
out of this bill about, if they do not, it is going to affect our
agreements. It will affect our memorandums, our letters of
understanding, pretty stressful measures in there. Diplomacy is not
that easy, I would say to my colleagues.
The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] brought up some points about
Korea. What I would like to share about Korea is that next year the new
special measures agreement with regard to Korea will be renegotiated. I
see my good friend sitting right over here knows exactly what I am
talking about. We went ahead and approved some measures for military
construction based upon great needs in Korea. Korea, we find ourselves
very juxtaposed. We are on the brink of war at the same time we are on
the brink of peace. And we have military facilities that meet their
tier one responsibilities under a master plan.
Now we have to ask, if we want to sign off onto a master plan with
Korea, do we want to spend a billion dollars on the Korean Peninsula?
That is a pretty tough question. So what I would ask my colleagues here
who are so strongly concerned about the issue of burden sharing, let us
take a pretty stern look here at this new master plan about military
construction in Korea, over a billion dollars.
Let me jump to the issue about residual value. Think what happened,
what we did in Europe upon the reunification of Germany. When it
happened, do my colleagues know what the State Department did? The
State Department went ahead and negotiated away all of these
facilities.
We spent millions and millions and millions of dollars on
appropriated and nonappropriated facilities. And what did the State
Department do? We did not have a residual value. They negotiated it
right away. Let us not start the very same thing, move into a
multibillion dollar construction program on the Korean Peninsula
without addressing the residual values issues.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding to me. I appreciate the very thoughtful way he has addressed
this.
Let me say, I agree with him and the gentleman from Maryland who
mentioned this. It is a great mistake. I would like to connect two
dots, if I could.
The gentleman said he was generally supportive of this but he was
made uncomfortable by some of the measures. Let me say to him, in an
ideal world, we would not be coming up with this amendment because the
administration would, as a matter of course, be doing everything it
could to get our allies to do it. The problem we have run into, as he
alluded to with Germany, is there has been a bipartisan bias on the
part of administrations, executive branches, State Departments not to
[[Page H4067]]
press any of our allies anywhere, any time, until we got into it. So
the reason, it seems to me, we have to legislate and legislate with
more specificity than would be ideal and to put more pressure on is
precisely the kind of attitude that was evinced by the administration
that negotiated everything away and that I do not think would protect
our interests in South Korea sufficiently unless we intervened.
There is just a constituency problem there, and the State Department
and, to some extent, the Defense Department, have a constituency that
is not concerned with the taxes here, more concerned with making nice
overseas.
And I think that the gentleman has stated it very clearly. I agree
with him. That is why we need to do this.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I say to the gentleman,
we have report language in here that is pretty stern about the issue of
residual value, as we move into the negotiations about the special
measures agreement on the Korean Peninsula. Let us not repeat the
mistakes of Europe. I will work with the gentlemen to make these
corrections as we go to conference.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
The amendment was agreed to.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 169, proceedings will now
resume on those part 1 amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr.
Spence]; amendment No. 3 offered by the gentleman from South Carolina
[Mr. Spence]; and amendment No. 4 offered by the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Harman].
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Spence
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr.
Spence] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 405,
noes 14, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 215]
AYES--405
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Molinari
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--14
Bartlett
Borski
Davis (IL)
Evans
Goodling
Hall (TX)
Jackson (IL)
Kennedy (MA)
McGovern
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Neal
Reyes
Talent
NOT VOTING--15
Ackerman
DeGette
Dreier
Gephardt
Kaptur
Lipinski
Miller (CA)
Oberstar
Pombo
Pomeroy
Schiff
Stark
Taylor (NC)
Torres
Yates
{time} 2059
Messrs. NEAL, TALENT, KENNEDY of Massachusetts, MORAN of Virginia,
DAVIS of Illinois, BARTLETT of Maryland, and HALL of Texas changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
{time} 2100
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 169, the Chair announces
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Spence
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr.
Spence] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
recorded vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 332,
noes 88, not voting 14, as follows:
[[Page H4068]]
[Roll No. 216]
AYES--332
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (IL)
Deal
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doyle
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
Ensign
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fattah
Fawell
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Mink
Molinari
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Salmon
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--88
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bilbray
Blumenauer
Boucher
Brady
Capps
Chabot
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Ehlers
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fazio
Filner
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Green
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hooley
Houghton
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (WI)
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kind (WI)
Levin
Lofgren
Luther
Manzullo
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
Meehan
Minge
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Myrick
Neal
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Paul
Petri
Price (NC)
Ramstad
Rivers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Sabo
Sanchez
Shays
Sherman
Smith (MI)
Smith, Adam
Stabenow
Tauscher
Thomas
Tierney
Vento
Watt (NC)
White
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--14
Ackerman
DeGette
Gephardt
Lipinski
Miller (CA)
Oberstar
Pombo
Pomeroy
Schiff
Stark
Taylor (NC)
Torres
Weygand
Yates
{time} 2110
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Yates for, with Mr. Ackerman against.
Mr. BENTSEN and Mr. MORAN of Virginia changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 216, I was unavoidably
detained and unfortunately did not cast a vote on this issue. Had I
been present to vote I would have voted in the negative.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Harman
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms.
Harman] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 196,
noes 224, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 217]
AYES--196
Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Ford
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Klug
Kolbe
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McInnis
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Molinari
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stokes
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
White
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
NOES--224
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Borski
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
[[Page H4069]]
Ewing
Forbes
Fox
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kildee
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Mica
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Portman
Poshard
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--14
Ackerman
DeGette
Gephardt
Lipinski
McHugh
Miller (CA)
Oberstar
Pombo
Pomeroy
Schiff
Stark
Taylor (NC)
Torres
Yates
{time} 2119
Mr. POSHARD and Mr. SKELTON changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Cooksey) having assumed the chair, Mr. Young of Florida, Chairman of
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
1119) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and for other
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________