[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 60 (Wednesday, May 13, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4823-S4835]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Frist):
  S. 2072. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to enhance 
the global competitiveness of United States businesses by permanently 
extending the research credit, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Finance.


                    research tax credit legislation

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, advanced technologies drive a 
significant part of our nation's economic strength. Our economy and our 
wonderful standard of living depend on a constant influx of new 
technologies, processes, and products from our industries.
  Many countries can provide labor at lower costs than the United 
States. As any new product matures, competitors using overseas labor 
can frequently find a way to undercut our production prices. We 
maintain our lead by constantly improving our products through 
encouragement of innovation.
  The majority of new products require industrial research and 
development to reach the market stage. I want to encourage that 
research and development to create new products to ensure that our 
factories stay busy and that our workforce stays fully employed at high 
salaried jobs. I want more of our large multi-national companies to 
select the United States as the location for their R&D. R&D done here 
creates American jobs. And frequently the benefits of R&D in one area 
apply in another area; I want those spin-off benefits in this country, 
too.
  The federal government has used the Research Tax Credit to encourage 
companies to perform research. But many studies document that the 
present form of this Tax Credit is not providing as much stimulation to 
industrial R&D as it could. Today, I introduce legislation to improve 
the Research Tax Credit.
  The single most important change I'm proposing in the Research Tax 
Credit is to make it permanent. The credit has never been permanent, 
since Congress created it in 1981. Many studies point out that the 
temporary nature of the Credit has prevented companies from building 
careful research strategies. A recent study by Coopers and Lybrand 
claimed a $41 billion stimulus for the economy by 2010, with $13 
billion added to the economy's productive capacity by 2010. Many of my 
Senate colleagues have endorsed legislation that includes this critical 
action, more than twenty at last count.
  My legislative proposal goes further. The current Credit references a 
company's research intensity back to their level in the 1984-88 time 
period. That time period is too outdated to meet today's dynamic market 
conditions. Many companies now are operating in dramatically different 
markets, many with totally new product lines. My legislation allows a 
company to choose a four year period in the last ten years that best 
matches their own needs. This allows companies to tailor and optimize 
research strategies to match current market conditions.
  The current approach has a provision that severely restricts the 
ability of many start-up companies to benefit from the full impact of 
the Credit. Recent analysis shows that 5 out of 6 start-up companies 
receive reduced benefits because of a provision that limits their 
allowable increase in research expenditures to half of their current 
expenditures. I'm concerned when start-up companies aren't receiving 
full benefit from this Credit. These are just the companies that tend 
to drive the innovative cycle in this country, they are the ones that 
frequently bring out the newest leading-edge products. My legislation 
allows start up companies for their first ten years to take full credit 
for their increases in research costs.
  My legislation addresses several other shortcomings in the current 
Credit. Now there is a Basic Research Credit'' allowed, but rarely 
used. It is defined to include only research with ``no commercial 
interest.'' Now, I don't know too many companies that want to support--
much less admit to their stockholders that they are supporting--
research with no commercial interest. The idea of this clause was to 
encourage support of long term research; the kind that benefits far 
more than just the next product improvement. This is the kind of 
research that can enable a whole new product or service. We need to 
encourage this long term research. My legislation adds an incentive for 
this type of research by including any research that is done for a 
consortium of U.S. companies or any research that is destined for open 
literature publication. These two additions will include a lot more 
long term research that has future product applications. I've also 
allowed this credit to apply to research done in national labs, so 
companies can select the best source of research for any particular 
project.
  And finally my legislation recognizes the importance of encouraging 
companies to use research capabilities wherever they exist in the 
country, whether

[[Page S4824]]

in other businesses, universities, or national labs. The current credit 
disallows 35% of all expenses invested in research performed under an 
external contract--my legislation allows all such expenses to apply 
towards the Credit. This should encourage creation of partnerships, 
where different partners can leverage their individual strengths. These 
partnerships enable our companies to perform research more efficiently, 
that can further strengthen our economy.
  In summary, Mr. President, this proposed Bill significantly 
strengthens incentives for private companies to undertake search that 
leads to new processes, new services, and new products. The result is 
stronger companies that are better positioned for global competition. 
Those stronger companies will hire more people at higher salaries with 
real benefits to our national economy and workforce.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. DeWine, and Mr. Allard):
  S. 2073. A bill to authorize appropriations for the National Center 
for Missing and Exploited Children; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


         the national center for missing and exploited children

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the National 
Center for Missing and Exploited Children Authorization Act of 1998. 
This bill recognizes the outstanding record of achievements of this 
outstanding organization and will enable NCMEC to provide even greater 
protection of our Nation's children in the future.
  As part of the Missing Children's Assistance Act, the Office of 
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has selected and given 
grants to the Center for the last 14 years to operate a national 
resource center located in Arlington, Virginia and a national 24-hour 
toll-free telephone line. The Center provides invaluable assistance and 
training to law enforcement around the country in cases of missing and 
exploited children. The Center's record is quite impressive, and its 
efforts have led directly to a significant increase in the percentage 
of missing children who are recovered safely.
  In fiscal year 1998, the Center received an earmark of $6.9 million 
in the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations 
conference report. In addition, the Center's Jimmy Ryce Training Center 
received 1.185M in this report.
  This legislation directs OJJDP to make a grant to the Center and 
authorizes appropriations up to $10 million in fiscal years 1999 
through 2003. The authorization would, of course, be subject to 
appropriations. The bill thus continues and formalizes NCMEC's long 
partnership with the Justice Department and OJJDP.
  NCMEC's exemplary record of performance and success, as demonstrated 
by the fact that NCMEC's recovery rate has climbed from 62% to 91%, 
justifies action by Congress to formally recognize it as the nation's 
official missing and exploited children's center, and to authorize a 
line-item appropriation. This bill will enable the Center to focus 
completely on its missions, without expending the annual effort to 
obtain authority and grants from OJJDP. It also will allow the Center 
to expand its longer-term arrangements with domestic and foreign law 
enforcement entities. By providing an authorization, the bill also will 
allow for better congressional oversight of the Center.
  The record of the Center, described briefly below, demonstrates the 
appropriateness of this authorization.
  For fourteen years the Center has served as the national resource 
center and clearinghouse mandated by the Missing Children's Assistance 
Act. The Center has worked in partnership with the Department of 
Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of 
Treasury, the State Department, and many other federal and state 
agencies in the effort to find missing children and prevent child 
victimization.
  The trust the federal government has placed in NCMEC, a private, non-
profit corporation, is evidenced by its unique access to the FBI's 
National Crime Information Center, and the National Law Enforcement 
Telecommunications System (NLETS).
  NCMEC has utilized the latest in technology, such as operating the 
National Child Pornography Tipline, establishing its new Internet 
website, www.missingkids.com, which is linked with hundreds of other 
websites to provide real-time images of breaking cases of missing 
children, and, beginning this year, establishing a new CyberTipline on 
child exploitation.
  NCMEC has established a national and increasingly worldwide network, 
linking NCMEC online with each of the missing children clearinghouses 
operated by the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. In 
addition, NCMEC works constantly with international law enforcement 
authorities such as Scotland Yard in the United Kingdom, the Royal 
Canadian Mounted Police, INTERPOL headquarters in Lyon, France, and 
others. This network enables NCMEC to transmit images and information 
regarding missing children to law enforcement across America and around 
the world instantly. NCMEC also serves as the U.S. State Department's 
representative at child abduction cases under the Hague Convention.
  The record of NCMEC is demonstrated by the 1,203,974 calls received 
at its 24-hour toll-free hotline, 1(800)THE LOST, the 146,284 law 
enforcement, criminal/juvenile justice, and healthcare professionals 
trained, the 15,491,344 free publications distributed, and, most 
importantly, by its work on 59,481 cases of missing children, which has 
resulted in the recovery of 40,180 children.
  NCMEC is a shining example of the type of public-private partnership 
the Congress should encourage and recognize. I urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation, which would help improve the performance of 
the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and thus the 
safety of our Nation's children.
  I ask for unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2073

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

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) For 14 years, the National Center for Missing and 
     Exploited Children (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Center'') has--
       (A) served as the national resource center and 
     clearinghouse congressionally mandated under the provisions 
     of the Missing Children's Assistance Act of 1984; and
       (B) worked in partnership with the Department of Justice, 
     the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of the 
     Treasury, the Department of State, and many other agencies in 
     the effort to find missing children and prevent child 
     victimization.
       (2) Congress has given the Center, which is a private non-
     profit corporation, unique powers and resources, such as 
     having access to the National Crime Information Center of the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the National Law 
     Enforcement Telecommunications System.
       (3) Since 1987, the Center has operated the National Child 
     Pornography Tipline, in conjunction with the United States 
     Customs Service and the United States Postal Inspection 
     Service and, beginning this year, the Center established a 
     new CyberTipline on child exploitation, thus becoming ``the 
     911 for the Internet''.
       (4) In light of statistics that time is of the essence in 
     cases of child abduction, the Director of the Federal Bureau 
     of Investigation in February of 1997 created a new NCIC child 
     abduction (``CA'') flag to provide the Center immediate 
     notification in the most serious cases, resulting in 642 
     ``CA'' notifications to the Center and helping the Center to 
     have its highest recovery rate in history.
       (5) The Center has established a national and increasingly 
     worldwide network, linking the Center online with each of the 
     missing children clearinghouses operated by the 50 States, 
     the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, as well as with 
     Scotland Yard in the United Kingdom, the Royal Canadian 
     Mounted Police, INTERPOL headquarters in Lyon, France, and 
     others, which has enabled the Center to transmit images and 
     information regarding missing children to law enforcement 
     across the United States and around the world instantly.
       (6) From its inception in 1984 through March 31, 1998, the 
     Center has--
       (A) handled 1,203,974 calls through its 24-hour toll-free 
     hotline (1-800-THE-LOST) and currently averages 700 calls per 
     day;
       (B) trained 146,284 law enforcement, criminal and juvenile 
     justice, and healthcare professionals in child sexual 
     exploitation and missing child case detection, 
     identification, investigation, and prevention;
       (C) disseminated 15,491,344 free publications to citizens 
     and professionals; and
       (D) worked with law enforcement on the cases of 59,481 
     missing children, resulting in the recovery of 40,180 
     children.

[[Page S4825]]

       (7) The demand for the services of the Center is growing 
     dramatically, as evidenced by the fact that in 1997, the 
     Center handled 129,100 calls, an all-time record, and by the 
     fact that its new Internet website (www.missingkids.com) 
     receives 1,500,000 ``hits'' every day, and is linked with 
     hundreds of other websites to provide real-time images of 
     breaking cases of missing children, helping to cause such 
     results as a police officer in Puerto Rico searching the 
     Center's website and working with the Center to identify and 
     recover a child abducted as an infant from her home in San 
     Diego, California, 7 years earlier.
       (8) In 1997, the Center provided policy training to 256 
     police chiefs and sheriffs from 50 States and Guam at its new 
     Jimmy Ryce Law Enforcement Training Center.
       (9) The programs of the Center have had a remarkable 
     impact, such as in the fight against infant abductions in 
     partnership with the healthcare industry, during which the 
     Center has performed 668 onsite hospital walk-throughs and 
     inspections, and trained 45,065 hospital administrators, 
     nurses, and security personnel, and thereby helped to reduce 
     infant abductions in the United States by 82 percent.
       (10) The Center is now playing a leading role in 
     international child abduction cases, serving as a 
     representative of the Department of State at cases under The 
     Hague Convention, and successfully resolving the cases of 343 
     international child abductions, and providing greater support 
     to parents in the United States.
       (11) The Center is a model of public/private partnership, 
     raising private sector funds to match congressional 
     appropriations and receiving extensive private in-kind 
     support, including advanced technology provided by the 
     computer industry such as imaging technology used to age the 
     photographs of long-term missing children and to reconstruct 
     facial images of unidentified deceased children.
       (12) The Center was 1 of only 10 of 300 major national 
     charities given an A+ grade in 1997 by the American Institute 
     of Philanthropy.
       (13) In light of its impressive history, the Center has 
     been redesignated as the Nation's missing children 
     clearinghouse and resource center once every 3 years through 
     a competitive selection process conducted by the Office of 
     Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the Department 
     of Justice, and has received grants from that Office to 
     conduct the crucial purposes of the Center.
       (14) An official congressional authorization will increase 
     the level of scrutiny and oversight by Congress and continue 
     the Center's long partnership with the Department of Justice 
     and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
     of the Department of Justice.
       (15) The exemplary record of performance and success of the 
     Center, as exemplified by the fact that the Center's recovery 
     rate has climbed from 62 to 91 percent, justifies action by 
     Congress to formally recognize the National Center for 
     Missing and Exploited Children as the Nation's official 
     missing and exploited children's center, and to authorize a 
     line-item appropriation for the National Center for Missing 
     and Exploited Children in the Federal budget.

     SEC. 2. NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN.

       (a) Grants.--The Administrator of the Office of Juvenile 
     Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the Department of 
     Justice shall annually make a grant to the National Center 
     for Missing and Exploited Children, which shall be used to--
       (1) operate the official national resource center and 
     information clearinghouse for missing and exploited children;
       (2) provide to State and local governments, public and 
     private nonprofit agencies, and individuals, information 
     regarding--
       (A) free or low-cost legal, restaurant, lodging, and 
     transportation services that are available for the benefit of 
     missing and exploited children and their families; and
       (B) the existence and nature of programs being carried out 
     by Federal agencies to assist missing and exploited children 
     and their families;
       (3) coordinate public and private programs that locate, 
     recover, or reunite missing children with their families;
       (4) disseminate, on a national basis, information relating 
     to innovative and model programs, services, and legislation 
     that benefit missing and exploited children;
       (5) provide technical assistance and training to law 
     enforcement agencies, State, and local governments, elements 
     of the criminal justice system, public and private nonprofit 
     agencies, and individuals in the prevention, investigation, 
     prosecution, and treatment of cases involving missing and 
     exploited children; and
       (6) provide assistance to families and law enforcement 
     agencies in locating and recovering missing and exploited 
     children, both nationally and internationally.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Administrator to carry out this 
     section, $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999, 2000, 
     2001, 2002, and 2003.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WELLSTONE:
  S. 2074: A bill to guarantee for all Americans, quality, affordable, 
and comprehensive health care coverage; to the Committee on Finance.


                         healthy americans act

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I introduce the Healthy Americans 
Act. Colleagues will be hearing more about it because there will be 
amendments that I will offer on this subject here on the floor of the 
Senate; and with every bit of ability I have as a Senator, I will push 
this piece of legislation here and talk about it in my State of 
Minnesota and around the country.
  The Healthy Americans Act insures the uninsured; guarantees 
affordable, comprehensive insurance for all, and ensures quality health 
care through its patient protection provisions.
  Let me start out by providing some context, Mr. President. I have two 
charts beside me to demonstrate my points. In 1987, we had about 32 
million Americans who were uninsured. Today, as you can see from this 
graph beside me, we are up to close to 45 million Americans who are 
uninsured. Mr. President, since we debated the subject of universal 
health care coverage several years ago, a debate both of us were very 
involved in, we have had about a million more people a year who have 
been dropped from coverage.
  Assuming the same economic growth with no economic downturn, which is 
a very rosy assumption, we will continue to see this same kind of a 
profile where we will get up pretty close to 48 million Americans by 
the year 2005 who will have no health insurance coverage.
  So this is still a crisis for many Americans, and this is an issue 
that walks into the living rooms of many families and stares them in 
the face.
  The second chart shows the actual percent of annual family income, on 
average, that goes to premiums and out-of-pocket payments in the form 
of deductibles, copays or other amounts of money that people have to 
spend on health care. It is, I think, very important to look at this.
  First, what you see is that at the bottom end of the income ladder, 
families with annual incomes of $30,000 or less are spending an 
inordinate, and I would say unaffordable, percent of their income for 
their health care. If you look at families with incomes between $10,000 
and $20,000, you can see they are spending on average 8 percent of 
their income on health care expenses. Then when you look at families 
with incomes under $10,000, you can see that the average family is 
paying well over 20 percent of their annual income, and these are the 
people who can least afford to make that kind of payment.
  Next, you can see that for families with annual incomes of $30,000 or 
more, the average amount of that income spent on premiums, deductibles 
and copays drops to below 5 percent on average--I would say a more 
affordable amount. But don't forget these are just averages. Many 
families at every income level are spending more than 10 percent of 
their family income on health care, especially if someone in the family 
has a serious illness. That is not affordable. That is not fair.
  Now if we look back at the same chart we can see what would happen 
under the Healthy Americans Act. All Americans would pay what they can 
afford--people should pay what they can afford--but it will be well 
within their means. For those hardest-pressed families, people would 
pay no more than \1/2\ percent of their income. Those with higher 
incomes would pay no more than 3 or 5 percent; and no family, including 
those with at the highest income levels, would pay above 7 percent of 
their annual income for health care.
  So, Mr. President, as you can see, these two charts demonstrate the 
need to provide coverage for the uninsured and to make health care 
coverage affordable for all.
  The Healthy Americans Act does just that. First of all, it covers the 
uninsured, which I think is the first and most important thing to do. 
It builds, I say to my colleague from Indiana, on existing State 
programs. This is universal coverage with maximum flexibility. In 
addition to covering the uninsured, many of them moderate-income and 
low-income citizens, we are going to make sure that health care 
coverage is affordable for all citizens.
  In other words, we are going to have family protection. So, first, we 
cover the uninsured. Then we have family protection, and we say no 
family pays more than 7 percent of family income on health care, and it 
goes from about

[[Page S4826]]

0.5 percent to 7 percent depending on income. We include Medicare 
recipients as well. The income profile of elderly people is not that 
high and they need income protection, too.
  So, again, first, we cover the uninsured, expanding existing 
programs; second, we have protection for family income; third, we make 
sure there is a good package of benefits comparable to what we have 
here in the Congress; fourth of all, we have strong consumer 
protections, strong patient protections, something we have been talking 
about every day; fifth of all, we expand coverage to include some 
needed benefits that are long overdue.

  In Minnesota, and around the country--it could very well be the case 
in Indiana, Mr. President--a lot of elderly people are paying well over 
30 percent of their monthly income just on prescription drug costs. We 
cover prescription drug costs and add that benefit to Medicare. We have 
good, strong mental health parity, and substance abuse coverage as 
well. And this is, I think, really important.
  The way all of this comes together for the States is to have a 
maximum amount of flexibility. And what we are essentially saying to 
States is, ``Look, here is what we decided in the Senate. We are going 
to make sure the uninsured are covered. That is phase one. The second 
thing, we are going to make sure there is protection of family income. 
The third thing is we are going to make sure there is a good package of 
benefits, at least as good as what we have in the Congress. The fourth 
thing that we are going to do is make sure there is good, strong 
patient protection. If you agree to that, States, there will be Federal 
money that will go to you on a, roughly speaking, 70-30 matching basis. 
And you decide how you want to do it. In other words, the funds are 
there for you to use if you agree to lay out a plan for universal, 
affordable, comprehensive health care and follow it over the next 4 
years. This is a good strategy for going into the next century; it is a 
good strategy for reaching universal coverage in our country.'' We are 
offering the States a carrot; not a stick.
  No State has to do it. There is maximum flexibility. I say to my 
colleague from Indiana--we are friends even though we do not always 
agree on issues--we will not have this ideological debate about single 
payer or ``pay or play'' and all these other things that people do not 
understand. This piece of legislation, the Healthy Americans Act, 
leaves it up to the States.
  This legislation says to Minnesota, let us expand. We are already 
above 90 percent on the number insured in my State. Let us expand the 
coverage for these people who still have no insurance. Let us have some 
protection of family income, a very big issue for a lot of people who 
are covered but they are paying way more than they can afford, 
especially when you include the deductibles and copays and the 
premiums.
  What we are saying to Minnesota or Indiana or California or New York: 
Let us cover the uninsured. We can build on what you are already doing 
with the State Children's Health Insurance Plan, by expanding it to 
adults and more children. Let us make sure there is family income 
protection. Let us make sure there is patient protection and a good 
package of benefits that is comprehensive. And you decide how you want 
to do it. You decide how you want to do it in Indiana. You decide how 
you want to do it in Minnesota or California or New York or North 
Carolina or Florida or New Hampshire or Iowa--you name it. You decide 
how you want to do it.
  But the point is, if a State wants to participate--and I think most 
States will be very interested in participating in this piece of 
legislation--then there will be Federal grant money that will come on, 
roughly speaking, a 70-30 matching basis.
  Mr. President, I would like to talk a little bit about the cost of 
this, because I do not want to introduce a piece of legislation and 
treat people in the United States of America as if they do not have 
intelligence. If we think something is important, then we invest in it. 
This piece of legislation, as we have costed it out and done our 
actuarial estimates, goes like this: In the first year--we are just 
trying to cover the uninsured--it will be $42 billion; year two, it 
gets up to $48 billion; year three, $62 billion; years four and five--
when we include both coverage for the uninsured and now also providing 
the family income protection, it gets up to $85 billion, and then, $98 
billion.

  You would add an additional, roughly speaking, $26 billion to $39 
billion to that estimate in the last 2 years if you are going to cover 
Medicare recipients, making sure they do not pay more than 7 percent of 
annual income for health care coverage and making sure that 
prescription drug costs are covered. Now, I say to colleagues, the 
maximum gets to be above $100 billion--we have estimated this to be 
$137 billion at the very end of this 5 year period.
  How do we pay for this? I will tell you. We have hundreds of billions 
of dollars of what many of us have called corporate welfare, a variety 
of different deductions and tax breaks, many of which I do not believe 
are necessary. In addition, we have some military weaponry that I think 
there is a very legitimate debate as to whether or not we need to be 
spending money on some of these items. And in addition, we take a look 
at some of the domestic programs that I think people can call into 
question as to whether or not they are essential.
  But, Mr. President, my point is that we offset the expenditure. We 
are not talking about taxpayers paying any more money. But what we are 
saying is that this is a worthwhile investment. We have a GDP of over 
$8 trillion, we have an economy at its peak performance, and we are 
being told that we cannot have universal health care coverage in the 
United States of America? We are being told that we cannot afford to 
make sure that every man, woman, and child has decent coverage? That 
there cannot be some protection of family income? That the uninsured 
can't be insured? That elderly people aren't able to get the care they 
need? That some patient protection for the people isn't possible? That 
is not acceptable. Of course it is possible. Of course we can do this. 
Of course we can do better as a nation. And that is what this piece of 
legislation says, Mr. President.
  I just say to colleagues again that I have been disappointed that we 
have put this issue of universal coverage off the table. It should be 
put back on the table. I have had so many conversations with people in 
Minnesota, poignant conversations--it happens in other parts of the 
country, too--which are about health care. I will just give but one 
example. I think I may have given it one time before on the floor. But, 
after all, the legislation we introduce is all about people's lives. 
Why else should we be here? It is all about, hopefully, improving 
people's lives.
  I will never forget a discussion with a woman whose husband I had met 
a year earlier. When I met him a year earlier, he was in bad shape. He 
is a young man, maybe 40 at most, a railroad worker struggling with 
cancer. And then I met her a year later out at a farm gathering, and 
she came up to me and she said, ``I want you to come over and meet my 
husband again, Senator'' or ``Paul.'' ``He's a real fighter. The doctor 
said he only had 3 months to live, but it's a year later and he's still 
struggling. He's now in a wheelchair.'' And so we talked.
  Then she took me aside, and she said, ``Every day is a living hell. 
Every day I'm battling with these companies to find out what they're 
going to cover.''
  I do not think any American with a loved one who is struggling with 
an illness or a sickness should have to worry about whether or not 
there is going to be decent coverage. I think that is unacceptable. I 
think we can do better in America. I think it is time again to talk 
about humane, affordable, dignified health care for every man, woman, 
and child. That is what this Healthy Americans Act does.
  I love ideas. I am really interested in policy. I am proud of the 
people who have helped me on this legislation: Dr. John Gilman in my 
office; Rick Brown, who is with the UCLA School of Public Health; 
Doctors Nicole Lurie and Steve Miles from Minnesota.
  I like the fact that the Healthy Americans Act is a decentralized 
plan. I like that. I like the fact that it is simple. I like the fact 
that it gives States a lot of leeway, so different States can try 
different approaches, and we can see what works best.
  But we do have here, colleagues, a commitment as a nation to make 
sure

[[Page S4827]]

those people who are uninsured have health insurance, to make sure 
families do not go broke and are able to afford health insurance, to 
make sure it is a package of benefits as good as what we have. 
Shouldn't the people we represent have as good health care coverage as 
Members of the Congress have, and shouldn't they be guaranteed strong 
patient protections?
  I think this is, in my not so humble opinion, an excellent piece of 
legislation. I think it is going to take a real battle to get it 
passed. But I will bring amendments out on the floor. I will do 
everything I can as a U.S. Senator to bring this to people in the 
country. I am absolutely convinced that this is one of the most 
important things we can do as a Senate to respond to a very real issue 
that affects the lives of so many people we represent.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ASHCROFT (for himself and Mr. McConnell)
  S. 2075. A bill to provide for expedited review of executive 
privilege claims and to improve efficiency of independent counsel 
investigations; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                    executive privilege legislation

  S. 2076. A bill to provide reporting requirements for the assertion 
of executive privilege, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


                the executive accountability act of 1998

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today in order to introduce two 
bills designed to address the abuse and misuse of executive privilege 
by the President, the Executive Accountability Act of 1998 and a 
companion bill designed to expedite appeals of executive privilege 
claims asserted in independent counsel investigations. I want to thank 
Senator McConnell who has joined me as a co-sponsor of both these 
measures.
  Executive privilege is just that--a privilege extended to the 
President, and the President alone, to be invoked in those rare 
circumstances in which the President must keep discussions about 
official acts secret from the courts, Congress and the American people 
in order to protect national security.
  This President has abused this privilege. He has used it as a 
delaying tactic to try to shield the details of unofficial acts having 
nothing to do with national security, but everything to do with Mr. 
Clinton's personal legal problems. As I detailed in a letter to my 
colleagues back in March, the President's current claim of executive 
privilege is legally baseless. I would ask that that letter be included 
in the record.
  Part and parcel of the President's abuse of executive privilege is 
his unwillingness to acknowledge the mere fact that he has asserted the 
privilege. Indeed, the President's lawyers recently have attacked the 
Independent Counsel's office for acknowledging the Court's entirely 
predictable rejection of the President's assertion of executive 
privilege. Apparently, the President wants to be able to assert the 
privilege and have a court rule on it, all without the knowledge of 
Congress or the American people.
  This is an affront to Congress and the public. Congress has a vital 
interest in the development of the law of executive privilege. Until 
this Administration, grand jury investigations into presidential 
communications were rare. Congressional oversight hearings, by 
contrast, are commonplace. But Congress will have to live with whatever 
rules the courts develop concerning the scope of executive privilege. 
Without notice that the President is raising these claims, Congress 
cannot protect its interests by filing amicus briefs.

  The President's covert assertion of executive privilege is of concern 
not just to Congress but to every citizen. Although a limited executive 
privilege is necessary to protect national security, the privilege is 
contrary to the public's right to know. As a consequence, asserting the 
privilege has historically come with a political cost. President 
Clinton has tried to enjoy the benefits of the privilege while avoiding 
these costs. We should ensure that if a President takes the 
extraordinary step of asserting executive privilege that he not be able 
to keep that action from the American people.
  The Executive Accountability Act of 1998 addresses the problem of the 
covert use of executive privilege through the simple expedient of 
requiring full disclosure. If the President decides to invoke the 
privilege in court, both the President and the presiding judge must 
disclose that fact to Congress. If the court rules on a claim of 
executive privilege, the court must inform Congress. If the President 
decides to appeal an adverse ruling on a claim of executive privilege, 
he must also disclose that fact to Congress. If the Attorney General 
provides a written opinion concerning the validity of the privilege, 
that too should be shared with the Congress. Finally, the Act confirms 
that any Member of Congress has the capacity to file an amicus brief in 
any judicial proceeding in which the President asserts executive 
privilege. The legislation also builds in protections to ensure that 
none of these disclosures endangers national security.
  I am also introducing a companion bill to address the President's 
misuse of executive privilege as a delaying tactic to try to run out 
the clock on the Independent Counsel's investigation. The bill would 
provide for expedited review of such claims and for a direct appeal to 
the Supreme Court. Hopefully, this provision will remove the temptation 
to use executive privilege claims as delaying tactics, and will force 
the President to think twice before asserting a spurious claim of 
privilege.
  When properly confined to official acts affecting national security, 
executive privilege serves an important function. But when abused as a 
delaying tactic or to protect unofficial acts, the privilege in its 
distorted form becomes an unacceptable impediment to the public's right 
to know. These two bills impose accountability requirements on the 
executive to ensure that the privilege is used in an appropriate way. 
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2075

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

     SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28.

       Section 594 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(m) Judicial Review of Executive Privilege Claims.--
       ``(1) Expedited consideration.--It shall be the duty of a 
     district court of the United States and the Supreme Court of 
     the United States to advance on the docket and to expedite to 
     the maximum extent practicable the disposition of any claim 
     asserting executive privilege in any investigation authorized 
     pursuant to this chapter.
       ``(2) Appeal to supreme court.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, any order of a district court of the United 
     States disposing of a claim asserting executive privilege in 
     any investigation authorized pursuant to this chapter shall 
     be reviewable by appeal directly to the Supreme Court of the 
     United States. Any such appeal shall be taken by a notice of 
     appeal filed within 10 calendar days after such order is 
     entered and the jurisdictional statement shall be filed 
     within 30 calendar days after such order is entered. No stay 
     of an order described in this subsection shall be issued by a 
     single Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.''.

     SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Section 594(m) of title 28, United States Code (as added by 
     section 1 of this Act), applies to any claim of executive 
     privilege asserted on or after January 1, 1998, except that, 
     for purposes of an order described in section 594(m)(1) of 
     title 28, United States Code (as added by section 1 of this 
     Act), entered before the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     time periods for appeal provided in section 594(m)(2) of that 
     title 28, United States Code (as added by section 1 of this 
     Act), shall begin running on the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
                                  ____


                                S. 2076

       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 ``Executive Accountability Act 
     of 1998''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Grand jury investigations into Presidential 
     communications have been, to date, extraordinary and rare 
     occurrences, and hopefully, will remain that way. 
     Congressional oversight hearings, by contrast, are 
     commonplace.
       (2) If judicial decisions permit presidential aides to 
     withhold crucial information from a grand jury investigating 
     criminal misconduct, congressional inquiries will be stymied 
     by similar claims of executive privilege.
       (3) For these reasons, the proper scope of executive 
     privilege is of concern to every

[[Page S4828]]

     Member of Congress, and every Member of Congress has an 
     interest in being notified of assertions of executive 
     privilege by the President and in having the opportunity to 
     file amicus briefs in appropriate cases.
       (4) In the context of the current litigation before Judge 
     Norma Holloway Johnson, the President failed to acknowledge 
     publicly that he asserted executive privilege to shield 
     information from the grand jury.
       (5) Indeed, lawyers for the President have protested that 
     the outcome of Judge Johnson's order rejecting the 
     President's claim of executive privilege became public.
       (6) As a consequence, Members of Congress have not had a 
     proper basis to decide whether to file amicus briefs 
     apprising the court of the unique interests and views of 
     Congress with respect to executive privilege.

     SEC. 3. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Initial Report.--Whenever the President asserts 
     executive privilege in a judicial action or proceeding, the 
     President shall promptly report to Congress and provide an 
     explanation of the reasons for such assertion in such detail 
     as is consistent with national security.
       (b) Report by Presiding Judge of Assertion.--Whenever, in a 
     judicial action or proceeding, the President asserts 
     executive privilege, it shall be the duty of the presiding 
     judicial officer in that action or proceeding promptly to 
     report the assertion to Congress.
       (c) Report by Presiding Judge of Disposition.--Whenever in 
     a judicial action or proceeding, the President asserts 
     executive privilege, it shall be the duty of the presiding 
     judicial officer in that action or proceeding promptly to 
     report to Congress any order or ruling disposing of that 
     claim and provide an explanation of the reasons for such 
     disposition in such detail as is consistent with national 
     security.
       (d) Amicus Briefs.--Any Member of either House of Congress 
     shall have the right to file an amicus brief, regarding an 
     assertion of executive privilege by the President, in any 
     judicial action or proceeding in which that assertion is 
     made.
       (e) Report Concerning Decision To Appeal.--Whenever the 
     President decides to appeal an adverse disposition of a claim 
     of executive privilege or to file a petition for certiorari 
     in response to such adverse disposition, the President shall 
     promptly report the decision to Congress.
       (f) Additional Requirement.--Whenever the President asserts 
     executive privilege in any forum, the President shall forward 
     to Congress any written legal opinion regarding the 
     lawfulness of the assertion redacted as is consistent with 
     national security.
       (g) Report to Congress.--For purposes of this Act, 
     providing notice or a report to the Senate Majority and 
     Minority Leaders and the Speaker of the House and House 
     Minority Leader shall constitute notice to Congress.
                                  ____

       Dear Colleague: The newspapers and talk shows have been 
     filled for the past few weeks with discussion of executive 
     privilege. First, there were reports of the President's 
     decision to invoke the privilege to prevent several of his 
     aides from testifying before the grand jury. Now it has been 
     reported that the President has argued that his executive 
     privilege extends to discussions between presidential aides 
     and the First Lady. Many commentators appear to assume that 
     executive privilege applies to these communications and have 
     focused on the prudence of the President's decision to invoke 
     the privilege in light of the parallels to Watergate. I will 
     leave that question for the pundits. The more pressing 
     question for the Congress is whether executive privilege has 
     any application at all to this situation.
       Grand jury investigations into Presidential communications 
     are extraordinary and rare occurrences, and hopefully, will 
     remain that way. Congressional oversight hearings, by 
     contrast, are commonplace. If the President's aides are 
     permitted to withhold crucial information from a grand jury 
     investigating criminal misconduct, we can rest assured that 
     congressional inquiries will be stymied by similar claims of 
     executive privilege. For this reason, the proper scope of 
     executive privilege is of concern to every member of 
     Congress.
       As Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, I have 
     inquired into the law of executive privilege as developed by 
     the courts. Although for years the body of caselaw did not 
     extend much beyond Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in the 
     criminal trial of Aaron Burr, a number of decisions in the 
     last quarter century have clarified the relatively modest 
     scope of executive privilege. A number of critical principles 
     emerge from these cases.
       Executive privilege extends only to communications made in 
     relation to official responsibilities. The privilege does not 
     cover unofficial acts. ``[The privilege is] limited to 
     communications in performance of [a President's] 
     responsibilities of his office and made in the process of 
     shaping policies and making decisions.'' Nixon v. 
     Administrator of the GSA, 433 U.S. 425, 449 (1977); see also 
     United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 715 (1974).
       Even if executive privilege applies to a communication, it 
     generally does not prevent disclosure to a grand jury. ``The 
     generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the 
     demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending 
     criminal trial.'' United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 713 
     (1974).
       The sole exception is for communications concerning 
     national security. The Court in United States v. Nixon 
     indicated that the scope of any absolute executive privilege 
     would be limited to ``military or diplomatic secrets.'' 418 
     U.S. at 710. Outside this context, even a valid claim of 
     executive privilege cannot keep presidential communications 
     from the grand jury as long as the conversations are 
     ``preliminarily shown to have some bearing on the pending 
     criminal cases.'' Id. at 713.
       I hope you find this summary helpful. For my part, these 
     well-established principles lead me to believe that the 
     President is on tenuous legal ground in asserting executive 
     privilege. In order for his claim to prevail, he first would 
     have to show that the discussions he had with aides 
     concerning how to respond to allegations of sexual misconduct 
     in his private life qualify as official government acts. I 
     sincerely doubt he could make such a showing, especially in 
     light of his asserted ability to compartmentalize his private 
     life from the affairs of state.
       However, even if he made such a showing, the President 
     would still need either to demonstrate that the 
     communications concerned ``military or diplomatic secrets,'' 
     or to convince a court that the information is neither 
     necessary nor relevant to the grand jury's investigation. The 
     President seems unlikely to prevail on either issue. Although 
     there is some dispute as to the exact nature of the 
     demonstration of relevance or need that the prosecutor must 
     make, even the most demanding opinion on the subject states 
     that the prosecution ``will be able easily to explain'' why 
     it should have access to privileged presidential 
     communications when the President and his close aids are the 
     subject of the criminal investigation. See In re Sealed Case, 
     121 F.3d 729, 755 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
       In the end, it seems quite likely that the President's 
     claim of executive privilege will share the fate of this 
     administration's other novel theories of privilege, which 
     caused delay, but ultimately were rejected by the courts. 
     First, the President asserted a novel immunity from civil 
     suit that, in his view, extended even to cases of private 
     misconduct occurring before he took the presidential oath of 
     office. The Supreme Court rejected that claim 9-0. See 
     Clinton v. Jones, 117 S. Ct. 1636 (1997). Then the 
     administration asserted a novel theory of government 
     attorney-client privilege, which would treat taxpayer-
     financed government attorneys just like private attorneys for 
     purposes of the attorney-client privilege. The Eighth Circuit 
     Court of Appeals rejected that argument, concluding that 
     allowing the White House ``to use its in-house attorneys as a 
     shield against the production of information relevant to a 
     federal criminal investigation would represent a gross misuse 
     of public assets.'' In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 
     112 F.3d 910, 921 (8th Cir. 1997). The Supreme Court declined 
     to review that decision. See 117 S. Ct. 2482 (1997). Now we 
     have novel claims of executive privilege, a privilege 
     extending to communications with the First Lady, and a secret 
     service privilege.
       The President's current claim of executive privilege 
     appears to be foreclosed by well-established limits on the 
     privilege and calculated more for delay than anything else. 
     However, we are not privy to all the information that is at 
     the President's disposal. Future developments may strengthen 
     or weaken the President's assertion of privilege or make it 
     clear that the assertion implicates issues that have not yet 
     reached the Supreme Court, such as whether the privilege 
     applies to anyone other than the President.
       In the event such novel issues arise, the Constitution 
     Subcommittee may hold hearings in an effort to clarify the 
     proper scope of executive privilege. I continue to believe 
     that the Senate has a critical responsibility to ensure that 
     the doctrine of executive privilege does not become distorted 
     in a manner that will interfere with congressional oversight 
     long after the current scandals subside.
           Sincerely,
     John Ashcroft,
       Chairman, U.S. Senate Judiciary, Subcommittee on the 
     Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FORD (for himself, Mr. Bond, Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 2077. A bill to maximize the national security of the United 
States and minimize the cost by providing for increased use of the 
capabilities of the National Guard and other reserve components of the 
United States; to improve the readiness of the reserve components; to 
ensure that adequate resources are provided for the reserve components; 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.


      the national guard and reserve components equity act of 1998

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bond, co-chairman of 
the Senate National Guard Caucus, Senators Dorgan and Leahy, I am 
introducing today the National Guard and Reserve Components Equity Act 
of 1998.
  Over the past few years, we've had to expend a huge amount of energy 
fending off attacks to the Guard. Worse,

[[Page S4829]]

the whole time we're dusting ourselves off and assessing the damage, 
our opponents deny they've ever laid a finger on us.
  It reminds me of the boxer who, at the insistence of his trainer, 
took on the current champ. After the first round, he came back to his 
corner with a busted lip, and his trainer patted him on the back and 
said, ``You're doing great,'' then shoved him back out when the second 
bell sounded. After the second round, he staggered back to his corner 
with a black eye and a busted cheek, and his trainer said, ``You're 
doing great, he hasn't laid a hand on you.'' And the boxer replied, 
``Well you'd better keep an eye on the referee, `cause someone is 
beating' the heck out of me.''
  Year after year, the Guard has come back to its corner, bruised and 
battered by the budget process, only to hear Pentagon officials insist 
they haven't laid a hand on them.
  I think we all agree that as we enter the 21st Century, the common 
goal of the U.S. military should be to create and maintain a seamless 
Total Force that provides our military leaders with the necessary 
flexibility and strength to address whatever conflicts that might 
arise.
  The 1997 QDR should have been the vehicle to achieve that goal. 
Unfortunately, it fell far short. One analyst described the QDR as 
``another banal defense of the status quo.''
  There are close to a half million men and women in the National 
Guard, accounting for about 20 percent of this nation's Armed Forces. 
Because of their dual federal-state mission, National Guardsmen and 
women are on hand to serve in both the international arena and in our 
own backyards. Perhaps more than any other soldier, members of the 
Guard embody our forefathers' vision of the citizen-soldier.
  That's because the citizen-soldiers of the National Guard find their 
roots not only in the history of this country, but equally important, 
in the communities of this country.
  The Army National Guard alone provides more than 55 percent of the 
ground combat forces, 45 percent of the combat support forces, and 25 
percent of the Army's combat support units--all while using only two 
percent of the Department of Defense budget.
  But if you look at the QDR process, you would think the Guard has 
outlived its usefulness--that their cost-effectiveness, their 
flexibility, their readiness are all figments of this Senator's 
imagination.
  This contentious relationship got even hotter last spring when 
leaders of the National Guard expressed outrage at never being given 
the opportunity to present their case before the QDR and over the 
Army's failure to be up-front about how deeply they wanted to cut the 
Army Guard.
  The outrage was well placed. The Washington Times was right on target 
when they wrote back in June that

       The Guard has a greater relevance today than during the 
     Cold War--exactly the kind of relevance the Founding Fathers 
     envisioned when they elected to place the preponderance of 
     the nation's military strength in the state militias.

  They understand that with its ``dual use system,'' the Guard is the 
wave of the future, not a relic of the past.
  While many of us felt blind-sided by the QDR, the fact is it was just 
one more instance where the Pentagon refuses to give the Guard the 
status it deserves.
  I don't believe making the Chief of the National Guard a four star 
general and a member of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council will 
solve all of the Guard's problems, but I do believe it would help to 
change the dynamics of this dysfunctional relationship, and better 
ensure the Guard's needs are met when the Defense budget is being 
written, rather than through Congressional intervention.
  As many of you probably recall, last year Senator Stevens offered an 
amendment to the Defense Authorization bill to make this change. It was 
approved by the Senate, but later dropped in Conference Committee. 
Instead, Conferees agreed to having a Two-Star General from the Guard 
and one from the Reserves--a position the Guard already has.
  Since then, I've been working with Senator Bond--my co-chairman of 
the Senate National Guard Caucus to come up with new legislation 
reinforcing the important role of both the Guard and the Reserves.
  The bill would direct the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to 
Congress regarding the force structure necessary for the Army National 
Guard and Army Reserve to meet future national security threats. The 
bill would freeze the end strength of the Army National Guard and the 
Army Reserve at the level Congress approved for Fiscal Year 1998, until 
September 30, 2000. This freeze will provide Congress a chance to 
review the force structure report submitted by the Secretary of 
Defense.
  The bill also requires the Secretary of Defense to develop a master 
plan for the modernization of the National Guard And Reserve Components 
to ensure compatibility of equipment with our active forces. Under this 
legislation, the Secretary must also submit a master plan to Congress 
on meeting the military construction needs of the National Guard and 
Reserve Components.
  This legislation builds on Senator Stevens's amendment to last year's 
Defense Authorization. It elevates the Chief of the National Guard 
Bureau to the Grade of General (4-star) and elevates the Senior 
Representatives of the Reserves one Grade. These are just some 
provisions of the bill. My Guard Caucus Co-Chairman, Senator Bond, 
someone who has been deeply committed to improving the readiness of the 
Guard, will be outlining other provisions of the bill.
  Mr President, the Reserve Components are the only contact a majority 
of Americans have with the military. When they see a neighbor, a 
child's teacher, or their family doctor representing the U.S. in the 
international arena or on hand when natural disasters strike, they have 
a direct link to the military.
  That bond has remained strong for well over 200 years. And despite 
resistance from the Pentagon, I believe Congress has no intention of 
seeing that bond damaged through insufficient funds or lack of 
resources--from operations and maintenance to pay and allowances to 
continued equipment modernization and military construction. This is 
why the National Guard and Reserve Components Equity Act of 1998 needs 
to become law.
  Muhammad Ali used to say that not only could he knock'em out, but he 
could pick the round. Opponents to the Guard and Reserves should be on 
notice--no matter how much they try and bob and weave, this is the 
round they're going to go down.
  Before closing, I'd like to take just a moment to say how much I've 
enjoyed working with Senator Bond on National Guard issues over the 
last ten years. We've worked together, along with the other members of 
the Caucus, in a bipartisan manner to ensure that the National Guard 
and Reserve components receive the funding these dedicated men and 
women need to successfully fulfill their role in preserving our 
national security.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the National Guard and 
Reserve Components Equity Act of 1998 be printed in the Record, along 
with a section-by-section description this legislation.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2077

       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 Guard and Reserve 
     Components Equity Act of 1998''.
                      TITLE I--STRATEGIC PLANNING

     SEC. 101. FORCE STRUCTURE.

       (a) Requirement.--At the same time as the President submits 
     the budget to Congress for fiscal year 2000 under section 
     1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall submit to Congress a report on the Army reserve 
     component force structure.
       (b) Content of Report.--The report shall include the 
     following:
       (1) The force structure that the Secretary considers 
     appropriate for the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve 
     for meeting threats to the national security that are 
     considered probable for the six fiscal years beginning with 
     fiscal year 2000.
       (2) Specific wartime missions for the units in that force 
     structure, including missions relating to responses to 
     emergencies involving weapons of mass destruction.
       (b) Freeze on End Strengths.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Armed Forces shall maintain the same

[[Page S4830]]

     strengths for Selected Reserve personnel of the Army National 
     Guard of the United States and the Army Reserve through 
     September 30, 2000, as are authorized under paragraphs (1) 
     and (2), respectively, of section 411(a) of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 
     105-85; 111 Stat. 1719)

     SEC. 102. MODERNIZATION PLAN.

       (a) Plan Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall develop 
     a master plan that provides for the complete modernization of 
     the National Guard and the other reserve components of the 
     Armed Forces, including the modernization necessary to ensure 
     the compatibility of the equipment used by the reserve 
     components.
       (b) Submission to Congress.--The Secretary shall submit the 
     plan to Congress not later than six months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 103. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) Plan Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall develop 
     a master plan that provides for meeting the unmet 
     requirements of the National Guard and the other reserve 
     components for military construction.
       (b) Submission to Congress.--The Secretary shall submit the 
     plan to Congress not later than six months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
                 TITLE II--RESERVE COMPONENT LEADERSHIP

     SEC. 201. CHIEF OF THE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU.

       (a) Relationship to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.--Section 151 
     of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(h) Participation by the Chief of the National Guard 
     Bureau.--(1) The Chief of the National Guard Bureau shall 
     identify for the Chairman any matter scheduled for 
     consideration by the Joint Chiefs of Staff that directly 
     concerns the National Guard, domestic security, or public 
     safety.
       ``(2) Unless, upon request of the Chairman for a 
     determination, the Secretary of Defense determines that a 
     matter identified pursuant to paragraph (1) does not concern 
     the National Guard, domestic security, or public safety, the 
     Chief of the National Guard Bureau shall meet with the Joint 
     Chiefs of Staff when that matter is under consideration. The 
     Chief of the National Guard Bureau has equal status with the 
     members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the consideration of 
     the matter by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
       ``(3) The Chairman shall provide the Chief of the National 
     Guard Bureau with all agenda for the meetings of the Joint 
     Chiefs of Staff and any other information that the Chairman 
     considers appropriate to assist the Chief of the National 
     Guard Bureau to carry out his responsibilities under this 
     subsection.''.
       (b) Membership on the Joint Requirements Oversight 
     Council.--Section 181(c) of such title is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subsection (D), by striking out ``and'';
       (B) in subsection (E), by striking out the period at the 
     end and inserting in lieu thereof ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(F) the Chief of the National Guard Bureau.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``and the Chief of the 
     National Guard Bureau'' after ``other than the Chairman of 
     the Joint Chiefs of Staff''.
       (c) Additional Advisory Functions.--Section 10502(c) of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Adviser on National Guard Matters.--The Chief of the 
     National Guard Bureau is the principal adviser to the 
     President, the Secretary of Defense, any other person 
     designated to exercise national command authority, the 
     Secretary of the Army, the Chief of Staff of the Army, the 
     Secretary of the Air Force, and the Chief of Staff of the Air 
     Force on matters relating to--
       ``(1) the National Guard;
       ``(2) the Army National of the United States;
       ``(3) the Air National Guard of the United States;
       ``(4) domestic security; and
       ``(5) public safety.''.
       (d) Relationship to the Army Staff and the Air Staff.--
     Section 10502 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(e) Relationship to Army and Air Staff.--To the extent 
     that it does not impair the independence of the Chief of the 
     National Guard Bureau in the performance of his duties, the 
     Chief of the National Guard Bureau shall serve at the level 
     of the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army in all forums within 
     the Department of the Army, and at the level of the Vice 
     Chief of Staff of the Air Force in all forums within the 
     Department of the Air Force.''.

     SEC. 202. GRADES OF RESERVE COMPONENT LEADERS.

       (a) National Guard Bureau Leadership.--
       (1) Chief.--Section 10502(d) of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking out ``lieutenant general'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``general''.
       (2) Vice chief.--Section 10505(c) of such title is amended 
     by striking out ``major general'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``lieutenant general''.
       (3) Other general officers.--Section 10506(a)(1) of such 
     title is amended by striking out ``major general'' each place 
     it appears and inserting in lieu thereof ``lieutenant 
     general''.
       (b) Chief of Army Reserve.--Section 3038(c) of such title 
     is amended by striking out ``major general'' in the third 
     sentence and inserting in lieu thereof ``lieutenant 
     general''.
       (c) Chief of Naval Reserve.--Section 5143 of such title is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by striking out ``from officers 
     who--'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``from among officers 
     of the Naval Reserve who--''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)(2), by striking out ``a grade above 
     rear admiral (lower half)'' in the third sentence and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``the grade of vice admiral''.
       (d) Commander, Marine Forces Reserve.--Section 5144 of such 
     title is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by striking out ``from officers 
     who--'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``from among officers 
     of the Marine Corps Reserve who--''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)(2), by striking out ``a grade above 
     brigadier general'' in the third sentence and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``the grade of lieutenant general''.
       (e) Chief of Air Force Reserve.--Section 8038(c) of such 
     title is amended by striking out ``major general'' in the 
     third sentence and inserting in lieu thereof ``lieutenant 
     general''.
       (f) Exclusion From Distribution Limits for General Officers 
     on Active Duty.--Section 525(b) of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6)(A) An officer serving in a position referred to in 
     subparagraph (B) in the grade specified for the position in 
     that subparagraph is in addition to the number that would 
     otherwise be permitted for that officer's armed force for 
     that grade under paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Subparagraph (A) applies to an officer while serving 
     in any of the following positions:
       ``(i) The Chief of the National Guard Bureau, if serving in 
     the grade of general.
       ``(ii) The Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau, if 
     serving in the grade of lieutenant general.
       ``(iii) The Director of the Army National Guard, if serving 
     in the grade of lieutenant general.
       ``(iv) The Director of the Air National Guard, if serving 
     in the grade of lieutenant general.
       ``(7)(A) An officer while serving in a position referred to 
     in subparagraph (B), if serving in the grade of lieutenant 
     general or vice admiral, is in addition to the number that 
     would otherwise be permitted for that officer's armed force 
     for that grade under paragraph (1) or (2), as applicable.
       ``(B) Subparagraph (A) applies to an officer serving in any 
     of the following positions:
       ``(i) The Chief of Army Reserve.
       ``(ii) The Chief of Naval Reserve.
       ``(iii) The Commander, Marine Forces Reserve.
       ``(iv) The Chief of Air Force Reserve.''.
       (g) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made 
     by this section shall take effect on January 1, 1999.

     SEC. 203. ADJUTANTS GENERAL OF THE NATIONAL GUARD.

       (a) Federal Recognition.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     prescribe in regulations a requirement that, whenever a 
     person is appointed to the position of State adjutant general 
     of the National Guard, the board that is to consider the 
     appointee for being extended Federal recognition be convened 
     within 60 days after the date of the appointment.
       (b) Investigations of Adjutants General.--The Secretary of 
     Defense shall prescribe in regulations a requirement that the 
     Inspector General of the Department of Defense be responsible 
     for conducting investigations regarding appointments of State 
     adjutants general of the National Guard for the Department of 
     Defense.
       (c) State Includes Possessions, Et Cetera.--For the 
     purposes of this section, the term ``State'' includes the 
     District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin 
     Islands.

     SEC. 204. REVIEW OF PROMOTIONS AND FEDERAL RECOGNITION FOR 
                   NATIONAL GUARD OFFICERS.

       (a) GAO Review.--The Comptroller General shall review the 
     promotions of, and extensions of Federal recognition to, 
     officers of the National Guard to determine the timeliness 
     and fairness of the processing of such actions.
       (c) Scope of Review.--The Comptroller General shall 
     determine the period and number of actions that are necessary 
     to be reviewed in order to provide a meaningful basis for 
     making determinations under subsection (a).
       (c) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit 
     to Congress a report on the review. The report shall include 
     the Comptroller General's determinations together with any 
     recommendations that the Comptroller General considers 
     appropriate.
  TITLE III--USE OF THE RESERVE COMPONENTS FOR EMERGENCIES INVOLVING 
                      WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

     SEC. 301. DISASTER RELIEF.

       (a) Authority.--
       (1) Definitions.--
       (A) Major disaster.--Paragraph (2) of section 102 of the 
     Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
     Act (42

[[Page S4831]]

     U.S.C. 5122) is amended by striking out ``or explosion'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``explosion, or emergency involving 
     a weapon of mass destruction.''.
       (B) Weapon of mass destruction.--Such section is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) Weapon of mass destruction.--`Weapon of mass 
     destruction' has the meaning given that term in section 1402 
     of the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 
     1996 (50 U.S.C. 2302(1)).
       ``(10) National guard.--`National Guard' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 101(3) of title 32, United States 
     Code.
       ``(11) Reserve components.--`Reserve components of the 
     Armed Forces' means the reserve components named in section 
     10101 of title 10, United States Code.''.
       (2) Use of reserve components.--Section 201(a) of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 5131) is amended--
       (A) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (7) 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``; and''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) the use of the National Guard or the other reserve 
     components of the Armed Forces to take actions that may be 
     necessary to provide an immediate response to an incident 
     involving a use or threat of use of a weapon of mass 
     destruction.''.
       (3) Requests by director of fema.--Section 611 of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 5196) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(l) Use of the Reserve Components.--The Director may 
     request the Secretary of Defense to authorize the National 
     Guard or to direct other reserve components of the Armed 
     Forces to conduct training exercises, preposition equipment 
     and other items, and take such other actions that may be 
     necessary to provide an immediate response to an emergency 
     involving a weapon of mass destruction. The Secretary of 
     Defense may authorize the National Guard or direct other 
     reserve components to take actions requested by the Director 
     under the preceding sentence.''.
       (b) Reimbursement of States.--
       (1) Authority.--Chapter 1 of title 32, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 115. Reimbursement for State costs of preparedness 
       programs for emergencies involving weapons of mass 
       destruction

       ``(a) Reimbursement Authorized.--The Secretary of Defense 
     may reimburse a State for expenses incurred by the State for 
     the National Guard of that State to participate in emergency 
     preparedness programs to respond to an emergency involving 
     the use of a weapon of mass destruction. Expenses 
     reimbursable under this section may include the costs of the 
     following:
       ``(1) Pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, travel, and 
     related expenses of personnel of the National Guard.
       ``(2) Operation and maintenance of equipment and facilities 
     of the National Guard.
       ``(3) Procurement of services and equipment for the 
     National Guard.
       ``(b) State Includes Possessions, Et Cetera.--For the 
     purposes of this section, the term `State' includes the 
     District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin 
     Islands.
       ``(c) Weapon of Mass Destruction Defined.--In this section, 
     the term `weapon of mass destruction' has the meaning given 
     that term in section 1402 of the Defense Against Weapons of 
     Mass Destruction Act of 1996 (50 U.S.C. 2302(1)).''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

``115. Reimbursement for State costs of preparedness programs for 
              emergencies involving weapons of mass destruction.''.

     SEC. 302. RESERVES ON ACTIVE DUTY.

       (a) Authority.--
       (1) Order to active duty.--Section 12301(b) of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(b)'';
       (B) by striking out ``for not more than 15 days a year'' in 
     the first sentence; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following;
       ``(2) The authority under paragraph (1) includes authority 
     to order a unit or member to active duty to provide 
     assistance in responding to an emergency involving a weapon 
     of mass destruction (as defined section 1402 of the Defense 
     Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996 (50 U.S.C. 
     2302(1))).
       ``(3) A unit or member may not be ordered to active duty 
     under this subsection for more than 15 days a year. Days of 
     service on active duty to provide assistance described in 
     paragraph (2), up to 15 days a year, shall not be counted 
     toward the limitation on the total number of days set forth 
     in the preceding sentence.''.
       (2) Use of active guard and reserve personnel.--Section 
     12310 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(c)(1) A Reserve on active duty as described in 
     subsection (a), or a Reserve who is a member of the National 
     Guard serving on full-time National Guard duty under section 
     502(f) of title 32 in connection with functions referred to 
     in subsection (a), may perform any duties in support of 
     emergency preparedness programs to prepare for or to respond 
     to any emergency involving the use of a weapon of mass 
     destruction (as defined in section 1402 of the Defense 
     Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996 (50 U.S.C. 
     2302(1))).
       ``(2) The costs of the pay, allowances, clothing, 
     subsistence, gratuities, travel, and related expenses for a 
     Reserve performing duties under the authority of paragraph 
     (1) shall be paid from the appropriation that is available to 
     pay such costs for other members of the reserve component of 
     that Reserve who are performing duties as described in 
     subsection (a).''.
       (b) Exclusion From Strength Limitations.--
       (1) General limitation.--Section 115(d) of such title is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) Members of the reserve components on active duty and 
     members of the National Guard on full-time National Guard 
     duty to participate in emergency preparedness programs for 
     responding to emergencies involving a weapon of mass 
     destruction (as defined section 1402 of the Defense Against 
     Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996 (50 U.S.C. 
     2302(1))).''.
       (2) Officer personnel limitation.--Section 12011 of such 
     title is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Members of the reserve components on active duty and 
     members of the National Guard on full-time National Guard 
     duty to participate in emergency preparedness programs for 
     responding to emergencies involving a weapon of mass 
     destruction (as defined section 1402 of the Defense Against 
     Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996 (50 U.S.C. 2302(1))) 
     shall not be counted for purposes of a limitation in 
     subsection (a).''.
       (3) Enlisted personnel limitation.--Section 12011 of such 
     title is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Members of the reserve components on active duty and 
     members of the National Guard on full-time National Guard 
     duty to participate in emergency preparedness programs for 
     responding to emergencies involving a weapon of mass 
     destruction (as defined section 1402 of the Defense Against 
     Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996 (50 U.S.C. 2302(1))) 
     shall not be counted for purposes of a limitation in 
     subsection (a).''.
TITLE IV--STRENGTHENED REFORMS FOR ARMY NATIONAL GUARD COMBAT READINESS

     SEC. 401. ADEQUATE FUNDING FOR MEETING NCO EDUCATION 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 1114(b) of the Army National Guard Combat Readiness 
     Reform Act of 1992 (title XI of Public Law 102-484; 10 U.S.C. 
     10105 note) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Availability of Training.--The Secretary of the Army 
     shall ensure that sufficient training positions and funds are 
     available to enable compliance with subsection (a) without it 
     being necessary for noncommissioned officers to be absent 
     from unit annual training for the units of assignment in 
     order to attend training to meet military education 
     requirements.''.

     SEC. 402. COMBAT UNIT TRAINING.

       Section 1119 of the Army National Guard Combat Readiness 
     Reform Act of 1992 is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) Program To Minimize Post-
     Mobilization Training Needs.--'' before ``The Secretary'';
       (2) by inserting ``all'' before ``combat units'' in the 
     first sentence;
       (3) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and professional 
     development'' after ``qualification'';
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking out ``and squad 
     level'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``squad, and platoon 
     level''; and
       (C) by striking out subparagraph (C) and inserting in lieu 
     thereof the following:
       ``(C) maneuver training at the platoon level to at least 
     the minimum extent required of all Army units; and''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Adequacy of Funding.--The Secretary shall ensure that 
     sufficient funds are made available for conducting the 
     training required under the program.''.

     SEC. 403. USE OF COMBAT SIMULATORS.

       The text of section 1120 of such Act is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``The Secretary of the Army shall--
       ``(1) expand the use of simulations, simulators, and 
     advanced training devices and technologies to fully support 
     the complete integration of Army National Guard units with 
     active Army units; and
       ``(2) use and distribute combat simulators so as to serve 
     the training of Army National Guard units as well as active 
     Army units.''.
   TITLE V--PAY, ALLOWANCES, RETIREMENT, AND OTHER MONETARY BENEFITS

     SEC. 501. BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR HOUSING.

       (a) Reserves on Active Duty More Than 100 Miles From 
     Home.--Section 403(g)(3) of title 37, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following: ``A member of a 
     reserve component on active duty may not be denied a basic 
     allowance for housing at that rate on the basis of being 
     provided quarters of the United States if the member is 
     performing duty more than 100 miles from the member's primary 
     residence.''.
       (b) Effective Date and Applicability.--The amendment made 
     by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and shall apply with respect to active 
     duty performed on or after that date.

     SEC. 502. ELIGIBILITY FOR HAZARDOUS OR IMMINENT DANGER PAY.

       (a) Full Monthly Rate for Active Duty for Partial Month.--
     Section 310(a) of title 37, United States Code, is amended in 
     the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking

[[Page S4832]]

     out ``for any month in which he was entitled to basis pay'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``for any month in which he was 
     entitled to any basic pay (without regard to the number of 
     days of duty performed for the month)''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the first day of the first month that 
     begins on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 503. ALLOTMENTS OF PAY.

       Section 701(d) of title 37, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(including a member of a reserve 
     component of that armed force)'' in the first sentence after 
     ``a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps''; 
     and
       (2) by inserting ``(three allotments, in the case of a 
     member of a reserve component)'' in the second sentence after 
     ``six allotments''.

     SEC. 504. EARLY RETIREMENT FOR PHYSICAL DISABILITY.

       (a) Permanent Authority.--Chapter 1223 of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting after section 12731a the 
     following:

     Sec. 12731b. Early retirement for physical disability

       ``(a) Retirement With At Least 15 Years of Service.--For 
     the purposes of section 12731 of this title, the Secretary 
     concerned may--
       ``(1) determine to treat a member of the Selected Reserve 
     of a reserve component of the armed force under the 
     jurisdiction of that Secretary as having met the service 
     requirements of subsection (a)(2) of that section and provide 
     the member with the notification required by subsection (d) 
     of that section if the member--
       ``(A) has completed at least 15, and less than 20, years of 
     service computed under section 12732 of this title; and
       ``(B) no longer meets the qualifications for membership in 
     the Selected Reserve solely because the member is unfit 
     because of physical disability; and
       ``(2) upon the request of the member submitted to the 
     Secretary, transfer the member to the Retired Reserve.
       ``(b) Exclusion.--This section does not apply to persons 
     referred to in section 12731(c) of this title.''.
       (b) Repeal of Superseded Authority.--Section 12731(a)(c) of 
     such title is amended by striking out paragraph (3).
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to section 12731a the following:

``12731b. Early retirement for physical disability.''.
                        TITLE VI--OTHER BENEFITS

     SEC. 601. REPEAL OF 10-YEAR LIMITATION ON USE OF MONTGOMERY 
                   GI BILL BENEFITS.

       (a) Repeal.--Subsection (a) of section 16133 of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking out ``(1)'' and 
     all that follows and inserting in lieu thereof ``on the date 
     the person is separated from the Selected Reserve.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Subsection (b) of such section 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking out ``In'' in the matter preceding 
     subparagraph (A) and inserting in lieu thereof ``Subsection 
     (a) does not apply in''; and
       (B) by striking out the comma at the end of subparagraph 
     (B) and all that follows and inserting in lieu thereof a 
     period;
       (2) by striking out paragraph (3); and
       (3) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3) and, in 
     such paragraph, by striking out ``of this title--'' and all 
     that follows through ``for the purposes of clause (2)'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``of this title, the member may not 
     be considered to have been separated from the Selected 
     Reserve for the purposes''.

     SEC. 602. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM ON UNLIMITED USE OF 
                   COMMISSARY STORES.

       (a) Program Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall carry 
     out a demonstration program to test the efficacy of 
     permitting unlimited use of commissary stores by members and 
     former members of the reserve components who are eligible for 
     limited use of commissary stores under section 1063 and 1064 
     of title 10, United States Code.
       (b) Period for Program.--The program shall be carried out 
     for one year beginning on January 1, 1999.
       (c) Report.--Not later than March 31, 2000, the Secretary 
     of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on the results 
     of the demonstration program, together with any comments and 
     recommendations that the Secretary considers appropriate.

     SEC. 603. 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. 604. REPEAL OF EXPIRATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR VETERANS 
                   HOUSING BENEFITS BASED ON SERVICE IN THE 
                   SELECTED RESERVE.

       Section 3702(a)(2)(E) of title 38, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking out ``For the period beginning on October 
     28, 1992, and ending on October 27, 1999, each'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``Each''.
                        TITLE VII--OTHER MATTERS

     SEC. 701. READY RESERVE-NATIONAL GUARD EMPLOYEE CREDIT ADDED 
                   TO GENERAL BUSINESS CREDIT.

       (a) Ready Reserve-National Guard Credit.--Subpart D of part 
     IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to business-related credits) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 45D. READY RESERVE-NATIONAL GUARD EMPLOYEE CREDIT.

       ``(a) General Rule.--For purposes of section 38, the Ready 
     Reserve-National Guard employee credit determined under this 
     section for the taxable year is an amount equal to 50 percent 
     of the actual compensation amount for the taxable year.
       ``(b) Definition of Actual Compensation Amount.--For 
     purposes of this section, the term `actual compensation 
     amount' means the amount of compensation paid or incurred by 
     an employer with respect to a Ready Reserve-National Guard 
     employee on any day during a taxable year when the employee 
     was absent from employment for the purpose of performing 
     qualified active duty.
       ``(c) Limitations.--
       ``(1) Maximum credit.--The maximum credit allowable under 
     subsection (a) shall not exceed $2,000 in any taxable year 
     with respect to any one Ready Reserve-National Guard 
     employee.
       ``(2) Days other than work days.--No credit shall be 
     allowed with respect to a Ready Reserve-National Guard 
     employee who performs qualified active duty on any day on 
     which the employee was not scheduled to work (for a reason 
     other than to participate in qualified active duty) and 
     ordinarily would not have worked.
       ``(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Qualified active duty.--The term `qualified active 
     duty' means--
       ``(A) active duty, as defined in section 101(d)(1) of title 
     10, United States Code;
       ``(B) full-time National Guard duty, as defined in section 
     1010(d)(5) of such title; and
       ``(C) hospitalization incident to duty referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) or (B).
       ``(2) Compensation.--The term `compensation' means any 
     remuneration for employment, whether in cash or in kind, 
     which is paid or incurred by a taxpayer and which is 
     deductible from the taxpayer's gross income under section 
     162(a)(1).
       ``(3) Ready reserve-national guard employee.--The term 
     `Ready Reserve-National Guard employee' means an employee who 
     is a member of the Ready Reserve or of the National Guard.
       ``(4) National guard.--The term `National Guard' has the 
     meaning given such term by section 101(c)(1) of title 10, 
     United States Code.
       ``(5) Ready reserve.--The term `Ready Reserve' has the 
     meaning given such term by section 10142 of title 10, United 
     States Code.''
       (b) Credit To Be Part of General Business Credit.--
     Subsection (b) of section 38 of such Code (relating to 
     general business credit) is amended by striking ``plus'' at 
     the end of paragraph (11), by striking the period at the end 
     of paragraph (12) and inserting ``, plus'', and by adding at 
     the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(13) the Ready Reserve-National Guard employee credit 
     determined under section 45D(a).''
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after 
     the item relating to section 45C the following new item:

``Sec. 45D. Ready Reserve-National Guard employee credit.''

       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this Act shall 
     apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1997.
                                  ____


                      Section-by-Section Analysis

       Section 101: Directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a 
     report to Congress regarding the following;
       1) force structure appropriate for the Army National Guard 
     and the Army Reserve to meet national security threats.
       2) freezes the end strength of the Army National Guard and 
     Army Reserve at the levels approved in Public Law 105-85 
     Stat. 1719 until September 30, 2000.
       Section 102: Directs the Secretary of Defense to develop a 
     master plan for the modernization of the National Guard and 
     Reserve Component of the Armed Services to ensure 
     compatibility of equipment. The report is to be submitted to 
     Congress six months from date of enactment of legislation.

[[Page S4833]]

       Section 103: Directs the Secretary of Defense to develop a 
     master plan regarding the unmet military construction 
     requirements of the National Guard and Reserve Components. 
     This Report will be submitted within six months after passage 
     of the legislation.
       Sections 201 & 202: Elevates the Chief of the National 
     Guard Bureau to the Grade of General (4-Star) and elevates 
     the Senior Representatives of the Reserves (Army, Navy, Air 
     Force and Marines) to Lieutenant General (3-Star). Adjusts 
     the responsibility of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau 
     regarding issues that directly affect the National Guard. 
     Includes the Chief of the National Guard Bureau as a full 
     time member of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council.
       Section 203: Requires the Secretary of Defense to appoint 
     the Federal Recognition Board for an Adjutant General within 
     60 days of the Adjutant General's appointment by a Governor. 
     This section also requires the Secretary of Defense to have 
     the Inspector General of the Defense Department be 
     responsible for conducting investigations regarding 
     appointments of State Adjutants General.
       Section 204: Requires the General Accounting Office (GAO) 
     to review the National Guard members promotions and 
     extensions of Federal recognition as to the timeliness and 
     fairness of the process. GAO will report to Congress one year 
     after the enactment of the legislation.
       Section 301: Enhanced integration of the National Guard 
     Bureau, Reserve Components and the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency (FEMA) for emergencies involving Weapons of 
     Mass Destruction.
       Section 302: Describes duties of Reserves (National Guard & 
     Reserves) in responding to an emergency involving a weapon of 
     mass destruction.
       Section 401: Directs the Secretary of the Army to ensure 
     that sufficient training funds are available for enlisted men 
     and women to meet their military education requirements.
       Section 402: Directs the Secretary of the Army to ensure 
     that sufficient training funds are available for the training 
     of Army National Guard to maintain Platoon level operations.
       Section 403: Directs the Secretary of the Army to expand 
     the use of simulations, simulators and advanced training 
     devices to fully support the integration of Army National 
     Guard with Active Army units.
       Section 501: Prohibits the Services from denying Basic 
     Housing allowance to Reserve component members if they are on 
     active duty more than 100 miles from their primary home.
       Section 502: Provides equity between Reserve component 
     members and active duty counterparts in receiving Hazardous 
     or Imminent Danger pay.
       Section 503: Increases Reserve Components pay allotment 
     authorization to the same level as Active duty personnel.
       Section 504: Makes permanent the early retirement for 
     Physical Disability of National Guard and Reserve component 
     members who have between 15 and 20 years of satisfactory 
     service. The present law expires at the end of Fiscal Year 
     1999.
       Section 601: Repeals the Ten Year limitation on the use of 
     the Montgomery GI bill benefits if the reservists remain 
     members in good standing of the Selected Reserve.
       Section 602: Provides for a demonstration program on 
     unlimited use of military commissary stores for reserve 
     component members.
       Section 603: Directs the Secretary of Defense to develop 
     rules for Reserve Component Members and their families to 
     travel on Department of Defense Aircraft on a space available 
     basis.
       Section 604: Makes permanent the eligibility for veterans' 
     home loan guarantees for members of the Selected Reserves. 
     Reserve eligibility is to expire October 1999.
       Section 701: Provides a tax incentive to businesses that 
     employ National Guard and Reserve personnel. A business can 
     receive a tax credit of up to $2000.00 per year, per employee 
     for a member of the Guard and Reserve who is absent from 
     employment for the purpose of performing Active Duty 
     assignments.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am proud to join with my colleague and co-
chair of the Senate National Guard Caucus, Senator Ford to introduce a 
bill today to bolster the recognition of the National Guard and reserve 
components by the Department of Defense. The bill entitled the National 
Guard and Reserve Components Equity Act of 1998.
  Since the Senate National Guard Caucus was established in 1987, 
Senator Ford and I and the sixty five other members have worked 
tirelessly to insure the adequate resourcing of the National Guard and 
reserves. This year will be Senator Ford's final year as Caucus co-
chair. I will sorely miss his advise and counsel. The legislation we 
lay before you this day is testimony to his commitment to improving the 
quality of life standards for our nations active, Guard and reserve 
component service members. He and I have worked to include major 
quality of life and resourcing issues highlighted by reserve and 
National Guard Associations.
  This bill seeks to provide overdue recognition and benefits to the 
nation's reservists and Guard personnel and their families. For too 
long, the nation's reservists and National Guardsmen and women have 
been the recipients of less than a full commitment by the Department of 
Defense. The bill we have introduced will stir some controversy I am 
sure, but these men and women deserve our support. As we ask more and 
more of our reserve and Guard we owe it to the people who we ask to go 
into harm's way, to provide them with equality in pay, equality in 
fielded equipments and equality in training. We owe it to their 
families to provide them with equal access to commissaries and space 
available travel. We owe it to them to continue reservist eligibility 
for VA home loans and repeal Montgomery Bill limitations for Selected 
Reservists. We need to do all this and more. We must also recognize the 
sacrifices made by reservist and Guard employers. This bill addresses 
each of these issues. We must remove any semblance of second class 
status from the shoulders of these professional and dedicated 
individuals.
  Reserve and Guard components are being called upon to integrate 
themselves into the tactical operations of the nation's defense plans, 
in order to do this effectively, the systems used by the components 
must be compatible. That is not the case today. In many instances, 
radios and data transfer equipments are incompatible. For instance many 
artillery units operate independently because they are unable to 
coordinate their operations. I could hardly believe it, but many 
fighter aircraft units suffer the same fate, and you can imagine that 
the theater commanders don't care to have independent fighter units 
involved in heavily coordinated and multi-national operations. 
Digitization, situational awareness data link upgrades and avionics 
modernization of reserve and Guard units is imperative. This bill 
directs the Secretary of Defense to develop a master plan for the 
modernization of these components.
  The bill also addresses the use of Guard and reserve component 
personnel in response to an emergency involving a weapon of mass 
destruction; to include their integration with efforts of the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency.
  Family issues are addressed, as well. As I mentioned earlier, there 
are provisions for demonstration program for unlimited use of military 
commissionaries by reserve component members, and for the development 
of rules governing Space Available Travel for reservists and their 
families.
  I urge my colleagues to review this bill, sign on and help us to 
provide these and other long overdue measures to bring equity in 
individual recognition and resource allocation to these vital 
components of our national security.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Roberts, Mr. 
        Kerrey, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Hagel, and Mr. Allard):
  S. 2078. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
for Farm and Ranch Risk Management Accounts, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Finance.


                   farm and ranch risk management act

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Farm and 
Ranch Risk Management Act of 1998. This bill gives farmers another tool 
to manage the risk of price and income fluctuations inherent in 
agriculture. It does this by encouraging farmers to save some of their 
income during good years and allowing the funds to supplement income 
during bad years. This new tool will more fully equip family farmers to 
deal with the vagaries of the marketplace.
  Farming is a unique sector of the American economy. Although 
agriculture represents one-sixth of our Gross Domestic Product, it 
consists of hundreds of thousands of farmers across the nation. Many of 
whom operate small, family farms. These farms often support entire 
families, and even several generations of a family. And they work hard 
every day and produce the food consumed by the rest of the country, and 
around the world as well.
  Yet farming remains one of the most perilous ways to make a living. 
The income of a farm family depends, in large part, on factors outside 
its control. Weather is one of those factors. For instance, I have 
heard on the Senate

[[Page S4834]]

floor recently that the income of North Dakota farmers dropped 98% last 
year because of flooding. Weather can totally wipe out a farmer. And, 
at best, weather can cause farmers' income to fluctuate wildly.
  Another factor is the uncertainty of international markets. Iowa 
farmers now export 40% of all they produce. But what happens when 
European countries impose trade barriers on beef, pork and genetically-
modified feed grain, as examples. And what happens when Asian 
governments devalue their currencies. Exports fall and farm income 
declines. Through no fault of the farmer, but because of decisions made 
in foreign countries.
  Mr. President, the 1996 farm bill took planting decisions out of the 
hands of government bureaucrats and put them back into the hands of 
farmers. Farmers now have the ability to plant according to the demands 
of the market. The farmers I talk to are pleased with this change in 
philosophy. They would rather make their own decisions and rely on the 
market for their income, instead of the government.
  But the sometimes volatile nature of commodity markets can make it 
difficult for family farmers to survive even a normal business cycle. 
When prices are high, farmers often pay so much of their income in 
taxes that they are unable to save anything. When prices drop again, 
farmers can be faced with liquidity problems. This bill allows farmers 
to manage their income, to smooth out the highs and lows of the 
commodity markets.
  In that way, this bill is complementary with the philosophy of the 
new farm program. Business decisions are left in the hands of farmers, 
not bureaucrats at the Department of Agriculture, and not elected 
officials. The farmer decides whether to defer his income for later 
years. The farmer decides when to withdraw funds to supplement his 
operation.
  Mr. President, I will take just a moment to explain how the bill 
works. Eligible farmers are allowed to make contributions to tax-
deferred accounts, also known as FARRM accounts. The contributions are 
tax-deductible and limited to 20% of the farmer's taxable income for 
the year. The contributions are invested in cash or other interest-
bearing obligations. The interest is taxed during the year it is 
earned.
  The funds can stay in the account for up to five years. Upon 
withdrawal, the funds are taxed as regular income. If the funds are not 
withdrawn after five years, they are taxed as income and subject to an 
additional 10% penalty.
  Essentially, the farmer is given a five-year window to manage his 
money in a way that is best for his own operation. The farmer can 
contribute to the account in good years and withdraw from the account 
when his income is low.
  This bill helps the farmer help himself. It is not a new government 
subsidy for agriculture. It will not create a new bureaucracy 
purporting to help farmers. The bill simply provides farmers with a 
fighting chance to survive the down times and an opportunity to succeed 
when prices eventually increase.
  Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues for supporting this 
bill, especially Senator Baucus, the lead Democratic cosponsor. I look 
forward to working with him on the Finance Committee to ensure passage 
of this important effort for our farmers.

                         ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS


                                 S. 89

  At the request of Ms. Snowe, the names of the Senator from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Feingold] and the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] were added as 
cosponsors of S. 89, a bill to prohibit discrimination against 
individuals and their family members on the basis of genetic 
information, or a request for genetic services.


                                 S. 381

  At the request of Mr. Rockefeller, the name of the Senator from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] was added as a cosponsor of S. 381, a bill to 
establish a demonstration project to study and provide coverage of 
routine patient care costs for medicare beneficiaries with cancer who 
are enrolled in an approved clinical trial program.


                                 S. 831

  At the request of Mr. Shelby, the name of the Senator from Montana 
[Mr. Burns] was added as a cosponsor of S. 831, a bill to amend chapter 
8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide for congressional review 
of any rule promulgated by the Internal Revenue Service that increases 
Federal revenue, and for other purposes.


                                 S. 863

  At the request of Mrs. Murray, her name was withdrawn as a cosponsor 
of S. 863, a bill to authorize the Government of India to establish a 
memorial to honor Mahatma Gandhi in the District of Columbia.


                                S. 1260

  At the request of Mrs. Hutchison, her name was added as a cosponsor 
of S. 1260, a bill to amend the Securities Act of 1933 and the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to limit the conduct of securities 
class actions under State law, and for other purposes.


                                S. 1320

  At the request of Mr. Rockefeller, the name of the Senator from 
Delaware [Mr. Biden] was added as a cosponsor of S. 1320, a bill to 
provide a scientific basis for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 
assess the nature of the association between illnesses and exposure to 
toxic agents and environmental or other wartime hazards as a result of 
service in the Persian Gulf during the Persian Gulf War for purposes of 
determining a service connection relating to such illnesses, and for 
other purposes.


                                S. 1334

  At the request of Mr. Bond, the names of the Senator from Illinois 
[Ms. Moseley-Braun] and the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Bryan] were added 
as cosponsors of S. 1334, a bill to amend title 10, United States Code, 
to establish a demonstration project to evaluate the feasibility of 
using the Federal Employees Health Benefits program to ensure the 
availability of adequate health care for Medicare-eligible 
beneficiaries under the military health care system.


                                S. 1580

  At the request of Mr. Shelby, the name of the Senator from Kansas 
[Mr. Brownback] was added as a cosponsor of S. 1580, a bill to amend 
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 to place an 18-month moratorium on the 
prohibition of payment under the medicare program for home health 
services consisting of venipuncture solely for the purpose of obtaining 
a blood sample, and to require the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services to study potential fraud and abuse under such program with 
respect to such services.


                                S. 1754

  At the request of Mr. Frist, the name of the Senator from North 
Carolina [Mr. Faircloth] was added as a cosponsor of S. 1754, a bill to 
amend the Public Health Service Act to consolidate and reauthorize 
health professions and minority and disadvantaged health professions 
and disadvantaged health education programs, and for other purposes.


                                S. 1758

  At the request of Mr. Lugar, the name of the Senator from North 
Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] was added as a cosponsor of S. 1758, a bill to 
amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to facilitate protection of 
tropical forests through debt reduction with developing countries with 
tropical forests.


                                S. 1825

  At the request of Mrs. Murray, the name of the Senator from Delaware 
[Mr. Biden] was added as a cosponsor of S. 1825, a bill to amend title 
10, United States Code, to provide sufficient funding to assure a 
minimum size for honor guard details at funerals of veterans of the 
Armed Forces, to establish the minimum size of such details, and for 
other purposes.


                                S. 1868

  At the request of Mr. Nickles, the name of the Senator from Kansas 
[Mr. Brownback] was added as a cosponsor of S. 1868, a bill to express 
United States foreign policy with respect to, and to strengthen United 
States advocacy on behalf of, individuals persecuted for their faith 
worldwide; to authorize United States actions in response to religious 
persecution worldwide; to establish an Ambassador at Large on 
International Religious Freedom within the Department of State, a 
Commission on International Religious Persecution, and a Special 
Adviser on International Religious Freedom within the National Security 
Council; and for other purposes.


                                S. 1959

  At the request of Mr. Coverdell, the names of the Senator from 
Kentucky

[[Page S4835]]

[Mr. McConnell] and the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith] were 
added as cosponsors of S. 1959, a bill to prohibit the expenditure of 
Federal funds to provide or support programs to provide individuals 
with hypodermic needles or syringes for the use of illegal drugs.


                                S. 1973

  At the request of Mr. Bumpers, the name of the Senator from 
California [Mrs. Feinstein] was added as a cosponsor of S. 1973, a bill 
to amend section 2511 of title 18, United States Code, to revise the 
consent exception to the prohibition on the interception of oral, wire, 
or electronic communications.


                                S. 1981

  At the request of Mr. Hutchinson, the name of the Senator from Iowa 
[Mr. Grassley] was added as a cosponsor of S. 1981, a bill to preserve 
the balance of rights between employers, employees, and labor 
organizations which is fundamental to our system of collective 
bargaining while preserving the rights of workers to organize, or 
otherwise engage in concerted activities protected under the National 
Labor Relations Act.


                                S. 1992

  At the request of Mrs. Hutchison, the name of the Senator from 
Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] was added as a cosponsor of S. 1992, a bill 
to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the $500,000 
exclusion of a gain on the sale of a principal residence shall apply to 
certain sales by a surviving spouse.


                                S. 2036

  At the request of Mrs. Hutchison, the names of the Senator from 
Georgia [Mr. Coverdell], the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Smith], the 
Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions], the Senator from Colorado [Mr. 
Allard], the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott], the Senator from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles], the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], the 
Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], and the Senator from Idaho 
[Mr. Craig] were added as cosponsors of S. 2036, a bill to condition 
the use of appropriated funds for the purpose of an orderly and 
honorable reduction of U.S. ground forces from the Republic of Bosnia 
and Herzegovina.


                    Senate Concurrent Resolution 88

  At the request of Mr. D'Amato, the name of the Senator from South 
Dakota [Mr. Johnson] was withdrawn as a cosponsor of Senate Concurrent 
Resolution 88, a concurrent resolution calling on Japan to establish 
and maintain an open, competitive market for consumer photographic film 
and paper and other sectors facing market access barriers in Japan.


                         Senate Resolution 176

  At the request of Mr. Domenici, the names of the Senator from 
Mississippi [Mr. Lott], the Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], and the 
Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns] were added as cosponsors of Senate 
Resolution 176, a resolution proclaiming the week of October 18 through 
October 24, 1998, as ``National Character Counts Week.''


                         Senate Resolution 216

  At the request of Mr. Lieberman, the name of the Senator from Nevada 
[Mr. Reid] was added as a cosponsor of Senate Resolution 216, a 
resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding Japan's 
difficult economic condition.

                          ____________________