[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.
____________________