Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 65 (Wednesday, May 20, 1998)

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 65 (Wednesday, May 20, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3505-H3584]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. RILEY. Mr. Speaker, due to unavoidable circumstances, I was not
present for rollcall vote No. 166. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``aye'' in favor of the rule.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Petri). Pursuant to House Resolution 440
and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill, H.R. 3616.

{time} 1214

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3616) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1999
for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe
military personnel strengths for fiscal year 1999, and for other
purposes, with Mr. Camp in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose on Tuesday,
May 19, 1998 pursuant to House Resolution 435, all time for general
debate had expired. Pursuant to House Resolution 441, no further
general debate is in order.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the
bill is considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and
is considered read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999''.

SEC. 2. ORGANIZATION OF ACT INTO DIVISIONS; TABLE OF
CONTENTS.

(a) Divisions.--This Act is organized into three divisions
as follows:
(1) Division A--Department of Defense Authorizations.
(2) Division B--Military Construction Authorizations.
(3) Division C--Department of Energy National Security
Authorizations and Other Authorizations.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Organization of Act into divisions; table of contents.
Sec. 3. Congressional defense committees defined.

DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE I--PROCUREMENT

Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

Sec. 101. Army.
Sec. 102. Navy and Marine Corps.
Sec. 103. Air Force.
Sec. 104. Defense-wide activities.
Sec. 105. Reserve components.
Sec. 106. Defense Inspector General.
Sec. 107. Chemical Demilitarization Program.
Sec. 108. Defense health programs.
Sec. 109. Defense Export Loan Guarantee Program.

Subtitle B--Army Programs

Sec. 111. Multiyear procurement authority for Longbow Hellfire missile
program.
Sec. 112. M1A2 System Enhancement Program Step 1 Program.

Subtitle C--Navy Programs

Sec. 121. Multiyear procurement authority for the Department of the
Navy.

Subtitle D--Other Matters

Sec. 141. Funding, transfer, and management of the Assembled Chemical
Weapons Assessment Program.

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

Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

Sec. 201. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 202. Amount for basic and applied research.

Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations

Sec. 211. Management responsibility for Navy mine countermeasures
programs.
Sec. 212. Future aircraft carrier transition technologies.
Sec. 213. Manufacturing technology program.

Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense

Sec. 231. National Missile Defense policy.
Sec. 232. Limitation on funding for the Medium Extended Air Defense
System.
Sec. 233. Limitation on funding for cooperative ballistic missile
defense programs.
Sec. 234. Limitation on funding for counterproliferation support.
Sec. 235. Ballistic Missile Defense program elements.

TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

Sec. 301. Operation and maintenance funding.
Sec. 302. Working capital funds.
Sec. 303. Armed Forces Retirement Home.
Sec. 304. Transfer from National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund.
Sec. 305. Refurbishment of M1-A1 tanks.
Sec. 306. Operation of prepositioned fleet, National Training Center,
Fort Irwin, California.
Sec. 307. Relocation of USS WISCONSIN.
Sec. 308. Fisher House Trust Funds.

Subtitle B--Information Technology Issues

Sec. 311. Additional information technology responsibilities of Chief
Information Officers.
Sec. 312. Defense-wide electronic mall system for supply purchases.
Sec. 313. Protection of funding provided for certain information
technology and national security programs.
Sec. 314. Priority funding to ensure year 2000 compliance of mission
critical information technology and national security
systems.
Sec. 315. Evaluation of year 2000 compliance as part of training
exercises programs.

Subtitle C--Environmental Provisions

Sec. 321. Authorization to pay negotiated settlement for environmental
cleanup at former Department of Defense sites in Canada.
Sec. 322. Removal of underground storage tanks.

Subtitle D--Defense Infrastructure Support Improvement

Sec. 331. Reporting and study requirements before change of commercial
and industrial type functions to contractor performance.
Sec. 332. Clarification of requirement to maintain Government-owned and
Government-operated core logistics capability.
Sec. 333. Oversight of development and implementation of automated
identification technology.
Sec. 334. Conditions on expansion of functions performed under prime
vendor contracts.
Sec. 335. Clarification of definition of depot-level maintenance and
repair.
Sec. 336. Clarification of commercial item exception to requirements
regarding core logistics capabilities.
Sec. 337. Development of plan for establishment of core logistics
capabilities for maintenance and repair of C-17 aircraft.
Sec. 338. Contractor-operated civil engineering supply stores program.
Sec. 339. Report on savings and effect of personnel reductions in Army
Materiel Command.

Subtitle E--Commissaries and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities

Sec. 341. Continuation of management and funding of Defense Commissary
Agency through the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Sec. 342. Expansion of current eligibility of Reserves for commissary
benefits.
Sec. 343. Repeal of requirement for Air Force to sell tobacco products
to enlisted personnel.
Sec. 344. Restrictions on patron access to, and purchases in, overseas
commissaries and exchange stores.
Sec. 345. Extension of demonstration project for uniform funding of
morale, welfare, and recreation activities.
Sec. 346. Prohibition on consolidation or other organizational changes
of Department of Defense retail systems.
Sec. 347. Authorized use of appropriated funds for relocation of Navy
Exchange Service Command.
Sec. 348. Evaluation of merit of selling malt beverages and wine in
commissary stores as exchange system merchandise.

[[Page H3506]]

Subtitle F--Other Matters

Sec. 361. Eligibility requirements for attendance at Department of
Defense domestic dependent elementary and secondary
schools.
Sec. 362. Specific emphasis of program to investigate fraud, waste, and
abuse within Department of Defense.
Sec. 363. Revision of inspection requirements relating to Armed Forces
Retirement Home.
Sec. 364. Assistance to local educational agencies that benefit
dependents of members of the Armed Forces and Department
of Defense civilian employees.
Sec. 365. Strategic plan for expansion of distance learning
initiatives.
Sec. 366. Public availability of operating agreements between military
installations and financial institutions.
Sec. 367. Department of Defense readiness reporting system.
Sec. 368. Travel by Reservists on carriers under contract with General
Services Administration.

Subtitle G--Demonstration of Commercial-Type Practices To Improve
Quality of Personal Property Shipments

Sec. 381. Demonstration program required.
Sec. 382. Goals of demonstration program.
Sec. 383. Program participants.
Sec. 384. Test plan.
Sec. 385. Other methods of personal property shipping.
Sec. 386. Duration of demonstration program.
Sec. 387. Evaluation of demonstration program.

TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS

Subtitle A--Active Forces

Sec. 401. End strengths for active forces.
Sec. 402. Revision in permanent end strength levels.
Sec. 403. Date for submission of annual manpower requirements report.
Sec. 404. Extension of authority for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff to designate up to 12 general and flag officer
positions to be excluded from general and flag officer
grade limitations.

Subtitle B--Reserve Forces

Sec. 411. End strengths for Selected Reserve.
Sec. 412. End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of the
Reserves.
Sec. 413. End strengths for military technicians (dual status).
Sec. 414. Increase in number of members in certain grades authorized to
serve on active duty in support of the Reserves.

Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations

Sec. 421. Authorization of appropriations for military personnel.

TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy

Sec. 501. Codification of eligibility of retired officers and former
officers for consideration by special selection boards.
Sec. 502. Communication to promotion boards by officers under
consideration.
Sec. 503. Procedures for separation of regular officers for substandard
performance of duty or certain other reasons.
Sec. 504. Posthumous commissions and warrants.
Sec. 505. Tenure of Chief of the Air Force Nurse Corps.

Subtitle B--Reserve Component Matters

Sec. 511. Composition of selective early retirement boards of Reserve
general and flag officers of the Navy and Marine Corps.
Sec. 512. Active status service requirement for promotion consideration
for Army and Air Force Reserve component brigadier
generals.
Sec. 513. Revision to educational requirement for promotion of Reserve
officers.

Subtitle C--Military Education and Training

Sec. 521. Requirements relating to recruit basic training.
Sec. 522. After-hours privacy for recruits during basic training.
Sec. 523. Extension of reporting dates for Commission on Military
Training and Gender Related Issues.
Sec. 524. Improved oversight of innovative readiness training.

Subtitle D--Decorations, Awards, and Commendations

Sec. 531. Study of new decorations for injury or death in line of duty.
Sec. 532. Waiver of time limitations for award of certain decorations
to specified persons.
Sec. 533. Commendation of the Navy and Marine Corps personnel who
served in the United States Navy Asiatic Fleet from 1910-
1942.
Sec. 534. Appreciation for service during World War I and World War II
by members of the Navy assigned on board merchant ships
as the Naval Armed Guard Service.
Sec. 535. Sense of Congress regarding the heroism, sacrifice, and
service of the military forces of South Vietnam and other
nations in connection with the United States Armed Forces
during the Vietnam conflict.
Sec. 536. Sense of Congress regarding the heroism, sacrifice, and
service of former South Vietnamese commandos in
connection with United States Armed Forces during the
Vietnam conflict.

Subtitle E--Administration of Agencies Responsible for Review and
Correction of Military Records

Sec. 541. Personnel freeze.
Sec. 542. Professional staff.
Sec. 543. Ex parte communications.
Sec. 544. Timeliness standards.

Subtitle F--Other Matters

Sec. 551. One-year extension of certain force drawdown transition
authorities relating to personnel management and
benefits.
Sec. 552. Leave without pay for academy cadets and midshipmen.
Sec. 553. Provision for recovery, care, and disposition of the remains
of all medically retired members.
Sec. 554. Continued eligibility under Voluntary Separation Incentive
program for members who involuntarily lose membership in
a reserve component.
Sec. 555. Definition of financial institution for direct deposit of
pay.
Sec. 556. Increase in maximum amount for College Fund program.
Sec. 557. Central Identification Laboratory, Hawaii.
Sec. 558. Honor guard details at funerals of veterans.
Sec. 559. Applicability to all persons in chain of command of policy
requiring exemplary conduct by commanding officers and
others in authority in the Armed Forces.
Sec. 560. Report on prisoners transferred from United States
Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, to
Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Sec. 561. Report on process for selection of members for service on
courts-martial.
Sec. 562. Study of revising the term of service of members of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
Sec. 563. Status of cadets at the Merchant Marine Academy.

TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS

Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances

Sec. 601. Increase in basic pay for fiscal year 1999.
Sec. 602. Basic allowance for housing outside the United States.
Sec. 603. Basic allowance for subsistence for Reserves.

Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays

Sec. 611. One-year extension of certain bonuses and special pay
authorities for reserve forces.
Sec. 612. One-year extension of certain bonuses and special pay
authorities for nurse officer candidates, registered
nurses, and nurse anesthetists.
Sec. 613. One-year extension of authorities relating to payment of
other bonuses and special pays.
Sec. 614. Aviation career incentive pay and aviation officer retention
bonus.
Sec. 615. Special pay for diving duty.
Sec. 616. Selective reenlistment bonus eligibility for Reserve members
performing active Guard and Reserve duty.
Sec. 617. Removal of ten percent restriction on selective reenlistment
bonuses.
Sec. 618. Increase in maximum amount of Army enlistment bonus.
Sec. 619. Equitable treatment of Reserves eligible for special pay for
duty subject to hostile fire or imminent danger.

Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances

Sec. 631. Exception to maximum weight allowance for baggage and
household effects.
Sec. 632. Travel and transportation allowances for travel performed by
members in connection with rest and recuperative leave
from overseas stations.
Sec. 633. Storage of baggage of certain dependents.

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

Sec. 641. Effective date of former spouse survivor benefit coverage.

Subtitle E--Other Matters

Sec. 651. Deletion of Canal Zone from definition of United States
possessions for purposes of pay and allowances.
Sec. 652. Accounting of advance payments.
Sec. 653. Reimbursement of rental vehicle costs when motor vehicle
transported at Government expense is late.
Sec. 654. Education loan repayment program for certain health
profession officers serving in Selected Reserve.

TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS

Subtitle A--Health Care Services

Sec. 701. Expansion of dependent eligibility under retiree dental
program.
Sec. 702. Plan for provision of health care for military retirees and
their dependents comparable to health care provided under
TRICARE Prime.
Sec. 703. Plan for redesign of military pharmacy system.
Sec. 704. Transitional authority to provide continued health care
coverage for certain persons unaware of loss of CHAMPUS
eligibility.

[[Page H3507]]

Subtitle B--TRICARE Program

Sec. 711. Payment of claims for provision of health care under the
TRICARE program for which a third party may be liable.
Sec. 712. Procedures regarding enrollment in TRICARE Prime.

Subtitle C--Other Matters

Sec. 721. Inflation adjustment of premium amounts for dependents dental
program.
Sec. 722. System for tracking data and measuring performance in meeting
TRICARE access standards.
Sec. 723. Air Force research, development, training, and education on
exposure to chemical, biological, and radiological
hazards.
Sec. 724. Authorization to establish a Level 1 Trauma Training Center.
Sec. 725. Report on implementation of enrollment-based capitation for
funding for military medical treatment facilities.

TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS

Sec. 801. Limitation on procurement of ammunition and components.
Sec. 802. Acquisition Corps eligibility.
Sec. 803. Amendments relating to procurement from firms in industrial
base for production of small arms.

TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

Sec. 901. Further reductions in defense acquisition workforce.
Sec. 902. Limitation on operation and support funds for the Office of
the Secretary of Defense.
Sec. 903. Revision to defense directive relating to management
headquarters and headquarters support activities.
Sec. 904. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy to have responsibility
with respect to export control activities of the
Department of Defense.
Sec. 905. Independent task force on transformation and Department of
Defense organization.
Sec. 906. Improved accounting for defense contract services.
Sec. 907. Repeal of requirement relating to assignment of tactical
airlift mission to reserve components.
Sec. 908. Repeal of certain requirements relating to Inspector General
investigations of reprisal complaints.
Sec. 909. Consultation with Commandant of the Marine Corps regarding
Marine Corps aviation.

TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Subtitle A--Financial Matters

Sec. 1001. Transfer authority.
Sec. 1002. Incorporation of classified annex.
Sec. 1003. Outlay limitations.

Subtitle B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards

Sec. 1011. Revision to requirement for continued listing of two Iowa-
class battleships on the Naval Vessel Register.
Sec. 1012. Transfer of USS NEW JERSEY.
Sec. 1013. Long-term charter of three vessels in support of submarine
rescue, escort, and towing.
Sec. 1014. Transfer of obsolete Army tugboat.
Sec. 1015. Long-term charter contracts for acquisition of auxiliary
vessels for the Department of Defense.

Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Counter Drug Activities

Sec. 1021. Department of Defense support for counter-drug activities.
Sec. 1022. Support for counter-drug operation Caper Focus.

Subtitle D--Miscellaneous Report Requirements and Repeals

Sec. 1031. Annual report on resources allocated to support and mission
activities.

Subtitle E--Other Matters

Sec. 1041. Clarification of land conveyance authority, Armed Forces
Retirement Home, District of Columbia.
Sec. 1042. Content of notice required to be provided garnishees before
garnishment of pay or benefits.
Sec. 1043. Training of special operations forces with friendly foreign
forces.

TITLE XI--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL

Sec. 1101. Authority for release to Coast Guard of drug test results of
civil service mariners of the Military Sealift Command.
Sec. 1102. Limitations on back pay awards.
Sec. 1103. Restoration of annual leave accumulated by civilian
employees at installations in the Republic of Panama to
be closed pursuant to the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977.
Sec. 1104. Repeal of program providing preference for employment of
military spouses in military child care facilities.
Sec. 1105. Elimination of retained pay as basis for determining
locality-based adjustments.
Sec. 1106. Observance of certain holidays at duty posts outside the
United States.

TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS

Sec. 1201. Limitation on funds for peacekeeping in the Republic of
Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Sec. 1202. Reports on the mission of United States forces in Republic
of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Sec. 1203. Report on military capabilities of an expanded NATO
alliance.
Sec. 1204. One-year extension of counterproliferation authorities for
support of United Nations Special Commission on Iraq.
Sec. 1205. Repeal of landmine moratorium.

TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF FORMER SOVIET
UNION

Sec. 1301. Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs and
funds.
Sec. 1302. Funding allocations.
Sec. 1303. Prohibition on use of funds for specified purposes.
Sec. 1304. Limitation on use of funds for chemical weapons destruction
facility.
Sec. 1305. Limitation on obligation of funds for a specified period.
Sec. 1306. Requirement to submit breakdown of amounts requested by
project category.
Sec. 1307. Limitation on use of funds until completion of fiscal year
1998 requirements.
Sec. 1308. Report on biological weapons programs in Russia.
Sec. 1309. Limitation on use of funds for biological weapons
proliferation prevention activities in Russia.
Sec. 1310. Limitation on use of certain funds for strategic arms
elimination in Russia or Ukraine.
Sec. 1311. Availability of funds.

DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS

Sec. 2001. Short title.

TITLE XXI--ARMY

Sec. 2101. Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects.
Sec. 2102. Family housing.
Sec. 2103. Improvements to military family housing units.
Sec. 2104. Authorization of appropriations, Army.
Sec. 2105. Increase in fiscal year 1998 authorization for military
construction projects at Fort Drum, New York, and Fort
Sill, Oklahoma.

TITLE XXII--NAVY

Sec. 2201. Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects.
Sec. 2202. Family housing.
Sec. 2203. Improvements to military family housing units.
Sec. 2204. Authorization of appropriations, Navy.
Sec. 2205. Authorization to accept road construction project, Marine
Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.

TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE

Sec. 2301. Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition
projects.
Sec. 2302. Family housing.
Sec. 2303. Improvements to military family housing units.
Sec. 2304. Authorization of appropriations, Air Force.

TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES

Sec. 2401. Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land
acquisition projects.
Sec. 2402. Improvements to military family housing units.
Sec. 2403. Energy conservation projects.
Sec. 2404. Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies.
Sec. 2405. Increase in fiscal year 1995 authorization for military
construction projects at Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas,
and Umatilla Army Depot, Oregon.
Sec. 2406. Increase in fiscal year 1990 authorization for military
construction project at Portsmouth Naval Hospital,
Virginia.

TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT
PROGRAM

Sec. 2501. Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition projects.
Sec. 2502. Authorization of appropriations, NATO.

TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES

Sec. 2601. Authorized Guard and Reserve construction and land
acquisition projects.
Sec. 2602. Army Reserve construction project, Salt Lake City, Utah.

TITLE XXVII--EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS

Sec. 2701. Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be
specified by law.
Sec. 2702. Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 1996
projects.
Sec. 2703. Extension of authorization of fiscal year 1995 project.
Sec. 2704. Effective date.

TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing
Changes

Sec. 2801. Definition of ancillary supporting facilities under the
alternative authority for acquisition and improvement of
military housing.

Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration

Sec. 2811. Restoration of Department of Defense lands used by another
Federal agency.

[[Page H3508]]

Sec. 2812. Outdoor recreation development on military installations for
disabled veterans, military dependents with disabilities,
and other persons with disabilities.
Sec. 2813. Report on use of utility system conveyance authority.

Subtitle C--Defense Base Closure and Realignment

Sec. 2821. Payment of stipulated penalties assessed under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 in connection with McClellan Air
Force Base, California.
Sec. 2822. Elimination of waiver authority regarding prohibition
against certain conveyances of property at Naval Station,
Long Beach, California.

Subtitle D--Land Conveyances

Part I--Army Conveyances

Sec. 2831. Land conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Massena, New York.
Sec. 2832. Land conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Ogdensburg, New York.
Sec. 2833. Land conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Jamestown, Ohio.
Sec. 2834. Land conveyance, Stewart Army Sub-Post, New Windsor, New
York.
Sec. 2835. Land conveyance, Indiana Army Ammunition Plant, Charlestown,
Indiana.
Sec. 2836. Land conveyance, Volunteer Army Ammunition Plant,
Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Sec. 2837. Release of reversionary interest of United States in former
Redstone Army Arsenal property conveyed to Alabama Space
Science Exhibit Commission.

Part II--Navy Conveyances

Sec. 2841. Easement, Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California.
Sec. 2842. Land conveyance, Naval Reserve Readiness Center, Portland,
Maine.

Part III--Air Force Conveyances

Sec. 2851. Land conveyance, Lake Charles Air Force Station, Louisiana.
Sec. 2852. Land conveyance, Air Force housing facility, La Junta,
Colorado.

Subtitle E--Other Matters

Sec. 2861. Repeal of prohibition on joint use of Gray Army Airfield,
Fort Hood, Texas, with civil aviation.
Sec. 2862. Designation of building containing Navy and Marine Corps
Reserve Center, Augusta, Georgia.
Sec. 2863. Expansion of Arlington National Cemetery.
Sec. 2864. Reporting requirements under demonstration project for
purchase of fire, security, police, public works, and
utility services from local government agencies.

DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations

Sec. 3101. Weapons activities.
Sec. 3102. Defense environmental restoration and waste management.
Sec. 3103. Other defense activities.
Sec. 3104. Defense nuclear waste disposal.

Subtitle B--Recurring General Provisions

Sec. 3121. Reprogramming.
Sec. 3122. Limits on general plant projects.
Sec. 3123. Limits on construction projects.
Sec. 3124. Fund transfer authority.
Sec. 3125. Authority for conceptual and construction design.
Sec. 3126. Authority for emergency planning, design, and construction
activities.
Sec. 3127. Funds available for all national security programs of the
Department of Energy.
Sec. 3128. Availability of funds.
Sec. 3129. Transfers of defense environmental management funds.

Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations

Sec. 3131. Prohibition on Federal loan guarantees for defense
environmental management privatization projects.
Sec. 3132. Extension of funding prohibition relating to international
cooperative stockpile stewardship.
Sec. 3133. Use of certain funds for missile defense technology
development.
Sec. 3134. Selection of technology for tritium production.
Sec. 3135. Limitation on use of certain funds at Hanford Site.

Subtitle D--Other Matters

Sec. 3151. Termination of worker and community transition assistance.
Sec. 3152. Requirement for plan to modify employment system used by
Department of Energy in defense environmental management
programs.
Sec. 3153. Report on stockpile stewardship criteria.

TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

Sec. 3201. Authorization.

TITLE XXXIII--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE

Sec. 3301. Definitions.
Sec. 3302. Authorized uses of stockpile funds.

TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES

Sec. 3401. Definitions.
Sec. 3402. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 3403. Price requirement on sale of certain petroleum during fiscal
year 1999.
Sec. 3404. Disposal of Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 2.
Sec. 3405. Disposal of Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 3.
Sec. 3406. Disposal of Oil Shale Reserve Numbered 2.
Sec. 3407. Administration.

TITLE XXXV--PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION

Sec. 3501. Short title; references to Panama Canal Act of 1979.
Sec. 3502. Authorization of expenditures.
Sec. 3503. Purchase of vehicles.
Sec. 3504. Expenditures only in accordance with treaties.
Sec. 3505. Donations to the Commission.
Sec. 3506. Sunset of United States overseas benefits just before
transfer.
Sec. 3507. Central Examining Office.
Sec. 3508. Liability for vessel accidents.
Sec. 3509. Panama Canal Board of Contract Appeals.
Sec. 3510. Technical amendments.

TITLE XXXVI--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

Sec. 3601. Authorization of appropriations for fiscal year 1999.
Sec. 3602. Conveyance of NDRF vessel M/V BAYAMON.
Sec. 3603. Conveyance of NDRF vessels BENJAMIN ISHERWOOD and HENRY
ECKFORD.
Sec. 3604. Clearinghouse for maritime information.
Sec. 3605. Conveyance of NDRF vessel ex-USS LORAIN COUNTY.

SEC. 3. CONGRESSIONAL DEFENSE COMMITTEES DEFINED.

For purposes of this Act, the term ``congressional defense
committees'' means--
(1) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate; and
(2) the Committee on National Security and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives.

DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE I--PROCUREMENT

Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

SEC. 101. ARMY.

Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 1999 for procurement for the Army as follows:
(1) For aircraft, $1,420,759,000.
(2) For missiles, $1,232,285,000.
(3) For weapons and tracked combat vehicles,
$1,507,638,000.
(4) For ammunition, $1,053,455,000.
(5) For other procurement, $3,136,918,000.

SEC. 102. NAVY AND MARINE CORPS.

(a) Navy.--Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated
for fiscal year 1999 for procurement for the Navy as follows:
(1) For aircraft, $7,420,847,000.
(2) For weapons, including missiles and torpedoes,
$1,192,195,000.
(3) For shipbuilding and conversion, $5,992,361,000.
(4) For other procurement, $3,969,507,000.
(b) Marine Corps.--Funds are hereby authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal year 1999 for procurement for the
Marine Corps in the amount of $691,868,000.
(c) Navy and Marine Corps Ammunition.--Funds are hereby
authorized to be appropriated for procurement of ammunition
for the Navy and the Marine Corps in the amount of
$451,968,000.

SEC. 103. AIR FORCE.

Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 1999 for procurement for the Air Force as follows:
(1) For aircraft, $8,219,077,000.
(2) For missiles, $2,234,668,000.
(3) For ammunition, $383,627,000.
(4) For other procurement, $7,046,372,000.

SEC. 104. DEFENSE-WIDE ACTIVITIES.

Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 1999 for Defense-wide procurement in the amount of
$1,962,866,000.

SEC. 105. RESERVE COMPONENTS.

Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 1999 for procurement of aircraft, vehicles,
communications equipment, and other equipment for the reserve
components of the Armed Forces as follows:
(1) For the Army National Guard, $50,000,000.
(2) For the Air National Guard, $50,000,000.
(3) For the Army Reserve, $50,000,000.
(4) For the Naval Reserve, $50,000,000.
(5) For the Air Force Reserve, $50,000,000.
(6) For the Marine Corps Reserve, $50,000,000.

SEC. 106. DEFENSE INSPECTOR GENERAL.

Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 1999 for procurement for the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense in the amount of $1,300,000.

SEC. 107. CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION PROGRAM.

There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 1999 the amount of $834,000,000 for--
(1) the destruction of lethal chemical agents and munitions
in accordance with section 1412 of the Department of Defense
Authorization Act, 1986 (50 U.S.C. 1521); and
(2) the destruction of chemical warfare materiel of the
United States that is not covered by section 1412 of such
Act.

SEC. 108. DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAMS.

Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 1999 for the Department

[[Page H3509]]

of Defense for procurement for carrying out health care
programs, projects, and activities of the Department of
Defense in the total amount of $402,387,000.

SEC. 109. DEFENSE EXPORT LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM.

Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 1999 for the Department of Defense for carrying out the
Defense Export Loan Guarantee Program under section 2540 of
title 10, United States Code, in the total amount of
$1,250,000.
Subtitle B--Army Programs

SEC. 111. MULTIYEAR PROCUREMENT AUTHORITY FOR LONGBOW
HELLFIRE MISSILE PROGRAM.

Beginning with the fiscal year 1999 program year, the
Secretary of the Army may, in accordance with section 2306b
of title 10, United States Code, enter into a multiyear
procurement contract for procurement of the AGM-114 Longbow
Hellfire missile.

SEC. 112. M1A2 SYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM STEP 1 PROGRAM.

Of the funds authorized to be appropriated for the Army in
section 101 for weapons and tracked combat vehicles,
$20,300,000 shall be available only for the Step 1 program
for the M1A2 System Enhancement Program.

Subtitle C--Navy Programs

SEC. 121. MULTIYEAR PROCUREMENT AUTHORITY FOR THE DEPARTMENT
OF THE NAVY.

(a) Authority for Specified Navy Aircraft Programs.--
Beginning with the fiscal year 1999 program year, the
Secretary of the Navy may, in accordance with section 2306b
of title 10, United States Code, enter into a multiyear
procurement contract for procurement for the following
programs:
(1) The AV-8B aircraft program.
(2) The T-45TS aircraft program.
(3) The E-2C aircraft program.
(b) Authority for Marine Corps Medium Tactical Vehicle
Replacement.--Beginning with the fiscal year 1999 program
year, the Secretary of the Navy may, in accordance with
section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, enter into a
multiyear procurement contract to procure the Marine Corps
Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement.
Subtitle D--Other Matters

SEC. 141. FUNDING, TRANSFER, AND MANAGEMENT OF THE ASSEMBLED
CHEMICAL WEAPONS ASSESSMENT PROGRAM.

(a) Funding.--Of the amount authorized to be appropriated
in section 107, $12,600,000 shall be available for the
Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment Program (in this
section referred to as the ``Program'').
(b) Transfer of Program Responsibility.--(1) The Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology and the
Secretary of the Army shall jointly submit to Congress, not
later than December 1, 1998, a plan for the transfer of
oversight of the Program from the Under Secretary to the
Secretary.
(2) Oversight of the Program shall be transferred pursuant
to the plan submitted under paragraph (1) not later than 60
days after the date of the submission of the notice required
under section 152(f)(2) of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 214;
50 U.S.C. 1521(f)(2)).
(c) Plan For Pilot Program.--If the Secretary of Defense
proceeds with a pilot program under section 152(f) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 214; 50 U.S.C. 1521(f)), the
Secretary shall prepare a plan for the pilot program and
shall submit to Congress a report on such plan (including
information on the cost of, and schedule for, implementing
the pilot program).
(d) Management of Program.--The Program shall be managed
independently of the baseline incineration program until the
pilot program is completed.
(e) Definition.--In this section, the term ``Assembled
Chemical Weapons Assessment Program'' means the program
established in section 152(e) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106;
110 Stat. 214; 50 U.S.C. 1521), and section 8065 of the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1997 (as contained
in section 101 of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-101),
for identifying and demonstrating alternatives to the
baseline incineration process for the demilitarization of
assembled chemical munitions.
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 1999 for the use of the Department of Defense for
research, development, test, and evaluation as follows:
(1) For the Army, $4,791,997,000.
(2) For the Navy, $8,377,059,000.
(3) For the Air Force, $13,785,401,000.
(4) For Defense-wide activities, $9,283,515,000, of which--
(A) $251,106,000 is authorized for the activities of the
Director, Test and Evaluation; and
(B) $29,245,000 is authorized for the Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation.

SEC. 202. AMOUNT FOR BASIC AND APPLIED RESEARCH.

(a) Fiscal Year 1999.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated by section 201, $3,078,251,000 shall be
available for basic research and applied research projects.
(b) Basic Research and Applied Research Defined.--For
purposes of this section, the term ``basic research and
applied research'' means work funded in program elements for
defense research and development under Department of Defense
category 6.1 or 6.2.
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations

SEC. 211. MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY FOR NAVY MINE
COUNTERMEASURES PROGRAMS.

Section 216(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 102-190; 105 Stat.
1317, as amended) is amended by striking out ``through 1999''
and inserting in lieu thereof ``through 2003''.

SEC. 212. FUTURE AIRCRAFT CARRIER TRANSITION TECHNOLOGIES.

Of the funds authorized to be appropriated under section
201(2) for Carrier System Development (program element
0603512N), $50,000,000 shall be available for research,
development, test, evaluation, and insertion into the CVN-77
nuclear aircraft carrier program of technologies designed to
transition to, demonstrate enhanced capabilities for, or
mitigate cost and technical risks of, the CV(X) aircraft
carrier program.

SEC. 213. MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.

(a) Requirements Relating to Competition.--Section
2525(d)(1) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(1)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) For each grant awarded and each contract, cooperative
agreement, or other transaction entered into on a cost-share
basis under the program, the ratio of contract recipient cost
to Government cost shall be determined by competitive
procedures. For a project for which the Government receives
an offer from only one offeror, the contracting officer shall
negotiate the ratio of contract recipient cost to Government
cost that represents the best value to the Government.''.
(b) Requirements Relating to Cost Share Waivers.--Section
2525(d)(2) of such title is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as
clauses (i), (ii), and (iii), respectively;
(2) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(2)''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
``(B) For any grant awarded or contract, cooperative
agreement, or other transaction entered into on a basis other
than a cost-sharing basis because of a determination made
under subparagraph (A), the transaction file for the project
concerned must document the rationale for the determination.
``(C) The Secretary of Defense may delegate the authority
to make determinations under subparagraph (A) only to the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology or
a service acquisition executive, as appropriate.''.
(c) Cost Share Goal.--Section 2525(d) of such title is
amended--
(1) by striking out paragraph (4); and
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by striking out ``At least'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``As a goal, at least'';
(B) by striking out ``shall'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``should''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following: ``The Secretary of
Defense, in coordination with the Secretaries of the military
departments and upon recommendation of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Technology, shall establish
annual objectives to meet such goal.''.
(d) Additional Information To Be Included in Five-Year
Plan.--Section 2525(e)(1) of such title is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by inserting at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) the extent of cost sharing in the manufacturing
technology program by companies in the private sector,
weapons system program offices and other defense program
offices, Federal agencies other than the Department of
Defense, nonprofit institutions and universities, and other
sources.''.

Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense

SEC. 231. NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE POLICY.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Threats posed by ballistic missiles and weapons of mass
destruction to the national territory of the United States
continue to grow as the trend in ballistic missile
proliferation and development is toward longer range and
increasingly sophisticated missiles.
(2) Russian and Chinese sources continue to proliferate
missile and other advanced technologies.
(3) North Korea is developing the Taepo-Dong 2 missile,
which would have a range sufficient to strike Alaska and
Hawaii, and other countries hostile to the United States,
including Iran, Libya, and Iraq, have demonstrated an
interest in acquiring or developing ballistic missiles
capable of reaching the United States.
(4) Russia's increased reliance on nuclear forces to
compensate for the decline of its conventional forces and
uncertainty regarding command and control of those nuclear
forces increase the possibility of an accidental or
unauthorized launch of Russian ballistic missiles.
(5) The United States could be deterred from effectively
promoting or protecting its national interests around the
world if any State or territory of the United States is
vulnerable to long-range ballistic missiles deployed by
nations hostile to the United States.
(b) Sense of Congress Concerning National Missile Defense
Policy.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) any national missile defense system deployed by the
United States must provide effective defense against limited,
accidental, or unauthorized ballistic missile attack for all
50 States; and

[[Page H3510]]

(2) the territories of the United States should be afforded
effective protection against ballistic missile attack.

SEC. 232. LIMITATION ON FUNDING FOR THE MEDIUM EXTENDED AIR
DEFENSE SYSTEM.

None of the funds appropriated for fiscal year 1999 for the
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization may be obligated for
the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) until the
Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that the future-
years defense plan includes sufficient programmed funding for
that system to complete the design and development phase. If
the Secretary does not submit such a certification by January
1, 1999, then (effective as of that date) the funds
appropriated for fiscal year 1999 for the Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization that are allocated for the MEADS program
shall be available to support modification of the Patriot
Advanced Capability-3, Configuration 3, so as to support the
requirement for mobile theater missile defense to be met by
the MEADS system.

SEC. 233. LIMITATION ON FUNDING FOR COOPERATIVE BALLISTIC
MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAMS.

Of the funds appropriated for fiscal year 1999 for the
Russian-American Observational Satellite (RAMOS) program,
$5,000,000 may not be obligated until the Secretary of
Defense certifies to Congress that the Department of Defense
has received detailed information concerning the nature,
extent, and military implications of the transfer of
ballistic missile technology from Russian sources to Iran.

SEC. 234. LIMITATION ON FUNDING FOR COUNTERPROLIFERATION
SUPPORT.

None of the funds appropriated for fiscal year 1999 for
counterproliferation support in Program Element 63160BR may
be obligated until the Secretary of Defense submits to
Congress the report required by section 234 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law
105-85; 111 Stat. 1664; 50 U.S.C. 2367) to be submitted not
later than January 30, 1998.

SEC. 235. BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAM ELEMENTS.

(a) BMD Program Elements.--(1) Chapter 9 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 222
the following new section:

``Sec. 223. Ballistic missile defense programs

``(a) Program Elements Specified.--In the budget
justification materials submitted to Congress in support of
the Department of Defense budget for any fiscal year (as
submitted with the budget of the President under section
1105(a) of title 31), the amount requested for activities of
the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization shall be set forth
in accordance with the following program elements:
``(1) The Patriot system.
``(2) The Navy Area system.
``(3) The Theater High-Altitude Area Defense system.
``(4) The Navy Theater Wide system.
``(5) The Medium Extended Air Defense System.
``(6) Joint Theater Missile Defense.
``(7) National Missile Defense.
``(8) Support Technologies.
``(9) Family of Systems Engineering and Integration.
``(10) Ballistic Missile Defense Technical Operations.
``(11) Threat and Countermeasures.
``(12) International Cooperative Programs.
``(b) Treatment of Major Defense Acquisition Programs.--
Amounts requested for Theater Missile Defense and National
Missile Defense major defense acquisition programs shall be
specified in individual, dedicated program elements, and
amounts appropriated for those programs shall be available
only for Ballistic Missile Defense activities.
``(c) Management and Support.--The amount requested for
each program element specified in subsection (a) shall
include requests for the amounts necessary for the management
and support of the programs, projects, and activities
contained in that program element.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section
222 the following new item:

``223. Ballistic missile defense programs.''.

(b) Repeal of Superseded Provision.--Section 251 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(Public Law 104-106; 10 U.S.C. 221 note) is repealed.

TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

SEC. 301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING.

Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 1999 for the use of the Armed Forces and other
activities and agencies of the Department of Defense for
expenses, not otherwise provided for, for operation and
maintenance, in amounts as follows:
(1) For the Army, $16,339,700,000.
(2) For the Navy, $21,839,328,000.
(3) For the Marine Corps, $2,539,703,000.
(4) For the Air Force, $18,816,108,000.
(5) For Defense-wide activities, $10,354,216,000.
(6) For the Army Reserve, $1,197,622,000.
(7) For the Naval Reserve, $948,639,000.
(8) For the Marine Corps Reserve, $116,993,000.
(9) For the Air Force Reserve, $1,747,696,000.
(10) For the Army National Guard, $2,464,815,000.
(11) For the Air National Guard, $3,096,933,000.
(12) For the Defense Inspector General, $130,764,000.
(13) For the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed
Forces, $7,324,000.
(14) For Environmental Restoration, Army, $377,640,000.
(15) For Environmental Restoration, Navy, $281,600,000.
(16) For Environmental Restoration, Air Force,
$379,100,000.
(17) For Environmental Restoration, Defense-wide,
$26,091,000.
(18) For Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense
Sites, $195,000,000.
(19) For Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid
programs, $47,311,000.
(20) For Drug Interdiction and Counter-drug Activities,
Defense-wide, $727,582,000.
(21) For the Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and
Environmental Restoration Trust Fund, $15,000,000.
(22) For Defense Health Program, $9,663,035,000.
(23) Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction programs,
$417,400,000.
(24) For Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund,
$746,900,000.

SEC. 302. WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS.

Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 1999 for the use of the Armed Forces and other
activities and agencies of the Department of Defense for
providing capital for working capital and revolving funds in
amounts as follows:
(1) For the Defense Working Capital Funds, $1,076,571,000.
(2) For the National Defense Sealift Fund, $669,566,000.

SEC. 303. ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME.

There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 1999 from the Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund
the sum of $70,745,000 for the operation of the Armed Forces
Retirement Home, including the United States Soldiers' and
Airmen's Home and the Naval Home.

SEC. 304. TRANSFER FROM NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE
TRANSACTION FUND.

(a) Transfer Authority.--To the extent provided in
appropriations Acts, not more than $150,000,000 is authorized
to be transferred from the National Defense Stockpile
Transaction Fund to operation and maintenance accounts for
fiscal year 1999 in amounts as follows:
(1) For the Army, $50,000,000.
(2) For the Navy, $50,000,000.
(3) For the Air Force, $50,000,000.
(b) Treatment of Transfers.--Amounts transferred under this
section--
(1) shall be merged with, and be available for the same
purposes and the same period as, the amounts in the accounts
to which transferred; and
(2) may not be expended for an item that has been denied
authorization of appropriations by Congress.
(c) Relationship to Other Transfer Authority.--The transfer
authority provided in this section is in addition to the
transfer authority provided in section 1001.

SEC. 305. REFURBISHMENT OF M1-A1 TANKS.

Of the amount authorized to be appropriated pursuant to
section 301(1) for operation and maintenance for the Army,
$31,000,000 shall be available only for the refurbishment of
up to 70 M1-A1 tanks under the AIM-XXI program.

SEC. 306. OPERATION OF PREPOSITIONED FLEET, NATIONAL TRAINING
CENTER, FORT IRWIN, CALIFORNIA.

Of the amount authorized to be appropriated pursuant to
section 301(1) for operation and maintenance for the Army,
$60,200,000 shall be available only to pay costs associated
with the operation of the prepositioned fleet of equipment
during training rotations at the National Training Center,
Fort Irwin, California.

SEC. 307. RELOCATION OF USS WISCONSIN.

Of the amount authorized to be appropriated pursuant to
section 301(2) for operation and maintenance for the Navy,
$6,000,000 may be available for the purpose of relocating the
USS WISCONSIN, which is currently in a reserve status at the
Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Virginia, to a suitable location in
order to increase available berthing space at the shipyard.

SEC. 308. FISHER HOUSE TRUST FUNDS.

Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 1999, out of funds in Fisher House Trust Funds not
otherwise appropriated, for the operation of Fisher houses
described in section 2221(d) of title 10, United States Code,
as follows:
(1) From the Fisher House Trust Fund, Department of the
Army, $250,000 for Fisher houses that are located in
proximity to medical treatment facilities of the Army.
(2) From the Fisher House Trust Fund, Department of the
Navy, $150,000 for Fisher houses that are located in
proximity to medical treatment facilities of the Navy.
(3) From the Fisher House Trust Fund, Department of the Air
Force, $150,000 for Fisher houses that are located in
proximity to medical treatment facilities of the Air Force.
Subtitle B--Information Technology Issues

SEC. 311. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESPONSIBILITIES
OF CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICERS.

(a) In General.--(1) Chapter 131 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:

``Sec. 2223. Information technology: additional
responsibilities of Chief Information Officers

``(b) Additional Responsibilities.--In addition to the
responsibilities provided for in chapter 35 of title 44 and
in section 5125 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C.
1425)--
``(1) the Chief Information Officer of the Department of
Defense, with respect to the elements of the Department of
Defense other than the military departments, shall--
``(A) review and provide recommendations to the Secretary
of Defense on Department of Defense budget requests for
information technology and national security systems;

[[Page H3511]]

``(B) ensure the interoperability of information technology
and national security systems throughout the Department of
Defense; and
``(C) ensure that information technology and national
security systems standards that will apply throughout the
Department of Defense are prescribed; and
``(2) the Chief Information Officer of each military
department, with respect to the military department
concerned, shall--
``(A) review budget requests for all information technology
and national security systems;
``(B) ensure that information technology and national
security systems are in compliance with standards of the
Government and the Department of Defense;
``(C) ensure that information technology and national
security systems are interoperable with other relevant
information technology and national security systems of the
Government and the Department of Defense;
``(D) provide for the elimination of duplicate information
technology and national security systems within and between
the military departments and Defense Agencies; and
``(E) coordinate with the Joint Staff with respect to
information technology and national security systems.
``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `Chief Information Officer' means the senior
official designated by the Secretary of Defense or a
Secretary of a military department pursuant to section 3506
of title 44.
``(2) The term `information technology' has the meaning
given that term by section 5002 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of
1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401).
``(3) The term `national security system' has the meaning
given that term by section 5142 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of
1996 (40 U.S.C. 1452).''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``2223. Information technology: additional responsibilities of Chief
Information Officers.''.

(b) Effective Date.--Section 2223 of title 10, United
States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall take effect on
October 1, 1998.

SEC. 312. DEFENSE-WIDE ELECTRONIC MALL SYSTEM FOR SUPPLY
PURCHASES.

(a) Electronic Mall System.--In this section, the term
``electronic mall system'' means an electronic system for
displaying, ordering, and purchasing supplies and materiel
available from sources within the Department of Defense and
from the private sector.
(b) Development and Management.--Using existing systems and
technology available in the Department of Defense, the
Defense Logistics Agency shall develop a single, defense-wide
electronic mall system. The Defense Logistics Agency shall be
responsible for the management of the resulting electronic
mall system. The Secretary of each military department and
the head of each Defense Agency shall provide to the Defense
Logistics Agency the necessary and requested data to support
the development and operation of the electronic mall system.
(c) Implementation Date.--The electronic mall system shall
be operational and available throughout the Department of
Defense not later than June 1, 1999. After that date, a
military department or Defense Agency (other than the Defense
Logistics Agency) may not develop or operate an electronic
mall system.

SEC. 313. PROTECTION OF FUNDING PROVIDED FOR CERTAIN
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND NATIONAL SECURITY
PROGRAMS.

(a) Use for Specified Purposes.--Of the amounts authorized
to be appropriated to the Department of Defense for fiscal
years 1999, 2000, and 2001 for information technology and
national security programs of the Department of Defense, not
less than the amount specified in subsection (b) shall be
available for each such fiscal year for the purposes of the
information technology and national security programs
described in such subsection, unless an alternative use of
the funds is specifically approved by a law enacted after the
date of the enactment of the law originally authorizing the
funds.
(b) Covered Programs and Amounts.--The information
technology and national security programs referred to in
subsection (a), and the amounts to be available for each
program, are the following:
(1) The Force XXI program of the Army, $360,000,000.
(2) The Information Technology for the 21st Century
programs of the Navy, $472,000,000.
(3) The Communications Infrastructure programs of the Air
Force, $228,500,000.
(4) The Telecom and Computing Infrastructure programs of
the Marine Corps, $93,000,000.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``information technology'' has the meaning
given that term in section 5002 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of
1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401).
(2) The term ``national security system'' has the meaning
given that term in section 5142 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of
1996 (40 U.S.C. 1452).

SEC. 314. PRIORITY FUNDING TO ENSURE YEAR 2000 COMPLIANCE OF
MISSION CRITICAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND
NATIONAL SECURITY SYSTEMS.

(a) Funds for Completion of Year 2000 Conversion.--(1) Of
the amounts authorized to be appropriated pursuant to this
Act for information technology and national security systems
of the Department of Defense designated as mission critical,
not more than 25 percent may be used to fund activities
unrelated to ensuring that the awareness, assessment, and
renovation phases of year 2000 conversion for such
information technology and national security systems are
completed.
(2) Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated pursuant
to this Act for information technology and national security
systems of the Department of Defense (other than information
technology and national security systems covered by paragraph
(1)), not less than $1,000,000,000 shall be available only
for transfer to support activities to ensure that the
awareness, assessment, renovation, and validation phases of
year 2000 conversion for information technology and national
security systems covered by paragraph (1) are completed.
(b) Exceptions.--(1) This section does not apply to or
affect funding for information technology and national
security programs identified in section 313(b).
(2) The Secretary of Defense may authorize expenditures in
excess of the 25 percent limitation specified in subsection
(a)(1) if the Secretary determines that additional
expenditures are required to prevent the failure of the
information technology or national security system and
provides prior notice to Congress of the reasons for the
additional expenditures.
(c) Termination.--(1) On the date on which the Secretary of
Defense determines that the year 2000 renovation phase has
been completed for a particular information technology or
national security system covered by paragraph (1) of
subsection (a), such paragraph shall cease to apply to that
information technology or national security system.
(2) Paragraph (2) of such subsection shall cease to apply
on the date on which the Secretary of Defense determines that
all of the information technology and national security
systems covered by paragraph (1) of such subsection are fully
funded through the validation phase of year 2000 conversion,
have an established contingency plan, and have completed a
point of origin to point of execution evaluation.
(d) Comptroller General Review.--Not later than January 30,
1999, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a
briefing containing the following:
(1) Separate lists of each information technology and
national security system of the Department of Defense covered
by subsection (a)(1) for which the renovation phase of year
2000 conversion is not completed by December 30, 1998.
(2) A evaluation of the effect of subsection (a) on the
year 2000 conversion success rate.
(3) A list of each information technology and national
security system covered by subsection (a)(1) that will not
achieve year 2000 compliance by September 30, 1999.
(4) An explanation of how the military departments, the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Defense Agencies are applying the
definition of mission critical.
(5) Recommendations regarding the manner in which funding
could best be allocated to achieve year 2000 compliance for
the greatest number of information technology and national
security systems covered by subsection (a)(1).
(e) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``information technology'' has the meaning
given that term in section 5002 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of
1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401).
(2) The term ``national security system'' has the meaning
given that term in section 5142 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of
1996 (40 U.S.C. 1452).
(3) The term ``mission critical'' means an information
technology or national security system of the Department of
Defense identified as mission critical in the table prepared
by the Joint Chiefs of Staff entitled ``Mission Critical
Systems (All Services/Agencies)'', dated March 20, 1998, or
in the table printed by the Defense Integrated Support Tool
entitled ``Year 2000 Information on Mission Critical
Systems'', dated March 19, 1998.
(4) The terms ``awareness'', ``assessment'',
``renovation'', and ``validation'' have the meanings given
the terms in the Department of Defense ``Year 2000 Management
Plan'', version 1.0, released in April 1997.

SEC. 315. EVALUATION OF YEAR 2000 COMPLIANCE AS PART OF
TRAINING EXERCISES PROGRAMS.

(a) Report on Evaluation Plan.--Not later than December 15,
1998, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a
report containing a plan to include a simulated year 2000 as
part of the military exercises described in subsection (b) in
order to evaluate, in an operational environment, the extent
to which information technology and national security systems
involved in the exercises will successfully operate,
including the ability of the systems to access and transmit
information from point of origin to point of termination,
during the actual year 2000.
(b) Covered Military Exercises.--A military exercise
referred to in subsection (a) is a military exercise
conducted by the Department of Defense, during the period
beginning on January 1, 1999, and ending on September 30,
1999--
(1) under the training exercises program known as the
``CJCS Exercise Program'';
(2) at the Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center, the Army
National Training Center, or the Air Force Air Warfare
Center; or
(3) as part of Naval Carrier Group fleet training or Marine
Corps Expeditionary Unit training.
(c) Elements of Report.--The report under subsection (a)
shall include the following:
(1) A list of all military exercises described in
subsection (b) to be conducted during the period specified in
such subsection.
(2) A description of the manner in which the year 2000 will
be simulated for information technology and national security
systems involved in each military exercise.
(3) The duration of the year 2000 simulation in each
military exercise.
(4) The methodology to be used in turning over the
information technology and national security systems to the
year 2000 in order to best identify those systems that fail
to operate reliably during the military exercise.
(5) A list of the information technology and national
security systems excluded from the plan under subsection
(d)(1), including how the

[[Page H3512]]

military exercise will utilize an excluded system's year 2000
contingency plan.
(6) A list of the exercises and information technology and
national security systems excluded from the plan under
subsection (d)(2), and a description of the effect that
continued year 2000 noncompliance of the systems would have
on military readiness.
(d) Exclusions.--(1) Subsection (a) shall not apply to an
information technology or national security system if the
Secretary of Defense determines that the system will be
incapable of performing reliably during the year 2000
simulation portion of the military exercise. In the case of
each excluded system, the system may not be used during the
period of the year 2000 simulation. Instead, the excluded
system shall be replaced by the year 2000 contingency plan
for the system.
(2) If the mission of a military exercise will be seriously
hampered by the number of information technology and national
security systems covered by paragraph (1), the Secretary of
Defense may exclude the entire exercise from the requirements
of subsection (a).
(3) Subsection (a) shall not apply to an information
technology or national security system with cryptological
applications.
(4) If the decision to exclude a military exercise or
information technology or national security system is made
under paragraph (1) or (2) after the date of the submission
of the report required by subsection (a), the Secretary of
Defense shall notify Congress of the exclusion not later than
two weeks before commencing the military exercise. The
notification shall include the information required under
paragraph (5) or (6) of subsection (c), depending on whether
the exclusion covers the entire exercise or particular
information technology and national security systems.
(e) Comptroller General Review.--Not later than January 30,
1999, the Comptroller General shall review the report and
plan submitted under subsection (a) and submit to Congress a
briefing evaluating the methodology to be used under the plan
to simulate the year 2000, describing the potential
information that will be collected as a result of
implementation of the plan, and describing the impact that
the plan will have on military readiness.
(f) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``information technology'' has the meaning
given that term in section 5002 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of
1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401).
(2) The term ``national security system'' has the meaning
given that term in section 5142 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of
1996 (40 U.S.C. 1452).
Subtitle C--Environmental Provisions

SEC. 321. AUTHORIZATION TO PAY NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP AT FORMER DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE SITES IN CANADA.

(a) Authorization.--To the extent provided in
appropriations Acts, the Secretary of Defense may pay an
amount to the Government of Canada of not more than
$100,000,000 (in fiscal year 1996 constant dollars), for
purposes of implementing the October 1996 negotiated
settlement between the United States and Canada relating to
environmental cleanup at various sites in Canada that were
formerly used by the Department of Defense.
(b) Method of Payment.--The amount authorized by subsection
(a) shall be paid in 10 annual payments, with the first
payment made from amounts appropriated for fiscal year 1998.
(c) Fiscal Year 1998 Payment.--The payment under this
section for fiscal year 1998 shall be made from amounts
appropriated pursuant to section 301(5) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law
105-85; 111 Stat. 1669).
(d) Fiscal Year 1999 Payment.--The payment under this
section for fiscal year 1999 shall be made from amounts
appropriated pursuant to section 301(5).
(e) Limitation.--The authorization provided in this section
shall not be construed as setting a precedent for payment
under a treaty of an environmental claim made by another
nation, unless the Senate has given its consent to the
ratification of the treaty.

SEC. 322. REMOVAL OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS.

Of the amount authorized to be appropriated pursuant to
section 301(18) (relating to environmental restoration of
formerly used defense sites), the Secretary of the Army may
use not more than $150,000 for the removal of underground
storage tanks at the Authorities Allied Industrial Park,
Macon, Georgia.

Subtitle D--Defense Infrastructure Support Improvement

SEC. 331. REPORTING AND STUDY REQUIREMENTS BEFORE CHANGE OF
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL TYPE FUNCTIONS TO
CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE.

(a) In General.--Section 2461 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (h) and
transferring such subsection to appear after subsection (g);
and
(2) by striking out subsections (a) and (b) and inserting
in lieu thereof the following new subsections:
``(a) Reporting and Study Requirements as Precondition to
Change in Performance.--A commercial or industrial type
function of the Department of Defense that, as of October 1,
1980, was being performed by Department of Defense civilian
employees may not be changed to performance by a private
contractor or changed to procurement through a private
contractor until the Secretary of Defense fully complies with
the reporting and study requirements specified in subsections
(b) and (c).
``(b) Notification and Elements of Study.--(1) Before
commencing to study a commercial or industrial type function
described in subsection (a) for possible change to
performance by a private contractor or possible change to
procurement through a private contractor, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to Congress a report containing the
following:
``(A) The function to be studied for possible change.
``(B) The location at which the function is performed by
Department of Defense civilian employees.
``(C) The number of civilian employee positions potentially
affected.
``(D) The anticipated length and cost of the study.
``(E) A certification that the performance of the
commercial or industrial type function by civilian employees
of the Department of Defense is not precluded due to any
constraint or limitation in terms of man years, end
strengths, full-time equivalent positions, or maximum number
of employees.
``(2) The responsibility of the Secretary of Defense to
submit the report required under paragraph (1) may be
delegated only to senior acquisition executives or higher
officials for the military departments and the Defense
Agencies.
``(3) The study of a commercial or industrial type function
for possible change in performance shall include the
following:
``(A) A comparison of the cost of performance of the
function by Department of Defense civilian employees and by
private contractor to demonstrate whether change to
performance by a private contractor or change to procurement
through a private contractor will result in savings to the
Government over the life of the contract, including in the
comparison--
``(i) the amount estimated by the Secretary of Defense
(based on bids received) to be the amount of a contract for
performance of the function by a private contractor;
``(ii) the cost to the Government of Department of Defense
civilian employees performing the function; and
``(iii) the costs and expenditures which the Government
would incur (in addition to the amount of the contract)
because of the award of such a contract.
``(B) An examination of the potential economic effect of
performance of the function by a private contractor--
``(i) on employees who would be affected by such a change
in performance; and
``(ii) on the local community and the Government, if more
than 75 employees perform the function.
``(C) An examination of the effect of performance of the
function by a private contractor on the military mission of
the function.
``(4) If the commercial or industrial type function at
issue involves a working-capital fund in the Department of
Defense and the study concerns the possible procurement by a
requisitioning agency of services or supplies from a private
contractor instead of the working-capital fund, in lieu of
the comparison required by paragraph (3), the study shall
include a comparison of the sources of the services or
supplies to determine which source is more cost-effective for
the requisitioning agency.
``(5) An individual or entity at a facility where a
commercial or industrial type function is studied for
possible change in performance may raise an objection to the
study on the grounds that the report required under paragraph
(1) as a precondition for the study does not contain the
certification required by subparagraph (E) of such paragraph.
The objection may be raised at any time during the course of
the study, shall be in writing, and shall be submitted to the
Secretary of Defense. If the Secretary determines that the
certification was omitted, the commercial or industrial type
function covered by the study may not be the subject of
request for proposal or award of a contract until a
certification is made that fully complies with paragraph
(1)(E) and the other requirements of this section are
satisfied.
``(c) Notification of Decision.--(1) If, as a result of the
completion of a study under subsection (b)(3), a decision is
made to change the commercial or industrial type function
that was the subject of the study to performance by a private
contractor or to procurement through a private contractor,
the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report
describing that decision. The report shall--
``(A) indicate that the study under subsection (b)(3) has
been completed;
``(B) certify that the Government calculation for the cost
of performance of the function by Department of Defense
civilian employees is based on an estimate of the most
efficient and cost effective organization for performance of
the function by Department of Defense civilian employees;
``(C) certify that the comparison required by subsection
(b)(3)(A) (or alternatively by subsection (b)(4)) as part of
the study demonstrates that the performance of the function
by a private contractor or procurement of the function
through a private contractor will result in savings to the
Government over the life of the contract;
``(D) certify that the entire comparison is available for
examination; and
``(E) contain a timetable for completing change of the
function to contractor performance.
``(2) The actual change of the function to contractor
performance may not begin until after the submission of the
report required by this subsection.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Subsections (e)(2) and
(f)(1) of such section are amended by striking out
``converted'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``changed''.
(2) Subsection (f)(2) of such section is amended by
striking out ``conversion'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``change''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of

[[Page H3513]]

the enactment of this Act but shall not apply with respect to
conversion of a function of the Department of Defense to
performance by a private contractor concerning which the
Secretary of Defense provided to Congress, before the date of
the enactment of this Act, a notification under paragraph (1)
of section 2461(a) of title 10, United States Code, as in
effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this
Act.

SEC. 332. CLARIFICATION OF REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN
GOVERNMENT-OWNED AND GOVERNMENT-OPERATED CORE
LOGISTICS CAPABILITY.

Section 2464 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) Rule of Construction.--The requirement under
subsection (a) that the Department of Defense maintain a core
logistics capability that is Government-owned and Government-
operated is not satisfied when a core logistics workload is
converted to contractor performance even though the actual
performance of the workload will be carried out in a
Government-owned, Government-operated facility of the
Department of Defense as a subcontractor of the private
contractor. Nothing in section 2474 of this title or section
337 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1995 (Public Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 2717) authorizes the use
of subcontracts as a means to provide workloads to
Government-owned, Government-operated facilities of the
Department of Defense in order to satisfy paragraph (4) of
subsection (a).''.

SEC. 333. OVERSIGHT OF DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF
AUTOMATED IDENTIFICATION TECHNOLOGY.

(a) Smartcard Program Defined.--In this section, the term
``smartcard program'' means an automated identification
technology program, including any pilot program, employing
one or more of the following technologies:
(1) Magnetic stripe.
(2) Bar codes, both linear and two-dimensional (including
matrix symbologies).
(3) Smartcard.
(4) Optical memory.
(5) Personal computer memory card international association
carriers.
(6) Other established or emerging automated identification
technologies, including biometrics and radio frequency
identification.
(b) Oversight Responsibility.--(1) The Smartcard Technology
Office established in the Defense Human Resources Field
Activity of the Department of Defense shall be responsible
for--
(A) overseeing the development and implementation of all
smartcard programs in the Department; and
(B) coordinating smartcard programs with the Joint Staff,
the Secretaries of the military departments, and the
directors of the Defense Agencies.
(2) After the date of the enactment of this Act, funds
appropriated for the Department of Defense may not be
obligated for a smartcard program unless the program is
reviewed and approved by the Smartcard Technology Office. The
review and approval before that date of a smartcard program
by the Office is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of
this paragraph.
(c) Types of Oversight.--As part of its oversight
responsibilities, the Smartcard Technology Office shall
establish standards designed--
(1) to ensure the compatibility and interoperability of
smartcard programs in the Department of Defense; and
(2) to identify and terminate redundant, unfeasible, or
uneconomical smartcard programs.

SEC. 334. CONDITIONS ON EXPANSION OF FUNCTIONS PERFORMED
UNDER PRIME VENDOR CONTRACTS.

(a) Prime Vendor Contract Defined.--For purposes of this
section, the term ``prime vendor contract'' means an
innovative contract that gives a defense contractor the
responsibility to manage, store, and distribute inventory,
manage and provide services, or manage and perform research,
on behalf of the Department of Defense on a frequent, regular
basis, for users within the Department on request. The term
includes contracts commonly referred to as prime vendor
support contracts, flexible sustainment contracts, and direct
vendor delivery contracts.
(b) Conditions on Expanded Use.--If the Secretary of
Defense or the Secretary of a military department proposes to
enter into a prime vendor contract for a hardware system,
including the performance or management of depot-level
maintenance and repair (as defined in section 2460 of title
10, United States Code) or logistics management
responsibilities, the Secretary may not enter into the prime
vendor contract until the end of the 60-day period beginning
on the date on which the Secretary submits to Congress a
report, specific to that proposal, that--
(1) describes the competitive procedures to be used to
award the prime vendor contract;
(2) evaluates the effect of the prime vendor contract on
working-capital funds in the Department of Defense; and
(3) contains a cost/benefit analysis that demonstrates that
use of the prime vendor contract will result in savings to
the Government over the life of the contract.
(c) Comptroller General Review.--During the waiting period
provided in subsection (b) for a proposed prime vendor
contract, the Comptroller General shall review the report
submitted under subsection (b) with respect to that contract
and submit to Congress a report regarding--
(1) whether the cost savings to the Government identified
in the report submitted under subsection (b) are achievable;
and
(2) whether use of a prime vendor contract will comply with
the requirements of chapter 146 of title 10, United States
Code, applicable to depot-level maintenance and repair.
(d) Relationship to Other Laws.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed to exempt a prime vendor contract from the
requirements of section 2461 of title 10, United States
Code, or any other provision of chapter 146 of such title.

SEC. 335. CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF DEPOT-LEVEL
MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR.

Section 2460(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by inserting before the period at the end of the first
sentence the following: ``or the location at which the
maintenance or repair is performed''.

SEC. 336. CLARIFICATION OF COMMERCIAL ITEM EXCEPTION TO
REQUIREMENTS REGARDING CORE LOGISTICS
CAPABILITIES.

Section 2464(a)(5) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(5)'';
(2) by adding at the end of subparagraph (A), as so
designated, the following: ``The determination of whether a
modification is minor shall be based on a comparison of only
the critical systems of the version sold in the commercial
marketplace and the version purchased by the Government, and
a modification may not be considered to be minor unless at
least 90 percent of the total content by component value
remains identical.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) In this paragraph, the term `substantial quantities'
means, with respect to determining whether an item is a
commercial item, that purchases and leases of the item to the
general public constitute the majority of all transactions
involving the item at the time the exception under paragraph
(3) is proposed to be exercised.''.

SEC. 337. DEVELOPMENT OF PLAN FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF CORE
LOGISTICS CAPABILITIES FOR MAINTENANCE AND
REPAIR OF C-17 AIRCRAFT.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The C-17 aircraft, which is replacing the C-141
aircraft, will serve as the cornerstone of heavy airlift
capability of the Armed Forces.
(2) The C-17 aircraft achieved initial operational
capability in January 1995 and will complete the significant
fourth year of its operational capability in January 1999.
(3) As provided in section 2464(a)(3) of title 10, United
States Code, the C-17 aircraft is a weapon system that is
``necessary to enable the armed forces to fulfill the
strategic and contingency plans prepared by the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff''.
(4) The depot-level maintenance and repair of such a weapon
system must be performed at Government-owned, Government-
operated facilities of the Department of Defense in order to
maintain the core logistics capabilities of the Department of
Defense, as required under such section 2464.
(5) The sole-source contract entered into in January 1998
regarding the depot-level maintenance and repair of C-17
aircraft and related tasks, known as the Interim Contract for
the C-17 Flexible Sustainment Program, does not meet the
requirements of law.
(b) Plan Required.--Not later than March 1, 1999, the
Secretary of the Air Force shall submit to Congress a plan
for the establishment of the core logistics capabilities for
the C-17 aircraft consistent with the requirements of section
2464 of title 10, United States Code.
(c) Effect on Existing Contract.--After March 1, 1999, the
Secretary of the Air Force may not extend the Interim
Contract for the C-17 Flexible Sustainment Program until
after the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date the
plan required by subsection (b) is received by Congress.
(d) Comptroller General Review.--During the period
specified in subsection (c), the Comptroller General shall
review the plan required under subsection (b) and submit to
Congress a report evaluating the merits of the plan.

SEC. 338. CONTRACTOR-OPERATED CIVIL ENGINEERING SUPPLY STORES
PROGRAM.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``contractor-operated civil engineering supply
store'' means a Government-owned facility that, as of the
date of the enactment of this Act, is operated by a
contractor under the contractor-operated civil engineering
supply store (COCESS) program of the Department of the Air
Force for the purpose of--
(A) maintaining inventories of civil engineering supplies
on behalf of a military department; and
(B) furnishing such supplies to the department as needed.
(2) The term ``civil engineering supplies'' means parts and
supplies needed for the repair and maintenance of military
installations.
(b) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) In 1970, the Strategic Air Command of the Air Force
began to use contractor-operated civil engineering supply
stores to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
materials management and relieve the Air Force from having to
maintain large inventories of civil engineering supplies.
(2) Contractor-operated civil engineering supply stores are
designed to support the civil engineering and public works
efforts of the Armed Forces through the provision of quality
civil engineering supplies at competitive prices and within a
reasonable period of time.
(3) Through the use of a contractor-operated civil
engineering supply store, a guaranteed inventory level of
civil engineering supplies is maintained at a military
installation, which ensures that urgently needed civil
engineering supplies are available on site.
(4) The contractor operating the contractor-operated civil
engineering supply store is an independent business
organization whose customer is a military department and the
Armed Forces and who is subject to all the rules of private
business and the regulations of the Government.

[[Page H3514]]

(5) The use of contractor-operated civil engineering supply
stores ensures the best price and best buy for the
Government.
(6) Ninety-five percent of the cost savings realized
through the use of contractor-operated civil engineering
supply stores is due to savings in the cost of actually
procuring supplies.
(7) In the past 30 years, private contractors have never
lost a cost comparison conducted pursuant to the criteria set
forth in Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 for
the provision of civil engineering supplies to the
Government.
(c) Conditions on Multi-Function Contracts.--A civil
engineering supplies function that is performed, as of the
date of the enactment of this Act, by a contractor-operated
civil engineering supply store may not be combined with
another supply function or any service function, including
any base operating support function, for purposes of
competition or contracting, until--
(1) the Secretary of Defense submits to Congress a report--
(A) notifying Congress of the proposed combined competition
or contract; and
(B) explaining why a combined competition or contract is
the best method by which to achieve cost savings and
efficiencies to the Government; and
(2) the Comptroller General reviews the report and submits
to Congress a briefing regarding whether the cost savings and
efficiencies identified in the report are achievable.
(d) Relationship to Other Laws.--If a civil engineering
supplies function covered by subsection (c) is proposed for
combination with a supply or service function that is subject
to the study and reporting requirements of section 2461 of
title 10, United States Code, the Secretary of Defense may
include the report required under subsection (c) as part of
the report under such section.

SEC. 339. REPORT ON SAVINGS AND EFFECT OF PERSONNEL
REDUCTIONS IN ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND.

(a) Report Required.--Not later than March 31, 1999, the
Comptroller General shall submit to the congressional defense
committees a report concerning--
(1) the effect that the proposed personnel reductions in
the Army Materiel Command will have on workload and readiness
if implemented; and
(2) the likelihood that the cost savings projected to occur
from such reductions will actually be achieved.
(b) Delay in Implementation of Reductions Pending Report.--
During the period specified in subsection (c), the Secretary
of Defense and the Secretary of the Army may not commence
personnel reductions based on the guidelines contained in the
May 1997 report of the Quadrennial Defense Review (including
the National Defense Panel) prepared pursuant to subtitle B
of title IX of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201; 10 U.S.C. 111 note) at
any Army Material Command facility that provides depot-level
maintenance and repair or at any Army Arsenal.
(c) Duration of Delay.--Subsection (b) applies only during
the period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act
and ending on the earlier of the following:
(1) March 31, 1999.
(2) The date on which the report required by subsection (a)
is submitted.
Subtitle E--Commissaries and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities

SEC. 341. CONTINUATION OF MANAGEMENT AND FUNDING OF DEFENSE
COMMISSARY AGENCY THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.

Section 192 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Special Rule for Defense Commissary Agency.--
Notwithstanding the results of the periodic review required
under subsection (c) with regard to the Defense Commissary
Agency, the Secretary of Defense may not transfer to the
Secretary of a military department the responsibility to
manage and fund the provision of services and supplies
provided by the Defense Commissary Agency unless the transfer
of the management and funding responsibility is specifically
authorized by a law enacted after the date of the enactment
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1999.''.

SEC. 342. EXPANSION OF CURRENT ELIGIBILITY OF RESERVES FOR
COMMISSARY BENEFITS.

(a) Days of Eligibility for Ready Reserve Members With 50
Creditable Points.--Section 1063 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by striking out subsection (b); and
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking out ``(1)'';
(B) by striking out ``12 days of eligibility'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``24 days of eligibility''; and
(C) by striking out ``(2) Paragraph (1)'' and inserting in
lieu thereof ``(b) Effect of Compensation or Type of Duty.--
Subsection (a)''.
(b) Days of Eligibility for Reserve Retirees Under Age
60.--Section 1064 of such title is amended by striking out
``for 12 days each calendar year'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``for 24 days each calendar year''.
(c) Eligibility of Members of National Guard Serving in
Federally Declared Disaster.--Chapter 54 of such title is
amended by inserting after section 1063 the following new
section:

``Sec. 1063a. Use of commissary stores and MWR retail
facilities: members of National Guard serving in federally
declared disaster

``(a) Eligibility of Members.--A member of the National
Guard who, although not in Federal service, is called or
ordered to duty in response to a federally declared disaster
shall be permitted to use commissary stores and MWR retail
facilities during the period of such duty on the same basis
as members of the armed forces on active duty.
``(b) Eligibility of Dependents.--A dependent of a member
of the National Guard who is permitted under subsection (a)
to use commissary stores and MWR retail facilities shall be
permitted to use such stores and facilities, during the same
period as the member, on the same basis as dependents of
members of the armed forces on active duty.
``(c) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Federally declared disaster.--The term `federally
declared disaster' means a disaster or other situation for
which a Presidential declaration of major disaster is issued
under section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170).
``(2) MWR retail facilities.--The term `MWR retail
facilities' means exchange stores and other revenue-
generating facilities operated by nonappropriated fund
activities of the Department of Defense for the morale,
welfare, and recreation of members of the armed forces.''.
(d) Section Headings.--(1) The heading of section 1063 of
such title is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 1063. Use of commissary stores: members of Ready
Reserve with at least 50 creditable points''.

(2) The heading of section 1064 of such title is amended to
read as follows:

``Sec. 1064. Use of commissary stores: persons qualified for
retired pay under chapter 1223 but under age 60''.

(e) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 54 of such title is amended by striking
out the items relating to sections 1063 and 1064 and
inserting in lieu thereof the following items:

``1063. Use of commissary stores: members of Ready Reserve with at
least 50 creditable points.
``1063a. Use of commissary stores and MWR retail facilities: members of
National Guard serving in federally declared disaster.
``1064. Use of commissary stores: persons qualified for retired pay
under chapter 1223 but under age 60.''.

SEC. 343. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT FOR AIR FORCE TO SELL TOBACCO
PRODUCTS TO ENLISTED PERSONNEL.

(a) Repeal.--Section 9623 of title 10, United States Code,
is repealed.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 939 of such title is amended by striking
out the item relating to section 9623.

SEC. 344. RESTRICTIONS ON PATRON ACCESS TO, AND PURCHASES IN,
OVERSEAS COMMISSARIES AND EXCHANGE STORES.

(a) Authority to Impose Restrictions; Limitations on
Authority.--Chapter 147 of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``Sec. 2491. Overseas commissary and exchange stores: access
and purchase restrictions

``(a) General Authority.--The Secretary of Defense may
establish restrictions on the ability of eligible patrons of
commissary and exchange stores located outside of the United
States to purchase certain merchandise items (or the quantity
of certain merchandise items) otherwise included within an
authorized merchandise category if the Secretary determines
that such restrictions are necessary to prevent the resale of
such merchandise in violation of host nation laws or treaty
obligations of the United States. In establishing a quantity
or other restriction, the Secretary shall ensure that the
restriction is consistent with the purpose of the overseas
commissary and exchange system to provide reasonable access
for eligible patrons to purchase merchandise items made in
the United States.
``(b) Controlled Item Lists.--For each location outside the
United States that is served by the commissary system or the
exchange system, the Secretary of Defense may maintain a list
of controlled merchandise items, except that, after the date
of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1999, the Secretary may not change the list
to add a merchandise item unless, before making the change,
the Secretary submits to Congress a notice of the proposed
addition and the reasons for the addition of the item.
``(c) Special Rules for Korea.--(1) The Secretary of
Defense may not prohibit a dependent who resides in Korea, is
at least 21 years of age, and is otherwise eligible to use
the commissary and exchange system, from purchasing alcoholic
beverages through the commissary and exchange system.
Quantity restrictions on the purchase of alcoholic beverages
may be imposed, and any such restriction may be enforced
through the use of an issued ration control device, but a
dependent may not be required to sign for any purchase. A
quantity restriction on malt beverages may not restrict
purchases to fewer than eight cases, of 24-units per case,
per month. Daily or weekly restrictions on malt beverage
purchases may not be imposed. The purchase of malt
beverages may be recorded on a ration control device, but
eligible patrons may not be required to sign for any
purchase.
``(2) A dependent residing in Korea who is at least 18
years of age and otherwise eligible to use the commissary and
exchange system may purchase tobacco products on the same
basis as other eligible patrons of the commissary and
exchange system.
``(3) Eligible patrons of the commissary and exchange
system who are traveling through a military air terminal in
Korea shall be authorized to the purchase sundry items,
including tobacco products, on a temporary basis during the

[[Page H3515]]

normal operating hours of commissary and exchange stores
operated in connection with the terminal.
``(4) In applying restrictions to dependents of members of
the armed forces, the Secretary of Defense may not
differentiate between a dependent whose movement to Korea was
authorized at the expense of the United States under section
406 of title 37 and other dependents residing in Korea.
``(d) Reporting Requirements.--The Secretary of Defense
shall submit to Congress an annual report describing the host
nation laws and the treaty obligations of the United States,
and the conditions within host nations, that necessitate the
use of quantity or other restrictions on purchases in
commissary and exchange stores located outside the United
States.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:

``2491. Overseas commissary and exchange stores: access and purchase
restrictions.''.

SEC. 345. EXTENSION OF DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FOR UNIFORM
FUNDING OF MORALE, WELFARE, AND RECREATION
ACTIVITIES.

Section 335 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106; 10 U.S.C. 2241 note) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (c), by striking out ``not later than
September 30, 1998'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``on
September 30, 1999''; and
(2) in subsection (e)(2), by striking out ``a final report
on the results'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``an
additional report on the progress''.

SEC. 346. PROHIBITION ON CONSOLIDATION OR OTHER
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
RETAIL SYSTEMS.

(a) Defense Retail Systems Defined.--For purposes of this
section, the term ``defense retail systems'' means the
defense commissary system and exchange stores and other
revenue-generating facilities operated by nonappropriated
fund activities of the Department of Defense for the morale,
welfare, and recreation of members of the Armed Forces.
(b) Prohibition.--The operation and administration of the
defense retail systems may not be consolidated or otherwise
changed, and a study or review may not be commenced regarding
the need for or merits of such a consolidation or change,
unless the consolidation, change, study, or review is
specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(c) Effect on Existing Study.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed to prohibit the study of defense retail
systems, known as the ``Joint Exchange Due Diligence Study'',
which is underway on the date of the enactment of this Act
pursuant to a contract awarded by the Department of the Navy
on April 21, 1998, except that any recommendation contained
in the completed study regarding the operation or
administration of the defense retail systems may not be
implemented unless implementation of the recommendation is
specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of
the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 347. AUTHORIZED USE OF APPROPRIATED FUNDS FOR RELOCATION
OF NAVY EXCHANGE SERVICE COMMAND.

The Navy Exchange Service Command is not required to
reimburse the United States for appropriated funds allotted
to the Navy Exchange Service Command during fiscal years
1994, 1995, and 1996 to cover costs incurred by the Navy
Exchange Service Command to relocate to Virginia Beach,
Virginia, and to lease headquarters space in Virginia Beach.

SEC. 348. EVALUATION OF MERIT OF SELLING MALT BEVERAGES AND
WINE IN COMMISSARY STORES AS EXCHANGE SYSTEM
MERCHANDISE.

(a) Patron Survey.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall
enter into a contract with a commercial survey firm to
conduct a survey of eligible patrons of the commissary store
system to determine patron interest in having commissary
stores sell malt beverages and wine as exchange store
merchandise.
(2) The survey shall be conducted at not less than three
military installations in the United States of each of the
Armed Forces (other than the Coast Guard).
(3) The survey shall be completed, and the results
submitted to the Secretary of Defense, not later than
November 30, 1998.
(b) Demonstration Project.--(1) After consideration of the
survey results, the Secretary of Defense may conduct a
demonstration project at seven military installations in the
United States (two Army installations, two Air Force
installations, two Navy installations, and one Marine Corps
installation) to evaluate the merit of selling malt beverages
and wine in commissary stores as exchange store merchandise.
Under the demonstration project, the Secretary may sell malt
beverages and wine in commissary stores as exchange store
merchandise notwithstanding the general requirement that
merchandise sold in, at, or by commissary stores be
commissary store inventory.
(2) The demonstration project may only be conducted in
States where it is legal to sell malt beverages and wine in
grocery stores.
(3) Not later than February 1, 1999, the Secretary of
Defense shall determine whether to conduct the demonstration
project. Any such demonstration project shall be completed
not later than September 30, 2000.
(c) Report.--(1) If the Secretary of Defense conducts a
demonstration project under subsection (b), the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a report describing the results of
the demonstration project. The report shall include a
description of patron views, the impact on commissary sales,
the impact on exchange sales, and the impact, if any, on
dividends for morale, welfare, and recreation activities.
(2) The report shall be submitted not later than March 1,
2000.
(d) Limitation.--Nothing in this section shall be construed
to authorize the sale of malt beverages and wine in
commissary stores as commissary store inventory.
Subtitle F--Other Matters

SEC. 361. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR ATTENDANCE AT
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DOMESTIC DEPENDENT
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS.

(a) Dependents of Members Residing in Certain Areas.--
Subsection (a) of section 2164 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``If'';
(2) by designating the second sentence as paragraph (2);
and
(3) by adding at the end of paragraph (2) (as so
designated) the following new sentence: ``If a member of the
armed forces is assigned to a remote location or is assigned
to an unaccompanied tour of duty, a dependent of the member
who resides, on or off a military installation, in a
territory, commonwealth, or possession of the United States,
as authorized by the member's orders, may be enrolled in an
educational program provided by the Secretary under this
subsection.''.
(b) Waiver of Five-Year Attendance Limitation.--Subsection
(c)(2) of such section is amended by striking out
subparagraph (B) and inserting in lieu thereof the following
new subparagraph:
``(B) At the discretion of the Secretary, a dependent
referred to in subparagraph (A) may be enrolled in the
program for more than five consecutive school years if the
dependent is otherwise qualified for enrollment, space is
available in the program, and the Secretary will be
reimbursed for the services provided. Any such extension
shall cover only one school year at a time.''.

SEC. 362. SPECIFIC EMPHASIS OF PROGRAM TO INVESTIGATE FRAUD,
WASTE, AND ABUSE WITHIN DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

Section 392 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85; 10 U.S.C. 113 note) is
amended by inserting before the period the following: ``and
any fraud, waste, and abuse occurring in connection with
overpayments made to vendors by the Department of Defense,
including overpayments identified under section 354 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(Public Law 104-106; 10 U.S.C. 2461 note)''.

SEC. 363. REVISION OF INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO
ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME.

Section 1518 of the Armed Forces Retirement Home Act of
1991 (24 U.S.C. 418) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 1518. INSPECTION OF RETIREMENT HOME.

``(a) Periodic Inspection.--The Inspector Generals of the
military departments shall conduct, at three-year intervals,
an inspection of the Retirement Home and the records of the
Retirement Home. Each inspection under this subsection shall
be performed by a single Inspector General on an alternating
basis.
``(b) Report.--The Inspector General of a military
department who performs an inspection of the Retirement Home
under subsection (a) shall submit to the Retirement Home
Board, the Secretary of Defense, and Congress a report
describing the results of the inspection and containing such
recommendations as the Inspector General considers
appropriate.''.

SEC. 364. ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES THAT
BENEFIT DEPENDENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED
FORCES AND DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN
EMPLOYEES.

(a) Continuation of Department of Defense Program for
Fiscal Year 1999.--Of the amount authorized to be
appropriated pursuant to section 301(5) for operation and
maintenance for Defense-wide activities--
(1) $30,000,000 shall be available only for the purpose of
providing educational agencies assistance (as defined in
subsection (d)(1)) to local educational agencies; and
(2) $5,000,000 shall be available only for the purpose of
making educational agencies payments (as defined in
subsection (d)(2)) to local educational agencies.
(b) Notification.--Not later than June 30, 1999, the
Secretary of Defense shall--
(1) notify each local educational agency that is eligible
for educational agencies assistance for fiscal year 1999 of
that agency's eligibility for such assistance and the amount
of such assistance for which that agency is eligible; and
(2) notify each local educational agency that is eligible
for an educational agencies payment for fiscal year 1999 of
that agency's eligibility for such payment and the amount of
the payment for which that agency is eligible.
(c) Disbursement of Funds.--The Secretary of Defense shall
disburse funds made available under paragraphs (1) and (2) of
subsection (a) not later than 30 days after the date on which
notification to the eligible local educational agencies is
provided pursuant to subsection (b).
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``educational agencies assistance'' means
assistance authorized under section 386(b) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law
102-484; 20 U.S.C. 7703 note).
(2) The term ``educational agencies payments'' means
payments authorized under section 386(d) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law
102-484; 20 U.S.C. 7703 note).
(3) The term ``local educational agency'' has the meaning
given that term in section 8013(9) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7713(9)).

[[Page H3516]]

SEC. 365. STRATEGIC PLAN FOR EXPANSION OF DISTANCE LEARNING
INITIATIVES.

(a) Development of Plan.--The Secretary of Defense shall
develop a strategic plan for guiding and expanding distance
learning initiatives in the Department of Defense. The
strategic plan shall cover the five-year period beginning on
October 1, 1999.
(b) Elements of Plan.--The strategic plan required by this
section shall contain at a minimum the following elements:
(1) Measurable goals and objectives, including outcome-
related performance indicators, for developing distance
learning initiatives in the Department that would be
consistent with the principles of the Government Performance
and Results Act of 1993 (section 306 of title 5 and sections
1115 through 1119, 9703, and 9704 of title 31).
(2) A description of the manner in which distance learning
initiatives will be developed and managed in the Department.
(3) An estimate of the costs and benefits associated with
developing and maintaining an infrastructure in the
Department to support distance learning initiatives and a
statement of planned expenditures for investments necessary
to build and maintain the infrastructure.
(4) A description of mechanisms that will be used to
oversee the development and coordination of distance learning
initiatives in the Department.
(c) Consideration of Current Effort.--In developing the
strategic plan required by this section, the Secretary of
Defense may recognize the collaborative distance learning
effort of the Department of Defense and other Federal
agencies and private industry (known as the Advanced
Distribution Learning initiative), but the strategic plan
shall be specific to the goals and objectives of the
Department.
(d) Submission of Plan.--Not later than March 1, 1999, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress the completed
strategic plan required by this section.

SEC. 366. PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF OPERATING AGREEMENTS BETWEEN
MILITARY INSTALLATIONS AND FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS.

With respect to an agreement between the commander of a
military installation in the United States (or the designee
of an installation commander) and a financial institution
that permits, allows, or otherwise authorizes the provision
of financial services by the financial institution on the
military installation, nothing in the terms or nature of such
an agreement shall be construed to exempt the agreement from
the provisions of sections 552 and 552a of title 5, United
States Code.

SEC. 367. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE READINESS REPORTING SYSTEM.

(a) Establishment of System.--(1) Chapter 2 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 116
the following new section:

``Sec. 117. Readiness reporting system: establishment;
reporting to congressional committees

``(a) Required Readiness Reporting System.--The Secretary
of Defense shall establish a comprehensive readiness
reporting system for the Department of Defense. The readiness
reporting system shall measure in an objective, accurate, and
timely manner the capability of the armed forces to carry
out--
``(1) the National Security Strategy prescribed by the
President in the most recent annual national security
strategy report under section 108 of the National Security
Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 404a);
``(2) the defense planning guidance provided by the
Secretary of Defense pursuant to section 113(g) of this
title; and
``(3) the National Military Strategy prescribed by the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
``(b) Readiness Reporting System Characteristics.--In
establishing the readiness reporting system, the Secretary
shall ensure--
``(1) that the readiness reporting system is applied
uniformly throughout the Department of Defense;
``(2) that information in the readiness reporting system is
continually updated, with any change in the overall readiness
status of a unit, of an element of the training
establishment, or an element of defense infrastructure that
is required to be reported as part of the readiness reporting
system shall be reported within 24 hours of the event
necessitating the change in readiness status; and
``(3) that sufficient resources are provided to establish
and maintain the system so as to allow reporting of changes
in readiness status as required by this section.
``(c) Capabilities.--The readiness reporting system shall
have the capability to do the following:
``(1) Measure the capability of units (both as elements of
their respective armed force and as elements of joint forces)
to conduct their assigned wartime missions.
``(2) Measure the capability of training establishments to
provide trained and ready forces for wartime missions.
``(3) Measure the capability of defense installations and
facilities and other elements of Department of Defense
infrastructure, both in the United States and abroad, to
provide appropriate support to forces in the conduct of their
wartime missions.
``(4) Measure critical warfighting deficiencies in unit
capability, training establishments, and defense
infrastructure.
``(5) Measure the level of current risk based upon the
readiness reporting system relative to the capability of
forces to carry out their wartime missions.
``(6) Measure such other factors relating to readiness as
the Secretary prescribes.
``(d) Periodic Joint Readiness Review.--The Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff shall periodically, and not less
frequently than monthly, conduct a joint readiness review.
The Chairman shall incorporate into each such review the
current information derived from the readiness reporting
system and shall assess the capability of the armed forces to
execute their wartime missions based upon their posture at
the time of the review. The Chairman shall submit to the
Secretary of Defense the results of each review, including
the deficiencies in readiness identified during that review.
``(e) Submission to Congressional Committees.--The
Secretary shall each month submit to the Committee on Armed
Services and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate
and the Committee on National Security and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives a report in
writing containing the complete results of each review under
subsection (d) during the preceding month, including the
current information derived from the readiness reporting
system. Each such report shall be submitted in unclassified
form and may, as the Secretary determines necessary, also be
submitted in classified form.
``(f) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe
regulations to carry out this section. In those regulations,
the Secretary shall prescribe the units that are subject to
reporting in the readiness reporting system, what type of
equipment is subject to such reporting, and the elements of
the training establishment and of defense infrastructure that
are subject to such reporting.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section
116 the following new item:

``117. Readiness reporting system: establishment; reporting to
congressional committees.''.
(b) Implementation.--The Secretary of Defense shall
establish and implement the readiness reporting system
required by section 117 of title 10, United States Code, as
added by subsection (a), so as to ensure that the
capabilities required by subsection (c) of that section are
attained not later than July 1, 1999.
(c) Implementation Plan.--Not later than March 1, 1999, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report
setting forth the Secretary's plan for implementation of
section 117 of title 10, United States Code, as added by
subsection (a).
(d) Repeal of Quarterly Readiness Report Requirement.--
Effective July 1, 1999, or the date on which the first report
of the Secretary of Defense is submitted under section 117(d)
of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a),
whichever is later--
(1) section 482 of title 10, United States Code, is
repealed; and
(2) the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 23 of
such title is amended by striking out the item relating to
that section.

SEC. 368. TRAVEL BY RESERVISTS ON CARRIERS UNDER CONTRACT
WITH GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION.

(a) Reserve Use of Federal Supply Transportation.--Chapter
1217 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following new section:

``Sec. 12603. Travel: use of carriers under contract with
General Services Administration

``A member of a reserve component who requires
transportation in order to perform inactive duty training may
use a carrier under contract with the General Services
Administration to provide the transportation. The
transportation shall be provided by the carrier in the same
manner as transportation is provided to members of the armed
forces and civilian employees who are traveling at Government
expense, except that the Reserve is responsible for the cost
of the travel at the contract rate. The Secretary concerned
may require the Reserve to use a Government approved travel
card to ensure that the transportation is procured for the
purpose of performing inactive duty training.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such
chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new
item:

``12603. Travel: use of carriers under contract with General Services
Administration.''.
Subtitle G--Demonstration of Commercial-Type Practices To Improve
Quality of Personal Property Shipments

SEC. 381. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM REQUIRED.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a
demonstration program, to be known as the ``Commercial-Like
Activities for Superior Quality Demonstration Program'',
pursuant to this subtitle to test commercial-style practices
to improve the quality of personal property shipments within
the Department of Defense.
(b) Definitions.--In this subtitle:
(1) The term ``CLASS Demonstration Program'' means the
Commercial-Like Activities for Superior Quality Demonstration
Program required by subsection (a).
(2) The term ``affiliated'' means an entity that is owned
and controlled by another entity or an independently owned
entity whose day-to-day business operations are controlled by
another entity.
(3) The term ``best value CLASS score'' means a weighted
score that reflects an eligible provider's past performance
rating score and the schedules of charges for services
provided.
(4) The term ``broker'' means an entity, described in
section 13102(2) of title 49, United States Code, that
conducts operations on behalf of the Military Traffic
Management Command and possesses appropriate authority from
the Department of Transportation or an appropriate State
regulatory agency to arrange for the transportation of
personal property in interstate, intrastate, or foreign
commerce.

[[Page H3517]]

(5) The term ``freight forwarder'' means an entity that
provides the services described in section 13102(8) of title
49, United States Code, in interstate, intrastate, or foreign
commerce and possesses the authority to provide such services
from the Department of Transportation or an appropriate State
regulatory agency.
(6) The term ``motor carrier'' means an entity that uses
motor vehicles to transport personal property in interstate,
intrastate, or foreign commerce and possesses the authority
to provide such services from the Department of
Transportation or an appropriate State regulatory agency.
(7) The term ``motor vehicles'' has the meaning given such
term in section 13102(14) of title 49, United States Code.
(8) The term ``move management services provider'' means an
entity that provides certain services in connection with the
shipment of the household goods of a member of the Armed
Forces, such as arranging, coordinating, and monitoring the
shipment.
(9) The term ``test plan'' means the plan prepared under
section 384 for the conduct of the CLASS Demonstration
Program.

SEC. 382. GOALS OF DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

The goals of the CLASS Demonstration Program are to--
(1) adopt commercial-style practices to improve the quality
of Department of Defense personal property shipments within
the United States and to foreign locations;
(2) adopt simplified acquisition procedures for the
selection of contractors qualified to provide various types
of personal property shipping services and for the award of
individual orders to such contractors;
(3) assure ready access of the Department of Defense to a
sufficient number of qualified providers of personal property
shipping to permit timely shipments during periods of high
demand for such services;
(4) assure maximum practicable opportunities for small
business concerns to participate as prime contractors rather
than subcontractors;
(5) empower Installation Transportation Officers to assure
that the personal property shipping needs of individual
members of the Armed Forces are met in a timely manner by
quality contractors who minimize opportunities for damage;
and
(6) provide for the expedited resolution of claims for
damaged or lost property through direct settlement
negotiations between the service provider and the member of
the Armed Forces who sustains the loss, with commercial-like
arbitration available to the member with the assistance of
the military department concerned.

SEC. 383. PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS.

(a) Eligible Service Providers.--(1) Any motor carrier,
freight forwarder, or broker regularly providing personal
property shipping services that is approved by the Military
Traffic Management Command to provide such services to the
Department of Defense is eligible to participate in the CLASS
Demonstration Program. A motor carrier providing domestic
personal property shipping services shall not be precluded
from providing such services to international destinations
through an affiliated freight forwarder.
(2) If a motor carrier is affiliated with another motor
carrier or freight forwarder that also seeks qualification to
participate in the CLASS Demonstration Program, the affiliate
must demonstrate that it also conducts independent regular
motor carrier operations using motor vehicles or independent
freight forwarding services described in subparagraph (A),
(B), or (C) of section 13102(8) of title 49, United States
Code. If a freight forwarder is affiliated with another
freight forwarder or motor carrier that also seeks
qualification to participate in the program, the affiliate
must demonstrate that it also conducts regular independent
operations.
(b) Move Management Services Providers.--The test plan may
provide for the participation of a broker providing move
management services. A move management service provider shall
be compensated for providing such services solely by the
Department of Defense. The test plan shall prohibit a move
management services provider from obtaining a commission (or
similar type of payment however denominated) from a motor
carrier or freight forwarder providing the personal property
shipping services.
(c) Demonstration Program Participants.--Eligible service
providers shall be offered participation in the CLASS
Demonstration Program on the basis of their best value CLASS
score. Each eligible service provider's best value CLASS
score shall be computed in a manner that assigns 70 percent
of the weighted average to the provider's past performance
rating and 30 percent to the provider's offered prices.

SEC. 384. TEST PLAN.

(a) In General.--The CLASS Demonstration Program shall be
conducted pursuant to a test plan.
(b) Components of the Test Plan.--In addition to such other
matters as the Secretary of Defense considers appropriate,
the test plan shall include the following components:
(1) Rating past performance.--A past performance rating
score shall be developed for each eligible service provider
based on--
(A) evaluations from service members who have received
personal property shipping services during a specified six-
month rating period prior to the commencement of the CLASS
Demonstration Program; or
(B) a rating of comparable personal property shipping
services provided to non-Department of Defense customers
during the same rating period, if an eligible provider did
not make a sufficient number of military personal property
shipments during the rating period to be assigned a rating
pursuant to subparagraph (A).
(2) Participation by quality service providers.--A minimum
best value CLASS score shall be established for participation
in the CLASS Demonstration Program. In establishing the
minimum score for participation, consideration shall be given
to assuring access to sufficient numbers of service providers
to meet the needs of members of the Armed Forces during
periods of high demand for such personal property shipping
services.
(3) Simplified acquisition procedures.--The CLASS
Demonstration Program shall make use of simplified
acquisition procedures similar to those provided in section
2304(g)(1)(A) of title 10, United States Code.
(4) Pricing.--The test plan shall specify pricing policies
to be met by the CLASS Demonstration Program participants.
The pricing policies shall reflect the following:
(A) Domestic pricing shall be based on the contemporary
Household Goods Carriers Commercial Tariff 400-M, or
subsequent reissues thereof, applicable to commercial
domestic shipments with discounts and adjustments for States
outside the continental United States.
(B) So-called single factor rates for international
shipments.
(C) Full value protection for a shipment based on the
actual cash value of the contents of the shipment with
liability limited on a per pound basis as well as a total-
value basis.
(5) Allocation of orders.--Orders to provide personal
property shipping services shall be allocated by the
appropriate Installation Transportation Officer taking into
consideration--
(A) the service provider's best value CLASS score;
(B) maximum practicable utilization of small business
service providers;
(C) exceptional performance of a CLASS Demonstration
Program participant; and
(D) other criteria necessary to advance the goals of the
CLASS Demonstration Program, except that carrier selection by
a member of the Armed Forces using the CLASS Demonstration
Program shall be honored if the selection does not conflict
with subparagraph (A) or (B) and the need to maintain
adequate capacity.
(6) Performance evaluation during the term of the
demonstration program.--The CLASS Demonstration Program shall
provide for procedures for evaluation of the Demonstration
Program participants by the members of the Armed Forces
furnished personal property shipping services and by
Installation Transportation Officers. To the maximum extent
practicable, such evaluations shall be objective and
quantifiable. The program participant shall be accorded the
opportunity to review and make comment on a performance
evaluation provided by an individual in a manner that will
not deter candid evaluations by the individual. The results
of this evaluation may be used in developing future best
value CLASS scores.
(7) Modern customer service techniques.--The CLASS
Demonstration Program shall maximize the testing of modern
customer service techniques, such as in-transit tracking of
shipments and service member communication with the service
provider by means of toll-free telephone numbers.
(8) Direct claims settlement techniques.--The CLASS
Demonstration Program shall provide for settlement of claims
for personal property lost or damaged directly with the firm
providing the services. The procedures shall provide for--
(A) acknowledgment of a claim by the service provider
within 30 days of receipt;
(B) provision of a settlement offer within 120 days;
(C) filing of a claim within nine months, with appropriate
extensions for extenuating circumstances relating to war or
national emergency that impair the ability of a member of the
Armed Forces to file a timely claim; and
(D) referring of an unsettled claim by the member of the
Armed Forces to a designated claims officer for assistance in
resolving the claim or seeking commercial-like arbitration of
the claim, or both, if considered appropriate by the claims
officer.
(9) Criteria for evaluation of the overall demonstration
program.--The CLASS Demonstration Program shall include the
development of criteria to evaluate the overall performance
and effectiveness of the CLASS demonstration program.
(c) Development in Collaboration With Industry.--In
developing the test plan, the Secretary of Defense shall
maximize collaboration with representatives of associations
that represent all segments of the affected industries.
Special efforts shall be made to actively involve those
associations that represent small business providers of
personal property shipping services.
(d) Opportunity for Public Comment on Proposed Test Plan.--
Notice of the availability of the test plan shall be
published in the Federal Register and given by other means
likely to result in the notification of eligible service
providers and associations that represent them. Copies of the
proposed test plan may be made available in a printable
electronic format. The public shall be afforded 60 days to
comment on the proposed test plan.

SEC. 385. OTHER METHODS OF PERSONAL PROPERTY SHIPPING.

The CLASS Demonstration Program shall not impair the access
of a member of the Armed Forces to the shipment of personal
property through the programs known as the Do-It-Yourself
Program or the Direct Procurement Method Program.

SEC. 386. DURATION OF DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

The CLASS Demonstration Program shall commence on the first
day of the fiscal year quarter after the issuance of the test
plan in final form and terminate on the last day of the
fiscal year quarter after eight fiscal year quarters of
operation. The CLASS Demonstration Program shall take the
place of the re-engineering pilot solicitation of the
Military Traffic

[[Page H3518]]

Management Command identified as DAMTO1-97-R-3001.

SEC. 387. EVALUATION OF DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense shall provide for
the evaluation the CLASS Demonstration Program throughout the
term of the program pursuant to the evaluation criteria
included in the test plan.
(b) Interim Reports.--The Secretary of Defense shall issue
such interim reports relating to the implementation of the
CLASS Demonstration Program as may be appropriate.
(c) Final Report.--The Secretary of Defense shall issue a
final report on the CLASS Demonstration Program within 180
days before the termination date of the program. The report
may include recommendations for further implementation of the
CLASS Demonstration Program.
(d) Congressional Recipients.--The reports required by this
section shall be furnished to the congressional defense
committees and the Committee on Small Business of the Senate
and the House of Representatives.
(e) Public Availability.--The Secretary of Defense shall
provide public notice of the availability of copies of the
reports submitted to the congressional recipients through a
notice in the Federal Register and such other means as may be
appropriate. Copies of the reports may be made available in a
printable electronic format or in a printed form.

TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS

Subtitle A--Active Forces

SEC. 401. END STRENGTHS FOR ACTIVE FORCES.

The Armed Forces are authorized strengths for active duty
personnel as of September 30, 1999, as follows:
(1) The Army, 484,800.
(2) The Navy, 376,423.
(3) The Marine Corps, 173,922.
(4) The Air Force, 371,577.

SEC. 402. REVISION IN PERMANENT END STRENGTH LEVELS.

(a) Revised End Strength Floors.--Subsection (b) of section
691 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``495,000'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``484,800'';
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking out ``390,802'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``376,423''; and
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking out ``174,000'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``173,922''.
(b) Revision to Flexibility Authority for the Army.--
Subsection (e) of such section is amended by striking out
``or, in the case of the Army, by not more than 1.5
percent''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 1998.

SEC. 403. DATE FOR SUBMISSION OF ANNUAL MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS
REPORT.

Section 115a(a) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking out ``, not later than February 15 of each
fiscal year,'' in the first sentence; and
(2) by striking out ``The report shall be in writing and''
in the second sentence and inserting in lieu thereof ``The
report shall be submitted each year not later than 30 days
after the date on which the budget for the next fiscal year
is transmitted to Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title
31, shall be in writing, and''.

SEC. 404. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT
CHIEFS OF STAFF TO DESIGNATE UP TO 12 GENERAL
AND FLAG OFFICER POSITIONS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM
GENERAL AND FLAG OFFICER GRADE LIMITATIONS.

Section 526(b)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by striking out ``October 1, 1998'' and inserting in
lieu thereof ``October 1, 2001''.
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces

SEC. 411. END STRENGTHS FOR SELECTED RESERVE.

(a) In General.--The Armed Forces are authorized strengths
for Selected Reserve personnel of the reserve components as
of September 30, 1999, as follows:
(1) The Army National Guard of the United States, 357,000.
(2) The Army Reserve, 209,000.
(3) The Naval Reserve, 90,843.
(4) The Marine Corps Reserve, 40,018.
(5) The Air National Guard of the United States, 106,991.
(6) The Air Force Reserve, 74,242.
(7) The Coast Guard Reserve, 8,000.
(b) Adjustments.--The end strengths prescribed by
subsection (a) for the Selected Reserve of any reserve
component shall be proportionately reduced by--
(1) the total authorized strength of units organized to
serve as units of the Selected Reserve of such component
which are on active duty (other than for training) at the end
of the fiscal year, and
(2) the total number of individual members not in units
organized to serve as units of the Selected Reserve of such
component who are on active duty (other than for training or
for unsatisfactory participation in training) without their
consent at the end of the fiscal year.

Whenever such units or such individual members are released
from active duty during any fiscal year, the end strength
prescribed for such fiscal year for the Selected Reserve of
such reserve component shall be proportionately increased by
the total authorized strengths of such units and by the total
number of such individual members.

SEC. 412. END STRENGTHS FOR RESERVES ON ACTIVE DUTY IN
SUPPORT OF THE RESERVES.

Within the end strengths prescribed in section 411(a), the
reserve components of the Armed Forces are authorized, as of
September 30, 1999, the following number of Reserves to be
serving on full-time active duty or full-time duty, in the
case of members of the National Guard, for the purpose of
organizing, administering, recruiting, instructing, or
training the reserve components:
(1) The Army National Guard of the United States, 21,763.
(2) The Army Reserve, 12,804.
(3) The Naval Reserve, 15,590.
(4) The Marine Corps Reserve, 2,362.
(5) The Air National Guard of the United States, 10,930.
(6) The Air Force Reserve, 991.

SEC. 413. END STRENGTHS FOR MILITARY TECHNICIANS (DUAL
STATUS).

The minimum number of military technicians (dual status) as
of the last day of fiscal year 1999 for the reserve
components of the Army and the Air Force (notwithstanding
section 129 of title 10, United States Code) shall be the
following:
(1) For the Army Reserve, 5,395.
(2) For the Army National Guard of the United States,
23,125.
(3) For the Air Force Reserve, 9,761.
(4) For the Air National Guard of the United States,
22,408.

SEC. 414. INCREASE IN NUMBER OF MEMBERS IN CERTAIN GRADES
AUTHORIZED TO SERVE ON ACTIVE DUTY IN SUPPORT
OF THE RESERVES.

(a) Officers.--The table in section 12011(a) of title 10,
United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Marine
``Grade Army Navy Force Corps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major or Lieutenant Commander....... 3,219 1,071 776 140
Lieutenant Colonel or Commander..... 1,524 520 672 90
Colonel or Navy Captain............. 438 188 274 30''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Senior Enlisted Members.--The table in section 12012(a)
of such title is amended to read as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Marine
``Grade Army Navy Force Corps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-9................................. 623 202 388 20
E-8................................. 2,585 429 979 94''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take efffect on October 1, 1998.
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations

SEC. 421. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR MILITARY
PERSONNEL.

There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the
Department of Defense for military personnel for fiscal year
1999 a total of $70,697,086,000. The authorization in the
preceding sentence supersedes any other authorization of
appropriations (definite or indefinite) for such purpose for
fiscal year 1999.
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy

SEC. 501. CODIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY OF RETIRED OFFICERS AND
FORMER OFFICERS FOR CONSIDERATION BY SPECIAL
SELECTION BOARDS.

(a) Persons Not Considered by Promotion Boards Due to
Administrative Error.--Subsection (a) of section 628 of title
10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking out paragraph (1) and inserting in lieu
thereof the following:
``(a) Persons Not Considered by Promotion Boards Due to
Administrative Error.--(1) If the Secretary of the military
department concerned determines that because of
administrative error a person who should have been considered
for selection for promotion by a promotion board was not so
considered, the Secretary shall convene a special selection
board under this subsection to determine whether that person
(whether or not then on active duty) should be recommended
for promotion.'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking out ``the officer as his
record'' in the first sentence and inserting in lieu thereof
``the person whose name was referred to it for consideration
as that record''; and
(3) in paragraph (3), by striking out ``an officer in a
grade'' and all that follows through ``the officer'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``a person whose name was referred
to it for consideration for selection for appointment to a
grade other than a general officer or flag officer grade, the
person''.

[[Page H3519]]

(b) Persons Considered by Promotion Boards in Unfair
Manner.--Subsection (b) of such section is amended--
(1) by striking out paragraph (1) and inserting in lieu
thereof the following:
``(b) Persons Considered by Promotion Boards in Unfair
Manner.--(1) If the Secretary of the military department
concerned determines, in the case of a person who was
considered for selection for promotion by a promotion board
but was not selected, that there was material unfairness with
respect to that person, the Secretary may convene a special
selection board under this subsection to determine whether
that person (whether or not then on active duty) should be
recommended for promotion. In order to determine that there
was material unfairness, the Secretary must determine that--
``(A) the action of the promotion board that considered the
person was contrary to law or involved material error of fact
or material administrative error; or
``(B) the board did not have before it for its
consideration material information.'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking out ``the officer as his
record'' in the first sentence and inserting in lieu thereof
``the person whose name was referred to it for consideration
as that record''; and
(3) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by striking out ``an officer'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``a person''; and
(B) by striking out ``the officer'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``the person''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Subsection (c) of such
section is amended--
(A) by inserting ``Reports of Boards.--'' after ``(c)'';
(B) by striking out ``officer'' both places it appears in
paragraph (1) and inserting in lieu thereof ``person''; and
(C) in paragraph (2), by adding the following new sentence
at the end: ``However, in the case of a board convened under
this section to consider a warrant officer or former warrant
officer, the provisions of sections 576(d) and 576(f) of this
title (rather than the provisions of section 617(b) and 618
of this title) apply to the report and proceedings of the
board in the same manner as they apply to the report and
proceedings of a selection board convened under section
573 of this title.''.
(2) Subsection (d)(1) of such section is amended--
(A) by inserting ``Appointment of Persons Selected by
Boards.--'' after ``(d)'';
(B) by striking out ``an officer'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``a person'';
(C) by striking out ``such officer'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``that person'';
(D) by striking out ``the next higher grade'' the second
place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof ``that
grade'';
(E) by adding at the end the following: ``However, in the
case of a board convened under this section to consider a
warrant officer or former warrant officer, if the report of
that board, as approved by the Secretary concerned,
recommends that warrant officer or former warrant officer for
promotion to the next higher grade, that person shall, as
soon as practicable, be appointed to the next higher grade in
accordance with provisions of section 578(c) of this title
(rather than subsections (b), (c), and (d) of section 624 of
this title).''.
(3) Subsection (d)(2) of such section is amended--
(A) by striking out ``An officer who is promoted'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``A person who is appointed'';
(B) by striking out ``such promotion'' and inserting in
lieu thereof ``that appointment''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``In
the case of a person who is not on the active-duty list when
appointed to the next higher grade, placement of that person
on the active-duty list pursuant to the preceding sentence
shall be only for purposes of determination of eligibility of
that person for consideration for promotion by any subsequent
special selection board under this section.''.
(d) Applicability to Deceased Persons.--Subsection (e) of
such section is amended to read as follows:
``(e) Deceased Persons.--If a person whose name is being
considered for referral to a special selection board under
this section dies before the completion of proceedings under
this section with respect to that person, this section shall
be applied to that person posthumously.''.
(e) Recodification of Administrative Matters.--Such section
is further amended by adding at the end the following::
``(f) Convening of Boards.--A board convened under this
section--
``(1) shall be convened under regulations prescribed by the
Secretary of Defense;
``(2) shall be composed in accordance with section 612 of
this title or, in the case of board to consider a warrant
officer or former warrant officer, in accordance with section
573 of this title and regulations prescribed by the Secretary
of the military department concerned; and
``(3) shall be subject to the provisions of section 613 of
this title.
``(g) Promotion Board Defined.--In this section, the term
`promotion board' means a selection board convened by the
Secretary of a military department under section 573(a) or
611(a) of this title.''.
(f) Ratification of Codified Practice.--The consideration
by a special selection board convened under section 628 of
title 10, United States Code, before the date of the
enactment of this Act of a person who, at the time of
consideration, was a retired officer or former officer of the
Armed Forces (including a deceased retired or former officer)
is hereby ratified.

SEC. 502. COMMUNICATION TO PROMOTION BOARDS BY OFFICERS UNDER
CONSIDERATION.

Section 614(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by striking out ``his case'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``enhancing his case for selection for promotion''.

SEC. 503. PROCEDURES FOR SEPARATION OF REGULAR OFFICERS FOR
SUBSTANDARD PERFORMANCE OF DUTY OR CERTAIN
OTHER REASONS.

(a) Elimination of Requirement for a Board of Review.--
Section 1182(c) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by striking out ``it shall send the record of its proceedings
to a board of review convened under section 1183 of this
title'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``it shall report that
determination to the Secretary concerned'';
(b) Repeal of Board of Review.--(1) Section 1183 of such
title is repealed.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 60 of
such title is amended by striking out the item relating to
section 1183.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 1184 of such title
is amended by striking out ``board of review convened under
section 1183 of this title'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``board of inquiry convened under section 1182 of this
title''.
(2) The heading of such section and the item relating to
such section in the table of sections at the beginning of
chapter 60 of such title are amended by striking out the last
two words.
(d) Elimination of 30-Day Notice Requirement.--Section
1185(a)(1) of such title is amended by striking out ``, at
least 30 days before the hearing of his case by a board of
inquiry,''.

SEC. 504. POSTHUMOUS COMMISSIONS AND WARRANTS.

Section 1521 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(whether before or after the member's
death)'' in subsection (a)(3) after ``approved by the
Secretary concerned''; and
(2) by adding at the end of subsection (b) the following
new sentence: ``In the case of a member to whom subsection
(a)(3) applies who dies before approval by the Secretary
concerned of the appointment or promotion, the commission
shall issue as of the date of death.''.

SEC. 505. TENURE OF CHIEF OF THE AIR FORCE NURSE CORPS.

Section 8069(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by striking out ``, but not for more than three years, and
may not be reappointed to the same position'' in the last
sentence.
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Matters

SEC. 511. COMPOSITION OF SELECTIVE EARLY RETIREMENT BOARDS OF
RESERVE GENERAL AND FLAG OFFICERS OF THE NAVY
AND MARINE CORPS.

Section 14705(b) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(b) Boards.--(1) If the Secretary of the Navy determines
that consideration of officers for early retirement under
this section is necessary, the Secretary shall convene a
continuation board under section 14101(b) of this title to
recommend an appropriate number of officers for early
retirement.
``(2) In the case of such a board convened to consider
officers in the grade of rear admiral or major general--
``(A) the Secretary may appoint the board without regard to
section 14102(b) of this title; and
``(B) each member of the board must be serving in a grade
higher than the grade of rear admiral or major general.''.

SEC. 512. ACTIVE STATUS SERVICE REQUIREMENT FOR PROMOTION
CONSIDERATION FOR ARMY AND AIR FORCE RESERVE
COMPONENT BRIGADIER GENERALS.

Section 14301 of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(g) A reserve component brigadier general of the Army or
the Air Force who is in an inactive status is eligible
(notwithstanding subsection (a)) for consideration for
promotion to major general by a promotion board convened
under section 14101(a) of this title if the officer--
``(1) has been in an inactive status for less than one year
as of the date of the convening of the promotion board; and
``(2) had continuously served for at least one year on the
reserve active status list or the active duty list (or a
combination of both) immediately before the officer's most
recent transfer to an inactive status.''.

SEC. 513. REVISION TO EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR PROMOTION
OF RESERVE OFFICERS.

(a) Extension for Army OCS Graduates.--Section 12205(b)(4)
of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after ``October 1, 1995'' the following: ``, or in the case
of an officer commissioned through the Army Officer Candidate
School, October 1, 2000''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect as of October 1, 1995.
Subtitle C--Military Education and Training

SEC. 521. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO RECRUIT BASIC TRAINING.

(a) Army.--(1) Chapter 401 of title 10, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``Sec. 4319. Recruit basic training: separate platoons and
separate housing for male and female recruits

``(a) Separate Platoons.--The Secretary of the Army shall
require that during basic training--
``(1) male recruits shall be assigned to platoons
consisting only of male recruits; and
``(2) female recruits shall be assigned to platoons
consisting only of female recruits.
``(b) Separate Housing Facilities.--The Secretary of the
Army shall require that during basic training male and
female recruits be housed in separate barracks or other
troop housing facilities.

[[Page H3520]]

``(c) Interim Authority for Housing Recruits on Separate
Floors.--(1) If the Secretary of the Army determines that it
is not feasible, during some or all of the period beginning
on April 15, 1999, and ending on October 1, 2001, to comply
with subsection (b) at any particular installation at which
basic training is conducted because facilities at that
installation are insufficient for such purpose, the Secretary
may grant a waiver of subsection (b) with respect to that
installation. Any such waiver may not be in effect after
October 1, 2001, and may only be in effect while the
facilities at that installation are insufficient for the
purposes of compliance with subsection (b).
``(2) If the Secretary grants a waiver under paragraph (1)
with respect to an installation, the Secretary shall require
that male and female recruits in basic training at that
installation during any period that the waiver is in effect
not be housed on the same floor of a barracks or other troop
housing facility.
``(d) Basic Training Defined.--In this section, the term
`basic training' means the initial entry training program of
the Army that constitutes the basic training of new
recruits.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``4319. Recruit basic training: separate platoons and separate housing
for male and female recruits.''.

(3) The Secretary of the Army shall implement section 4319
of title 10, United States Code, as added by paragraph (1),
as rapidly as feasible and shall ensure that the provisions
of that section are applied to all recruit basic training
classes beginning not later than the first such class that
enters basic training on or after April 15, 1999.
(b) Navy and Marine Corps.--(1) Part III of subtitle C of
title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after
chapter 601 the following new chapter:

``CHAPTER 602--TRAINING GENERALLY

``Sec.
``6931. Recruit basic training: separate small units and separate
housing for male and female recruits.

``Sec. 6931. Recruit basic training: separate small units and
separate housing for male and female recruits

``(a) Separate Small Unit Organization.--The Secretary of
the Navy shall require that during basic training--
``(1) male recruits in the Navy shall be assigned to
divisions, and male recruits in the Marine Corps shall be
assigned to platoons, consisting only of male recruits; and
``(2) female recruits in the Navy shall be assigned to
divisions, and female recruits in the Marine Corps shall be
assigned to platoons, consisting only of female recruits.
``(b) Separate Housing.--The Secretary of the Navy shall
require that during basic training male and female recruits
be housed in separate barracks or other troop housing
facilities.
``(c) Interim Authority for Housing Recruits on Separate
Floors.--(1) If the Secretary of the Navy determines that it
is not feasible, during some or all of the period beginning
on April 15, 1999, and ending on October 1, 2001, to comply
with subsection (b) at any particular installation at which
basic training is conducted because facilities at that
installation are insufficient for that purpose, the Secretary
may grant a waiver of subsection (b) with respect to that
installation. Any such waiver may not be in effect after
October 1, 2001, and may only be in effect while the
facilities at that installation are insufficient for the
purposes of compliance with subsection (b).
``(2) If the Secretary grants a waiver under paragraph (1)
with respect to an installation, the Secretary shall require
that male and female recruits in basic training at that
installation during any period that the waiver is in effect
not be housed on the same floor of a barracks or other troop
housing facility.
``(d) Basic Training Defined.--In this section, the term
`basic training' means the initial entry training programs of
the Navy and Marine Corps that constitute the basic training
of new recruits.''.
(2) The tables of chapters at the beginning of subtitle C,
and at the beginning of part III of subtitle C, of such title
are amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter
601 the following new item:

``602. Training Generally...................................6931''.....

(3) The Secretary of the Navy shall implement section 6931
of title 10, United States Code, as added by paragraph (1),
as rapidly as feasible and shall ensure that the provisions
of that section are applied to all recruit basic training
classes beginning not later than the first such class that
enters basic training on or after April 15, 1999.
(c) Air Force.--(1) Chapter 901 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:

``Sec. 9319. Recruit basic training: separate flights and
separate housing for male and female recruits

``(a) Separate Flights.--The Secretary of the Air Force
shall require that during basic training--
``(1) male recruits shall be assigned to flights consisting
only of male recruits; and
``(2) female recruits shall be assigned to flights
consisting only of female recruits.
``(b) Separate Housing.--The Secretary of the Air Force
shall require that during basic training male and female
recruits be housed in separate dormitories or other troop
housing facilities.
``(c) Interim Authority for Housing Recruits on Separate
Floors.--(1) If the Secretary of the Air Force determines
that it is not feasible, during some or all of the period
beginning on April 15, 1999, and ending on October 1, 2001,
to comply with subsection (b) at any particular installation
at which basic training is conducted because facilities at
that installation are insufficient for such purpose, the
Secretary may grant a waiver of subsection (b) with respect
to that installation. Any such waiver may not be in effect
after October 1, 2001, and may only be in effect while the
facilities at that installation are insufficient for the
purposes of compliance with subsection (b).
``(2) If the Secretary grants a waiver under paragraph (1)
with respect to an installation, the Secretary shall require
that male and female recruits in basic training at that
installation during any period that the waiver is in effect
not be housed on the same floor of a dormitory or other troop
housing facility.
``(d) Basic Training Defined.--In this section, the term
`basic training' means the initial entry training program of
the Air Force that constitutes the basic training of new
recruits.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``9319. Recruit basic training: separate flights and separate housing
for male and female recruits.''.
(3) The Secretary of the Air Force shall implement section
9319 of title 10, United States Code, as added by paragraph
(1), as rapidly as feasible and shall ensure that the
provisions of that section are applied to all recruit basic
training classes beginning not later than the first such
class that enters basic training on or after April 15, 1999.

SEC. 522. AFTER-HOURS PRIVACY FOR RECRUITS DURING BASIC
TRAINING.

(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to ensure that
military recruits are provided some degree of privacy during
basic training when in their barracks after completion of the
normal training day.
(b) Army.--(1) Chapter 401 of title 10, United States Code,
is amended by adding after section 4319, as added by section
521(a)(1), the following new section:

``Sec. 4320. Recruit basic training: privacy

``The Secretary of the Army shall require that access by
drill sergeants and other training personnel to a barracks
floor on which recruits are housed during basic training
shall be limited after the end of the training day, other
than in the case of an emergency or other exigent
circumstance, to drill sergeants and other training personnel
who are of the same sex as the recruits housed on that
floor.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding after the item relating to section 4319,
as added by section 521(a)(2), the following new item:

``4320. Recruit basic training: privacy.''.
(3) The Secretary of the Army shall implement section 4320
of title 10, United States Code, as added by paragraph (1),
as rapidly as feasible and shall ensure that the provisions
of that section are applied to all recruit basic training
classes beginning not later than the first such class that
enters basic training on or after April 15, 1999.
(c) Navy.--(1) Chapter 602 of title 10, United States Code,
as added by section 521(b)(1), is amended by adding at the
end the following new section:

``Sec. 6932. Recruit basic training: privacy

``The Secretary of the Navy shall require that access by
recruit division commanders and other training personnel to a
barracks floor on which Navy recruits are housed during basic
training shall be limited after the end of the training day,
other than in the case of an emergency or other exigent
circumstance, to recruit division commanders and other
training personnel who are of the same sex as the recruits
housed on that floor.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``6932. Recruit basic training: privacy.''.

(3) The Secretary of the Navy shall implement section 6932
of title 10, United States Code, as added by paragraph (1),
as rapidly as feasible and shall ensure that the provisions
of that section are applied to all recruit basic training
classes beginning not later than the first such class that
enters basic training on or after April 15, 1999.
(d) Air Force.--(1) Chapter 901 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding after section 9319, as added by
section 521(c)(1), the following new section:

``Sec. 9320. Recruit basic training: privacy

``The Secretary of the Air Force shall require that access
by drill sergeants and other training personnel to a
dormitory floor on which recruits are housed during basic
training shall be limited after the end of the training day,
other than in the case of an emergency or other exigent
circumstance, to drill sergeants and other training personnel
who are of the same sex as the recruits housed on that
floor.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding after the item relating to section 9312,
as added by section 521(c)(2), the following new item:

``9320. Recruit basic training: privacy.''.
(3) The Secretary of the Air Force shall implement section
9320 of title 10, United States Code, as added by paragraph
(1), as rapidly as feasible and shall ensure that the
provisions of that section are applied to all recruit basic
training classes beginning not later than the first such
class that enters basic training on or after April 15, 1999.

SEC. 523. EXTENSION OF REPORTING DATES FOR COMMISSION ON
MILITARY TRAINING AND GENDER-RELATED ISSUES.

(a) First Report.--Subsection (e)(1) of section 562 of the
National Defense Authorization

[[Page H3521]]

Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85; 111 Stat. 1754)
is amended by striking out ``April 15, 1998'' and inserting
in lieu thereof ``October 15, 1998''.
(b) Final Report.--Subsection (e)(2) of such section is
amended by striking out ``September 16, 1998'' and inserting
in lieu thereof ``March 15, 1999''.

SEC. 524. IMPROVED OVERSIGHT OF INNOVATIVE READINESS
TRAINING.

(a) In General.--Section 2012 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(j) Oversight and Cost Accounting.--The Secretary of
Defense shall establish a program to improve the oversight
and cost accounting of training projects conducted in
accordance with this section. The program shall include
measures to accomplish the following:
``(1) Ensure that each project that is proposed to be
conducted in accordance with this section (regardless of
whether additional funding from the Secretary of Defense is
sought) is requested in writing, reviewed for full compliance
with this section, and approved in advance of initiation by
the Secretary of the military department concerned and, in
the case of a project that seeks additional funding from the
Secretary of Defense, by the Secretary of Defense.
``(2) Ensure that each project that is conducted in
accordance with this section is required to provide, within a
specified period following completion of the project, an
after-action report to the Secretary of Defense.
``(3) Require that each application for a project to be
conducted in accordance with this section include an analysis
and certification that the proposed project would not result
in a significant increase in the cost of training (as
determined in accordance with procedures prescribed by the
Secretary of Defense).
``(4) Determine the total program cost for each project,
including both those costs that are borne by the military
departments from their own accounts and those costs that are
borne by defense-wide accounts.
``(5) Provide for oversight of project execution to ensure
that a training project under this section is carried out in
accordance with the proposal for that project as approved.''.
(b) Implementation.--The Secretary of Defense may not
initiate any project under section 2012 of title 10, United
States Code, after October 1, 1998, until the program
required by subsection (i) of that section (as added by
subsection (a)) has been established.
Subtitle D--Decorations, Awards, and Commendations

SEC. 531. STUDY OF NEW DECORATIONS FOR INJURY OR DEATH IN
LINE OF DUTY.

(a) Determination of Criteria for New Decoration.--(1) The
Secretary of Defense shall determine the appropriate name,
policy, award criteria, and design for two possible new
decorations.
(2) The first such decoration would, if implemented, be
awarded to members of the Armed Forces who, while serving
under competent authority in any capacity with the Armed
Forces, are killed or injured in the line of duty as a result
of noncombat circumstances occurring--
(A) as a result of an international terrorist attack
against the United States or a foreign nation friendly to the
United States;
(B) while engaged in, training for, or traveling to or from
a peacetime or contingency operation; or
(C) while engaged in, training for, or traveling to or from
service outside the territory of the United States as part of
a peacekeeping force.
(3) The second such decoration would, if implemented, be
awarded to civilian nationals of the United States who, while
serving under competent authority in any capacity with the
Armed Forces, are killed or injured in the line of duty under
circumstances which, if they were members of the Armed
Forces, would qualify them for award of the Purple Heart or
the medal described in paragraph (2).
(b) Limitation on Implementation.--Any such decoration may
only be implemented as provided by a law enacted after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Recommendation to Congress.--Not later than July 31,
1999, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a legislative
proposal that would, if enacted, establish the new
decorations developed pursuant to subsection (a). The
Secretary shall include with that proposal the Secretary's
recommendation concerning the need for, and propriety of,
each of the decorations.
(d) Coordination.--The Secretary shall carry out this
section in coordination with the Secretaries of the military
departments and the Secretary of Transportation with regard
to the Coast Guard.

SEC. 532. WAIVER OF TIME LIMITATIONS FOR AWARD OF CERTAIN
DECORATIONS TO SPECIFIED PERSONS.

(a) Waiver of Time Limitation.--Any limitation established
by law or policy for the time within which a recommendation
for the award of a military decoration or award must be
submitted shall not apply in the case of awards of
decorations described in subsection (b), the award of each
such decoration having been determined by the Secretary of
the military department concerned to be warranted in
accordance with section 1130 of title 10, United States Code.
(b) Distinguished Flying Cross.--Subsection (a) applies to
awards of the Distinguished Flying Cross for service during
World War II or Korea (including multiple awards to the same
individual) in the case of each individual concerning whom
the Secretary of the Navy (or an officer of the Navy acting
on behalf of the Secretary) submitted to the Committee on
National Security of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Armed Services of the Senate, before the date of
the enactment of this Act, a notice as provided in section
1130(b) of title 10, United States Code, that the award of
the Distinguished Flying Cross to that individual is
warranted and that a waiver of time restrictions prescribed
by law for recommendation for such award is recommended.

SEC. 533. COMMENDATION OF THE NAVY AND MARINE CORPS PERSONNEL
WHO SERVED IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY ASIATIC
FLEET FROM 1910-1942.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The United States established the Asiatic Fleet of the
Navy in 1910 to protect American nationals, policies, and
possessions in the Far East.
(2) The sailors and Marines of the Asiatic Fleet ensured
the safety of United States citizens and foreign nationals,
and provided humanitarian assistance in that region during
the Chinese civil war, the Yangtze Flood of 1931, and the
outbreak of Sino-Japanese hostilities.
(3) In 1940, due to deteriorating political relations and
increasing tensions between the United States and Japan, a
reinforced Asiatic Fleet began concentrating on the defense
of the Philippines and engaged in extensive training to
ensure maximum operational readiness for any eventuality.
(4) Following the declaration of war against Japan in
December 1941, the warships, submarines, and aircraft of the
Asiatic Fleet singly or in task forces courageously fought
many battles against a superior Japanese armada.
(5) The Asiatic Fleet directly suffered the loss of 22
vessels, 1,826 men killed or missing in action, and 518 men
captured and imprisoned under the worst of conditions, with
many of them dying while held as prisoners of war.
(b) Congressional Commendation.--Congress--
(1) commends the Navy and Marine Corps personnel who served
in the Asiatic Fleet of the United States Navy between 1910
and 1942; and
(2) honors those who gave their lives in the line of duty
while serving in the Asiatic Fleet.

SEC. 534. APPRECIATION FOR SERVICE DURING WORLD WAR I AND
WORLD WAR II BY MEMBERS OF THE NAVY ASSIGNED ON
BOARD MERCHANT SHIPS AS THE NAVAL ARMED GUARD
SERVICE.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Navy established a special force during both World
War I and World War II, known as the Naval Armed Guard
Service, to protect merchant ships of the United States from
enemy attack by stationing members of the Navy and weapons on
board those ships.
(2) Members of the Naval Armed Guard Service served on
6,236 merchant ships during World War II, of which 710 were
sunk by enemy action.
(3) Over 144,900 members of the Navy served in the Naval
Armed Guard Service during World War II as officers, gun
crewmen, signalmen, and radiomen, of whom 1,810 were killed
in action.
(4) The efforts of the members of the Naval Armed Guard
Service played a significant role in the safe passage of
United States merchant ships to their destinations in the
Soviet Union and various locations in western Europe and the
Pacific Theater.
(5) The efforts of the members of the Navy who served in
the Naval Armed Guard Service have been largely overlooked
due to the rapid disbanding of the service after World War II
and lack of adequate records.
(6) Recognition of the service of the naval personnel who
served in the Naval Armed Guard Service is highly warranted
and long overdue.
(b) Sense of Congress.--Congress expresses its
appreciation, and the appreciation of the American people,
for the dedicated service performed during World War I and
World War II by members of the Navy assigned as gun crews on
board merchant ships as part of the Naval Armed Guard
Service.

SEC. 535. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE HEROISM, SACRIFICE,
AND SERVICE OF THE MILITARY FORCES OF SOUTH
VIETNAM AND OTHER NATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH
THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES DURING THE
VIETNAM CONFLICT.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) South Vietnam, Australia, South Korea, Thailand, New
Zealand, and the Philippines contributed military forces,
together with the United States, during military operations
conducted in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam conflict.
(2) The contributions of the combat forces from these
nations continued through long years of armed conflict.
(3) As a result, in addition to the United States
casualties exceeding 210,000, this willingness to participate
in the Vietnam conflict resulted in the death, and wounding
of more than 1,000,000 military personnel from South Vietnam
and 16,000 from other allied nations.
(4) The service of the Vietnamese and other allied nations
was repeatedly marked by exceptional heroism and sacrifice,
with particularly noteworthy contributions being made by the
Vietnamese airborne, commando, infantry and ranger units, the
Republic of Korea marines, the Capital and White Horse
divisions, the Royal Thai Army Black Panther Division, the
Royal Australian Regiment, the New Zealand ``V'' force, and
the 1st Philippine Civic Action Group.
(b) Sense of Congress.--Congress recognizes and honors the
members and former members of the military forces of South
Vietnam, the Republic of Korea, Thailand, Australia, New
Zealand, and the Philippines for their heroism, sacrifice and
service in connection with United States Armed Forces during
the Vietnam conflict.

[[Page H3522]]

SEC. 536. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE HEROISM, SACRIFICE,
AND SERVICE OF FORMER SOUTH VIETNAMESE
COMMANDOS IN CONNECTION WITH UNITED STATES
ARMED FORCES DURING THE VIETNAM CONFLICT.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) South Vietnamese commandos were recruited by the United
States as part of OPLAN 34A or its predecessor or OPLAN 35
from 1961 to 1970.
(2) The commandos conducted covert operations in North
Vietnam during the Vietnam conflict.
(3) Many of the commandos were captured and imprisoned by
North Vietnamese forces, some for as long as 20 years.
(4) The commandos served and fought proudly during the
Vietnam conflict.
(5) Many of the commandos lost their lives serving in
operations conducted by the United States during the Vietnam
conflict.
(6) Many of the Vietnamese commandos now reside in the
United States.
(b) Sense of Congress--Congress recognizes and honors the
former South Vietnamese commandos for their heroism,
sacrifice, and service in connection with United States armed
forces during the Vietnam conflict.
Subtitle E--Administration of Agencies Responsible for Review and
Correction of Military Records

SEC. 541. PERSONNEL FREEZE.

(a) Limitation.--During fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001,
the Secretary of a military department may not carry out any
reduction in the number of military and civilian personnel
assigned to duty with the service review agency for that
military department below the baseline number for that agency
until--
(1) the Secretary submits to Congress a report that
describes the reduction proposed to be made, provides the
Secretary's rationale for that reduction, and specifies the
number of such personnel that would be assigned to duty with
that agency after the reduction; and
(2) a period of 90 days has elapsed after the date on which
such report is submitted.
(b) Baseline Number.--The baseline number for a service
review agency under this section is--
(1) for purposes of the first report with respect to a
service review agency under this section, the number of
military and civilian personnel assigned to duty with that
agency as of October 1, 1997; and
(2) for purposes of any subsequent report with respect to a
service review agency under this section, the number of such
personnel specified in the most recent report with respect to
that agency under this section.
(c) Service Review Agency Defined.--In this section, the
term `service review agency' means--
(1) with respect to the Department of the Army, the Army
Review Boards Agency;
(2) with respect to the Department of the Navy, the Board
for Correction of Naval Records; and
(3) with respect to the Department of the Air Force, the
Air Force Review Boards Agency.

SEC. 542. PROFESSIONAL STAFF.

(a) In General.--(1) Chapter 79 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:

``Sec. 1555. Professional staff

``(a) The Secretary of each military department
shall assign to the staff of the service review agency of
that military department at least one attorney and at least
one physician. Such assignments shall be made on a permanent,
full-time basis and may be made from members of the armed
forces or civilian employees.
``(b) Personnel assigned pursuant to subsection (a)--
``(1) shall work under the supervision of the director or
executive director (as the case may be) of the service review
agency; and
``(2) shall be assigned duties as advisers to the director
or executive director or other staff members on legal and
medical matters, respectively, that are being considered by
the agency.
``(c) In this section, the term `service review agency'
means--
``(1) with respect to the Department of the Army, the Army
Review Boards Agency;
``(2) with respect to the Department of the Navy, the Board
for Correction of Naval Records; and
``(3) with respect to the Department of the Air Force, the
Air Force Review Boards Agency.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``1555. Professional staff.''.

(b) Effective Date.--Section 1555 of title 10, United
States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall take effect
180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 543. EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS.

(a) In General.--(1) Chapter 79 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding after section 1555, as added by
section 542(a)(1), the following new section:

``Sec. 1556. Ex parte communications prohibited

``(a) In General.--The Secretary of each military
department shall ensure that an applicant seeking corrective
action by the Army Review Boards Agency, the Air Force Review
Boards Agency, or the Board for Correction of Naval Records,
as the case may be, is provided a copy of all correspondence
and communications (including summaries of verbal
communications) to or from the agency or board, or a member
of the staff of the agency or board, with an entity or person
outside the agency or board that pertain directly to the
applicant's case or have a material effect on the applicant's
case.
``(b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) does not apply to the
following:
``(1) Classified information.
``(2) Information the release of which is otherwise
prohibited by law or regulation.
``(3) Any record previously provided to the applicant or
known to be possessed by the applicant.
``(4) Any correspondence that is purely administrative in
nature.
``(5) Any military record that is (or may be) provided to
the applicant by the Secretary of the military department or
other source.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding after the item relating to 1555, as
added by section 542(a)(2), the following new item:

``1556. Ex parte communications prohibited.''.

(b) Effective Date.--Section 1556 of title 10, United
States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall apply with
respect to correspondence and communications made 60 days or
more after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 544. TIMELINESS STANDARDS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 79 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding after section 1556, as added by
section 543(a)(1), the following new section:

``Sec. 1557. Timeliness standards for disposition of cases
before Corrections Boards

``(a) Ten-Month Clearance Percentage.--Of the cases
accepted for consideration by a Corrections Board during a
period specified in the following table, the percentage on
which final action must be completed within 10 months of
receipt (other than for those cases considered suitable for
administrative correction) is as follows:

The percentage on which final action must be completed within 10 months
of receipt is--
the period of fiscal years 2001 and 2002.....................50 ....

the period of fiscal years 2003 and 2004.....................60 ....

the period of fiscal years 2005, 2006, and 2007..............70 ....

the period of fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010..............80 ....

the period of any fiscal year after fiscal year 2010........90. ....

``(b) Clearance Deadline for All Cases.--Effective October
1, 2002, final action on all cases accepted for consideration
by a Corrections Board (other than those cases considered
suitable for administrative correction) shall be completed
within 18 months of receipt.
``(c) Waiver Authority.--The Secretary of the military
department concerned may exclude an individual case from the
timeliness standards prescribed in subsections (a) and (b) if
the Secretary determines that the case warrants a longer
period of consideration. The authority of the Secretary of a
military department under this subsection may not be
delegated.
``(d) Reports on Failure To Meet Timeliness Standards.--The
Secretary of the military department concerned shall submit
to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the
Committee on National Security of the House of
Representatives a report not later than June 1 following any
fiscal year during which the Corrections Board of that
Secretary's military department was unable to meet the
timeliness standards in subsections (a) and (b). The report
shall specify the reasons why the standard could not be met
and the corrective actions initiated to ensure compliance in
the future. The report shall also specify the number of
waivers granted under subsection (c) during that fiscal year.
``(e) Corrections Board Defined.--In this section, the term
`Corrections Board' means--
``(1) with respect to the Department of the Army, the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records;
``(2) with respect to the Department of the Navy, the Board
for Correction of Naval Records; and
``(3) with respect to the Department of the Air Force, the
Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding after the item
relating to section 1556, as added by section 543(a)(2),
the following new item:

``1557. Timeliness standards for disposition of cases before
Corrections Boards.''.

Subtitle F--Other Matters

SEC. 551. ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF CERTAIN FORCE DRAWDOWN
TRANSITION AUTHORITIES RELATING TO PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT AND BENEFITS.

(a) Early Retirement Authority for Active Duty Members.--
Section 4403(i) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484; 10 U.S.C. 1293 note) is
amended by striking out ``October 1, 1999'' and inserting in
lieu thereof ``October 1, 2000''.
(b) SSB and VSI.--Sections 1174a(h) and 1175(d)(3) of title
10, United States Code, are amended by striking out
``September 30, 1999'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``September 30, 2000''.
(c) Selective Early Retirement Boards.--Section 638a(a) of
such title is amended by striking out ``during the nine-year
period beginning on October 1, 1990'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and
ending on September 30, 2000''.
(d) Time-in-Grade Requirement for Retention of Grade Upon
Voluntary Retirement.--Section 1370(a)(2)(A) of such title is

[[Page H3523]]

amended by striking out ``during the nine-year period
beginning on October 1, 1990'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending
on September 30, 2000''.
(e) Length of Commissioned Service for Voluntary Retirement
as an Officer.--Sections 3911(b), 6323(a)(2), and 8911(b) of
such title are amended by striking out ``during the nine-year
period beginning on October 1, 1990'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and
ending on September 30, 2000''.
(f) Retirement of Certain Limited Duty Officers of the Navy
and Marine Corps.--(1) Sections 633 and 634 of such title are
amended by striking out ``October 1, 1999'' in the last
sentence and inserting in lieu thereof ``October 1, 2000''.
(2) Section 6383 of such title is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(5), by striking out ``October 1,
1999'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``October 1, 2000''; and
(B) in subsection (k), by striking out ``October 1, 1999''
in the last sentence and inserting in lieu thereof ``October
1, 2000''.
(g) Travel and Transportation Allowances and Storage of
Baggage and Household Effects for Certain Members Being
Involuntarily Separated.--Sections 404(c)(1)(C),
404(f)(2)(B)(v), 406(a)(2)(B)(v), and 406(g)(1)(C) of title
37, United States Code, and section 503(c) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law
101-510; 37 U.S.C. 406 note) are amended by striking out
``during the nine-year period beginning on October 1, 1990''
and inserting in lieu thereof ``during the period beginning
on October 1, 1990, and ending on September 30, 2000''.
(h) Educational Leave Relating to Continuing Public and
Community Service.--Section 4463(f) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484;
10 U.S.C. 1143a note) is amended by striking out ``September
30, 1999'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``September 30,
2000''.
(i) Transitional Health, Commissary, and Family Housing
Benefits.--
(1) Health care.--Section 1145 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) in subsections (a)(1) and (c)(1), by striking out
``during the nine-year period beginning on October 1, 1990''
and inserting in lieu thereof ``during the period beginning
on October 1, 1990, and ending on September 30, 2000''; and
(B) in subsection (e), by striking out ``during the five-
year period beginning on October 1, 1994'' and inserting in
lieu thereof ``during the period beginning on October 1,
1994, and ending on September 30, 2000''.
(2) Commissary and exchange benefits.--Section 1146 of such
title is amended--
(A) by striking out ``during the nine-year period beginning
on October 1, 1990'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``during
the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on
September 30, 2000''; and
(B) by striking out ``during the five-year period beginning
on October 1, 1994'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``during
the period beginning on October 1, 1994, and ending on
September 30, 2000''.
(3) Use of military housing.--Section 1147(a) of such title
is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``during the nine-
year period beginning on October 1, 1990'' and inserting in
lieu thereof ``during the period beginning on October 1,
1990, and ending on September 30, 2000''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking out ``during the five-
year period beginning on October 1, 1994'' and inserting in
lieu thereof ``during the period beginning on October 1,
1994, and ending on September 30, 2000''.
(j) Enrollment of Dependents in Defense Dependents'
Education System.--Section 1407(c)(1) of the Defense
Dependents' Education Act of 1978 (20 U.S.C. 926(c)(1)) is
amended by striking out ``during the nine-year period
beginning on October 1, 1990'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending
on September 30, 2000''.
(k) Force Reduction Transition Period Definition.--Section
4411 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1993 (10 U.S.C. 12681 note) is amended by striking out
``September 30, 1999'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``September 30, 2000''.
(l) Temporary Special Authority for Force Reduction Period
Retirements.--Section 4416(b)(1) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (10 U.S.C. 12681 note)
is amended by striking out ``October 1, 1999'' and inserting
in lieu thereof ``October 1, 2000''.
(m) Retired Pay for Non-Regular Service.--(1) Section
12731(f) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
striking out ``September 30, 1999'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``September 30, 2000''.
(2) Section 12731a of such title is amended in subsections
(a)(1)(B) and (b), by striking out ``October 1, 1999'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``October 1, 2000''.
(n) Affiliation With Guard and Reserve Units; Waiver of
Certain Limitations.--Section 1150(a) of such title is
amended by striking out ``during the nine-year period
beginning on October 1, 1990'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending
on September 30, 2000''.
(o) Reserve Montgomery GI Bill.--Section 16133(b)(1)(B) of
such title is amended by striking out ``September 30, 1999''
and inserting in lieu thereof ``September 30, 2000''.

SEC. 552. LEAVE WITHOUT PAY FOR ACADEMY CADETS AND
MIDSHIPMEN.

(a) Authority for Leave Without Pay.--Section 702 of title
10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(c)(1) The Secretary concerned may place an academy cadet
or midshipman on involuntary leave without pay if, under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned, the
Superintendent of the Academy at which the cadet or
midshipman is admitted--
``(A) has recommended that the cadet or midshipman be
dismissed or discharged;
``(B) has directed the cadet or midshipman return to the
Academy to repeat an academic semester or year;
``(C) has otherwise recommended to the Secretary for good
cause that the cadet or midshipman be placed on involuntary
leave without pay.
``(2) In this subsection, the term `academy cadet or
midshipman' means--
``(A) a cadet of the United States Military Academy;
``(B) a midshipman of the United States Naval Academy;
``(C) a cadet of the United States Air Force Academy; or
``(D) a cadet of the United States Coast Guard Academy.''.
(b) Effective Date.--Subsection (c) of section 702 of title
10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall
apply with respect to academy cadets and midshipmen (as
defined in that subsection) who are placed on involuntary
leave after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 553. PROVISION FOR RECOVERY, CARE, AND DISPOSITION OF
THE REMAINS OF ALL MEDICALLY RETIRED MEMBERS.

(a) In General.--Section 1481(a) of title 10, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``, or member of an
armed force without component,''; and
(2) in paragraph (7)--
(A) by striking out ``United States''; and
(B) by striking out ``for a period of more than 30 days,''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection
(a)(2) apply with respect to persons dying on or after the
date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 554. CONTINUED ELIGIBILITY UNDER VOLUNTARY SEPARATION
INCENTIVE PROGRAM FOR MEMBERS WHO INVOLUNTARILY
LOSE MEMBERSHIP IN A RESERVE COMPONENT.

(a) Continued Eligibility.--Section 1175(a) of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by inserting before the period
at the end ``, or for the period described in section
1175(e)(1) of this section if the member becomes ineligible
for retention in an active or inactive status in a reserve
component because of age, years of service, failure to select
for promotion, or medical disqualification, so long as such
ineligibility does not result from deliberate action on the
part of the member with the intent to avoid retention in an
active or inactive status in a reserve component.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
applies with respect to any person provided a voluntary
separation incentive under section 1175 of title 10, United
States Code (whether before, on, or after the date of the
enactment of this Act).

SEC. 555. DEFINITION OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTION FOR DIRECT
DEPOSIT OF PAY.

(a) Servicemembers Reimbursement for Expenses Due to
Government Error.--Paragraph (1) of section 1053(d) of title
10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(1) The term `financial institution' means a bank,
savings and loan association, or similar institution or a
credit union chartered by the United States or a State.''.
(b) Civilian Employees Reimbursement for Expenses Due to
Government Error.--Paragraph (1) of section 1594(d) of such
title is amended to read as follows:
``(1) The term `financial institution' means a bank,
savings and loan association, or similar institution or a
credit union chartered by the United States or a State.''.

SEC. 556. INCREASE IN MAXIMUM AMOUNT FOR COLLEGE FUND
PROGRAM.

(a) Increase in Maximum Rate for Active Component
Montgomery GI Bill Kicker.--Section 3015(d) of title 38,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``, at the time the individual first
becomes a member of the Armed Forces,'' after ``Secretary of
Defense, may''; and
(2) by striking out ``$400'' and all that follows through
``that date'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``$950 per
month''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 1999, and shall apply with
respect to individuals who first become members of the Armed
Forces on or after that date.

SEC. 557. CENTRAL IDENTIFICATION LABORATORY, HAWAII.

(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the Central Identification Laboratory, Hawaii, of the
Department of the Army is an important element of the
Department of Defense and is critical to the full accounting
of members of the Armed Forces who have been classified as
POW/MIAs or are otherwise unaccounted for.
(b) Required Staffing Level.--The Secretary of Defense
shall provide sufficient personnel to fill all authorized
personnel positions of the Central Identification Laboratory,
Hawaii, Department of the Army. Those personnel shall be
drawn from members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine
Corps and from civilian personnel, as appropriate,
considering the proportion of POW/MIAs from each service.
(c) Joint Manning Plan.--The Secretary of Defense shall
develop and implement, not later than March 31, 2000, a joint
manning plan to ensure the appropriate participation of the
four services in the staffing of the Central Identification
Laboratory, Hawaii, as required by subsection (b).

[[Page H3524]]

(d) Limitation on Reductions.--The Secretary of the Army
may not carry out any personnel reductions (in authorized or
assigned personnel) at the Central Identification Laboratory,
Hawaii, until the joint manning plan required by subsection
(c) is implemented.

SEC. 558. HONOR GUARD DETAILS AT FUNERALS OF VETERANS.

(a) In General.--(1) Chapter 75 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:

``Sec. 1491. Honor guard details at funerals of veterans

``(a) Availability.--The Secretary of a military department
shall, upon request, provide an honor guard detail (or ensure
that an honor guard detail is provided) for the funeral of
any veteran.
``(b) Composition of Honor Guard Details.--The Secretary of
each military department shall ensure that an honor guard
detail for the funeral of a veteran consists of not less than
three persons and (unless a bugler is part of the detail) has
the capability to play a recorded version of Taps.
``(c) Persons Forming Honor Guards.--An honor guard detail
may consist of members of the armed forces or members of
veterans organizations or other organizations approved for
purposes of this section under regulations prescribed by the
Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of a military department
may provide transportation, or reimbursement for
transportation, and expenses for a person who participates in
an honor guard detail under this section and is not a member
of the armed forces or an employee of the United States.
``(d) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall by
regulation establish a system for selection of units of the
armed forces and other organizations to provide honor guard
details. The system shall place an emphasis on balancing the
funeral detail workload among the units and organizations
providing honor guard details in an equitable manner as they
are able to respond to requests for such details in terms of
geographic proximity and available resources. The Secretary
shall provide in such regulations that the armed force in
which a veteran served shall not be considered to be a factor
when selecting the military unit or other organization to
provide an honor guard detail for the funeral of the veteran.
``(e) Annual Report.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit
to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the
Committee on National Security of the House of
Representatives a report not later than January 31 of each
year beginning with 2001 and ending with 2005 on the
experience of the Department of Defense under this section.
Each such report shall provide data on the number of funerals
supported under this section, cost for that support, shown by
manpower and other cost factors, and the number and costs of
funerals supported by each participating organization. The
data in the report shall be presented in a standard format,
regardless of military department or other organization.
``(f) Veteran Defined.--In this section, the term `veteran'
has the meaning given that term in section 101(2) of title
38.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``1491. Honor guard details at funerals of veterans.''.

(b) Treatment of Performance of Honor Guard Functions by
Reserves.--(1) Chapter 1215 of title 10, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``Sec. 12552. Funeral honor guard functions: prohibition of
treatment as drill or training

``Performance by a Reserve of honor guard functions at the
funeral of a veteran may not be considered to be a period of
drill or training otherwise required.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``12552. Funeral honor guard functions: prohibition of treatment as
drill or training.''.

(c) Repeal of Limitation on Availability of Funds for Honor
Guard Functions by National Guard.--Section 114 of title 32,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking out ``(a)''; and
(2) by striking out subsection (b).
(d) Applicability.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to burials of veterans that occur on or after
October 1, 1999.
(e) Study.--The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, shall study alternative
means for the provision of honor guard details at funerals of
veterans. Not later than March 31, 1999, the Secretary shall
submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and
the Committee on National Security of the House of
Representatives a report setting forth the results of the
study and the Secretary's views and recommendations.
(f) Consultation with Veterans Service Organizations.--
Before prescribing the initial regulations under section 1491
of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a),
the Secretary of Defense shall consult with veterans service
organizations to determine the views of those organizations
regarding methods for providing honor guard details at
funerals for veterans, suggestions for organizing the system
to provide those details, and estimates of the resources that
those organizations could provide for honor guard details for
veterans.

SEC. 559. APPLICABILITY TO ALL PERSONS IN CHAIN OF COMMAND OF
POLICY REQUIRING EXEMPLARY CONDUCT BY
COMMANDING OFFICERS AND OTHERS IN AUTHORITY IN
THE ARMED FORCES.

(a) In General.--(1) Chapter 3 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 121 the following
new section:

``Sec. 121a. Requirement of exemplary conduct by civilians in
chain of command

``The President, as Commander in Chief, and the Secretary
of Defense are required (in the same manner that commanding
officers and others in authority in the Armed Forces are
required)--
``(1) to show in themselves a good example of virtue,
honor, and patriotism and to subordinate themselves to those
ideals;
``(2) to be vigilant in inspecting the conduct of all
persons who are placed under their command;
``(3) to guard against and to put an end to all dissolute
and immoral practices and to correct, according to the laws
and regulations of the armed forces, all persons who are
guilty of them; and
``(4) to take all necessary and proper measures, under the
laws, regulations, and customs of the armed forces, to
promote and safeguard the morale, the physical well-being,
and the general welfare of the officers and enlisted persons
under their command or charge.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 121 the following new item:

``121a. Requirement of exemplary conduct by civilians in chain of
command.''.

SEC. 560. REPORT ON PRISONERS TRANSFERRED FROM UNITED STATES
DISCIPLINARY BARRACKS, FORT LEAVENWORTH,
KANSAS, TO FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS.

(a) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit
to Congress a report, to be prepared by the General Counsel
of the Department of Defense, concerning the decision of the
Secretary of the Army in 1994 to transfer approximately 500
prisoners from the United States Disciplinary Barracks, Fort
Leavenworth, Kansas, to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
(b) Matters To Be Included.--The Secretary shall include in
the report the following:
(1) A description of the basis for the selection of
prisoners to be transferred, particularly in light of the
fact that many of the prisoners transferred are minimum or
medium security prisoners, who are considered to have the
best chance for rehabilitation, and whether the transfer of
those prisoners indicates a change in Department of Defense
policy regarding the rehabilitation of military prisoners.
(2) A comparison of the historical recidivism rates of
prisoners released from the United States Disciplinary
Barracks and the Federal Bureau of Prisons, together with a
description of any plans of the Army to track the parole and
recidivism rates of prisoners transferred to the Federal
Bureau of Prisons and whether it has tracked those factors
for previous transferees.
(3) A description of the projected future flow of prisoners
into the new United States Disciplinary Barracks being
constructed at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and whether the
Secretary of the Army plans to automatically send new
prisoners to the Federal Bureau of Prisons without serving at
the United States Disciplinary Barracks if that Barracks is
at capacity and whether the Memorandum of Understanding
between the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the Army covers
that possibility.
(4) A description of the cost of incarcerating a prisoner
in the Federal Bureau of Prisons compared to the United
States Disciplinary Barracks and the assessment of the
Secretary as to the extent to which the transfer of prisoners
to the Federal Bureau of Prisons by the Secretary of the Army
is made in order to shift a budgetary burden.
(c) Monitoring.--During fiscal years 1999 through 2003, the
Secretary of the Army shall track the parole and recidivism
rates of prisoners transferred from the United States
Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, to the
Federal Bureau of Prisons.

SEC. 561. REPORT ON PROCESS FOR SELECTION OF MEMBERS FOR
SERVICE ON COURTS-MARTIAL.

(a) Report Required.--Not later than April 15, 1999, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on the
method of selection of members of the Armed Forces to serve
on courts-martial.
(b) Matters To Be Considered.--In preparing the report, the
Secretary shall--
(1) direct the Secretaries of the military departments to
develop a plan for random selection of members of courts-
martial , subject to the provisions relating to service on
courts-martial specified in section 825(d)(2) of title 10,
United States Code (article 25(d)(2) of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice), as a possible replacement for the current
system of selection by the convening authority; and
(2) obtain the views of the members of the committee
referred to in section 946 of such title (known as the ``Code
Committee'').

SEC. 562. STUDY OF REVISING THE TERM OF SERVICE OF MEMBERS OF
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
ARMED FORCES.

Not later than April 15, 1999, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to Congress a report on the desirability of
revising the term of appointment of judges of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces so that the term
of a judge on that court is for a period of 15 years or until
the judge attains the age of 65, whichever is later. In
preparing the report, the Secretary shall obtain the view of
the members of the committee referred to in section 946 of
title 10, United States Code, (known as the ``Code
Committee'').

[[Page H3525]]

SEC. 563. STATUS OF CADETS AT THE MERCHANT MARINE ACADEMY.

(a) Status of Cadets.--Any citizen of the United States
appointed as a cadet at the United States Merchant Marine
Academy shall be considered to be a member of the United
States Naval Reserve.
(b) Eligibility.--The Secretary of Defense shall provide
that cadets of the United States Merchant Marine Academy
shall be issued an identification card (referred to as a
``military ID card'') and shall be entitled to all rights and
privileges in accordance with the same eligibility criteria
as apply to other members of the Ready Reserve of the reserve
components of the Armed Forces.
(c) Coordination With Secretary of Transportation.--The
Secretary of Defense shall carry out this section in
coordination with the Secretary of Transportation.

TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS

Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances

SEC. 601. INCREASE IN BASIC PAY FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999.

(a) Waiver of Section 1009 Adjustment.--Except as provided
in subsection (b), the adjustment, to become effective during
fiscal year 1999, required by section 1009 of title 37,
United States Code, in the rate of monthly basic pay
authorized members of the uniformed services by section
203(a) of such title shall not be made.
(b) Increase in Basic Pay.--Effective on January 1, 1999,
the rates of basic pay of members of the uniformed services
shall be increased by the greater of--
(1) 3.6 percent; or
(2) the percentage increase determined under subsection (c)
of section 1009 of title 37, United States Code, by which the
monthly basic pay of members would be adjusted under
subsection (a) of that section on that date in the absence of
subsection (a) of this section.

SEC. 602. BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR HOUSING OUTSIDE THE UNITED
STATES.

(a) Payment of Certain Expenses Related to Overseas
Housing.--Section 403(c) of title 37, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3)(A) In the case of a member of the uniformed services
authorized to receive an allowance under paragraph (1), the
Secretary concerned may make a lump-sum payment to the member
for required deposits and advance rent, and for expenses
relating thereto, that are--
``(i) incurred by the member in occupying private housing
outside of the United States; and
``(ii) authorized or approved under regulations prescribed
by the Secretary concerned.
``(B) Expenses for which a member may be reimbursed under
this paragraph may include losses relating to housing that
are sustained by the member as a result of fluctuations in
the relative value of the currencies of the United States and
the foreign country in which the housing is located.
``(C) The Secretary concerned shall recoup the full amount
of any deposit or advance rent payments made by the Secretary
under subparagraph (A), including any gain resulting from
currency fluctuations between the time of payment and the
time of recoupment.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 405 of title 37, United
States Code, is amended by striking out subsection (c).
(c) Retroactive Application.--The reimbursement authority
provided by section 403(c)(3)(B) of title 37, United States
Code, as added by subsection (a), applies with respect to
losses relating to housing that are sustained, on or after
July 1, 1997, by a member of the uniformed services as a
result of fluctuations in the relative value of the
currencies of the United States and the foreign country in
which the housing is located.

SEC. 603. BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR SUBSISTENCE FOR RESERVES.

(a) In General.--Section 402 of title 37, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections
(f) and (g), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following new
subsection:
``(e) Special Rule for Certain Enlisted Reserve Members.--
Unless entitled to basic pay under section 204 of this title,
an enlisted member of a reserve component may receive, at the
discretion of the Secretary concerned, rations in kind, or a
part thereof, when the member's instruction or duty periods,
as described in section 206(a) of this title, total at least
eight hours in a calendar day. The Secretary concerned may
provide an enlisted member who could be provided rations in
kind under the preceding sentence with a commutation when
rations in kind are not available.''.
(b) Application During Transitional Period.--Section
602(d)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85; 37 U.S.C. 402 note) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) Special rule for certain enlisted reserve members.--
Unless entitled to basic pay under section 204 of title 37,
United States Code, an enlisted member of a reserve component
(as defined in section 101(24) of such title) may receive, at
the discretion of the Secretary concerned (as defined in
section 101(5) of such title), rations in kind, or a part
thereof, when the member's instruction or duty periods (as
described in section 206(a) of such title) total at least
eight hours in a calendar day. The Secretary concerned may
provide an enlisted member who could be provided rations in
kind under the preceding sentence with a commutation when
rations in kind are not available.''.
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays

SEC. 611. ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF CERTAIN BONUSES AND SPECIAL
PAY AUTHORITIES FOR RESERVE FORCES.

(a) Special Pay for Health Professionals in Critically
Short Wartime Specialties.--Section 302g(f) of title 37,
United States Code, is amended by striking out ``September
30, 1999'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``September 30,
2000''.
(b) Selected Reserve Reenlistment Bonus.--Section 308b(f)
of title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking out
``September 30, 1999'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``September 30, 2000''.
(c) Selected Reserve Enlistment Bonus.--Section 308c(e) of
title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking out
``September 30, 1999'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``September 30, 2000''.
(d) Special Pay for Enlisted Members Assigned to Certain
High Priority Units.--Section 308d(c) of title 37, United
States Code, is amended by striking out ``September 30,
1999'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``September 30, 2000''.
(e) Selected Reserve Affiliation Bonus.--Section 308e(e) of
title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking out
``September 30, 1999'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``September 30, 2000''.
(f) Ready Reserve Enlistment and Reenlistment Bonus.--
Section 308h(g) of title 37, United States Code, is amended
by striking out ``September 30, 1999'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``September 30, 2000''.
(g) Prior Service Enlistment Bonus.--Section 308i(f) of
title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking out
``September 30, 1999'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``September 30, 2000''.
(h) Repayment of Education Loans for Certain Health
Professionals Who Serve in the Selected Reserve.--Section
16302(d) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
striking out ``October 1, 1999'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``October 1, 2000''.

SEC. 612. ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF CERTAIN BONUSES AND SPECIAL
PAY AUTHORITIES FOR NURSE OFFICER CANDIDATES,
REGISTERED NURSES, AND NURSE ANESTHETISTS.

(a) Nurse Officer Candidate Accession Program.--Section
2130a(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
striking out ``September 30, 1999'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``September 30, 2000''.
(b) Accession Bonus for Registered Nurses.--Section
302d(a)(1) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by
striking out ``September 30, 1999'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``September 30, 2000''.
(c) Incentive Special Pay for Nurse Anesthetists.--Section
302e(a)(1) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by
striking out ``September 30, 1999'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``September 30, 2000''.

SEC. 613. ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF AUTHORITIES RELATING TO
PAYMENT OF OTHER BONUSES AND SPECIAL PAYS.

(a) Aviation Officer Retention Bonus.--Section 301b(a) of
title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking out
``September 30, 1999,'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``September 30, 2000,''.
(b) Reenlistment Bonus for Active Members.--Section 308(g)
of title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking out
``September 30, 1999'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``September 30, 2000''.
(c) Enlistment Bonuses for Members With Critical Skills.--
Sections 308a(c) and 308f(c) of title 37, United States Code,
are each amended by striking out ``September 30, 1999'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``September 30, 2000''.
(d) Special Pay for Nuclear Qualified Officers Extending
Period of Active Service.--Section 312(e) of title 37, United
States Code, is amended by striking out ``September 30,
1999'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``September 30, 2000''.
(e) Nuclear Career Accession Bonus.--Section 312b(c) of
title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking out
``September 30, 1999'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``September 30, 2000''.
(f) Nuclear Career Annual Incentive Bonus.--Section 312c(d)
of title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking out
``October 1, 1999'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``October
1, 2000''.

SEC. 614. AVIATION CAREER INCENTIVE PAY AND AVIATION OFFICER
RETENTION BONUS.

(a) Definition of Aviation Service.--(1) Section 301a(a)(6)
of title 37, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as
subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D), respectively; and
(B) by inserting before subparagraph (B) (as so
redesignated) the following new subparagraph:
``(A) The term `aviation service' means service performed
by an officer (except a flight surgeon or other medical
officer) while holding an aeronautical rating or designation
or while in training to receive an aeronautical rating or
designation.''.
(2) Section 301b(j) of such title is amended by striking
out paragraph (1) and inserting in lieu thereof the following
new paragraph:
``(1) The term `aviation service' means service performed
by an officer (except a flight surgeon or other medical
officer) while holding an aeronautical rating or designation
or while in training to receive an aeronautical rating or
designation.''.
(b) Amount of Incentive Pay.--Subsection (b) of section
301a of such title is amended to read as follows:
``(b)(1) A member who satisfies the requirements described
in subsection (a) is entitled to monthly incentive pay as
follows:

[[Page H3526]]

``Years of aviation service (including flight training) as Monthly rate
2 or less........................................................$125
Over 2...........................................................$156
Over 3...........................................................$188
Over 4...........................................................$206
Over 6...........................................................$650
Over 14..........................................................$840
Over 22..........................................................$585
Over 23..........................................................$495
Over 24..........................................................$385
Over 25..........................................................$250

``(2) An officer in a pay grade above O-6 is entitled,
until the officer completes 25 years of aviation service, to
be paid at the rates set forth in the table in paragraph (1),
except that--
``(A) an officer in pay grade O-7 may not be paid at a rate
greater than $200 a month; and
``(B) an officer in pay grade O-8 or above may not be paid
at a rate greater than $206 a month.
``(3) For a warrant officer with over 22, 23, 24, or 25
years of aviation service who is qualified under subsection
(a), the rate prescribed in the table in paragraph (1) for
officers with over 14 years of aviation service shall
continue to apply to the warrant officer.''.
(c) References to Aviation Service.--(1) Section 301a of
such title is further amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(4)--
(i) by striking out ``22 years of the officer's service as
an officer'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``22 years of
aviation service of the officer''; and
(ii) by striking out ``25 years of service as an officer
(as computed under section 205 of this title)'' and inserting
in lieu thereof ``25 years of aviation service''; and
(B) in subsection (d), by striking out ``subsection (b)(1)
or (2), as the case may be, for the performance of that duty
by a member of corresponding years of aviation or officer
service, as appropriate,'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``subsection (b) for the performance of that duty by a member
with corresponding years of aviation service''.
(2) Section 301b(b)(5) of such title is amended by striking
out ``active duty'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``aviation
service''.
(d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 615 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law
105-85; 111 Stat. 1787) is repealed.

SEC. 615. SPECIAL PAY FOR DIVING DUTY.

Section 304(a) of title 37, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``or'' at the end of paragraph (1);
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking out ``by frequent and
regular dives; and'' and inserting in lieu thereof a period;
and
(3) by striking out paragraph (3).

SEC. 616. SELECTIVE REENLISTMENT BONUS ELIGIBILITY FOR
RESERVE MEMBERS PERFORMING ACTIVE GUARD AND
RESERVE DUTY.

Section 308(a)(1)(D) of title 37, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(D) reenlists or voluntarily extends the member's
enlistment for a period of at least three years in a regular
component, or in a reserve component if the member is
performing active Guard and Reserve duty (as defined in
section 101(d)(6) of title 10), of the service concerned;''.

SEC. 617. REMOVAL OF TEN PERCENT RESTRICTION ON SELECTIVE
REENLISTMENT BONUSES.

Section 308(b) of title 37, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking out ``(1)'' after ``(b)''; and
(2) by striking out paragraph (2).

SEC. 618. INCREASE IN MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF ARMY ENLISTMENT
BONUS.

Section 308f(a) of title 37, United States Code, is amended
by striking out ``$4,000'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``$6,000''.

SEC. 619. EQUITABLE TREATMENT OF RESERVES ELIGIBLE FOR
SPECIAL PAY FOR DUTY SUBJECT TO HOSTILE FIRE OR
IMMINENT DANGER.

Section 310(b) of title 37, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(b)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) A member of a reserve component who is eligible for
special pay under this section for a month shall receive the
full amount authorized in subsection (a) for that month
regardless of the number of days during that month on which
the member satisfies the eligibility criteria specified in
such subsection.''.
Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances

SEC. 631. EXCEPTION TO MAXIMUM WEIGHT ALLOWANCE FOR BAGGAGE
AND HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS.

Section 406(b)(1)(D) of title 37, United States Code, is
amended in the second sentence by inserting before the period
the following: ``, unless the additional weight allowance in
excess of such maximum is intended to permit the shipping of
consumables that cannot be reasonably obtained at the new
station of the member''.

SEC. 632. TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCES FOR TRAVEL
PERFORMED BY MEMBERS IN CONNECTION WITH REST
AND RECUPERATIVE LEAVE FROM OVERSEAS STATIONS.

(a) Provision of Transportation.--Section 411c of title 37,
United States Code, is amended by striking out subsection (b)
and inserting in lieu thereof the following new subsection:
``(b) When the transportation authorized by subsection (a)
is provided by the Secretary concerned, the Secretary may use
Government or commercial carriers. The Secretary concerned
may limit the amount of payments made to members under
subsection (a).''.
(b) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The heading of such section
is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 411c. Travel and transportation allowances: travel
performed in connection with rest and recuperative leave
from certain stations in foreign countries''.

(2) The item relating to such section in the table of
sections at the beginning of chapter 7 of such title is
amended to read as follows:

``411c. Travel and transportation allowances: travel performed in
connection with rest and recuperative leave from certain
stations in foreign countries.''.

SEC. 633. STORAGE OF BAGGAGE OF CERTAIN DEPENDENTS.

Section 430(b) of title 37, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(b)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) At the option of the member, in lieu of the
transportation of baggage of a dependent child under
paragraph (1) from the dependent's school in the continental
United States, the Secretary concerned may pay or reimburse
the member for costs incurred to store the baggage at or in
the vicinity of the school during the dependent's annual trip
between the school and the member's duty station. The amount
of the payment or reimbursement may not exceed the cost that
the Government would incur to transport the baggage.''.

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

SEC. 641. EFFECTIVE DATE OF FORMER SPOUSE SURVIVOR BENEFIT
COVERAGE.

(a) Coordination of Provisions.--Section 1448(b)(3)(C) of
title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after
``the Secretary concerned'' in the second sentence the
following: ``, except that, in the case of an election made
by a person described in section 1450(f)(3)(B) of this title,
such an election is effective on the first day of the first
month which begins after the date of the court order or
filing involved (in the same manner as provided under section
1450(f)(3)(D) of this title)''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to elections under section 1448(b)(3) of title
10, United States Code, that are received by the Secretary
concerned on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Subtitle E--Other Matters

SEC. 651. DELETION OF CANAL ZONE FROM DEFINITION OF UNITED
STATES POSSESSIONS FOR PURPOSES OF PAY AND
ALLOWANCES.

Section 101(2) of title 37, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``the Canal Zone,''.

SEC. 652. ACCOUNTING OF ADVANCE PAYMENTS.

Section 1006(e) of title 37, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(e)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Obligations and expenditures incurred for an advance
payment under this section may not be included in any
determination of amounts available for obligation or
expenditure except in the fiscal year in which the advance
payment is ultimately earned and such obligations and
expenditures shall be accounted for only in such fiscal
year.''.

SEC. 653. REIMBURSEMENT OF RENTAL VEHICLE COSTS WHEN MOTOR
VEHICLE TRANSPORTED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE IS
LATE.

(a) Transportation in Connection With Change of Permanent
Station.--Section 2634 of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following new
subsection:
``(g) If a motor vehicle of a member (or a dependent of the
member) that is transported at the expense of the United
States under this section does not arrive at the authorized
destination of the vehicle by the designated delivery date,
the Secretary concerned shall reimburse the member for
expenses incurred after that date to rent a motor vehicle for
the member's use, or for the use of the dependent for whom
the delayed vehicle was transported. However, the amount
reimbursed shall not exceed $30 per day, and the rental
period for which reimbursement may be provided shall expire
after seven days or on the date on which the delayed vehicle
finally arrives at the authorized destination (whichever
occurs first).''.
(b) Transportation in Connection With Other Moves.--Section
406(h) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by adding
at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) If a motor vehicle of a member (or a dependent of the
member) that is transported at the expense of the United
States under this subsection does not arrive at the
authorized destination of the vehicle by the designated
delivery date, the Secretary concerned shall reimburse the
member for expenses incurred after that date to rent a motor
vehicle for the dependent's use. However, the amount
reimbursed shall not exceed $30 per day, and the rental
period for which reimbursement may be provided shall expire
after seven days or on the date on which the delayed vehicle
finally arrives at the authorized destination (whichever
occurs first).''.
(c) Transportation in Connection With Departure Allowances
for Dependents.--Section 405a(b) of title 37, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(b)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) If a motor vehicle of a member (or a dependent of the
member) that is transported at

[[Page H3527]]

the expense of the United States under paragraph (1) does not
arrive at the authorized destination of the vehicle by the
designated delivery date, the Secretary concerned shall
reimburse the member for expenses incurred after that date to
rent a motor vehicle for the dependent's use. However, the
amount reimbursed shall not exceed $30 per day, and the
rental period for which reimbursement may be provided shall
expire after seven days or on the date on which the delayed
vehicle finally arrives at the authorized destination
(whichever occurs first).''.
(d) Transportation in Connection With Effects of Missing
Persons.--Section 554 of title 37, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (i) as subsection (j); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (h) the following new
subsection:
``(i) If a motor vehicle of a member (or a dependent of the
member) that is transported at the expense of the United
States under this section does not arrive at the authorized
destination of the vehicle by the designated delivery date,
the Secretary concerned shall reimburse the dependent for
expenses incurred after that date to rent a motor vehicle for
the dependent's use. However, the amount reimbursed shall not
exceed $30 per day, and the rental period for which
reimbursement may be provided shall expire after seven days
or on the date on which the delayed vehicle finally arrives
at the authorized destination (whichever occurs first).''.
(e) Application of Amendments.--Reimbursement for motor
vehicle rental expenses may not be provided under the
amendments made by this section until after the date on which
the Secretary of Defense submits to Congress a report
certifying that the Department of Defense has in place and
operational a system to recover the cost to the Department of
providing such reimbursement from commercial carriers that
are responsible for the delay in the delivery of the motor
vehicles of members of the Armed Forces and their dependents.
The amendments shall apply with respect to rental expenses
described in such amendments that are incurred on or after
the date of the submission of the report.

SEC. 654. EDUCATION LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN HEALTH
PROFESSION OFFICERS SERVING IN SELECTED
RESERVE.

(a) Loan Repayment Amounts.--Section 16302(c) of title 10,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking out ``$3,000'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``$10,000''; and
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking out ``$20,000'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``$50,000''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 1998.

TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS

Subtitle A--Health Care Services

SEC. 701. EXPANSION OF DEPENDENT ELIGIBILITY UNDER RETIREE
DENTAL PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 1076c of title
10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new
paragraph:
``(4) Eligible dependents of a member described in
paragraph (1) or (2) who is not enrolled in the plan and
who--
``(A) is enrolled under section 1705 of title 38 to receive
dental care from the Secretary of Veterans Affairs;
``(B) is enrolled in a dental plan that--
``(i) is available to the member as a result of employment
by the member that is separate from the military service of
the member; and
``(ii) is not available to dependents of the member as a
result of such separate employment by the member; or
``(C) is prevented by a medical or dental condition from
being able to obtain benefits under the plan.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Subsection (f)(3) of such
section is amended by striking out ``(b)(4)'' and inserting
in lieu thereof ``(b)(5)''.

SEC. 702. PLAN FOR PROVISION OF HEALTH CARE FOR MILITARY
RETIREES AND THEIR DEPENDENTS COMPARABLE TO
HEALTH CARE PROVIDED UNDER TRICARE PRIME.

(a) Requirement To Submit Plan.--(1) The Secretary of
Defense shall submit to Congress--
(A) a plan under which the Secretary would guarantee
access, for covered beneficiaries described in subsection
(b), to health care that is comparable to the health care
provided to covered beneficiaries under chapter 55 of title
10, United States Code, under TRICARE Prime (as defined in
subsection (d) of section 1097a of such title (as added by
section 712)); and
(B) a legislative proposal and cost estimate for
implementing the plan.
(2) The plan required under paragraph (1)(A) shall provide
for guaranteed access to such health care for such covered
beneficiaries by October 1, 2001.
(b) Covered Beneficiaries.--A covered beneficiary under
this subsection is an individual who is a covered beneficiary
under chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, who--
(1) is a member or former member of the Armed Forces
entitled to retired pay under such title; or
(2) is a dependent (as that term is defined in section
1072(2) of such chapter) of such a member.
(c) Deadline for Submission.--The Secretary shall submit
the plan required by subsection (a) not later than March 1,
1999.

SEC. 703. PLAN FOR REDESIGN OF MILITARY PHARMACY SYSTEM.

(a) Plan Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit
to Congress a plan that would provide for a system-wide
redesign of the military and contractor retail and mail-order
pharmacy system of the Department of Defense by incorporating
``best business practices'' of the private sector. The
Secretary shall work with contractors of TRICARE retail
pharmacy and national mail-order pharmacy programs to develop
a plan for the redesign of the pharmacy system that--
(1) may include a plan for an incentive-based formulary for
military medical treatment facilities and contractors of
TRICARE retail pharmacies and the national mail-order
pharmacy; and
(2) shall include a plan for each of the following:
(A) A uniform formulary for such facilities and
contractors.
(B) A centralized database that integrates the patient
databases of pharmacies of military medical treatment
facilities and contractor retail and mail-order programs to
implement automated prospective drug utilization review
systems.
(C) A system-wide drug benefit for covered beneficiaries
under chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, who are
entitled to hospital insurance benefits under part A of title
XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395c et seq.).
(b) Submission of Plan.--The Secretary shall submit the
plan required under subsection (a) not later than March 1,
1999.
(c) Suspension of Implementation of Program.--The Secretary
shall suspend any plan to establish a national retail
pharmacy program for the Department of Defense until--
(1) the plan required under subsection (a) is submitted;
and
(2) the Secretary implements cost-saving reforms with
respect to the military and contractor retail and mail order
pharmacy system.

SEC. 704. TRANSITIONAL AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE CONTINUED HEALTH
CARE COVERAGE FOR CERTAIN PERSONS UNAWARE OF
LOSS OF CHAMPUS ELIGIBILITY.

(a) Transitional Coverage.--The administering Secretaries
may continue eligibility of a person described in subsection
(b) for health care coverage under the Civilian Health and
Medical Program of the Uniformed Services based on a
determination that such continuation is appropriate to assure
health care coverage for any such person who may have been
unaware of the loss of eligibility to receive health benefits
under that program.
(b) Persons Eligible.--A person shall be eligible for
transitional health care coverage under subsection (a) if the
person--
(1) is a person described in paragraph (1) of subsection
(d) of section 1086 of title 10, United States Code;
(2) in the absence of such paragraph, would be eligible for
health benefits under such section; and
(3) satisfies the criteria specified in subparagraphs (A)
and (B) of paragraph (2) of such subsection.
(c) Extent of Transitional Authority.--The authority to
continue eligibility under this section shall apply with
respect to health care services provided between October 1,
1998, and July 1, 1999.
(d) Definition.--In this section, the term ``administering
Secretaries'' has the meaning given that term in section
1072(3) of title 10, United States Code.

Subtitle B--TRICARE Program

SEC. 711. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS FOR PROVISION OF HEALTH CARE
UNDER THE TRICARE PROGRAM FOR WHICH A THIRD
PARTY MAY BE LIABLE.

(a) In General.--(1) Chapter 55 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 1095a the
following new section:

``Sec. 1095b. TRICARE program: contractor payment of certain
claims

``(a) Payment of Claims.--(1) The Secretary of Defense may
authorize a contractor under the TRICARE program to pay a
claim described in paragraph (2) before seeking to recover
from a third-party payer the costs incurred by the contractor
to provide health care services that are the basis of the
claim to a beneficiary under such program.
``(2) A claim under this paragraph is a claim--
``(A) that is submitted to the contractor by a provider
under the TRICARE program for payment for services for health
care provided to a covered beneficiary; and
``(B) that is identified by the contractor as a claim for
which a third-party payer may be liable.
``(b) Recovery From Third-Party Payers.--A contractor for
the provision of health care services under the TRICARE
program that pays a claim described in subsection (a)(2)
shall have the right to collect from the third-party payer
the costs incurred by such contractor on behalf of the
covered beneficiary. The contractor shall have the same right
to collect such costs under this subsection as the right of
the United States to collect costs under section 1095 of this
title.
``(c) Definition of Third-Party Payer.--In this section,
the term `third-party payer' has the meaning given that term
in section 1095(h) of this title, except that such term
excludes primary medical insurers.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 1095a the following new item:

``1095b. TRICARE program: contractor payment of certain claims.''.

SEC. 712. PROCEDURES REGARDING ENROLLMENT IN TRICARE PRIME.

(a) In General.--(1) Chapter 55 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 1097 the
following new section:

[[Page H3528]]

``Sec. 1097a. Enrollment in TRICARE Prime: procedures

``(a) Automatic Enrollment of Certain Dependents.--The
Secretary of Defense shall establish procedures under which
dependents of members of the armed forces on active duty who
reside in the catchment area of a military medical treatment
facility shall be automatically enrolled in TRICARE Prime at
the military medical treatment facility. The Secretary shall
provide notice in writing to the member regarding such
enrollment.
``(b) Automatic Continuation of Enrollment.--The Secretary
of Defense shall establish procedures under which enrollment
of covered beneficiaries in TRICARE Prime shall automatically
continue until such time as the covered beneficiary elects to
disenroll or is no longer eligible for enrollment.
``(c) Option for Retirees To Deduct Fee From Pay.--The
Secretary of Defense shall establish procedures under which a
retired member of the armed forces may elect to have any fees
payable by the member for enrollment in TRICARE Prime
withheld from the retired pay of the member (if pay is
available to the member).
``(d) Definition of TRICARE Prime.--In this section, the
term `TRICARE Prime' means the managed care option of the
TRICARE program known as TRICARE Prime.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section
1097 the following new item:

``1097a. Enrollment in TRICARE Prime: procedures.''.

(b) Deadline for Implementation.--The Secretary of Defense
shall establish the procedures required under section 1097a
of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a),
not later than April 1, 1999.
Subtitle C--Other Matters

SEC. 721. INFLATION ADJUSTMENT OF PREMIUM AMOUNTS FOR
DEPENDENTS DENTAL PROGRAM.

Section 1076a(b)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after ``$20 per month'' the following:
``(in 1993 dollars, as adjusted for inflation in each year
thereafter)''.

SEC. 722. SYSTEM FOR TRACKING DATA AND MEASURING PERFORMANCE
IN MEETING TRICARE ACCESS STANDARDS.

(a) Requirement To Establish System.--(1) The Secretary of
Defense shall establish a system--
(A) to track data regarding access of covered beneficiaries
under chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, to primary
health care under the TRICARE program; and
(B) to measure performance in increasing such access
against the primary care access standards established by the
Secretary under the TRICARE program.
(2) In implementing the system described in paragraph (1),
the Secretary shall collect data on the timeliness of
appointments and precise waiting times for appointments in
order to measure performance in meeting the primary care
access standards established under the TRICARE program.
(b) Deadline for Establishment.--The Secretary shall
establish the system described in subsection (a) not later
than April 1, 1999.

SEC. 723. AIR FORCE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING, AND
EDUCATION ON EXPOSURE TO CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL,
AND RADIOLOGICAL HAZARDS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Air Force is hereby
authorized to--
(1) conduct research on the health-related, environmental,
and ecological effects of exposure to chemical, biological,
and radiological hazards;
(2) develop new risk-assessment methods and instruments
with respect to exposure to such hazards, including more
accurate risk assessment tools to support the Air Force
Enhanced Site Specific Risk Assessment; and
(3) educate and train researchers with respect to exposure
to such hazards.
(b) Activities To Be Conducted.--Research and development
conducted under subsection (a) includes--
(1) development of equipment to monitor soil and ground
water contamination and the impact of such contamination on
the biosystem chain;
(2) implementation of a cross-sectional epidemiological
study of exposure to jet fuel; and
(3) implementation of a health-risk assessment regarding
exposure to jet fuel.

SEC. 724. AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH A LEVEL 1 TRAUMA
TRAINING CENTER.

The Secretary of the Army is hereby authorized to establish
a Level 1 Trauma Training Center (as designated by the
American College of Surgeons) in order to provide the Army
with a trauma center capable of training forward surgical
teams.

SEC. 725. REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF ENROLLMENT-BASED
CAPITATION FOR FUNDING FOR MILITARY MEDICAL
TREATMENT FACILITIES.

(a) Report Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit
to Congress a report on the potential impact of using an
enrollment-based capitation methodology to allocate funds for
military medical treatment facilities. The report shall
address the following:
(1) A description of the plans of the Secretary to
implement an enrollment-based capitation methodology for
military medical treatment facilities and with respect to
contracts for the delivery of health care under the TRICARE
program.
(2) The justifications for implementing an enrollment-based
capitation methodology without first conducting a
demonstration project for implementation of such methodology.
(3) The impact that implementation of an enrollment based
capitation methodology would have on the provision of space-
available care at military medical treatment facilities,
particularly in the case of care for--
(A) military retirees entitled who are entitled to hospital
insurance benefits under part A of title XVIII of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395c et seq.); and
(B) covered beneficiaries under chapter 55 of title 10,
United States Code, who reside outside the catchment area of
a military medical treatment facility.
(4) The impact that implementation of an enrollment-based
capitation methodology would have with respect to the
pharmacy benefits provided at military medical treatment
facilities, given that the enrollment-based capitation
methodology would fund military medical treatment facilities
based on the number of members at such facilities enrolled in
TRICARE Prime, but all covered beneficiaries may fill
prescriptions at military medical treatment facility
pharmacies.
(5) An explanation of how additional funding will be
provided for a military medical treatment facility if an
enrollment-based capitation methodology is implemented to
ensure that space-available care and pharmacy coverage can be
provided to covered beneficiaries who are not enrolled at the
military medical treatment facility, and the amount of
funding that will be available.
(6) An explanation of how implementation of an enrollment-
based capitation methodology would impact the provision of
uniform benefits under TRICARE Prime, and how the Secretary
would ensure, if such methodology were implemented, that the
provision of health care under TRICARE Prime would not be
bifurcated between the provision of such care at military
medical treatment facilities and the provision of such care
from civilian providers.
(b) Deadline for Submission.--The Secretary shall submit
the report required by subsection (a) not later than March 1,
1999.

TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND
RELATED MATTERS

SEC. 801. LIMITATION ON PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION AND
COMPONENTS.

(a) Limitation.--Section 2534(a) of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(6) Ammunition.--Ammunition or ammunition components.''.
(b) Effective Date.--Paragraph (6) of section 2534(a) of
title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a),
shall apply with respect to contracts entered into after
September 30, 1998.

SEC. 802. ACQUISITION CORPS ELIGIBILITY.

Section 1732(c) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) The requirement of subsection (b)(1)(A) shall not
apply to an employee who served in an Acquisition Corps in a
position within grade GS-13 or above of the General Schedule
and who is placed in another position which is in a grade
lower than GS-13 of the General Schedule, or whose position
is reduced in grade to a grade lower than GS-13 of the
General Schedule, as a result of reduction-in-force
procedures, the realignment or closure of a military
installation, or another reason other than for cause.''.

SEC. 803. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO PROCUREMENT FROM FIRMS IN
INDUSTRIAL BASE FOR PRODUCTION OF SMALL ARMS.

(a) Requirement To Limit Procurements to Certain Sources.--
Subsection (a) of section 2473 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in the heading, by striking out the first word and
inserting in lieu thereof ``Requirement''; and
(2) by striking out ``To the extent that the Secretary of
Defense determines necessary to preserve the small arms
production industrial base, the Secretary may'' and inserting
in lieu thereof ``In order to preserve the small arms
production industrial base, the Secretary of Defense shall''.
(b) Additional Covered Property and Services.--Subsection
(b) of such section is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as paragraphs
(2) and (3), respectively;
(2) by inserting before paragraph (2), as so redesignated,
the following new paragraph:
``(1) Small arms end items.'';
(3) in paragraph (2), as so redesignated, by inserting
before the period the following: ``, if those parts are
manufactured under a contract with the Department of Defense
to produce the end item''; and
(4) by adding after paragraph (3) the following new
paragraph:
``(4) Repair parts consisting of barrels, receivers, and
bolts for small arms, whether or not the small arms are in
production under a contract with the Department of Defense at
the time of production of such repair parts.''.
(c) Relationship to Other Provisions of Law.--Such section
is further amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(d) Relationship to Other Provisions.--(1) If a
procurement under subsection (a) is a procurement of a
commercial item, the Secretary may, notwithstanding section
2306(b)(1)(B) of this title, require the submission of
certified cost or pricing data under section 2306(a) of this
title.
``(2) Subsection (a) is a requirement for purposes of
section 2304(c)(5) of this title.''.
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

SEC. 901. FURTHER REDUCTIONS IN DEFENSE ACQUISITION
WORKFORCE.

(a) Reduction in Defense Acquisition Workforce.--Chapter 87
of title 10, United

[[Page H3529]]

States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following
new section:

``Sec. 1765. Limitation on number of personnel

``(a) Limitation.--Effective October 1, 2001, the number of
defense acquisition personnel may not exceed the baseline
number reduced by 70,000.
``(b) Phased Reduction.--The number of defense acquisition
personnel--
``(1) as of October 1, 1999, may not exceed the baseline
number reduced by 25,000; and
``(2) as of October 1, 2000, may not exceed the baseline
number reduced by 50,000.
``(c) Baseline Number.--For purposes of this section, the
baseline number is the total number of defense acquisition
personnel as of October 1, 1998.
``(d) Defense Acquisition Personnel Defined.--In this
section, the term `defense acquisition personnel' means
military and civilian personnel (other than civilian
personnel who are employed at a maintenance depot) who are
assigned to, or employed in, acquisition organizations of the
Department of Defense (as specified in Department of Defense
Instruction numbered 5000.58 dated January 14, 1992).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of subchapter V of such chapter is amended by
adding at the end the following new item:

``1765. Limitation on number of personnel.''.

SEC. 902. LIMITATION ON OPERATION AND SUPPORT FUNDS FOR THE
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.

Of the amount available for fiscal year 1999 for operation
and support activities of the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, not more than 90 percent may be obligated until each
of the following reports has been submitted:
(1) The report required to be submitted to the
congressional defense committees by section 904(b) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997
(Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2619).
(2) The reports required to be submitted to Congress by
sections 911(b) and 911(c) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85;
111 Stat. 1858, 1859).

SEC. 903. REVISION TO DEFENSE DIRECTIVE RELATING TO
MANAGEMENT HEADQUARTERS AND HEADQUARTERS
SUPPORT ACTIVITIES.

Not later than October 1, 1999, the Secretary of Defense
shall issue a revision to Department of Defense Directive
5100.73, entitled ``Department of Defense Management
Headquarters and Headquarters Support Activities'', so as to
incorporate in that directive the following:
(1) A threshold specified by command (or other
organizational element) such that any headquarters activity
below the threshold is not considered for the purpose of the
directive to be a management headquarters or headquarters
support activity.
(2) A definition of the term ``management headquarters and
headquarters support activities'' that (A) is based upon
function (rather than organization), and (B) includes any
activity (other than an operational activity) that reports
directly to such an activity.
(3) Uniform application of those definitions throughout the
Department of Defense.

SEC. 904. UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR POLICY TO HAVE
RESPONSIBILITY WITH RESPECT TO EXPORT CONTROL ACTIVITIES OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

(a) Functions of the Under Secretary.--Section 134(b)(1) of
title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following new sentence: ``The Under Secretary shall have
responsibility for overall supervision of activities of the
Department of Defense relating to export controls.''.
(b) Implementation Report.--Not later than 30 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of
the Senate and the Committee on National Security of the
House of Representatives a report on the plans of the
Secretary for the implementation of the amendment made by
subsection (a). The report shall include--
(1) a description of any organizational changes within the
Department of Defense to be made in order to implement that
amendment; and
(2) a description of the role of the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff with respect to export control activities of
the Department following the implementation of the amendment
made by subsection (a) and how that role compares to the
practice in effect before such implementation.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall be implemented not later than 45 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 905. INDEPENDENT TASK FORCE ON TRANSFORMATION AND
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The post-Cold War era is marked by geopolitical
uncertainty and by accelerating technological change,
particularly with regard to information technologies.
(2) The combination of that geopolitical uncertainty and
accelerating technological change portends a transformation
in the conduct of war, particularly in ways that are likely
to increase the effectiveness of joint force operations.
(3) The Department of Defense must be organized
appropriately in order to fully exploit the opportunities
offered by, and to meet the challenges posed by, this
anticipated transformation in the conduct of war.
(4) The basic organization of the Department of Defense was
established by the National Security Act of 1947 and the 1949
amendments to that Act.
(5) The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense
Reorganization Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-433) dramatically
improved the capability of the Department of Defense to carry
out operations involving joint forces, but did not address
adequately issues pertaining to the development of joint
forces.
(6) In the future, the ability to achieve improved
operations of joint forces, particularly under rapidly
changing technological conditions, will depend on improved
force development for joint forces.
(b) Independent Task Force on Transformation and Department
of Defense Organization.--The Secretary of Defense shall
establish a task force of the Defense Science Board to
examine the current organization of the Department of Defense
with regard to the appropriateness of that organization for
preparing for a transformation in the conduct of war. The
task force shall be established not later than November 1,
1998.
(c) Duties of the Task Force.--The task force shall assess,
and shall make recommendations for the appropriate
organization of, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, the individual Armed Forces, and the
executive parts of the military departments for the purpose
of preparing the Department of Defense for a transformation
in the conduct of war. In making those assessments and
developing those recommendations, the task force shall review
the following:
(1) The general organization of the Department of Defense,
including whether responsibility and authority for issues
relating to a transformation in the conduct of war are
appropriately allocated, especially among the Office of the
Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the
individual Armed Forces.
(2) The joint requirements process and the requirements
processes for each of the Armed Forces, including the
establishment of measures of effectiveness and methods for
resource allocation.
(3) The process and organizations responsible for doctrinal
development, including the appropriate relationship between
joint force and service doctrine and doctrinal development
organizations.
(4) The current programs and organizations under the Office
of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and
the Armed Forces devoted to innovation and experimentation
related to a transformation in the conduct of war, including
the appropriateness of--
(A) conducting joint field tests;
(B) establishing a separate unified command as a joint
forces command to serve, as its sole function, as the
trainer, provider, and developer of forces for joint
operations;
(C) establishing a Joint Concept Development Center to
monitor exercises and develop measures of effectiveness,
analytical concepts, models, and simulations appropriate for
understanding the transformation in the conduct of war;
(D) establishing a Joint Battle Laboratory headquarters to
conduct joint experimentation and to integrate the similar
efforts of the Armed Forces; and
(E) establishing an Assistant Secretary of Defense for
transformation in the conduct of war.
(5) Joint training establishments and training
establishments of the Armed Forces, including those devoted
to professional military education, and the appropriateness
of establishing national training centers.
(6) Other issues relating to a transformation in the
conduct of war that the Secretary considers appropriate.
(d) Report.--The task force shall submit to the Secretary
of Defense a report containing its assessments
and recommendations not later than February 1, 1999. The
Secretary shall submit the report to the Committee on
National Security of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Armed Services of the Senate not later than
March 1, 1999, together with the recommendations and
comments of the Secretary of Defense.

SEC. 906. IMPROVED ACCOUNTING FOR DEFENSE CONTRACT SERVICES.

(a) In General.--(1) Chapter 131 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 2211 the
following new section:

``Sec. 2212. Obligations for contract services: reporting in
budget object classes

``(a) Limitation on Reporting in Miscellaneous Services
Object Class.--The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that, in
reporting to the Office of Management and Budget (pursuant to
OMB Circular A-11 (relating to preparation and submission of
budget estimates)) obligations of the Department of Defense
for any period of time for contract services, no more than 15
percent of the total amount of obligations so reported is
reported in the miscellaneous services object class.
``(b) Definition of Reporting Categories for Advisory and
Assistance Services.--In carrying out section 1105(g) of
title 31 for the Department of Defense (and in determining
what services are to be reported to the Office of Management
and Budget in the advisory and assistance services object
class), the Secretary of Defense shall apply to the terms
used for the definition of `advisory and assistance services'
in paragraph (2)(A) of that section the following meanings:
``(1) Management and professional support services.--The
term `management and professional support services' (used in
clause (i) of section 1105(g)(2)(A) of title 31) means
services that provide engineering or technical support,
assistance, advice, or training for the efficient and
effective management and operation of organizations,
activities, or systems. Those services--
``(A) are closely related to the basic responsibilities and
mission of the using organization; and
``(B) include efforts that support or contribute to
improved organization or program management, logistics
management, project monitoring

[[Page H3530]]

and reporting, data collection, budgeting, accounting,
auditing, and administrative or technical support for
conferences and training programs.
``(2) Studies, analyses, and evaluations.--The term
`studies, analyses, and evaluations' (used in clause (ii) of
section 1105(g)(2)(A) of title 31) means services that
provide organized, analytic assessments to understand or
evaluate complex issues to improve policy development,
decisionmaking, management, or administration and that result
in documents containing data or leading to conclusions or
recommendations. Those services may include databases,
models, methodologies, and related software created in
support of a study, analysis, or evaluation.
``(3) Engineering and technical services.--The term
`engineering and technical services' (used in clause (iii) of
section 1105(g)(2)(A) of title 31) means services that take
the form of advice, assistance, training, or hands-on
training necessary to maintain and operate fielded weapon
systems, equipment, and components (including software when
applicable) at design or required levels of effectiveness.
``(c) Proper Classification of Advisory and Assistance
Services.--Before the submission to the Office of Management
and Budget of the proposed Department of Defense budget for
inclusion in the President's budget for a fiscal year
pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, the Secretary of
Defense, acting through the Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller), shall review all Department of Defense
services expected to be performed as contract services during
the fiscal year for which that budget is to be submitted in
order to ensure that those services that are advisory and
assistance services (as defined in accordance with subsection
(b)) are in fact properly classified, in accordance with that
subsection, in the advisory and assistance services object
class.
``(d) Information on Service Contracts.--In carrying out
the annual review under subsection (c) of Department of
Defense services expected to be performed as contract
services during the next fiscal year, the Secretary (acting
through the Under Secretary (Comptroller)) shall conduct an
assessment of the total non-Federal effort that resulted from
the performance of all contracts for such services during the
preceding fiscal year and the total non-Federal effort that
resulted, or that is expected to result, from the performance
of all contracts for such services during the current fiscal
year and the next fiscal year. The assessment shall include
determination of the following for each such year:
``(1) The amount expended or expected to be expended for
non-Federal contract services, shown for the Department of
Defense as a whole and displayed by contract services object
class for each DOD organization.
``(2) The amount expended or expected to be expended for
contract services competed under OMB Circular A-76 or a
similar process, shown for the Department of Defense as a
whole and displayed by contract services object class for
each DOD organization.
``(3) The number of private sector workyears performed or
expected to be performed in connection with the performance
of non-Federal contract services, shown for the Department of
Defense as a whole and displayed by contract services object
class for each DOD organization.
``(4) Any other information that the Secretary (acting
through the Under Secretary) determines to be relevant and of
value.
``(e) Report to Congress.--The Secretary shall submit to
Congress each year, not later than 30 days after the date on
which the budget for the next fiscal year is submitted
pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, a report containing the
information derived from the assessment under subsection (d).
``(f) Assessment by Comptroller General.--(1) The
Comptroller General shall conduct a review of the report of
the Secretary of Defense under subsection (e) each year and
shall--
``(A) assess the methodology used by the Secretary in
obtaining the information submitted to Congress in that
report; and
``(B) assess the information submitted to Congress in that
report.
``(2) Not later than 120 days after the date on which the
Secretary submits to Congress the report required under
subsection (e) for any year, the Comptroller General shall
submit to Congress the Comptroller General's report
containing the results of the review for that year under
paragraph (1).
``(g) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `contract services' means all services that
are reported to the Office of Management and Budget pursuant
to OMB Circular A-11 (relating to preparation and submission
of budget estimates) in budget object classes that are
designated in the Object Class 25 series.
``(2) The term `advisory and assistance services object
class' means those contract services constituting the budget
object class that is denominated `Advisory and Assistance
Service and designated (as the date of the enactment of this
section) as Object Class 25.1 (or any similar object class
established after the date of the enactment of this section
for the reporting of obligations for advisory and assistance
contract services).
``(3) The term `miscellaneous services object class' means
those contract services constituting the budget object class
that is denominated `Other Services (services not otherwise
specified in the 25 series)' and designated (as the date of
the enactment of this section) as Object Class 25.2 (or any
similar object class established after the date of the
enactment of this section for the reporting of obligations
for miscellaneous or unspecified contract services).
``(4) The term `DOD organization' means--
``(A) the Office of the Secretary of Defense;
``(B) each military department;
``(C) the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the unified and
specified commands;
``(D) each Defense Agency; and
``(E) each Department of Defense Field Activity.
``(5) The term `private sector workyear' means an amount of
labor equivalent to the total number of hours of labor that
an individual employed on a full-time equivalent basis by the
Federal Government performs in a given year.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section
2211 the following new item:

``2212. Obligations for contract services: reporting in budget object
classes.''.

(b) Transition.--For the budget for fiscal year 2000, and
the reporting of information to the Office of Management and
Budget in connection with the preparation of that budget,
section 2212 of title 10, United States Code, as added by
subsection (a), shall be applied by substituting ``30
percent'' in subsection (a) for ``15 percent''.
(c) Initial Classification of Advisory and Assistance
Services.--Not later than February 1, 1999, the Secretary of
Defense, acting through the Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller), shall review all Department of Defense
services performed or expected to be performed as contract
services during fiscal year 1999 in order to ensure that
those services that are advisory and assistance services (as
defined in accordance with subsection (b) of section 2212 of
title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a)) are
in fact properly classified, in accordance with that
subsection, in the advisory and assistance services object
class (as defined in subsection (g)(2) of that section).
(d) Fiscal Year 1999 Reduction.--The total amount that may
be obligated by the Secretary of Defense for contracted
advisory and assistance services from amounts appropriated
for fiscal year 1999 is the amount programmed for those
services resulting from the review referred to in subsection
(c) reduced by $500,000,000.

SEC. 907. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT RELATING TO ASSIGNMENT OF
TACTICAL AIRLIFT MISSION TO RESERVE COMPONENTS.

Section 1438 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510; 104 Stat. 1689), as
amended by section 1023 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 102-190; 105
Stat. 1460), is repealed.

SEC. 908. REPEAL OF CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO
INSPECTOR GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS OF REPRISAL
COMPLAINTS.

(a) Repeal of Requirement of Notice That Investigation Will
Take More Than 90 Days.--Subsection (e) of section 1034 of
title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking out paragraph (3);
(2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3).
(b) Repeal of Requirement for Post-Disposition Interview
With Complainant.--Such section is further amended by
striking out subsection (h).

SEC. 909. CONSULTATION WITH COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE CORPS
REGARDING MARINE CORPS AVIATION.

(a) In General.--Chapter 503 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:

``Sec. 5026. Consultation with Commandant of the Marine Corps
regarding Marine Corps aviation

``The Secretary of the Navy shall require that the views of
the Commandant of the Marine Corps be obtained before a
milestone decision or other major decision is made by an
element of the Department of the Navy outside the Marine
Corps in a procurement matter, a research, development, test,
and evaluation matter, or a depot-level maintenance matter
that concerns Marine Corps aviation.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:

``5026. Consultation with Commandant of the Marine Corps regarding
Marine Corps aviation.''.
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Financial Matters

SEC. 1001. TRANSFER AUTHORITY.

(a) Authority To Transfer Authorizations.--(1) Upon
determination by the Secretary of Defense that such action is
necessary in the national interest, the Secretary may
transfer amounts of authorizations made available to the
Department of Defense in this division for fiscal year 1999
between any such authorizations for that fiscal year (or any
subdivisions thereof). Amounts of authorizations so
transferred shall be merged with and be available for the
same purposes as the authorization to which transferred.
(2) The total amount of authorizations that the Secretary
of Defense may transfer under the authority of this section
may not exceed $2,000,000,000.
(b) Limitations.--The authority provided by this section to
transfer authorizations--
(1) may only be used to provide authority for items that
have a higher priority than the items from which authority is
transferred; and
(2) may not be used to provide authority for an item that
has been denied authorization by Congress.
(c) Effect on Authorization Amounts.--A transfer made from
one account to another under the authority of this section
shall be deemed to increase the amount authorized for the
account to which the amount is transferred by an amount equal
to the amount transferred.
(d) Notice to Congress.--The Secretary shall promptly
notify Congress of each transfer made under subsection (a).

[[Page H3531]]

SEC. 1002. INCORPORATION OF CLASSIFIED ANNEX.

(a) Status of Classified Annex.--The Classified Annex
prepared by the Committee on National Security of the House
of Representatives to accompany H.R. 3616 of the One Hundred
Fifth Congress and transmitted to the President is hereby
incorporated into this Act.
(b) Construction With Other Provisions of Act.--The amounts
specified in the Classified Annex are not in addition to
amounts authorized to be appropriated by other provisions of
this Act.
(c) Limitation on Use of Funds.--Funds appropriated
pursuant to an authorization contained in this Act that are
made available for a program, project, or activity referred
to in the Classified Annex may only be expended for such
program, project, or activity in accordance with such terms,
conditions, limitations, restrictions, and requirements as
are set out for that program, project, or activity in the
Classified Annex.
(d) Distribution of Classified Annex.--The President shall
provide for appropriate distribution of the Classified Annex,
or of appropriate portions of the annex, within the executive
branch of the Government.

SEC. 1003. OUTLAY LIMITATIONS.

(a) Department of Defense.--The Secretary of Defense shall
ensure that outlays of the Department of Defense during
fiscal year 1999 from amounts appropriated or otherwise
available to the Department of Defense for military functions
of the Department of Defense (including military construction
and military family housing) do not exceed $252,650,000,000.
(b) Department of Energy.--The Secretary of Energy shall
ensure that outlays of the Department of Energy during fiscal
year 1999 from amounts appropriated or otherwise made
available to the Department of Energy for national security
programs of that Department do not exceed $11,772,000,000.
Subtitle B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards

SEC. 1011. REVISION TO REQUIREMENT FOR CONTINUED LISTING OF
TWO IOWA-CLASS BATTLESHIPS ON THE NAVAL VESSEL
REGISTER.

In carrying out section 1011 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106;
110 Stat. 421), the Secretary of the Navy shall list on the
Naval Vessel Register, and maintain on that register, the
following two Iowa-class battleships: the USS IOWA (BB-61)
and the USS WISCONSIN (BB-64).

SEC. 1012. TRANSFER OF USS NEW JERSEY.

The Secretary of the Navy shall strike the USS NEW JERSEY
(BB-62) from the Naval Vessel Register and shall transfer
that vessel to a non-for-profit entity in accordance with
section 7306 of title 10, United States Code. The Secretary
shall require as a condition of the transfer of that vessel
that the transferee locate the vessel in the State of New
Jersey.

SEC. 1013. LONG-TERM CHARTER OF THREE VESSELS IN SUPPORT OF
SUBMARINE RESCUE, ESCORT, AND TOWING.

The Secretary of the Navy may enter into contracts in
accordance with section 2401 of title 10, United States Code,
for the charter through September 30, 2003, of the following
vessels:
(1) The CAROLYN CHOUEST (United States official number
D102057).
(2) The KELLIE CHOUEST (United States official number
D1038519).
(3) The DOLORES CHOUEST (United States official number
D600288).

SEC. 1014. TRANSFER OF OBSOLETE ARMY TUGBOAT.

In carrying out section 1023 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85;
111 Stat. 1876), the Secretary of the Army may substitute the
obsolete, decommissioned tugboat Attleboro (LT-1977) for the
tugboat Normandy (LT-1971) as one of the two obsolete
tugboats authorized to be transferred by the Secretary under
that section.

SEC. 1015. LONG-TERM CHARTER CONTRACTS FOR ACQUISITION OF
AUXILIARY VESSELS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE.

(a) Program Authorization.--Chapter 631 of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following
new section:

``Sec. 7233. Auxiliary vessels: authority for long-term
charter contracts

``(a) Authorized Contracts.--After September 30, 1998, the
Secretary of the Navy, subject to subsection (b), may enter
into a contract for the long-term lease or charter of a newly
built surface vessel, under which the contractor agrees to
provide a crew for the vessel for the term of the long-term
lease or charter, for any of the following:
``(1) The combat logistics force of the Navy.
``(2) The strategic sealift program of the Navy.
``(3) Other auxiliary support vessels for the Department of
Defense.
``(b) Contracts Required To Be Authorized by Law.--A
contract may be entered into under this section with respect
to specific vessels only if the Secretary is specifically
authorized by law to enter into such a contract with respect
to those vessels.
``(c) Funds for Contract Payments.--The Secretary may make
payments for contracts entered into under this section using
funds available for obligation during the fiscal year for
which the payments are required to be made. Any such contract
shall provide that the United States will not be required to
make a payment under the contract (other than a termination
payment, if required) before October 1, 2000.
``(d) Term of Contract.--In this section, the term `long-
term lease or charter' means a lease, charter, service
contract, or conditional sale agreement with respect to a
vessel the term of which (including any option period) is for
a period of 20 years or more.
``(e) Option To Buy.--A contract entered into under the
authority of this section may contain options for the United
States to purchase one or more of the vessels covered by the
contract at any time during, or at the end of, the contract
period (including any option period) upon payment of an
amount not in excess of the unamortized portion of the cost
of the vessels plus amounts incurred in connection with the
termination of the financing arrangements associated with the
vessels.
``(f) Domestic Construction.--The Secretary shall require
in any contract entered into under this section that each
vessel to which the contract applies--
``(1) shall have been constructed in a shipyard within the
United States; and
``(2) upon delivery, shall be documented under the laws of
the United States.
``(g) Vessel Crewing.--The Secretary shall require in any
contract entered into under this section that the crew of any
vessel to which the contract applies be comprised of private
sector commercial mariners.
``(h) Domestic Construction Requirement for Certain Leases
of Vessels.--(1) Notwithstanding section 2400 or 2401a of
this title or any other provision of law, the Secretary of
Defense may not enter into a contract for the lease or
charter of a vessel described in paragraph (2) for a contract
period in excess of 17 months (inclusive of any option
periods) unless the vessel is constructed in a shipyard in
the United States.
``(2) Paragraph (1) applies to vessels of the following
types:
``(A) Auxiliary support vessel.
``(B) Strategic sealift vessel.
``(C) Tank vessel.
``(D) Combat logistics force vessel.
``(i) Contingent Waiver of Other Provisions of Law.--A
contract authorized by this section may be entered into
without regard to section 2401 or 2401a of this title if the
Secretary of Defense makes the following findings with
respect to that contract:
``(1) The need for the vessels or services to be provided
under the contract is expected to remain substantially
unchanged during the contemplated contract or option period.
``(2) There is a reasonable expectation that throughout the
contemplated contract or option period the Secretary of the
Navy (or, if the contract is for services to be provided to,
and funded by, another military department, the Secretary of
that military department) will request funding for the
contract at the level required to avoid contract
cancellation.
``(3) The use of such contract or the exercise of such
option is in the interest of the national defense.
``(j) Source of Funds for Termination Liability.--If a
contract entered into under this section is terminated, the
costs of such termination may be paid from--
``(1) amounts originally made available for performance of
the contract;
``(2) amounts currently available for operation and
maintenance of the type of vessels or services concerned and
not otherwise obligated; or
``(3) funds appropriated for those costs.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:

``7233. Auxiliary vessels: authority for long-term charter
contracts.''.
Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Counter Drug Activities

SEC. 1021. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SUPPORT FOR COUNTER-DRUG
ACTIVITIES.

(a) Continuation of Authority.--Subsection (a) of section
1004 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 374 note) is amended
by striking out ``through 1999'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``through 2000''.
(b) Types of Support.--Subsection (b)(4) of such section is
amended by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``conducted by the Department of Defense or a
Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency, or a foreign
law enforcement agency in the case of counter-drug activities
outside the United States''.
(c) Unspecified Minor Military Construction Projects.--Such
section is further amended by adding at the end the following
new section:
``(h) Unspecified Minor Military Construction Projects.--
Section 2805 of title 10, United States Code, shall apply
with respect to any unspecified minor military construction
project carried out using the authority provided under this
section.''.

SEC. 1022. SUPPORT FOR COUNTER-DRUG OPERATION CAPER FOCUS.

(a) Support Required.--During fiscal year 1999, the
Secretary of Defense shall make available such surface
vessels of the Navy and maritime patrol aircraft and crews of
the Navy as may be necessary to conduct the final phase of
the counter-drug operation known as Caper Focus, which
targets the maritime movement of cocaine on vessels in the
eastern Pacific Ocean.
(b) Fiscal Year 1999 Funding.--Of the amount authorized to
be appropriated pursuant to section 301(20) for drug
interdiction and counter-drug activities, $24,400,000 shall
be available only for the purpose of conducting the counter-
drug operation known as Caper Focus.
Subtitle D--Miscellaneous Report Requirements and Repeals

SEC. 1031. ANNUAL REPORT ON RESOURCES ALLOCATED TO SUPPORT
AND MISSION ACTIVITIES.

Section 113 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(l) The Secretary shall include in the annual report to
Congress under subsection (c) the following:

[[Page H3532]]

``(1) A comparison of the amounts provided in the defense
budget for support and for mission activities for each of the
preceding five years.
``(2) A comparison of the number of military and civilian
personnel, shown by major occupational category, assigned to
support positions and to mission positions for each of the
preceding five years.
``(3) An accounting, shown by service and by major
occupational category, of the number of military and civilian
personnel assigned to support positions during each of the
preceding five years.
``(4) A listing of the number of military and civilian
personnel assigned to management headquarters and
headquarters support activities as a percentage of military
end-strength for each of the preceding 10 years.''.
Subtitle E--Other Matters

SEC. 1041. CLARIFICATION OF LAND CONVEYANCE AUTHORITY, ARMED
FORCES RETIREMENT HOME, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

(a) Sale Required.--Subsection (a) of section 1053 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997
(Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2650) is amended--
(1) by striking out ``, by sale or otherwise,''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The
conveyance of the real property shall be made by sale to the
highest bidder, except that the purchase price may not be
less than the fair market value of the parcel.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Subsection (b)(1) of such
section is amended by striking out ``the disposal'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``the sale''.

SEC. 1042. CONTENT OF NOTICE REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED
GARNISHEES BEFORE GARNISHMENT OF PAY OR
BENEFITS.

(a) Authorization of Alternative To Providing Copy of
Notice or Service Received by the Secretary.--(1) Whenever
the Secretary of Defense (acting through the DOD section 459
agent) provides a section 459 notice to an individual, the
Secretary may include as part of that notice the information
specified in subsection (c) in lieu of sending with that
notice a copy (otherwise required pursuant to the
parenthetical phrase in section 459(c)(2)(A) of the Social
Security Act) of the notice or service received by the DOD
section 459 agent with respect to that individual's child
support or alimony payment obligations.
(2) Whenever the Secretary of Defense (acting through the
DOD section 5520a agent) provides a section 5520a notice to
an individual, the Secretary may include as part of that
notice the information specified in subsection (c) in lieu of
sending with that notice a copy (otherwise required pursuant
to the second parenthetical phrase in section 5520a(c) of the
title 5, United States Code) of the legal process received
by the DOD section 5520a agent with respect to that
individual.
(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
(1) DOD section 459 agent.--The term ``DOD section 459
agent'' means the agent or agents designated by the Secretary
of Defense under subsection (c)(1)(A) of section 459 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 659) to receive orders and
accept service of process in matters related to child support
or alimony.
(2) Section 459 notice.--The term ``section 459 notice''
means, with respect to the Department of Defense, the notice
required by subsection (c)(2)(A) of section 459 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 659) to be sent to an individual in
writing upon the receipt by the DOD section 459 agent of
notice or service with respect to the individual's child
support or alimony payment obligations.
(3) DOD section 5520a agent.--The term ``DOD section 5520a
agent'' means a person who is designated by law or regulation
to accept service of process to which the Department of
Defense is subject under section 5520a of title 5, United
States Code (including the regulations promulgated under
subsection (k) of that section).
(4) Section 5520a notice.--The term ``section 5520a
notice'' means, with respect to the Department of Defense,
the notice required by subsection (c) of section 5520a of
title 5, United States Code, to be sent in writing to an
employee (or, pursuant to the regulations promulgated under
subsection (k) of that section, to a member of the Armed
Forces) upon the receipt by the DOD section 5520a agent of
legal process covered by that section.
(c) Alternative Requirements.--The information referred to
in subsection (a) that is to be included as part of a section
459 notice or section 5520a notice sent to an individual (in
lieu of sending with that notice a copy of the notice or
service received by the DOD section 459 agent or the DOD
section 5520a agent) is the following:
(1) A description of the pertinent court order, notice to
withhold, or other order, process, or interrogatory received
by the DOD section 459 agent or the DOD section 5520a agent.
(2) The identity of the court or judicial forum involved
and (in the case of a notice or process concerning the
ordering of a support or alimony obligation) the case number,
the amount of the obligation, and the name of the
beneficiary.
(3) Information on how the individual may obtain from the
Department of Defense a copy of the notice, service, or legal
process, including an address and telephone number that the
individual may be contact for the purpose of obtaining such a
copy.
(d) Report.--Not later than April 1, 2001, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a report describing the experience
of the Department of Defense under the authority provided by
this section. The report shall include the following:
(1) The number of section 459 notices provided by the DOD
section 459 agent during the period the authority provided by
this section was in effect.
(2) The number of individuals who requested the DOD section
459 agent to provide to them a copy of the actual notice or
service.
(3) Any complaint the Secretary received by reason of not
having provided the actual notice or service in the section
459 notice.
(4) The number of section 5520a notices provided by the DOD
section 5520a agent during the period the authority provided
by this section was in effect.
(5) The number of individuals who requested the DOD section
5520a agent to provide to them a copy of the actual legal
process.
(6) Any complaint the Secretary received by reason of not
having provided the actual legal process in the section 5520a
notice.

SEC. 1043. TRAINING OF SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES WITH
FRIENDLY FOREIGN FORCES.

(a) Training Expenses for Which Payment May Be Made.--
Subsection (a)(1) of section 2011 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by striking out ``and other security
forces''.
(b) Purpose of Training.--Subsection (b) of such section is
amended by striking out ``primary''.
(c) Regulations.--Subsection (c) of such section is amended
by inserting after the first sentence the following new
sentence: ``The regulations shall require that training
activities may be carried out under this section only with
the prior approval of the Secretary of Defense.''.
(d) Elements of Annual Report.--Subsection (e) of such
section is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraphs:
``(5) A summary of the expenditures under this section
resulting from the training for which expenses were paid
under this section.
``(6) A discussion of the unique military training benefit
to United States special operations forces derived from the
training activities for which expenses were paid under this
section.''.
TITLE XI--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL

SEC. 1101. AUTHORITY FOR RELEASE TO COAST GUARD OF DRUG TEST
RESULTS OF CIVIL SERVICE MARINERS OF THE
MILITARY SEALIFT COMMAND.

(a) In General.--Chapter 643 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:

``Sec. 7479. Civil service mariners of Military Sealift
Command: release of drug test results to Coast Guard

``(a) Release of Drug Test Results to Coast Guard.--The
Secretary of the Navy may release to the Commandant of the
Coast Guard the results of a drug test of any employee of the
Department of the Navy who is employed in any capacity on
board a vessel of the Military Sealift Command. Any such
release shall be in accordance with the standards and
procedures applicable to the disclosure and reporting to the
Coast Guard of drug tests results and drug test records of
individuals employed on vessels documented under the laws of
the United States.
``(b) Waiver.--The results of a drug test of an employee
may be released under subsection (a) without the prior
written consent of the employee that is otherwise required
under section 503(e) of the Supplemental Appropriations Act,
1987 (5 U.S.C. 7301 note).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:

``7479. Civil service mariners of Military Sealift Command: release of
drug test results to Coast Guard.''.

SEC. 1102. LIMITATIONS ON BACK PAY AWARDS.

(a) In General.--Section 5596(b) of title 5, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new
paragraph:
``(4) The pay, allowances, or differentials granted under
this section for the period for which an unjustified or
unwarranted personnel action was in effect shall not exceed
that authorized by the applicable law, rule, regulations, or
collective bargaining agreement under which the unjustified
or unwarranted personnel action is found, except that in no
case may pay, allowances, or differentials be granted under
this section for a period beginning more than 6 years before
the date of the filing of a timely appeal or, absent such
filing, the date of the administrative determination.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 7121 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(h) Settlements and awards under this chapter shall be
subject to the limitations in section 5596(b)(4) of this
title.''.

SEC. 1103. RESTORATION OF ANNUAL LEAVE ACCUMULATED BY
CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES AT INSTALLATIONS IN THE
REPUBLIC OF PANAMA TO BE CLOSED PURSUANT TO THE
PANAMA CANAL TREATY OF 1977.

Section 6304(d)(3)(A) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by inserting ``the closure of an installation of the
Department of Defense in the Republic of Panama in accordance
with the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977,'' after ``2687 note)
during any period,''.

SEC. 1104. REPEAL OF PROGRAM PROVIDING PREFERENCE FOR
EMPLOYMENT OF MILITARY SPOUSES IN MILITARY
CHILD CARE FACILITIES.

Section 1792 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking out subsection (d); and
(2) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (d).

SEC. 1105. ELIMINATION OF RETAINED PAY AS BASIS FOR
DETERMINING LOCALITY-BASED ADJUSTMENTS.

Section 5302(8)(B) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by inserting ``(except a rate

[[Page H3533]]

retained under subsection (a)(2) of that section)'' after
``section 5363''.

SEC. 1106. OBSERVANCE OF CERTAIN HOLIDAYS AT DUTY POSTS
OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.

Section 6103(b) of title 5, United States Code, is amended
by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new paragraph:
``(3) Instead of a holiday that is designated under
subsection (a) to occur on a Monday, for an employee at a
duty post outside the United States whose basic workweek is
other than Monday through Friday, and for whom Monday is a
regularly scheduled workday, the legal public holiday is the
first workday of the workweek in which the Monday designated
for the observance of such holiday under subsection (a)
occurs.''.
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS

SEC. 1201. LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR PEACEKEEPING IN THE
REPUBLIC OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA.

(a) Limitation.--The Secretary of Defense may not expend
from funds appropriated to the Department of Defense for
fiscal year 1999 more than $1,858,600,000 for the purpose of
providing for United States participation in Bosnia
peacekeeping operations.
(b) Emergency Exception.--The Secretary may increase the
amount under subsection (a) by not more than $100,000,000 for
the sole purpose of safeguarding United States forces in the
event of hostilities, imminent hostilities, or other grave
danger to their well-being. Such an increase may become
effective only upon submission by the Secretary to Congress
of a certification that such grave danger exists and that
such additional funds are required to meet immediate security
threats.
(c) Report.--Not later than April 1, 1999, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to Congress a report with respect to
United States participation in Bosnia peacekeeping
operations. The report shall provide a detailed projection of
any additional funding that will be required by the
Department of Defense to meet mission requirements for such
operations for the remainder of fiscal year 1999.
(d) Presidential Authority.--Nothing in this section shall
be deemed to restrict the authority of the President under
the Constitution to protect the lives of United States
citizens.
(e) Bosnia Peacekeeping Operations.--For purposes of
subsection (a), the term ``Bosnia peacekeeping operations''
means the operation designated as Operation Joint Force, the
operation designated as Operation Joint Endeavor, and any
other operation under which United States military forces
participate in peacekeeping or peace enforcement activities
in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and any activity
that is directly related to the support of any such
operation.

SEC. 1202. REPORTS ON THE MISSION OF UNITED STATES FORCES IN
REPUBLIC OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) In section 1202(1) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85;
111 Stat. 1929; approved November 18, 1997), it was stated to
be the sense of Congress that United States ground combat
forces should not participate in a follow-on force in the
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina after June 1998.
(2) On December 16, 1997, the President announced his
support for the continued deployment of United States ground
combat forces in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina after
June 30, 1998, as part of a multinational peacekeeping force
led by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
(3) The President's decision to extend the presence of
United States ground combat forces in the Republic of Bosnia
and Herzegovina has changed the mission of those forces in a
fundamental manner.
(4) The President has in effect committed United States
ground combat forces in the Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina to providing a secure environment for complete
implementation of the civilian provisions of the Dayton
Accords.
(5) The Administration has not specified how long such an
achievement will take and, therefore, the mission of United
States ground combat forces in the Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina is of indefinite duration.
(b) Annual Presidential Report.--(1) The President shall
submit to Congress an annual report on the presence of United
States ground combat forces in the Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina. Each such report shall include the following:
(A) The President's assessment of progress toward the full
implementation of the civilian goals of the Dayton Accord, as
specified in subsection (c).
(B) The expected duration of the deployment of United
States ground combat forces in the Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina in support of implementation of those goals.
(C) The percentage of those goals that have been completed
as of the date of the report, the percentage that are
expected to be completed within the next reporting period,
and the expected time for completion of the remaining tasks.
(2) The first report under this subsection shall be
submitted not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, and subsequent reports shall be
submitted at yearly intervals thereafter. The requirement to
submit an annual report under this subsection terminates upon
the withdrawal of all United States ground combat forces from
the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
(c) Basis for Assessment of Progress.--For purposes of
subsection (b)(1)(A), the President shall assess whether
progress is being made toward implementation of the civilian
goals of the Dayton Accords based upon assessment of the
following goals and associated matters:
(1) Accomplishment of military stability, as measured by--
(A) the maintenance of the cease-fire between the former
warring parties;
(B) the continued cantonment of heavy weapons and the
observance of arms limitations;
(C) the disbanding of special police;
(D) the termination of covert support to the Srpska
Demokratska Stranka party by the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia; and
(E) similar measures.
(2) Police and judicial reform, as measured by--
(A) the restructuring and ethnic integration of local
police;
(B) completion of human rights training by local police
forces;
(C) the demonstrated ability of local police to deal
effectively and impartially with civil disturbances and
disorder;
(D) the implementation of an effective judicial reform
program; and
(E) similar measures.
(3) Creation and implementation of effective national
institutions untainted by ethnic separatism, as measured by--
(A) the dissolution of previously outlawed institutions;
(B) a functioning customs service with national control
over customs revenues;
(C) transparency in national budgets and disbursements; and
(D) similar measures.
(4) Media reform, as measured by--
(A) the divestiture of control of broadcast networks from
the control of political parties;
(B) opposition party access to media;
(C) the availability of alternative and independent media
throughout the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina; and
(D) similar measures.
(5) Democratization and reform of the electoral process, as
measured by--
(A) transparent functioning of local, entity, and national
governments;
(B) acceptance of binding arbitration for the
implementation of results in contested local elections;
(C) modification of electoral laws to meet international
and Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE) standards;
(D) the free and fair conduct of the September 1998
national elections and subsequent elections; and
(E) similar measures.
(6) Return of refugees, as measured by--
(A) compliance of entity property laws with the Dayton
Accords;
(B) participation by entity governments in orderly cross-
ethnic returns;
(C) protection by local police of returnees;
(D) acceptance of substantial numbers of returned refugees
in major cities; and
(E) similar measures.
(7) Resolution of the status of Brcko, as measured by--
(A) the implementation of local election results;
(B) the functioning of an ethnically integrated police
force;
(C) ethnic reintegration of Brcko and the surrounding
region; and
(D) similar measures.
(8) Compliance of persons indicted for war crimes by the
International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, as measured
by--
(A) the termination of political, military, and media
control by war criminals;
(B) the assistance of local authorities in apprehension of
indictees;
(C) the cooperation of entity justice establishments in
cooperating with the Tribunal; and
(D) similar measures.
(9) The ability of international organizations to carry out
their functions within the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina
without military support, as measured by--
(A) the ability of local authorities to carry out demining
programs;
(B) the ability of the Office of the High Representative to
enforce inter-entity agreements without accompanying military
shows of force; and
(C) similar measures.
(10) Economic reconstruction and recovery, as measured by--
(A) local currency circulating freely and its use in
official transactions;
(B) an agreement reached on a permanent national currency
in use in all entities;
(C) the creation of privatization laws consistent with the
Dayton Accords;
(D) government control over sources of revenue;
(E) substantial repair and functioning of major
infrastructure elements;
(F) an in-place International Monetary Fund program; and
(G) similar measures.
(d) Secretary of Defense Report.--(1) Not later than
December 15, 1998, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to
the congressional defense committees a report on the effects
of military operations in the Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina and the Balkans region on the capabilities of
United States military forces and, in particular, on the
capability of United States military forces to conduct
successfully two nearly simultaneous major theater wars as
specified in current Defense Planning Guidance and in
accordance with the deployment timelines called for in the
war plans of the commanders of unified combatant commands.
(2) Whenever the number of United States ground combat
forces in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina increases or
decreases by 10 percent or more compared to the number of
such forces as of the most recent previous report under this
subsection, the Secretary shall submit an additional report
as specified in paragraph (1). Any such additional report
shall be submitted within 30 days of the date on which the
requirement to submit the report becomes effective under the
preceding sentence.

[[Page H3534]]

(3) The Secretary shall include in each report under this
subsection information with respect to the effects of
military operations in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina
and the Balkans region on the capabilities of United States
military forces to conduct successfully two nearly
simultaneous major theater wars as specified in current
Defense Planning Guidance and in accordance with the
deployment timelines called for in the war plans of the
commanders of unified combatant commands. Such information
shall include information on the effects of those operations
upon anticipated deployment plans for major theater wars in
Southwest Asia or on the Korean peninsula including the
following:
(A) Deficiencies or delays in deployment of strategic lift,
logistics support and infrastructure, ammunition (including
precision guided munitions) support forces, intelligence
assets, follow-on forces used for planned counteroffensives,
and similar forces.
(B) Additional planned reserve component mobilization,
including specific units to be ordered to active duty and
required dates for activation of presidential call-up
authority.
(C) Specific plans and timelines for redeployment of United
States forces from the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
the Balkans region, or supporting forces in the region, to
both the first and second major theater war.
(D) Preventative actions or deployments involving United
States forces in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and
the Balkans region that would be taken in the event of a
single theater war to deter the outbreak of a second theater
war.
(E) Specific plans and timelines to replace forces deployed
to the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Balkans
region, or the surrounding region to maintain United States
military presence.
(F) An assessment, undertaken in consultation with the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the commanders of
the unified combatant commands, of the level of increased
risk to successful conduct of the major theater wars and the
maintenance of security and stability in the Republic of
Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Balkans region, by the
requirement to redeploy forces from Bosnia and the Balkans in
the event of a major theater war.
(e) Definition of Dayton Accords.--For purposes of this
section, the term ``Dayton Accords'' means the General
Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina,
initialed by the parties in Dayton, Ohio, on November 21,
1995, and signed in Paris on December 14, 1995.

SEC. 1203. REPORT ON MILITARY CAPABILITIES OF AN EXPANDED
NATO ALLIANCE.

(a) Report.--The Secretary of Defense shall prepare a
report, in both classified and unclassified form, on the
planned future military capabilities of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) in light of the proposed inclusion
of Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary in the NATO
alliance. The report shall set forth--
(1) the tactical, operational, and strategic issues that
would be raised by the inclusion of Poland, the Czech
Republic, and Hungary in the NATO alliance;
(2) the required improvements to common alliance military
assets that would result from the inclusion of those nations
in the alliance;
(3) the planned improvements to national capabilities of
current NATO members that would be required by reason of the
inclusion of those nations in the alliance;
(4) the planned improvements to national capabilities of
the military forces of those candidate member nations; and
(5) the additional requirements that would be imposed on
the United States by NATO expansion.
(b) Matters To Be Included.--The report shall include the
following:
(1) An assessment of the tactical and operational
capabilities of the military forces of each of the candidate
member nations.
(2) An assessment of the capability of each candidate
member nation to provide logistical, command and control, and
other vital infrastructure required for alliance defense (as
specified in Article V of the NATO Charter), including a
description in general terms of alliance plans for
reinforcing each candidate member nation during a crisis or
war and detailing means for deploying both United States and
other NATO forces from current member states and from the
continental United States or other United States bases
worldwide and, in particular, describing plans for ground
reinforcement of Hungary.
(3) An assessment of the ability of current and candidate
alliance members to deploy and sustain combat forces in
alliance defense missions conducted in the territory of any
of the candidate member nations, as specified in Article V of
the NATO Charter.
(4) A description of projected defense programs through
2009 (shown on an annual basis and cumulatively) of each
current and candidate alliance member nation, including
planned investments in capabilities relevant to Article V
alliance defense and potential alliance contingency
operations and showing both planned national efforts as well
as planned alliance common efforts and describing any
disparities in investments by current or candidate alliance
member nations.
(5) A detailed comparison and description of any
disparities in scope, methodology, assessments of common
alliance or national responsibilities, or any other factor
related to alliance capabilities between (A) the report on
alliance expansion costs prepared by the Department of
Defense (in the report submitted to Congress in February 1998
entitled ``Report to the Congress on the Military
Requirements and Costs of NATO Enlargement''), and (B) the
report on alliance expansion costs prepared by NATO
collectively and referred to as the ``NATO estimate'', issued
at Brussels in November 1997.
(6) Any other factor that, in the judgment of the Secretary
of Defense, bears upon the strategic, operational, or
tactical military capabilities of an expanded NATO alliance.
(c) Submission of Report.--The report shall be submitted to
Congress not later than March 15, 1999.

SEC. 1204. ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF COUNTERPROLIFERATION
AUTHORITIES FOR SUPPORT OF UNITED NATIONS
SPECIAL COMMISSION ON IRAQ.

(a) Amount Authorized for Fiscal Year 1999.--The total
amount of assistance for fiscal year 1999 provided by the
Secretary of Defense under section 1505 of the Weapons of
Mass Destruction Control Act of 1992 (22 U.S.C. 5859a) that
is provided in the form of funds, including funds used for
activities of the Department of Defense in support of the
United Nations Special Commission on Iraq, may not exceed
$15,000,000.
(b) Extension of Authority To Provide Assistance.--
Subsection (f) of section 1505 of the Weapons of Mass
Destruction Control Act of 1992 (22 U.S.C. 5859a) is amended
by striking out ``1998'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``1999''.

SEC. 1205. REPEAL OF LANDMINE MORATORIUM.

Section 580 of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act,
1996 (Public Law 104-107; 110 Sat 751), is repealed.

TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF FORMER SOVIET
UNION

SEC. 1301. SPECIFICATION OF COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION
PROGRAMS AND FUNDS.

(a) Specification of CTR Programs.--For purposes of section
301 and other provisions of this Act, Cooperative Threat
Reduction programs are the programs specified in subsection
(b) of section 406 of title 10, United States Code (as added
by section 1305).
(b) Fiscal Year 1999 Cooperative Threat Reduction Funds
Defined.--As used in this title, the term ``fiscal year 1999
Cooperative Threat Reduction funds'' means the funds
appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations
in section 301 for Cooperative Threat Reduction programs.

SEC. 1302. FUNDING ALLOCATIONS.

(a) In General.--Of the fiscal year 1999 Cooperative Threat
Reduction funds, not more than the following amounts may be
obligated for the purposes specified:
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (11), for strategic
offensive arms elimination in Russia, $142,400,000.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (11), for strategic
nuclear arms elimination in Ukraine, $47,500,000.
(3) For activities to support warhead dismantlement
processing in Russia, $9,400,000.
(4) For activities associated with chemical weapons
destruction in Russia, $35,000,000.
(5) For weapons transportation security in Russia,
$10,300,000.
(6) For planning, design, and construction of a storage
facility for Russian fissile material, $60,900,000.
(7) For weapons storage security in Russia, $41,700,000.
(8) For development of a cooperative program with the
Government of Russia to eliminate the production of weapons
grade plutonium at Russian reactors, $29,800,000.
(9) For biological weapons proliferation prevention
activities in Russia, $2,000,000.
(10) For activities designated as Other Assessments/
Administrative Support $7,000,000.
(11) For strategic arms elimination in Russia or Ukraine,
$31,400,000.
(b) Limited Authority To Vary Individual Amounts.--(1) If
the Secretary of Defense determines that it is necessary to
do so in the national interest, the Secretary may, subject to
paragraphs (2) and (3), obligate amounts for the purposes
stated in any of the paragraphs of subsection (a) in excess
of the amount specified for those purposes in that paragraph.
However, the total amount obligated for the purposes stated
in the paragraphs in subsection (a) may not by reason of the
use of the authority provided in the preceding sentence
exceed the sum of the amounts specified in those paragraphs.
(2) An obligation for the purposes stated in any of the
paragraphs in subsection (a) in excess of the amount
specified in that paragraph may be made using the authority
provided in paragraph (1) only after--
(A) the Secretary submits to Congress notification of the
intent to do so together with a complete discussion of the
justification for doing so; and
(B) 15 days have elapsed following the date of the
notification.
(3) The Secretary may not, under the authority provided in
paragraph (1), obligate amounts appropriated for the purposes
stated in any of paragraphs (3) through (10) of subsection
(a) in excess of 115 percent of the amount stated in those
paragraphs.

SEC. 1303. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR SPECIFIED
PURPOSES.

(a) In General.--No fiscal year 1999 Cooperative Threat
Reduction funds, and no funds appropriated for Cooperative
Threat Reduction programs for any prior fiscal year and
remaining available for obligation, may be obligated or
expended for any of the following purposes:
(1) Conducting with Russia any peacekeeping exercise or
other peacekeeping-related activity.
(2) Provision of housing.
(3) Provision of assistance to promote environmental
restoration.
(4) Provision of assistance to promote job retraining.
(5) Programs other than the programs specified in
subsection (b) of section 406 of title 10, United States Code
(as added by section 1305).

[[Page H3535]]

(b) Limitation With Respect to Defense Conversion
Assistance.--None of the funds appropriated pursuant to this
Act may be obligated or expended for the provision of
assistance to Russia or any other state of the former Soviet
Union to promote defense conversion.

SEC. 1304. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR CHEMICAL WEAPONS
DESTRUCTION FACILITY.

No fiscal year 1999 Cooperative Threat Reduction funds
authorized to be obligated in section 1302(a)(4) for
activities associated with chemical weapons destruction in
Russia, and no funds appropriated for Cooperative Threat
Reduction programs for any prior fiscal year and remaining
available for obligation, may be used for construction of a
chemical weapons destruction facility.

SEC. 1305. LIMITATION ON OBLIGATION OF FUNDS FOR A SPECIFIED
PERIOD.

(a) In General.--(1) Chapter 20 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:

``Sec. 406. Use of Cooperative Threat Reduction program
funds: limitation

``(a) In General.--In carrying out Cooperative Threat
Reduction programs during any fiscal year, the Secretary of
Defense may use funds appropriated for those programs only to
the extent that those funds were appropriated for that fiscal
year or for either of the 2 preceding fiscal years.
``(b) Definition of Cooperative Threat Reduction
Programs.--In this section, the term `Cooperative Threat
Reduction programs' means the following programs with respect
to states of the former Soviet Union:
``(1) Programs to facilitate the elimination, and the safe
and secure transportation and storage, of nuclear, chemical,
and other weapons of mass destruction and their delivery
vehicles.
``(2) Programs to facilitate the safe and secure storage of
fissile materials derived from the elimination of nuclear
weapons.
``(3) Programs to prevent the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction, components, and technology and expertise
related to such weapons.
``(4) Programs to expand military-to-military and defense
contacts.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``406. Use of Cooperative Threat Reduction program funds:
limitation.''.

(b) Effective Date.--The limitation described in section
406 of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection
(a), shall apply with respect to fiscal years beginning with
fiscal year 1999.

SEC. 1306. REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT BREAKDOWN OF AMOUNTS
REQUESTED BY PROJECT CATEGORY.

The Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress on an
annual basis, not later than 30 days after the date that the
President submits to Congress the budget of the United States
Government for the following fiscal year--
(1) a breakdown, with respect to the appropriations
requested for Cooperative Threat Reduction programs for the
fiscal year after the fiscal year in which the breakdown is
submitted, of the amounts requested for each project category
under each Cooperative Threat Reduction program element; and
(2) a breakdown, with respect to appropriations for
Cooperative Threat Reduction programs for the fiscal year in
which the breakdown is submitted, of the amounts obligated or
expended, or planned to be obligated or expended, for each
project category under each Cooperative Threat Reduction
program element.

SEC. 1307. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS UNTIL COMPLETION OF
FISCAL YEAR 1998 REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Use of Funds for Programs Related to Start II Treaty.--
No fiscal year 1999 Cooperative Threat Reduction funds may be
obligated or expended for strategic offensive arms
elimination projects in Russia related to the START II Treaty
(as defined in section 1302(f) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85;
111 Stat. 1948)) until 30 days after the date on which the
Secretary of Defense submits to Congress the certification
described in section 1404 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85;
111 Stat. 1960).
(b) Use of Funds for Chemical Weapons Destruction
Facility.--No fiscal year 1999 Cooperative Threat Reduction
funds may be obligated or expended for activities relating to
a chemical weapons destruction facility until 15 days after
the date that is the later of the dates described in section
1405 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85; 111 Stat. 1960).
(c) Use of Funds for Destruction of Chemical Weapons.--No
funds authorized to be appropriated under this or any other
Act for fiscal year 1999 for Cooperative Threat Reduction
programs may be obligated or expended for chemical weapons
destruction activities until the President submits to
Congress the written certification described in section
1406(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85; 111 Stat. 1961).
(d) Use of Funds for Storage Facility for Russian Fissile
Material.--No fiscal year 1999 Cooperative Threat Reduction
funds may be obligated or expended for planning, design, or
construction of a storage facility for Russian fissile
material until 15 days after the date that is the later of
the dates described in section 1407 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85;
111 Stat. 1962).
(e) Use of Funds for Weapons Storage Security.--No fiscal
year 1999 Cooperative Threat Reduction funds intended for
weapons storage security activities in Russia may be
obligated or expended until 15 days after the date that the
Secretary of Defense submits to Congress the report on the
status of negotiations between the United States and Russia
described in section 1408 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85;
111 Stat. 1962).

SEC. 1308. REPORT ON BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS PROGRAMS IN RUSSIA.

(a) Report.--Not later than December 31, 1998, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional
defense committees a report, in classified and unclassified
forms, containing--
(1) an assessment of the extent of compliance by Russia
with international agreements relating to the control of
biological weapons; and
(2) a detailed evaluation of the potential political and
military costs and benefits of collaborative biological
pathogen research efforts by the United States and Russia.
(b) Content of Report.--The report required under
subsection (a) shall include the following:
(1) An evaluation of the extent of the control and
oversight by the Government of Russia over the military and
civilian-military biological warfare programs formerly
controlled or overseen by states of the former Soviet Union.
(2) The extent and scope of continued biological warfare
research, development, testing, and production in Russia,
including the sites where such activity is occurring and the
types of activity being conducted.
(3) An assessment of compliance by Russia with the terms of
the Biological Weapons Convention.
(4) An identification and assessment of the measures taken
by Russia to comply with the obligations assumed under the
Joint Statement on Biological Weapons, agreed to by the
United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia on September
14, 1992.
(5) A description of the extent to which Russia has
permitted individuals from the United States or other
countries to visit military and nonmilitary biological
research, development, testing, and production sites in order
to resolve ambiguities regarding activities at such sites.
(6) A description of the information provided by Russia
about its biological weapons dismantlement efforts to date.
(7) An assessment of the accuracy and comprehensiveness of
declarations by Russia regarding its biological weapons
activities.
(8) An identification of collaborative biological research
projects carried out by the United States and Russia for
which Cooperative Threat Reduction funds have been used.
(9) An evaluation of the political and military utility of
prior, existing, and prospective cooperative biological
pathogen research programs carried out between the United
States and Russia, and an assessment of the impact of such
programs on increasing Russian military transparency with
respect to biological weapons activities.
(10) An assessment of the political and military utility of
the long-term collaborative program advocated by the National
Academy of Sciences in its October 27, 1997 report,
``Controlling Dangerous Pathogens: A Blueprint for U.S.-
Russian Cooperation''.

SEC. 1309. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS
PROLIFERATION PREVENTION ACTIVITIES IN RUSSIA.

No fiscal year 1999 Cooperative Threat Reduction funds may
be obligated or expended for biological weapons proliferation
prevention activities in Russia until 15 days after the date
that is the later of the following:
(1) The date on which the Secretary of Defense submits to
Congress a certification that no Cooperative Threat Reduction
funds provided for cooperative research activities at
biological research institutes in Russia have been used--
(A) to support activities that have resulted in the
development of a new strain of anthrax; or
(B) for any purpose inconsistent with the objectives of
providing such assistance.
(2) The date on which the Secretary submits to the
congressional defense committees notification that the United
States has examined and tested the new strain of anthrax
reportedly developed at the State Research Center for Applied
Microbiology in Obolensk, Russia.

SEC. 1310. LIMITATION ON USE OF CERTAIN FUNDS FOR STRATEGIC
ARMS ELIMINATION IN RUSSIA OR UKRAINE.

No fiscal year 1999 Cooperative Threat Reduction funds
authorized to be obligated in section 1302(a)(11) for
strategic arms elimination in Russia or Ukraine may be
obligated or expended until 30 days after the date that
the Secretary of Defense submits to the congressional
defense committees notification on how the Secretary plans
to use such funds.

SEC. 1311. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.

Funds appropriated pursuant to the authorization of
appropriations in section 301 for Cooperative Threat
Reduction programs shall be available for obligation for
three fiscal years.

DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS

SEC. 2001. SHORT TITLE.

This division may be cited as the ``Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999''.

TITLE XXI--ARMY

SEC. 2101. AUTHORIZED ARMY CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION
PROJECTS.

(a) Inside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2104(a)(1), the Secretary of the Army may acquire real
property and carry out military construction projects for the
installations and locations inside the United States, and in
the amounts, set forth in the following table:

[[Page H3536]]

Army: Inside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...................... Anniston Army Depot...... $3,550,000
Fort Rucker.............. $4,300,000
Redstone Arsenal......... $1,550,000
California................... Fort Irwin............... $14,800,000
Georgia...................... Fort Benning............. $28,600,000
Hawaii....................... Schofield Barracks....... $67,500,000
Illinois..................... Rock Island Arsenal...... $5,300,000
Indiana...................... Crane Army Ammunition
Activity................ $7,100,000
Kansas....................... Fort Riley............... $3,600,000
Kentucky..................... Blue Grass Army Depot.... $5,300,000
Fort Campbell............ $41,000,000
Fort Knox................ $23,000,000
Louisiana.................... Fort Polk................ $8,300,000
Maryland..................... Fort Detrick............. $3,550,000
Missouri..................... Fort Leonard Wood........ $28,200,000
New Jersey................... Fort Monmouth............ $7,600,000
Picatinny Arsenal........ $8,400,000
New York..................... Fort Drum................ $4,650,000
United States Military
Academy, West Point..... $85,000,000
North Carolina............... Fort Bragg............... $95,900,000
Oklahoma..................... Fort Sill................ $13,800,000
McAlester Army Ammunition
Plant................... $10,800,000
Texas........................ Fort Bliss............... $4,100,000
Fort Hood................ $32,500,000
Fort Sam Houston......... $21,800,000
Utah......................... Tooele Army Depot........ $3,900,000
Virginia..................... National Ground
Intelligence Center,
Charlottesville......... $46,200,000
Fort Eustis.............. $36,531,000
Washington................... Fort Lewis............... $18,200,000
CONUS Classified............. Classified Location...... $4,600,000
---------------
Total................ $639,631,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Outside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2104(a)(2), the Secretary of the Army may acquire real
property and carry out military construction projects for the
locations outside the United States, and in the amounts, set
forth in the following table:

Army: Outside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation or
Country location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Belgium........................ 80th Area Support Group $6,300,000
Germany........................ Schweinfurt............ $18,000,000
Wurzburg............... $4,250,000
Korea.......................... Camp Casey............. $13,400,000
Camp Castle............ $18,226,000
Camp Humphreys......... $8,500,000
Camp Stanley........... $5,800,000
Kwajalein...................... Kwajalein Atoll........ $48,600,000
---------------
Total.............. $123,076,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. 2102. FAMILY HOUSING.

(a) Construction and Acquisition.--Using amounts
appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations
in section 2104(a)(5)(A), the Secretary of the Army may
construct or acquire family housing units (including land
acquisition) at the installations, for the purposes, and in
the amounts set forth in the following table:

Army: Family Housing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or location Purpose Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................... Redstone Arsenal......... 118 Units.................... $14,000,000
Hawaii................................ Schofield Barracks....... 64 Units..................... $14,700,000
North Carolina........................ Fort Bragg............... 170 Units.................... $19,800,000
Texas................................. Fort Hood................ 154 Units.................... $21,600,000
Virginia.............................. Fort Lee................. 80 Units..................... $13,000,000
---------------
Total........................ $83,100,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Planning and Design.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2104(a)(5)(A), the Secretary of the Army may carry out
architectural and engineering services and construction
design activities with respect to the construction or
improvement of family housing units in an amount not to
exceed $6,350,000.

SEC. 2103. IMPROVEMENTS TO MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING UNITS.

Subject to section 2825 of title 10, United States Code,
and using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization
of appropriations in section 2104(a)(5)(A), the Secretary of
the Army may improve existing military family housing units
in an amount not to exceed $37,429,000.

SEC. 2104. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, ARMY.

[[Page H3537]]

(1) For military construction projects inside the United
States authorized by section 2101(a), $535,631,000.
(2) For military construction projects outside the United
States authorized by section 2101(b), $87,076,000.
(3) For unspecified minor construction projects authorized
by section 2805 of title 10, United States Code, $5,000,000.
(4) For architectural and engineering services and
construction design under section 2807 of title 10, United
States Code, $63,792,000.
(5) For military family housing functions:
(A) For construction and acquisition, planning and design,
and improvement of military family housing and facilities,
$126,879,000.
(B) For support of military family housing (including the
functions described in section 2833 of title 10, United
States Code), $1,097,697,000.
(6) For the Homeowners Assistance Program as authorized by
section 2832 of title 10, United States Code, $7,500,000.
(7) For the construction of the missile software
engineering annex, phase II, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama,
authorized by section 2101(a) of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (division B of Public
Law 105-85; 111 Stat. 1966), $13,600,000.
(8) For the construction of a disciplinary barracks, phase
II, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, authorized by section 2101(a)
of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1998, $29,000,000.
(9) For the construction of the whole barracks complex
renewal, Fort Sill, Oklahoma, authorized by section 2101(a)
of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1998, $20,500,000.
(10) For rail yard expansion at Fort Carson, Colorado,
authorized by section 2101(a) of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, $23,000,000.
(11) For the construction of an aerial gunnery range at
Fort Drum, New York, authorized by section 2101(a) of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998,
$9,000,000.
(b) Limitation on Total Cost of Construction Projects.--
Notwithstanding the cost variations authorized by section
2853 of title 10, United States Code, and any other cost
variation authorized by law, the total cost of all projects
carried out under section 2101 of this Act may not exceed--
(1) the total amount authorized to be appropriated under
paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a);
(2) $16,000,000 (the balance of the amount authorized under
section 2101(a) for the construction of a multipurpose
digital training range at Fort Knox, Kentucky);
(3) $15,000,000 (the balance of the amount authorized under
section 2101(a) for the construction of a railhead facility
at Fort Hood, Texas);
(4) $73,000,000 (the balance of the amount authorized under
section 2101(a) for the construction of a cadet development
center at the United States Military Academy, West Point, New
York); and
(5) $36,000,000 (the balance of the amount authorized under
section 2101(b) for the construction of a powerplant on Roi
Namur Island at Kwajalein Atoll, Kwajalein).
(c) Adjustments.--The total amount authorized to be
appropriated pursuant to paragraphs (1) through (11) of
subsection (a) is the sum of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated in such paragraphs, reduced by--
(1) $2,639,000, which represents the combination of project
savings in military family housing construction resulting
from favorable bids, reduced overhead costs, and
cancellations due to force structure changes; and
(2) $6,000,000, which represents the combination of project
savings in military construction resulting from favorable
bids, reduced overhead costs, and cancellations due to force
structure changes.

SEC. 2105. INCREASE IN FISCAL YEAR 1998 AUTHORIZATION FOR
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AT FORT DRUM,
NEW YORK, AND FORT SILL, OKLAHOMA.

(a) Increase.--The table in section 2101(a) of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (division
B of Public Law 105-85; 111 Stat. 1967) is amended--
(1) in the item relating to Fort Drum, New York, by
striking out ``$24,400,000'' in the amount column and
inserting in lieu thereof ``$24,900,000'';
(2) in the item relating to Fort Sill, Oklahoma, by
striking out ``$25,000,000'' in the amount column and
inserting in lieu thereof ``$28,500,000''; and
(3) by striking out the amount identified as the total in
the amount column and inserting in lieu thereof
``$602,750,000''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2104 of that Act (111
Stat. 1968) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking out
``$2,010,466,000'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``$2,013,966,000''; and
(B) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``$435,350,000'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``$438,850,000''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(8), by striking out ``$8,500,000''
and inserting in lieu thereof ``$9,000,000''.
TITLE XXII--NAVY

SEC. 2201. AUTHORIZED NAVY CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION
PROJECTS.

(a) Inside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2204(a)(1), the Secretary of the Navy may acquire real
property and carry out military construction projects for the
installations and locations inside the United States, and in
the amounts, set forth in the following table:

Navy: Inside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation or
State location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona........................ Marine Corps Air $11,010,000
Station, Yuma.
Naval Observatory
Detachment, Flagstaff. $990,000
California..................... Marine Corps Air
Station, Miramar...... $29,570,000
Marine Corps Base, Camp
Pendleton............. $40,430,000
Naval Air Station, $20,640,000
Lemoore.
Naval Air Warfare $10,140,000
Center Weapons
Division, China Lake.
Naval Facility, San
Clemente Island....... $8,350,000
Naval Submarine Base, $11,400,000
San Diego.
District of Columbia........... Naval District, $790,000
Washington.
Florida........................ Naval Air Station, Key $3,730,000
West.
Naval Air Station, $1,500,000
Jacksonville.
Naval Air Station, $1,400,000
Whiting Field.
Naval Station, Mayport. $6,163,000
Georgia........................ Marine Corps Logistics
Base, Albany.......... $2,800,000
Naval Submarine Base,
Kings Bay............. $2,550,000
Hawaii......................... Fleet and Industrial
Supply Center, Pearl
Harbor................ $9,730,000
Marine Corps Air
Station, Kaneohe Bay.. $27,410,000
Naval Communications &
Telecommunications
Area Master Station
Eastern Pacific,
Wahiawa............... $1,970,000
Naval Shipyard, Pearl $11,400,000
Harbor.
Naval Station, Pearl $18,180,000
Harbor.
Naval Submarine Base,
Pearl Harbor.......... $8,060,000
Navy Public Works
Center, Pearl Harbor.. $28,967,000
Illinois....................... Naval Training Center,
Great Lakes........... $20,280,000
Indiana........................ Naval Surface Warfare
Center, Crane......... $11,110,000
Maryland....................... Naval Surface Warfare
Center, Indian Head
Division, Indian Head. $13,270,000
Mississippi.................... Naval Air Station, $3,280,000
Meridian.
Naval Construction
Battalion Center
Gulfport.............. $10,670,000
North Carolina................. Marine Corps Air
Station, Cherry Point. $6,040,000
Marine Corps Base, Camp
LeJeune............... $14,600,000
Pennsylvania................... Naval Surface Warfare
Center Ship Systems
Engineering Station,
Philadelphia.......... $2,410,000
Rhode Island................... Naval Education and
Training Center,
Newport............... $5,630,000
Naval Undersea Warfare
Center Division,
Newport............... $9,140,000
South Carolina................. Marine Corps Air
Station, Beaufort..... $1,770,000
Marine Corps Reserve
Detachment Parris
Island................ $15,990,000
Naval Weapons Station,
Charleston............ $9,737,000
Texas.......................... Naval Station, $12,200,000
Ingleside.
Virginia....................... Fleet and Industrial
Supply Center, Norfolk
(Craney Island)....... $1,770,000
Fleet Training Center, $5,700,000
Norfolk.

[[Page H3538]]

Naval Air Station, $6,400,000
Oceana.
Naval Shipyard,
Norfolk, Portsmouth... $6,180,000
Naval Station, Norfolk. $45,530,000
Naval Surface Warfare
Center, Dahlgren...... $15,680,000
Tactical Training Group
Atlantic, Dam Neck.... $2,430,000
Washington..................... Naval Shipyard, Puget $4,300,000
Sound.
Strategic Weapons
Facility Pacific,
Bremerton............. $2,750,000
---------------
Total.............. $484,047,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Outside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2204(a)(2), the Secretary of the Navy may acquire real
property and carry out military construction projects for the
installations and locations outside the United States, and in
the amounts, set forth in the following table:

Navy: Outside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation or
Country location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greece......................... Naval Support Activity,
Souda Bay............. $5,260,000
Guam........................... Naval Activities, Guam. $10,310,000
Italy.......................... Naval Support Activity, $18,270,000
Naples.
United Kingdom................. Joint Maritime
Communications Center,
St. Mawgan............ $2,010,000
---------------
Total.............. $35,850,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. 2202. FAMILY HOUSING.

(a) Construction and Acquisition.--Using amounts
appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations
in section 2204(a)(5)(A), the Secretary of the Navy may
construct or acquire family housing units (including land
acquisition) at the installations, for the purposes, and in
the amounts set forth in the following table:

Navy: Family Housing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or location Purpose Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California.............................. Naval Air Station, Lemoore 162 Units................. $30,379,000
Hawaii.................................. Navy Public Works Center,
Pearl Harbor............. 150 Units................. $29,125,000
---------------
Total..................... $59,504,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Planning and Design.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2204(a)(5)(A), the Secretary of the Navy may carry out
architectural and engineering services and construction
design activities with respect to the construction or
improvement of military family housing units in an amount not
to exceed $15,618,000.

SEC. 2203. IMPROVEMENTS TO MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING UNITS.

Subject to section 2825 of title 10, United States Code,
and using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization
of appropriations in section 2204(a)(5)(A), the Secretary of
the Navy may improve existing military family housing units
in an amount not to exceed $221,991,000.

SEC. 2204. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, NAVY.

SEC. 2205. AUTHORIZATION TO ACCEPT ROAD CONSTRUCTION PROJECT,
MARINE CORPS BASE, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH
CAROLINA.

The Secretary of the Navy may accept from the State of
North Carolina, a road construction project valued at
approximately $2,000,000, which is to be constructed at
Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, in
accordance with plans and specifications acceptable to the
Secretary of the Navy.

TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE

SEC. 2301. AUTHORIZED AIR FORCE CONSTRUCTION AND LAND
ACQUISITION PROJECTS.

(a) Inside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2304(a)(1), the Secretary of the Air Force may acquire real
property and carry out military construction projects for the
installations and locations inside the United States, and in
the amounts, set forth in the following table:

Air Force: Inside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation or
State location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................ Maxwell Air Force Base. $19,398,000
Alaska......................... Eielson Air Force Base. $4,352,000
Arizona........................ Luke Air Force Base.... $3,400,000
California..................... Edwards Air Force Base. $10,361,000
Travis Air Force Base.. $4,250,000

[[Page H3539]]

Vandenberg Air Force $18,709,000
Base.
Colorado....................... Falcon Air Force $9,601,000
Station.
United States Air Force
Academy............... $4,413,000
District of Columbia........... Bolling Air Force Base. $2,948,000
Florida........................ Eglin Air Force Base... $20,437,000
Eglin Auxiliary Field 9 $3,837,000
MacDill Air Force Base. $9,808,000
Tyndall Air Force Base. $3,600,000
Georgia........................ Robins Air Force Base.. $11,894,000
Hawaii......................... Hickam Air Force Base.. $5,890,000
Idaho.......................... Mountain Home Air Force
Base.................. $16,397,000
Kansas......................... McConnell Air Force $4,450,000
Base.
Maryland....................... Andrews Air Force Base. $4,448,000
Mississippi.................... Keesler Air Force Base. $35,526,000
Nevada......................... Indian Springs Air
Force Auxiliary Air
Field................. $15,013,000
Nellis Air Force Base.. $6,378,000
New Jersey..................... McGuire Air Force Base. $6,044,000
New Mexico..................... Holloman Air Force Base $11,100,000
Kirtland Air Force Base $1,774,000
North Carolina................. Seymour Johnson Air
Force Base............ $6,100,000
North Dakota................... Grand Forks Air Force $2,686,000
Base.
Ohio........................... Wright-Patterson Air
Force Base............ $22,000,000
Oklahoma....................... Altus Air Force Base... $5,300,000
Tinker Air Force Base.. $25,385,000
Vance Air Force Base... $6,223,000
South Carolina................. Charleston Air Force $24,330,000
Base.
South Dakota................... Ellsworth Air Force $6,500,000
Base.
Tennessee...................... Arnold Air Force Base.. $11,600,000
Texas.......................... Brooks Air Force Base.. $7,000,000
Dyess Air Force Base... $3,350,000
Lackland Air Force Base $14,930,000
Laughlin Air Force Base $7,315,000
Randolph Air Force Base $3,166,000
Washington..................... Fairchild Air Force $13,820,000
Base.
McChord Air Force Base. $51,847,000
---------------
Total.............. $445,580,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Outside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2304(a)(2), the Secretary of the Air Force may acquire real
property and carry out military construction projects for the
installations and locations outside the United States, and in
the amounts, set forth in the following table:

Air Force: Outside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation or
Country location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Germany........................ Spangdahlem Air Base... $13,967,000
Korea.......................... Kunsan Air Base........ $5,958,000
Osan Air Base.......... $7,496,000
Turkey......................... Incirlik Air Base...... $2,949,000
United Kingdom................. Royal Air Force, $15,838,000
Lakenheath.
Royal Air Force, $24,960,000
Mildenhall.
---------------
Total.............. $71,168,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. 2302. FAMILY HOUSING.

(a) Construction and Acquisition.--Using amounts
appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations
in section 2304(a)(5)(A), the Secretary of the Air Force may
construct or acquire family housing units (including land
acquisition) at the installations, for the purposes, and in
the amounts set forth in the following table:

Air Force: Family Housing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or location Purpose Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................... Maxwell Air Force Base... 143 Units.................... $16,300,000
Alaska................................ Eielson Air Force Base... 46 Units..................... $12,932,000
California............................ Edwards Air Force Base... 48 Units..................... $12,580,000
Vandenberg Air Force Base 95 Units..................... $18,499,000
Delaware.............................. Dover Air Force Base..... 55 Units..................... $8,998,000
Florida............................... MacDill Air Force Base... 48 Units..................... $7,609,000
Patrick Air Force Base... 46 Units..................... $9,692,000
Tyndall Air Force Base... 122 Units.................... $14,500,000
Nebraska.............................. Offutt Air Force Base.... Ancillary Facility........... $870,000
Offutt Air Force Base.... Ancillary Facility........... $900,000
Offutt Air Force Base.... 90 Units..................... $12,212,000
Nevada................................ Nellis Air Force Base.... 60 Units..................... $10,550,000
New Mexico............................ Kirtland Air Force Base.. 37 Units..................... $6,400,000
Ohio.................................. Wright-Patterson Air
Force Base.............. 40 Units..................... $5,600,000
Texas................................. Dyess Air Force Base..... 64 Units..................... $9,415,000
Sheppard Air Force Base.. 65 Units..................... $7,000,000

[[Page H3540]]

Washington............................ Fairchild Air Force Base. Ancillary Facility........... $1,692,000
Fairchild Air Force Base. 14 Units..................... $2,300,000
---------------
Total...................... $158,049,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Planning and Design.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2304(a)(5)(A), the Secretary of the Air Force may carry out
architectural and engineering services and construction
design activities with respect to the construction or
improvement of military family housing units in an amount not
to exceed $11,342,000.

SEC. 2303. IMPROVEMENTS TO MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING UNITS.

Subject to section 2825 of title 10, United States Code,
and using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization
of appropriations in section 2304(a)(5)(A), the Secretary of
the Air Force may improve existing military family housing
units in an amount not to exceed $81,778,000.

SEC. 2304. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, AIR FORCE.

TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES

SEC. 2401. AUTHORIZED DEFENSE AGENCIES CONSTRUCTION AND LAND
ACQUISITION PROJECTS.

(a) Inside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2404(a)(1), the Secretary of Defense may acquire real
property and carry out military construction projects for the
installations and locations inside the United States, and in
the amounts, set forth in the following table:

Defense Agencies: Inside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation or
Agency location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Demilitarization...... Aberdeen Proving
Ground, Maryland...... $186,350,000
Newport Army Depot,
Indiana............... $191,550,000
Defense Logistics Agency....... Defense Fuel Support
Point, Fort Sill,
Oklahoma.............. $3,500,000
Defense Fuel Support
Point, Jacksonville
Annex, Mayport,
Florida............... $11,020,000
Defense Fuel Support
Point, Jacksonville,
Florida............... $11,000,000
Defense General Supply
Center, Richmond
(DLA), Virginia....... $10,500,000
Defense Fuels Supply
Center, Camp Shelby,
Mississippi........... $5,300,000
Defense Fuels Supply
Center, Elmendorf Air
Force Base, Alaska.... $19,500,000
Defense Fuels Supply
Center, Pope Air Force
Base, North Carolina.. $4,100,000
Various Locations...... $1,300,000
Defense Medical Facilities
Office........................ Barksdale Air Force
Base, Louisiana....... $3,450,000
Beale Air Force Base,
California............ $3,500,000
Carlisle Barracks,
Pennsylvania.......... $4,678,000
Cheatham Annex, $11,300,000
Virginia.
Edwards Air Force Base,
California............ $6,000,000
Elgin Air Force Base, $9,200,000
Florida.
Fort Bragg, North $6,500,000
Carolina.
Fort Hood, Texas....... $14,100,000
Fort Stewart/Hunter
Army Air Field,
Georgia............... $10,400,000
Grand Forks Air Force
Base, North Dakota.... $5,600,000
Holloman Air Force
Base, New Mexico...... $1,300,000
Keesler Air Force Base,
Mississippi........... $700,000
Marine Corps Air
Station, Camp
Pendleton,
California............ $6,300,000
McChord Air Force Base,
Washington............ $20,000,000
Moody Air Force Base,
Georgia............... $11,000,000
Naval Air Station,
Pensacola, Florida.... $25,400,000
Naval Hospital,
Bremerton, Washington. $28,000,000
Naval Hospital, Great
Lakes, Illinois....... $7,100,000
Naval Station, San
Diego, California..... $1,350,000
Naval Submarine Base,
Bangor, Washington.... $5,700,000
Travis Air Force Base,
California............ $1,700,000
Defense Education Activity..... Marine Corps Base, Camp
LeJeune, North
Carolina.............. $16,900,000
United States Military
Academy, West Point,
New York.............. $2,840,000
National Security Agency....... Fort Meade, Maryland... $668,000
Special Operations Command..... Elgin Auxiliary Field
3, Florida............ $7,310,000
Elgin Auxiliary Field
9, Florida............ $2,400,000
Fort Campbell, Kentucky $15,000,000
MacDill Air Force Base,
Florida............... $8,400,000
Naval Amphibious Base,
Coronado, California.. $3,600,000
Stennis Space Center,
Mississippi........... $5,500,000
---------------
Total.............. $690,016,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page H3541]]

(b) Outside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2404(a)(2), the Secretary of Defense may acquire real
property and carry out military construction projects for the
installations and locations outside the United States, and in
the amounts, set forth in the following table:

Defense Agencies: Outside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation or
Agency location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization.................. Kwajalein Atoll,
Kwajalein............. $4,600,000
Defense Logistics Agency....... Lajes Field, Azores,
Portugal.............. $7,700,000
Defense Medical Facilities
Office........................ Naval Air Station,
Sigonella, Italy...... $5,300,000
Royal Air Force,
Lakenheath, United
Kingdom............... $10,800,000
Defense Education Activity..... Fort Buchanan, Puerto
Rico.................. $8,805,000
Naval Activities, Guam. $13,100,000
Special Operations Command..... Naval Station,
Roosevelt Roads,
Puerto Rico........... $9,600,000
---------------
Total.............. $59,905,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. 2402. IMPROVEMENTS TO MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING UNITS.

Subject to section 2825 of title 10, United States Code,
and using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization
of appropriation in section 2404(a)(11)(A), the Secretary of
Defense may improve existing military family housing units in
an amount not to exceed $345,000.

SEC. 2403. ENERGY CONSERVATION PROJECTS.

Using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of
appropriations in section 2404(a)(9), the Secretary of
Defense may carry out energy conservation projects under
section 2865 of title 10, United States Code.

SEC. 2404. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, DEFENSE AGENCIES.

(a) In General.--Funds are hereby authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years beginning after September 30,
1998, for military construction, land acquisition, and
military family housing functions of the Department of
Defense (other than the military departments), in the total
amount of $2,386,023,000 as follows:
(1) For military construction projects inside the United
States authorized by section 2401(a), $369,966,000.
(2) For military construction projects outside the United
States authorized by section 2401(a), $59,905,000.
(3) For construction of the Ammunition Demilitarization
Facility, Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas authorized by section
2401 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1995 (division B of Public Law 103-337; 108 Stat.
3040), as amended by section 2407 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (division
B of Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 539), section 2408 of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998
(division B of Public Law 105-85; 111 Stat. 1982), and
section 2405 of this Act, $16,500,000.
(4) For construction of the Ammunition Demilitarization
Facility, Umatilla Army Depot, Oregon, authorized by section
2401 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1995, as amended by section 2407 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, section
2408 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998, and section 2405 of this Act, $50,950,000.
(5) For military construction projects at Portsmouth Naval
Hospital, Virginia, hospital replacement, authorized by
section 2401(a) of the Military Construction Authorization
Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (division B of Public Law
101-189; 106 Stat. 1640), as amended by section 2406 of this
Act, $17,954,000.
(6) For unspecified minor construction projects under
section 2805 of title 10, United States Code, $16,094,000.
(7) For contingency construction projects of the Secretary
of Defense under section 2804 of title 10, United States
Code, $4,890,000.
(8) For architectural and engineering services and
construction design under section 2807 of title 10, United
States Code, $39,866,000.
(9) For energy conservation projects authorized by section
2404, $46,950,000.
(10) For base closure and realignment activities as
authorized by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of
1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C.
2687 note), $1,730,704,000.
(11) For military family housing functions:
(A) For improvement of military family housing and
facilities, $345,000.
(B) For support of military housing (including functions
described in section 2833 of title 10, United States Code),
$36,899,000 of which not more than $31,139,000 may be
obligated or expended for the leasing of military family
housing units worldwide.
(C) For credit to the Department of Defense Family Housing
Improvement Fund established by section 2883(a)(1) of title
10, United States Code, $7,000,000.
(b) Limitation of Total Cost of Construction Projects.--
Notwithstanding the cost variation authorized by section 2853
of title 10, United States Code, and any other cost
variations authorized by law, the total cost of all projects
carried out under section 2401 of this Act may not exceed--
(1) the total amount authorized to be appropriated under
paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a);
(2) $162,050,000 (the balance of the amount authorized
under section 2401(a) for the construction of the Ammunition
Demilitarization Facility at Newport Army Depot, Indiana);
and
(3) $158,000,000 (the balance of the amount authorized
under section 2401(a) for the construction of the Ammunition
Demilitarization Facility at Aberdeen Proving Ground,
Maryland).
(c) Adjustment.--The total amount authorized to be
appropriated pursuant to paragraphs (1) through (11) of
subsection (a) is the sum of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated in such paragraphs, reduced by $12,000,000,
which represents the combination of project savings in
military construction resulting from favorable bids, reduced
overhead costs, and cancellations due to force structure
changes.

SEC. 2405. INCREASE IN FISCAL YEAR 1995 AUTHORIZATION FOR
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AT PINE BLUFF
ARSENAL, ARKANSAS, AND UMATILLA ARMY DEPOT,
OREGON.

The table in section 2401 of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (division B of Public
Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 3040), as amended by section 2407 of
the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1996 (division B of Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 539) and
section 2408 of the Military Construction Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1998 (division B of Public Law 105-85; 111
Stat. 1982), under the agency heading relating to Chemical
Weapons and Munitions Destruction, is amended--
(1) in the item relating to Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas,
by striking out $134,000,000'' in the amount column and
inserting in lieu thereof ``$154,400,000''; and
(2) in the item relating to Umatilla Army Depot, Oregon, by
striking out ``$187,000,000'' in the amount column and
inserting in lieu thereof ``$193,377,000''.

SEC. 2406. INCREASE IN FISCAL YEAR 1990 AUTHORIZATION FOR
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT AT PORTSMOUTH
NAVAL HOSPITAL, VIRGINIA.

(a) Increase.--The table in section 2401(a) of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991
(division B of Public Law 100-189; 103 Stat. 1640) is amended
in the item relating to Portsmouth Naval Hospital, Virginia,
by striking out ``$330,000,000'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``$351,354,000''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2405(b)(2) of that Act
(103 Stat. 1642) is amended by striking out ``$321,500,000''
and inserting in lieu thereof ``$342,854,000''.
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT
PROGRAM

SEC. 2501. AUTHORIZED NATO CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION
PROJECTS.

The Secretary of Defense may make contributions for the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment
program as provided in section 2806 of title 10, United
States Code, in an amount not to exceed the sum of the amount
authorized to be appropriated for this purpose in section
2502 and the amount collected from the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization as a result of construction previously financed
by the United States.

SEC. 2502. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, NATO.

Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
years beginning after September 30, 1998, for contributions
by the Secretary of Defense under section 2806 of title 10,
United States Code, for the share of the United States of the
cost of projects for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Security Investment program authorized by section 2501, in
the amount of $169,000,000.
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES

SEC. 2601. AUTHORIZED GUARD AND RESERVE CONSTRUCTION AND LAND
ACQUISITION PROJECTS.

(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated for fiscal years beginning after September
30, 1998, for the costs of acquisition, architectural and
engineering services, and construction of facilities for the
Guard and Reserve Forces, and for contributions therefor,
under chapter 1803 of title 10, United States Code (including
the cost of acquisition of land for those facilities), the
following amounts:
(1) For the Department of the Army--
(A) for the Army National Guard of the United States,
$70,338,000; and
(B) for the Army Reserve, $84,608,000.
(2) For the Department of the Navy, for the Naval and
Marine Corps Reserve, $33,721,000.
(3) For the Department of the Air Force--
(A) for the Air National Guard of the United States,
$97,701,000; and
(B) for the Air Force Reserve, $35,371,000.
(b) Adjustment.--(1) The amount authorized to be
appropriated pursuant to subsection (a)(1)(A) is reduced by
$2,000,000, which represents the combination of project
savings in

[[Page H3542]]

military construction resulting from favorable bids, reduced
overhead costs, and cancellations due to force structure
changes.
(2) The amount authorized to be appropriated pursuant to
subsection (a)(3)(A) is reduced by $4,000,000, which
represents the combination of project savings in military
construction resulting from favorable bids, reduced overhead
costs, and cancellations due to force structure changes.

SEC. 2602. ARMY RESERVE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, SALT LAKE CITY,
UTAH.

(a) Cost Share Requirement.--With regard to the military
construction project for the Army Reserve concerning
construction of a reserve center and organizational
maintenance shop at an appropriate site in, or in the
vicinity of, Salt Lake City, Utah, to be carried out using
funds appropriated pursuant to the authorization of
appropriations in section 2601(a)(1)(B), the Secretary of the
Army shall enter into an agreement with the State of Utah
under which the State agrees to provide financial or in-kind
contributions in connection with the project.
(b) Repeal of Superseded Authority.--(1) Section 2603 of
the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1998 (division B of Public Law 105-85; 111 Stat. 1983) is
repealed.
(2) Section 2601(a)(1)(B) of such Act is amended by
striking out ``$66,267,000'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``$53,553,000''.
TITLE XXVII--EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS

SEC. 2701. EXPIRATION OF AUTHORIZATIONS AND AMOUNTS REQUIRED
TO BE SPECIFIED BY LAW.

(a) Expiration of Authorizations After Three Years.--Except
as provided in subsection (b), all authorizations contained
in titles XXI through XXVI for military construction
projects, land acquisition, family housing projects and
facilities, and contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization Security Investment program (and authorizations
of appropriations therefor) shall expire on the later of--
(1) October 1, 2001; or
(2) the date of enactment of an Act authorizing funds for
military construction for fiscal year 2002.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to
authorizations for military construction projects, land
acquisition, family housing projects and facilities, and
contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Security Investment program (and authorizations of
appropriations therefor), for which appropriated funds have
been obligated before the later of--
(1) October 1, 2001; or
(2) the date of enactment of an Act authorizing funds for
fiscal year 2002 for military construction projects, land
acquisition, family housing projects and facilities, or
contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Security Investment program.

SEC. 2702. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS OF CERTAIN FISCAL YEAR
1996 PROJECTS.

(a) Extensions.--Notwithstanding section 2701 of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(division B of Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 541),
authorizations for the projects set forth in the tables in
subsection (b), as provided in sections 2201, 2302, or 2601
of that Act, shall remain in effect until October 1, 1999, or
the date of enactment of an Act authorizing funds for
military construction for fiscal year 2000, whichever is
later.
(b) Tables.--The tables referred to in subsection (a) are
as follows:

Navy: Extension of 1996 Project Authorization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or location Project Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Puerto Rico........................... Naval Station Roosevelt
Roads................... Housing Office............... $710,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Force: Extension of 1996 Project Authorization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or location Project Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas................................. Lackland Air Force Base.. Family Housing (67 units).... $6,200,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Army National Guard: Extension of 1996 Project Authorization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or location Project Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mississippi........................... Camp Shelby.............. Multipurpose Range Complex
(Phase I)................... $5,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. 2703. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF FISCAL YEAR 1995 PROJECT.

(a) Extension.--Notwithstanding section 2701 of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995
(division B of Public Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 3046), the
authorization for the project set forth in the table in
subsection (b), as provided in section 2201 of that Act and
extended by section 2702 of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (division B of Public
Law 105-85; 111 Stat. 1985), shall remain in effect until
October 1, 1999, or the date of enactment of an Act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2000, whichever is later.
(b) Table.--The table referred to in subsection (a) is as
follows:

Navy: Extension of 1995 Project Authorization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or location Project Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maryland.............................. Indian Head Naval Surface
Warfare Center.......... Denitrification/Acid Mixing
Facility.................... $6,400,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. 2704. EFFECTIVE DATE.

Titles XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, and XXVI shall take
effect on the later of--
(1) October 1, 1998; or
(2) the date of enactment of this Act.

TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing
Changes

SEC. 2801. DEFINITION OF ANCILLARY SUPPORTING FACILITIES
UNDER THE ALTERNATIVE AUTHORITY FOR ACQUISITION
AND IMPROVEMENT OF MILITARY HOUSING.

Section 2871(1) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by inserting after ``including'' the following: ``facilities
to provide or support elementary or secondary education,''.
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration

SEC. 2811. RESTORATION OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE LANDS USED BY
ANOTHER FEDERAL AGENCY.

(a) Inclusion of Restoration as Contract Term.--Section
2691 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following new subsection:
``(c) As a condition of any lease, permit, license, or
other grant of access entered into by the Secretary of a
military department with another Federal agency authorizing
the other agency to use lands under the control of the
Secretary, the Secretary may require the other agency to
agree to remove any improvements and to take any other action
necessary in the judgment of the Secretary to restore the
land used by the agency to the condition the land was in
before its use by the agency. In lieu of performing the work
itself, the Federal agency may elect, with the consent of the
Secretary, to reimburse the Secretary for the costs incurred
by the military department to perform the removal and
restoration work.''.
(b) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The heading of such section
is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 2691. Restoration of land used by permit or lease''.

(2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 159
of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking the
item relating to section 2691 and inserting in lieu thereof
the following new item:

[[Page H3543]]

``2691. Restoration of land used by permit or lease.''.

SEC. 2812. OUTDOOR RECREATION DEVELOPMENT ON MILITARY
INSTALLATIONS FOR DISABLED VETERANS, MILITARY
DEPENDENTS WITH DISABILITIES, AND OTHER PERSONS
WITH DISABILITIES.

(a) Access Enhancement.--Section 103 of the Sikes Act (16
U.S.C. 670c) is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsections:
``(b) Access for Disabled Veterans, Military Dependents
With Disabilities, and Other Persons With Disabilities.--(1)
In developing facilities and conducting programs for public
outdoor recreation at military installations, consistent with
the primary military mission of the installations, the
Secretary of Defense shall ensure, to the maximum extent
practicable, that outdoor recreation opportunities (including
fishing, hunting, trapping, wildlife viewing, boating, and
camping) made available to the public also provide equal
access for persons described in paragraph (2) when
topographic, vegetative, and water resources allow equal
access without substantial modification to the natural
environment.
``(2) Persons referred to in paragraph (1) are disabled
veterans, military dependents with disabilities, and other
persons with disabilities.
``(3) The Secretary of Defense shall carry out this
subsection in consultation with the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs, national service, military, and veterans
organizations, and sporting organizations in the private
sector that participate in outdoor recreation projects for
persons described in paragraph (2).
``(c) Acceptance of Donations.--In connection with the
facilities and programs for public outdoor recreation at
military installations, in particular the requirement under
subsection (b) to provide equal access for persons described
in paragraph (2) of such subsection, the Secretary of Defense
may accept--
``(1) the voluntary services of individuals and
organizations; and
``(2) donations of money or property, whether real,
personal, mixed, tangible, or intangible.
``(d) Treatment of Volunteers.--A volunteer under
subsection (c) shall not be considered to be a Federal
employee and shall not be subject to the provisions of law
relating to Federal employment, including those relating to
hours of work, rates of compensation, leave, unemployment
compensation, and Federal employee benefits, except that--
``(1) for the purposes of the tort claims provisions of
chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code, the volunteer
shall be considered to be a Federal employee; and
``(2) for the purposes of subchapter I of chapter 81 of
title 5, United States Code, relating to compensation to
Federal employees for work injuries, the volunteer shall be
considered to be an employee, as defined in section
8101(1)(B) of title 5, United States Code, and the provisions
of such subchapter shall apply.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Such section is further amended
by striking out ``Sec. 103.'' and inserting in lieu thereof
the following:

``SEC. 103. PROGRAM FOR PUBLIC OUTDOOR RECREATION.

``(a) Program Authorized.--''.

SEC. 2813. REPORT ON USE OF UTILITY SYSTEM CONVEYANCE
AUTHORITY.

(a) Report Required.--Not later than March 1, 1999, the
Secretary of each military department shall submit to
Congress a report containing--
(1) the criteria to be used by the Secretary to select
utility systems, and related real property, under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary for conveyance to a municipal,
private, regional, district, or cooperative utility company
or other entity under the authority of section 2688 of title
10, United States Code; and
(2) a description of the manner in which the Secretary will
ensure that any such conveyance does not adversely affect the
national security of the United States.
(b) List of Likely Systems for Conveyance.--The report
submitted by the Secretary of a military department under
subsection (a) shall also contain a list of the utility
systems, including the locations of the utility systems,
that, as of the date of the submission of the report, the
Secretary considers are likely to be conveyed under the
authority of section 2688 of title 10, United States Code.

Subtitle C--Defense Base Closure and Realignment

SEC. 2821. PAYMENT OF STIPULATED PENALTIES ASSESSED UNDER THE
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE,
COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT OF 1980 IN
CONNECTION WITH MCCLELLAN AIR FORCE BASE,
CALIFORNIA.

(a) Source of Payment.--Notwithstanding subsection (b) of
section 2906(a) of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Act of 1990 (part A of Title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10
U.S.C. 2687 note), the Secretary of Defense may use amounts
in the Department of Defense Base Closure Account 1990
established under subsection (a) of such section to pay
stipulated penalties assessed under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (42
U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) against McClellan Air Force Base,
California.
(b) Amount of Payment.--The amount expended under the
authority of subsection (a) may not exceed $15,000.

SEC. 2822. ELIMINATION OF WAIVER AUTHORITY REGARDING
PROHIBITION AGAINST CERTAIN CONVEYANCES OF
PROPERTY AT NAVAL STATION, LONG BEACH,
CALIFORNIA.

Section 2826 of the Military Construction Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1998 (division B of Public Law 105-85; 111
Stat. 2001) is amended by striking out subsection (e).

Subtitle D--Land Conveyances

PART I--ARMY CONVEYANCES

SEC. 2831. LAND CONVEYANCE, ARMY RESERVE CENTER, MASSENA, NEW
YORK.

(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army may
convey, without consideration, to the Village of Massena, New
York (in this section referred to as the ``Village''), all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to a
parcel of real property (including improvements thereon)
consisting of the Army Reserve Center in Massena, New York,
for the purpose of permitting the Village to develop the
parcel for public benefit, including the development of
municipal office space.
(b) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory
to the Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by
the Village.
(c) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.

SEC. 2832. LAND CONVEYANCE, ARMY RESERVE CENTER, OGDENSBURG,
NEW YORK.

(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army may
convey, without consideration, to the City of Ogdensburg, New
York (in this section referred to as the ``City''), all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to a
parcel of real property (including improvements thereon)
consisting of the Army Reserve Center in Ogdensburg, New
York, for the purpose of permitting the City to develop the
parcel for public benefit, including the development of
municipal office space.
(b) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory
to the Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by
the City.
(c) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.

SEC. 2833. LAND CONVEYANCE, ARMY RESERVE CENTER, JAMESTOWN,
OHIO.

(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army may
convey, without consideration, to the Greeneview Local School
District of Jamestown, Ohio, all right, title, and interest
of the United States in and to a parcel of excess Federal
real property, including improvements thereon, that is
located at 5693 Plymouth Road in Jamestown, Ohio, and
contains an Army Reserve Center.
(b) Purpose of Conveyance.--The purpose of the conveyance
under subsection (a) is to permit the Greeneview Local School
District to retain and use the conveyed property for the
benefit of the students of Greeneview schools.
(c) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory
to the Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by
the Greeneview Local School District.
(d) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.

SEC. 2834. LAND CONVEYANCE, STEWART ARMY SUB-POST, NEW
WINDSOR, NEW YORK.

(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army may
convey, without consideration, to the Town of New Windsor,
New York (in this section referred to as the ``Town''), all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to a
parcel of real property, including any improvements thereon,
consisting of approximately 291 acres at the Stewart Army
Sub-Post in New Windsor, New York.
(b) Exclusion.--The real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) does not include any portion of the
approximately 89.2-acre parcel at Stewart Army Sub-Post that
is proposed for transfer to the jurisdiction and control of
the Marine Corps or the approximately 22-acre parcel at
Stewart Army Sub-Post that is proposed for transfer to the
jurisdiction and control of the Army Reserve.
(c) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey
satisfactory to the Secretary. The cost of the survey
shall be borne by the Town.
(d) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.

SEC. 2835. LAND CONVEYANCE, INDIANA ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT,
CHARLESTOWN, INDIANA.

(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army may
convey to the Indiana Army Ammunition Plant Reuse Authority
(in this section referred to as the ``Reuse Authority'') all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to a
parcel of real property, including improvements thereon,
consisting of approximately 4660 acres located at the Indiana
Army Ammunition Plant, Charlestown, Indiana, for the purpose
of developing the parcel as an industrial park to replace all
or part of the economic activity lost at the inactivated
plant.
(b) Consideration.--Except as provided in subsection (d),
as consideration for the conveyance under subsection (a), the
Reuse Authority

[[Page H3544]]

shall pay to the Secretary an amount equal to the fair market
value of the conveyed property as of the time of the
conveyance, determined by the Secretary in accordance with
Federal appraisal standards and procedures.
(c) Time for Payment.--The consideration required under
subsection (b) shall be paid by the Reuse Authority at the
end of the 10-year period beginning on the date on which the
conveyance under subsection (a) is completed.
(d) Effect of Reconveyance or Lease.--(1) If, during the
10-year period specified in subsection (c), the Reuse
Authority reconveys all or any part of the property conveyed
under subsection (a), the Reuse Authority shall pay to the
United States an amount equal to the fair market value of the
reconveyed property as of the time of the reconveyance,
excluding the value of any improvements made to the property
by the Reuse Authority, determined by the Secretary in
accordance with Federal appraisal standards and procedures.
(2) The Secretary may treat a lease of the property within
such 10-year period as a reconveyance if the Secretary
determines that the lease is being used to avoid application
of paragraph (1).
(e) Deposit of Proceeds.--The Secretary shall deposit any
proceeds received under subsection (b) or (d) in the special
account established pursuant to section 204(h)(2) of the
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40
U.S.C. 485(h)(2)).
(f) Administrative Expenses.--In connection with the
conveyance under subsection (a), the Secretary may accept
amounts provided by the Reuse Authority or other persons to
cover administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary in
making the conveyance. Amounts received under this subsection
for administrative expenses shall be credited to the
appropriation, fund, or account from which the expenses were
paid and shall be available, to the extent provided in
appropriation Acts, for the same purposes and subject to the
same limitations as other funds in such appropriation, fund,
or account.
(g) Description of Property.--The property to be conveyed
under subsection (a) includes the administrative area of the
Indiana Army Ammunition Plant as well as open space in the
southern end of the plant. The exact acreage and legal
description of the property to be conveyed shall be
determined by a survey satisfactory to the Secretary. The
cost of the survey shall be borne by the Reuse Authority.
(h) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.
(i) Additional Conveyance for Recreational Purposes.--
Section 2858(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 571), as
amended by section 2838 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85; 111 Stat. 2006),
is further amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(3) The Secretary may also convey to the State, without
consideration, another parcel of real property at the Indiana
Army Ammunition Plant consisting of approximately 2,000 acres
of additional riverfront property in order to connect the
parcel conveyed under paragraph (2) with the parcels of
Charlestown State Park conveyed to the State under paragraph
(1) and title II of the Defense Authorization Amendments and
Base Closure and Realignment Act (Public Law 100-526; 10
U.S.C. 2687 note).''.

SEC. 2836. LAND CONVEYANCE, VOLUNTEER ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT,
CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE.

(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army may
convey to Hamilton County, Tennessee (in this section
referred to as the ``County''), all right, title, and
interest of the United States in and to a parcel of real
property, including improvements thereon, consisting of
approximately 1033 acres located at the Volunteer Army
Ammunition Plant, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the purpose
of developing the parcel as an industrial park to replace
all or part of the economic activity lost at the
inactivated plant.
(b) Consideration.--Except as provided in subsection (d),
as consideration for the conveyance under subsection (a), the
County shall pay to the Secretary an amount equal to the fair
market value of the conveyed property as of the time of the
conveyance, determined by the Secretary in accordance with
Federal appraisal standards and procedures.
(c) Time for Payment.--The consideration required under
subsection (b) shall be paid by the County at the end of the
10-year period beginning on the date on which the conveyance
under subsection (a) is completed.
(d) Effect of Reconveyance or Lease.--(1) If, during the
10-year period specified in subsection (c), the County
reconveys all or any part of the property conveyed under
subsection (a), the County shall pay to the United States an
amount equal to the fair market value of the reconveyed
property as of the time of the reconveyance, excluding the
value of any improvements made to the property by the County,
determined by the Secretary in accordance with Federal
appraisal standards and procedures.
(2) The Secretary may treat a lease of the property within
such 10-year period as a reconveyance if the Secretary
determines that the lease is being used to avoid application
of paragraph (1).
(e) Deposit of Proceeds.--The Secretary shall deposit any
proceeds received under subsection (b) or (d) in the special
account established pursuant to section 204(h)(2) of the
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40
U.S.C. 485(h)(2)).
(f) Effect on Existing Leases.--The conveyance of the real
property under subsection (a) shall not affect the terms or
length of any contract entered into by the Secretary before
the date of the enactment of this Act with regard to the
property to be conveyed.
(g) Administrative Expenses.--In connection with the
conveyance under subsection (a), the Secretary may accept
amounts provided by the County or other persons to cover
administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary in making
the conveyance. Amounts received under this subsection for
administrative expenses shall be credited to the
appropriation, fund, or account from which the expenses were
paid and shall be available, to the extent provided in
appropriation Acts, for the same purposes and subject to the
same limitations as other funds in such appropriation, fund,
or account.
(h) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the property to be conveyed under subsection
(a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory to the
Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by the
County.
(i) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.

SEC. 2837. RELEASE OF REVERSIONARY INTEREST OF UNITED STATES
IN FORMER REDSTONE ARMY ARSENAL PROPERTY
CONVEYED TO ALABAMA SPACE SCIENCE EXHIBIT
COMMISSION.

(a) Release Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army may
release, without consideration and to such extent as the
Secretary considers appropriate to protect the interests of
the United States, the reversionary interests of the United
States in the real property described in subsection (b),
which were retained by the United States when the property
was conveyed to the Alabama Space Science Exhibit Commission,
an agency of the State of Alabama. The release shall be
executed in the manner provided in this section.
(b) Description of Property.--The real property referred to
in this section is the real property conveyed to the Alabama
Space Science Exhibit Commission under the authority of the
following provisions of law:
(1) The first section of Public Law 90-276 (82 Stat. 68).
(2) Section 813 of the Military Construction Authorization
Act, 1980 (Public Law 96-125; 93 Stat. 952).
(3) Section 813 of the Military Construction Authorization
Act, 1984 (Public Law 98-115; 97 Stat. 790).
(c) Release, Waiver, or Conveyance of Other Rights, Terms,
and Conditions.--As part of the release under subsection (a),
the Secretary may release, waive, or convey, without
consideration and to such extent as the Secretary considers
appropriate to protect the interests of the United States--
(1) any and all other rights retained by the United States
in and to the real property described in subsection (b) when
the property was conveyed to the Alabama Space Science
Exhibit Commission; and
(2) any and all terms and conditions and restrictions on
the use of the real property imposed as part of the
conveyances described in subsection (b).
(d) Conditions on Release, Waiver, or Conveyance.--(1) The
Secretary may execute the release under subsection (a) or a
release, waiver, or conveyance under subsection (c) only
after--
(A) the Secretary approves of the master plan prepared by
the Alabama Space Science Exhibit Commission, as such plan
may exist or be revised from time to time, for development of
the real property described in subsection (b); and
(2) the installation commander at Redstone Arsenal,
Alabama, certifies to the Secretary that the release, waiver,
or conveyance is consistent with the master plan.
(2) A new facility or structure may not be constructed on
the real property described in subsection (b) unless the
facility or structure is included in the master plan, which
has been approved and certified as provided in paragraph (1).
(e) Instrument of Release, Waiver, or Conveyance.--In
making a release, waiver, or conveyance authorized by this
section, the Secretary shall execute and file in the
appropriate office or offices a deed of release, amended
deed, or other appropriate instrument effectuating the
release, waiver, or conveyance.
(f) Effect of Release.--Except as provided in subsection
(g), upon release of any reversionary interest under this
section, the right, title and interest of the Alabama Space
Science Exhibit Commission in and to the real property
described in subsection (b) shall, to the extent of the
release, no longer be subject to the conditions prescribed in
the provisions of law specified in such subsection. Except as
provided in subsection (g), the Alabama Space Science Exhibit
Commission may use the real property for any such purpose or
purposes as it considers appropriate consistent with the
master plan approved and certified as provided in subsection
(d), and the real property may be conveyed by the Alabama
Space Science Exhibit Commission without restriction and
unencumbered by any claims or rights of the United States
with respect to the property, subject to such rights, terms,
and conditions of the United States previously imposed on the
real property and not conveyed or released by the Secretary
under subsection (c).
(g) Exceptions.--(1) Conveyance of the drainage and utility
easement reserved to the United States pursuant to section
813(b)(3) of the Military Construction Authorization Act,
1984 (Public Law 98-115; 97 Stat. 791), is not authorized
under this section.

[[Page H3545]]

(2) In no event may title to any portion of the real
property described in subsection (b) be conveyed by the
Alabama Space Science Exhibit Commission or any future deed
holder of the real property to any person other than an
agency, instrumentality, political subdivision, municipal
corporation, or public corporation of the State of Alabama,
and the land use of such conveyed property may not be changed
without the approval of the Secretary.

PART II--NAVY CONVEYANCES

SEC. 2841. EASEMENT, MARINE CORPS BASE, CAMP PENDLETON,
CALIFORNIA.

(a) Easement Authorized.--The Secretary of the Navy may
grant an easement, in perpetuity, to the Foothill/Eastern
Transportation Corridor Agency (in this section referred to
as the ``Agency'') over a parcel of real property at Marine
Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California, consisting of
approximately 340 acres to permit the Recipient of the
easement to construct, operate, and maintain a restricted
access highway. The area covered by the easement shall
include slopes and all necessary incidents thereto.
(b) Consideration.--As consideration for the conveyance of
the easement under subsection (a), the Agency shall pay to
the United States an amount equal to the fair market value of
the easement, as determined by an independent appraisal
satisfactory to the Secretary and paid for by the Agency.
(c) Use of Proceeds.--In such amounts as are provided in
advance in appropriation Acts, the Secretary shall use the
funds paid by the Agency under subsection (b) to carry out
one or more of the following programs at Camp Pendleton:
(1) Enhancement of access from Red, White, and Green Beach
under the I-5 interstate highway and railroad crossings to
inland areas.
(2) Improvement of roads and bridge structures in the range
and training area.
(3) Realignment of Basilone Road.
(d) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the easement to be conveyed under subsection
(a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory to the
Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by the
Agency.
(e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the easement under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.

SEC. 2842. LAND CONVEYANCE, NAVAL RESERVE READINESS CENTER,
PORTLAND, MAINE.

(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Navy may
convey to the Gulf of Maine Aquarium Development Corporation,
Portland, Maine (in this section referred to as the
``Corporation''), all right, title, and interest of the
United States in and to a parcel of real property, including
improvements thereon and any appurtenant interest in
submerged lands thereon, consisting of approximately 3.72
acres in Portland, Maine, which is the site of the Naval
Reserve Readiness Center, Portland, Maine.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of the conveyance under
subsection (a) is to facilitate economic development in
accordance with the plan of the Corporation for the
construction of an aquarium and marine research facility in
Portland, Maine.
(c) Consideration.--(1) As consideration for the conveyance
authorized by subsection (a), the Corporation shall provide
for such facilities as the Secretary determines appropriate
for the Naval Reserve to replace the facilities conveyed
under that subsection.
(2) To provide the replacement facilities, the Corporation
may--
(A) convey to the United States a parcel of real property
determined by the Secretary to be an appropriate location for
the facilities and design and construct the facilities on the
conveyed parcel; or
(B) design and construct the facilities on such parcel of
real property under the jurisdiction of the Secretary as the
Secretary shall specify.
(3) The Secretary shall select the form in which the
consideration under paragraph (2) will be provided.
(d) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a), and of the real property, if any, to be
conveyed under subsection (c), shall be determined by surveys
satisfactory to the Secretary. The cost of the surveys shall
be borne by the Corporation.
(e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interest of the United
States.

PART III--AIR FORCE CONVEYANCES

SEC. 2851. LAND CONVEYANCE, LAKE CHARLES AIR FORCE STATION,
LOUISIANA.

(a) Conveyances Authorized.--The Secretary of the Air Force
may convey, without consideration, to McNeese State
University of Louisiana (in this section referred to as the
``University'') all right, title, and interest of the United
States in and to a parcel of real property (including
improvements thereon) consisting of approximately 4.38 at
Lake Charles Air Force Station, Louisiana, for the purpose of
permitting the University to use the parcel for educational
purposes and agricultural research.
(b) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory
to the Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by
the University.
(c) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.

SEC. 2852. LAND CONVEYANCE, AIR FORCE HOUSING FACILITY, LA
JUNTA, COLORADO.

(a) Conveyance Required.--The Secretary of the Air Force
may convey, without consideration, to the City of La Junta,
Colorado (in this section referred to as the ``City''), all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the
unused Air Force housing facility, consisting of
approximately 28 acres and improvements thereon, located
within the southern most boundary of the City.
(b) Purpose of Conveyance.--The purpose of the conveyance
under subsection (a) is to permit the city to develop the
conveyed property for housing and educational purposes.
(c) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the property to be conveyed under subsection
(a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory to the
Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by the City.
(d) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.
Subtitle E--Other Matters

SEC. 2861. REPEAL OF PROHIBITION ON JOINT USE OF GRAY ARMY
AIRFIELD, FORT HOOD, TEXAS, WITH CIVIL
AVIATION.

Section 319 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1987 (Public Law 99-661; 100 Stat. 3855) is
repealed.

SEC. 2862. DESIGNATION OF BUILDING CONTAINING NAVY AND MARINE
CORPS RESERVE CENTER, AUGUSTA, GEORGIA.

The building containing the Navy and Marine Corps Reserve
Center located at 2869 Central Avenue in Augusta, Georgia,
shall be known and designated as the ``A. James Dyess
Building''.

SEC. 2863. EXPANSION OF ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY.

(a) Land Transfer, Navy Annex, Arlington, Virginia.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense shall provide for
the transfer to the Secretary of the Army of administrative
jurisdiction over the following parcels of land situated in
Arlington, Virginia:
(A) Certain lands which comprise approximately 26 acres
bounded by Columbia Pike to the south and east, Oak Street to
the west, and the boundary wall of Arlington National
Cemetery to the north including Southgate Road.
(B) Certain lands which comprise approximately 8 acres
bounded by Shirley Memorial Boulevard (Interstate 395) to the
south, property of the Virginia Department of Transportation
to the west, Columbia Pike to the north, and Joyce Street to
the east.
(C) Certain lands which comprise approximately 2.5 acres
bounded by Shirley Memorial Boulevard (Interstate 395) to the
south, Joyce Street to the west, Columbia Pike to the north,
and the cloverleaf interchange of Route 100 and Columbia Pike
to the east.
(2) Use of land.--The Secretary of the Army shall
incorporate the parcels of land transferred under paragraph
(1) into Arlington National Cemetery.
(3) Remediation of land for cemetery use.--Before the
transfer of administrative jurisdiction over the parcels of
land under paragraph (1), the Secretary of Defense shall
provide for the removal of any improvements on the parcels of
land and, in consultation with the Superintendent of
Arlington National Cemetery, the preparation of the land for
use for interment of remains of individuals in Arlington
National Cemetery.
(4) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit
to Congress a report explaining in detail the measures
required to prepare the land for use as a part of Arlington
National Cemetery.
(5) Deadline.--The Secretary of Defense shall complete the
transfer of administrative jurisdiction over the parcels of
land under this subsection not later than the earlier of--
(A) January 1, 2010; or
(B) the date when those parcels are no longer required (as
determined by the Secretary) for use as temporary office
space due to the renovation of the Pentagon.
(b) Modification of Boundary of Arlington National
Cemetery.--.
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Army shall modify the
boundary of Arlington National Cemetery to include the
following parcels of land situated in Fort Myer, Arlington,
Virginia:
(A) Certain lands which comprise approximately 5 acres
bounded by the Fort Myer Post Traditional Chapel to the
southwest, McNair Road to the northwest, the Vehicle
Maintenance Complex to the northeast, and the masonry wall of
Arlington National Cemetery to the southeast.
(B) Certain lands which comprise approximately 3 acres
bounded by the Vehicle Maintenance Complex to the southwest,
Jackson Avenue to the northwest, the water pumping station to
the northeast, and the masonry wall of Arlington National
Cemetery to the southeast.
(2) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Army shall submit
to Congress a report describing additional parcels of land
located in Fort Myer, Arlington, Virginia, that may be
suitable for use to expand Arlington National Cemetery.
(3) Survey.--The Secretary of the Army may determine the
exact acreage and legal description of the parcels of land
described in paragraph (1) by a survey.

[[Page H3546]]

SEC. 2864. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS UNDER DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
FOR PURCHASE OF FIRE, SECURITY, POLICE, PUBLIC
WORKS, AND UTILITY SERVICES FROM LOCAL
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES.

Section 816(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 2820) is
amended by striking out ``and 1998'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``through 2000''.

DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations

SEC. 3101. WEAPONS ACTIVITIES.

(a) In General.--Funds are hereby authorized to be
appropriated to the Department of Energy for fiscal year 1999
for weapons activities in carrying out programs necessary for
national security in the amount of $4,142,100,000, to be
allocated as follows:
(1) Stockpile stewardship.--Funds are hereby authorized to
be appropriated to the Department of Energy for fiscal year
1999 for stockpile stewardship in carrying out weapons
activities necessary for national security programs in the
amount of $2,138,375,000, to be allocated as follows:
(A) For core stockpile stewardship, $1,591,375,000, to be
allocated as follows:
(i) For operation and maintenance, $1,475,832,000.
(ii) For plant projects (including maintenance,
restoration, planning, construction, acquisition,
modification of facilities, and the continuation of projects
authorized in prior years, and land acquisition related
thereto), $115,543,000, to be allocated as follows:

Project 99-D-102, rehabilitation of maintenance facility,
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore,
California, $6,500,000.
Project 99-D-103, isotope sciences facility, Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California,
$4,000,000.

Project 99-D-104, protection of real property (roof
reconstruction, Phase II), Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, Livermore, California, $7,300,000.
Project 99-D-105, central health physics calibration
facility, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New
Mexico, $3,900,000.
Project 99-D-106, model validation and system certification
test center, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New
Mexico, $1,600,000.
Project 99-D-107, joint computational engineering
laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New
Mexico, $1,800,000.
Project 99-D-108, renovate existing roadways, Nevada Test
Site, Nevada, $2,000,000.
Project 97-D-102, dual-axis radiographic hydrotest
facility, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New
Mexico, $36,000,000.
Project 96-D-102, stockpile stewardship facilities
revitalization, Phase VI, various locations, $20,423,000.
Project 96-D-103, ATLAS, Los Alamos National Laboratory,
Los Alamos, New Mexico, $6,400,000.
Project 96-D-104, processing and environmental technology
laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New
Mexico, $18,920,000.
Project 96-D-105, contained firing facility addition,
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore,
California, $6,700,000.

(B) For inertial fusion, $498,000,000, to be allocated as
follows:
(i) For operation and maintenance, $213,800,000.
(ii) For the following plant project (including
maintenance, restoration, planning, construction,
acquisition, and modification of facilities, and land
acquisition related thereto), $284,200,000, to be allocated
as follows:

Project 96-D-111, national ignition facility, Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California,
$284,200,000.

(C) For technology partnership and education, $49,000,000,
to be allocated as follows:
(i) For technology partnership, $40,000,000.
(ii) For education, $9,000,000.
(2) Stockpile management.--Funds are hereby authorized to
be appropriated to the Department of Energy for fiscal year
1999 for stockpile management in carrying out weapons
activities necessary for national security programs in the
amount of $2,134,625,000, to be allocated as follows:
(A) For operation and maintenance, $2,019,303,000.
(B) For plant projects (including maintenance, restoration,
planning, construction, acquisition, modification of
facilities, and the continuation of projects authorized in
prior years, and land acquisition related thereto),
$115,322,000, to be allocated as follows:
Project 99-D-122, rapid reactivation, various locations,
$11,200,000.
Project 99-D-123, replace mechanical utility systems Y-12,
Oak Ridge, Tennessee, $1,900,000.
Project 99-D-125, replace boilers and controls, Kansas City
Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, $1,000,000.
Project 99-D-127, stockpile management restructuring
initiative, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri,
$13,700,000.
Project 99-D-128, stockpile management restructuring
initiative, Pantex consolidation, Amarillo, Texas,
$1,108,000.
Project 99-D-132, stockpile management restructuring
initiative, nuclear material safeguards and security upgrades
project, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New
Mexico, $9,700,000.
Project 98-D-123, stockpile management restructuring
initiative, tritium factory modernization and consolidation,
Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina, $27,500,000.
Project 98-D-124, stockpile management restructuring
initiative, Y-12 Plant consolidation, Oak Ridge, Tennessee,
$10,700,000.
Project 97-D-122, nuclear materials storage facility
renovation, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New
Mexico, $9,164,000.
Project 97-D-123, structural upgrades, Kansas City Plant,
Kansas City, Missouri, $6,400,000.
Project 96-D-122, sewage treatment quality upgrade (STQU),
Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas, $3,700,000.
Project 95-D-102, chemistry and metallurgy research (CMR)
upgrades project, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos,
New Mexico, $16,000,000.
Project 93-D-122, life safety upgrades, Y-12 Plant, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee, $3,250,000.
(3) Program direction.--Funds are hereby authorized to be
appropriated to the Department of Energy for fiscal year 1999
for program direction in carrying out weapons activities
necessary for national security programs in the amount of
$240,000,000.
(b) Adjustments.--
(1) Construction.--The total amount authorized to be
appropriated pursuant to paragraphs (1)(A)(ii), (1)(B)(ii),
and (2)(B) of subsection (a) is the sum of the amounts
authorized to be appropriated in those paragraphs, reduced by
the sum of $30,000,000.
(2) Non-construction.--The total amount authorized to be
appropriated pursuant to paragraphs (1)(A)(i), (1)(B)(i),
(1)(C), (2)(A), and (3) of subsection (a) is the sum of the
amounts authorized to be appropriated in those paragraphs,
reduced by the sum of $340,900,000, to be derived from use of
prior year balances.

SEC. 3102. DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND WASTE
MANAGEMENT.

(a) In General.--Funds are hereby authorized to be
appropriated to the Department of Energy for fiscal year 1999
for environmental restoration and waste management in
carrying out programs necessary for national security in the
amount of $5,706,650,000, to be allocated as follows:
(1) Closure projects.--For closure projects carried out in
accordance with section 3143 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201;
110 Stat. 2836; 42 U.S.C. 7274n) in the amount of
$1,046,240,000.
(2) Privatization.--For privatization projects in carrying
out environmental restoration and waste management activities
necessary for national security programs in the amount of
$286,857,000.
(3) Site project and completion.--For site project and
completion in carrying out environmental restoration and
waste management activities necessary for national security
programs in the amount of $1,085,253,000, to be allocated as
follows:
(A) For operation and maintenance, $886,090,000.
(B) For plant projects (including maintenance, restoration,
planning, construction, acquisition, modification of
facilities, and the continuation of projects authorized in
prior years, and land acquisition related thereto),
$199,163,000, to be allocated as follows:
Project 99-D-402, tank farm support services, F&H areas,
Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina, $2,745,000.
Project 99-D-404, health physics instrumentation
laboratory, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho,
$950,000.
Project 98-D-401, H-tank farm storm water systems upgrade,
Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina, $3,120,000.
Project 98-D-453, plutonium stabilization and handling
system for plutonium finishing plant, Richland, Washington,
$26,814,000.
Project 98-D-700, road rehabilitation, Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory, Idaho, $7,710,000.
Project 97-D-450, Actinide packaging and storage facility,
Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina, $79,184,000.
Project 97-D-470, environmental monitoring laboratory,
Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina, $7,000,000.
Project 96-D-406, spent nuclear fuels canister storage and
stabilization facility, Richland, Washington, $38,680,000.
Project 96-D-408, waste management upgrades, Kansas City
Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, and Savannah River Site, Aiken,
South Carolina, $4,512,000.
Project 96-D-464, electrical and utility systems upgrade,
Idaho Chemical Processing Plant, Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory, Idaho, $11,544,000.
Project 96-D-471, chlorofluorocarbon heating, ventilation,
and air conditioning and chiller retrofit, Savannah River
Site, Aiken, South Carolina, $8,000,000.
Project 95-D-456, security facilities consolidation, Idaho
Chemical Processing Plant, Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory, Idaho, $485,000.
Project 92-D-140, F&H canyon exhaust upgrades, Savannah
River Site, Aiken, South Carolina, $3,667,000.
Project 86-D-103, decontamination and waste treatment
facility, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore,
California, $4,752,000.
(4) Post-2006 completion.--For post-2006 project completion
in carrying out environmental restoration and waste
management activities necessary for national security
programs in the amount of $2,765,451,000, to be allocated as
follows:
(A) For operation and maintenance, $2,684,195,000.
(B) For plant projects (including maintenance, restoration,
planning, construction, acquisition, modification of
facilities, and the continuation of projects authorized in
prior years, and land acquisition related thereto),
$81,256,000, to be allocated as follows:
Project 99-D-403, privatization phase I infrastructure
support, Richland, Washington, $14,800,000.

[[Page H3547]]

Project 97-D-402, tank farm restoration and safe
operations, Richland, Washington, $22,723,000.
Project 96-D-408, waste management upgrades, Richland,
Washington, $171,000.
Project 94-D-407, initial tank retrieval systems, Richland,
Washington, $32,860,000.
Project 93-D-187, high-level waste removal from filled
waste tanks, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina,
$10,702,000.
(5) Science and technology.--For science and technology in
carrying out environmental restoration and waste management
activities necessary for national security programs in the
amount of $270,750,000.
(6) Program direction.--For program direction in carrying
out environmental restoration and waste management activities
necessary for national security programs in the amount of
$346,199,000.
(b) Adjustment.--The total amount authorized to be
appropriated pursuant to paragraphs (1), (3)(A), (4)(A), (5),
and (6) of subsection (a) is the sum of the amounts
authorized to be appropriated in those paragraphs, reduced by
the sum of $94,100,000, to be derived from use of prior year
balances.

SEC. 3103. OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES.

(a) In General.--Funds are hereby authorized to be
appropriated to the Department of Energy for fiscal year 1999
for other defense activities in carrying out programs
necessary for national security in the amount of
$1,720,760,000, to be allocated as follows:
(1) Nonproliferation and national security.--For
nonproliferation and national security, $693,900,000, to be
allocated as follows:
(A) For verification and control technology, $500,500,000,
to be allocated as follows:
(i) For nonproliferation and verification research and
development, $210,000,000.
(ii) For arms control, $256,900,000.
(iii) For intelligence, $33,600,000.
(B) For nuclear safeguards and security, $53,200,000.
(C) For security investigations, $30,000,000.
(D) For emergency management, $21,300,000.
(E) For program direction, $88,900,000.
(2) Worker and community transition assistance.--For worker
and community transition assistance, $45,000,000, to be
allocated as follows:
(A) For worker and community transition, $41,000,000.
(B) For program direction, $4,000,000.
(3) Fissile materials control and disposition.--For fissile
materials control and disposition, $168,960,000, to be
allocated as follows:
(A) For operation and maintenance, $111,372,000.
(B) For program direction, $4,588,000.
(C) For plant projects (including maintenance, restoration,
planning, construction, acquisition, modification of
facilities, and the continuation of projects authorized in
prior years, and land acquisition related thereto),
$53,000,000, to be allocated as follows:
Project 99-D-141, pit disassembly and conversion facility,
various locations, $25,000,000.
Project 99-D-143, mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility,
various locations, $28,000,000.
(4) Environment, safety, and health.--For environment,
safety, and health, defense, $94,000,000, to be allocated as
follows:
(A) For the Office of Environment, Safety, and Health
(Defense), $89,231,000.
(B) For program direction, $4,769,000.
(5) Office of hearings and appeals.--For the Office of
Hearings and Appeals, $2,400,000.
(6) International nuclear safety.--For international
nuclear safety, $35,000,000.
(7) Naval reactors.--For naval reactors, $681,500,000, to
be allocated as follows:
(A) For naval reactors development, $661,400,000, to be
allocated as follows:
(i) For operation and maintenance, $639,600,000.
(ii) For plant projects (including maintenance,
restoration, planning, construction, acquisition,
modification of facilities, and the continuation of projects
authorized in prior years, and land acquisition related
thereto), $21,800,000, to be allocated as follows:

GPN-101 general plant projects, various locations,
$9,000,000.
Project 98-D-200, site laboratory/facility upgrade, various
locations, $7,000,000.
Project 90-N-102, expended core facility dry cell project,
Naval Reactors Facility, Idaho, $5,800,000.

(B) For program direction, $20,100,000.
(b) Adjustment.--The total amount authorized to be
appropriated pursuant to this section is the sum of the
amounts authorized to be appropriated in paragraphs (1)
through (7) of subsection (a) reduced by the sum of
$20,000,000.

SEC. 3104. DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL.

Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated to the
Department of Energy for fiscal year 1999 for payment to the
Nuclear Waste Fund established in section 302(c) of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222(c)) in the
amount of $190,000,000.
Subtitle B--Recurring General Provisions

SEC. 3121. REPROGRAMMING.

(a) In General.--Until the Secretary of Energy submits to
the congressional defense committees the report referred to
in subsection (b) and a period of 30 days has elapsed after
the date on which such committees receive the report, the
Secretary may not use amounts appropriated pursuant to this
title for any program--
(1) in amounts that exceed, in a fiscal year--
(A) 110 percent of the amount authorized for that program
by this title; or
(B) $1,000,000 more than the amount authorized for that
program by this title; or
(2) which has not been presented to, or requested of,
Congress.
(b) Report.--(1) The report referred to in subsection (a)
is a report containing a full and complete statement of the
action proposed to be taken and the facts and circumstances
relied upon in support of such proposed action.
(2) In the computation of the 30-day period under
subsection (a), there shall be excluded any day on which
either House of Congress is not in session because of an
adjournment of more than 3 days to a day certain.
(c) Limitations.--(1) In no event may the total amount of
funds obligated pursuant to this title exceed the total
amount authorized to be appropriated by this title.
(2) Funds appropriated pursuant to this title may not be
used for an item for which Congress has specifically denied
funds.

SEC. 3122. LIMITS ON GENERAL PLANT PROJECTS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Energy may carry out any
construction project under the general plant projects
authorized by this title if the total estimated cost of the
construction project does not exceed $5,000,000.
(b) Report to Congress.--If, at any time during the
construction of any general plant project authorized by this
title, the estimated cost of the project is revised because
of unforeseen cost variations and the revised cost of the
project exceeds $5,000,000, the Secretary shall immediately
furnish a complete report to the congressional defense
committees explaining the reasons for the cost variation.

SEC. 3123. LIMITS ON CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.

(a) In General.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2),
construction on a construction project may not be started or
additional obligations incurred in connection with the
project above the total estimated cost, whenever the current
estimated cost of the construction project, which is
authorized by section 3101, 3102, or 3103, or which is in
support of national security programs of the Department of
Energy and was authorized by any previous Act, exceeds by
more than 25 percent the higher of--
(A) the amount authorized for the project; or
(B) the amount of the total estimated cost for the project
as shown in the most recent budget justification data
submitted to Congress.
(2) An action described in paragraph (1) may be taken if--
(A) the Secretary of Energy has submitted to the
congressional defense committees a report on the actions and
the circumstances making such action necessary; and
(B) a period of 30 days has elapsed after the date on which
the report is received by the committees.
(3) In the computation of the 30-day period under paragraph
(2), there shall be excluded any day on which either House of
Congress is not in session because of an adjournment of more
than 3 days to a day certain.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to any
construction project which has a current estimated cost of
less than $5,000,000.

SEC. 3124. FUND TRANSFER AUTHORITY.

(a) Transfer to Other Federal Agencies.--The Secretary of
Energy may transfer funds authorized to be appropriated to
the Department of Energy pursuant to this title to other
Federal agencies for the performance of work for which the
funds were authorized. Funds so transferred may be merged
with and be available for the same purposes and for the same
period as the authorizations of the Federal agency to which
the amounts are transferred.
(b) Transfer Within Department of Energy.--(1) Subject to
paragraph (2), the Secretary of Energy may transfer funds
authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Energy
pursuant to this title between any such authorizations.
Amounts of authorizations so transferred may be merged with
and be available for the same purposes and for the same
period as the authorization to which the amounts are
transferred.
(2) Not more than five percent of any such authorization
may be transferred between authorizations under paragraph
(1). No such authorization may be increased or decreased by
more than five percent by a transfer under such paragraph.
(c) Limitation.--The authority provided by this section to
transfer authorizations--
(1) may only be used to provide funds for items relating to
activities necessary for national security programs that have
a higher priority than the items from which the funds are
transferred; and
(2) may not be used to provide funds for an item for which
Congress has specifically denied funds.
(d) Notice to Congress.--The Secretary of Energy shall
promptly notify the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate
and the Committee on National Security of the House of
Representatives of any transfer of funds to or from
authorizations under this title.

SEC. 3125. AUTHORITY FOR CONCEPTUAL AND CONSTRUCTION DESIGN.

(a) Requirement for Conceptual Design.--(1) Subject to
paragraph (2) and except as provided in paragraph (3), before
submitting to Congress a request for funds for a construction
project that is in support of a national security program of
the Department of Energy, the Secretary of Energy shall
complete a conceptual design for that project.
(2) If the estimated cost of completing a conceptual design
for a construction project exceeds $3,000,000, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a request for funds for the
conceptual design before submitting a request for funds for
the construction project.
(3) The requirement in paragraph (1) does not apply to a
request for funds--
(A) for a construction project the total estimated cost of
which is less than $5,000,000; or
(B) for emergency planning, design, and construction
activities under section 3126.
(b) Authority for Construction Design.--(1) Within the
amounts authorized by this title,

[[Page H3548]]

the Secretary of Energy may carry out construction design
(including architectural and engineering services) in
connection with any proposed construction project if the
total estimated cost for such design does not exceed
$600,000.
(2) If the total estimated cost for construction design in
connection with any construction project exceeds $600,000,
funds for such design must be specifically authorized by law.

SEC. 3126. AUTHORITY FOR EMERGENCY PLANNING, DESIGN, AND
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.

(a) Authority.--The Secretary of Energy may use any funds
available to the Department of Energy pursuant to an
authorization in this title, including those funds authorized
to be appropriated for advance planning and construction
design under sections 3101, 3102, and 3103, to perform
planning, design, and construction activities for any
Department of Energy national security program construction
project that, as determined by the Secretary, must proceed
expeditiously in order to protect public health and safety,
to meet the needs of national defense, or to protect
property.
(b) Limitation.--The Secretary may not exercise the
authority under subsection (a) in the case of any
construction project until the Secretary has submitted to the
congressional defense committees a report on the activities
that the Secretary intends to carry out under this section
and the circumstances making such activities necessary.
(c) Specific Authority.--The requirement of section
3125(b)(2) does not apply to emergency planning, design, and
construction activities conducted under this section.

SEC. 3127. FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR ALL NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.

Subject to the provisions of appropriations Acts and
section 3121, amounts appropriated pursuant to this title for
management and support activities and for general plant
projects are available for use, when necessary, in connection
with all national security programs of the Department of
Energy.

SEC. 3128. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.

(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), when
so specified in an appropriations Act, amounts appropriated
for operation and maintenance or for plant projects may
remain available until expended.
(b) Exception for Program Direction Funds.--Amounts
appropriated for program direction pursuant to an
authorization of appropriations in subtitle A shall remain
available to be expended only until the end of fiscal year
2000.

SEC. 3129. TRANSFERS OF DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
FUNDS.

(a) Transfer Authority for Defense Environmental Management
Funds.--The Secretary of Energy shall provide the manager of
each field office of the Department of Energy with the
authority to transfer defense environmental management funds
from a program or project under the jurisdiction of the
office to another such program or project.
(b) Limitations.--(1) Only one transfer may be made to or
from any program or project under subsection (a) in a fiscal
year.
(2) The amount transferred to or from a program or project
under subsection (a) may not exceed $5,000,000 in a fiscal
year.
(3) A transfer may not be carried out by a manager of a
field office under subsection (a) unless the manager
determines that the transfer is necessary to address a risk
to health, safety, or the environment or to assure the most
efficient use of defense environmental management funds at
the field office.
(4) Funds transferred pursuant to subsection (a) may not be
used for an item for which Congress has specifically denied
funds or for a new program or project that has not been
authorized by Congress.
(c) Exemption From Reprogramming Requirements.--The
requirements of section 3121 shall not apply to transfers of
funds pursuant to subsection (a).
(d) Notification.--The Secretary, acting through the
Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environmental Management,
shall notify Congress of any transfer of funds pursuant to
subsection (a) not later than 30 days after such transfer
occurs.
(e) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``program or project'' means, with respect to
a field office of the Department of Energy, any of the
following:
(A) A project listed in paragraph (3) or (4) of section
3102.
(B) A program referred to in paragraph (3), (4), or (5) of
section 3102.
(C) A project or program not described in subparagraph (A)
or (B) that is for environmental restoration or waste
management activities necessary for national security
programs of the Department, that is being carried out by the
office, and for which defense environmental management funds
have been authorized and appropriated before the date of
enactment of this Act.
(2) The term ``defense environmental management funds''
means funds appropriated to the Department of Energy pursuant
to an authorization for carrying out environmental
restoration and waste management activities necessary for
national security programs.
(f) Duration of Authority.--The managers of the field
offices of the Department may exercise the authority provided
under subsection (a) during the period beginning on October
1, 1998, and ending on September 30, 1999.
Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations

SEC. 3131. PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL LOAN GUARANTEES FOR DEFENSE
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRIVATIZATION
PROJECTS.

Section 3132 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85; 111 Stat. 2034) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(g) Prohibition on Loan Guarantees.--The Secretary of
Energy may not guarantee any loan made by a private sector
entity to a contractor to pay for any costs (including costs
described in subsection (a)(3)) borne by the contractor to
carry out a contract entered into under this section.''.

SEC. 3132. EXTENSION OF FUNDING PROHIBITION RELATING TO
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE STOCKPILE
STEWARDSHIP.

Section 3133(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85; 111 Stat. 2036) is
amended by striking out ``for fiscal year 1998'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``for any fiscal year''.

SEC. 3133. USE OF CERTAIN FUNDS FOR MISSILE DEFENSE
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.

Of the funds authorized to be appropriated pursuant to
section 3101, the Secretary of Energy shall make available
not less than $60,000,000 for the purpose of developing,
demonstrating, and testing hit-to-kill interceptor vehicles
for theater missile defense systems. The Secretary shall
carry out this section in cooperation with the Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization of the Department of Defense.

SEC. 3134. SELECTION OF TECHNOLOGY FOR TRITIUM PRODUCTION.

(a) Selection of Technology.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2),
the Secretary of Energy shall select a primary technology for
the production of tritium not later than December 31, 1999.
(2) The Secretary may not select a primary technology for
the production of tritium until the date that is the later of
the following:
(A) The date occurring 30 days after the completion of the
test program at the Watts Bar Nuclear Station, Tennessee.
(B) The date on which the report required by subsection (b)
is submitted.
(b) Report.--The Secretary of Energy shall submit to
Congress a report on the results of the test program at the
Watts Bar Nuclear Station. The report shall include--
(1) data on any leakage of tritium from the test rods;
(2) the amount of tritium produced during the test; and
(3) any other technical findings resulting from the test.

SEC. 3135. LIMITATION ON USE OF CERTAIN FUNDS AT HANFORD
SITE.

(a) Limitation.--(1) None of the funds described in
subsection (b) may be used unless the Secretary of Energy
certifies to Congress not later than 90 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act that the Department of Energy
does not intend to pay overhead costs that exceed more than
33 percent of total contract costs during fiscal year 1999
for the Project Hanford Management Contractors (at the
Hanford Site, Richland, Washington), including the prime
contractor and subcontractors at any tier (including
Enterprise Company contractors).
(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), overhead costs include--
(A) indirect overhead costs, which include all activities
whose costs are spread across other accounts of the
contractor or site;
(B) support service overhead costs, which include
activities or services for which programs pay per unit used;
(C) all fee, awards, and other profit on indirect and
support service overhead costs, or fees that are not
attributable to performance on a single project;
(D) any portion of Enterprise Company costs for which there
is no competitive bid and which, under the prior contract,
had been an indirect or service function; and
(E) all computer service and information management costs
that had previously been reported in indirect overhead or
service center pool accounts.
(b) Funds.--The funds referred to in subsection (a) are the
following:
(1) $12,000,000 for reactor decontamination and
decommissioning, as authorized to be appropriated by section
3102 and allocated under subsection (a)(4)(A).
(2) $18,000,000 for single-shell tank drainage, as
authorized to be appropriated by section 3102 and allocated
under subsection (a)(4)(A).
(c) Use of Savings.--The expected savings during fiscal
year 1999 from compliance with subsection (a) shall be used
at the Hanford Site for ensuring full compliance with the
Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order and
recommendations of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board.
(d) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) overhead costs for contractors performing environmental
cleanup work at defense nuclear facilities are out of
control;
(2) some of the increase in overhead costs can be
attributed to unnecessary regulation by the Department of
Energy; and
(3) the Department of Energy should take whatever actions
possible to minimize any increased costs of contractor
overhead that are attributable to unnecessary regulation by
the Department.
Subtitle D--Other Matters

SEC. 3151. TERMINATION OF WORKER AND COMMUNITY TRANSITION
ASSISTANCE.

(a) Prohibition.--No funds may be used by the Secretary of
Energy after September 30, 2000, to provide worker or
community transition assistance with respect to defense
nuclear facilities, including assistance provided under
section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1993 (42 U.S.C. 7274h).
(b) Repeal.--Effective October 1, 2000, section 3161 of the
National Defense Authorization Act

[[Page H3549]]

for Fiscal Year 1993 (42 U.S.C. 7274h) is repealed.
(c) Study by the General Accounting Office.--
(1) Study requirement.--The Comptroller General shall
conduct a study on the effects of workforce restructuring
plans for defense nuclear facilities developed pursuant to
section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1993 (42 U.S.C. 7274h).
(2) Matters covered by study.--The study shall cover the
four-year period preceding the date of the enactment of this
Act and shall include the following:
(A) An analysis of the number of jobs created by any
employee retraining, education, and reemployment assistance
and any community impact assistance provided in each
workforce restructuring plan developed pursuant to section
3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1993.
(B) An analysis of other benefits provided pursuant to such
plans, including any assistance provided to community reuse
organizations.
(C) A description of the funds expended, and the funds
obligated but not expended, pursuant to such plans as of the
date of the report.
(D) A description of the criteria used since October 23,
1992, in providing assistance pursuant to such plans.
(E) A comparison of any similar benefits provided--
(i) pursuant to such a plan to employees whose employment
at the defense nuclear facility covered by the plan is
terminated; and
(ii) to employees whose employment at a facility where more
than 50 percent of the revenues are derived from contracts
with the Department of Defense has been terminated as a
result of cancellation, termination, or completion of
contracts with the Department of Defense and the employees
whose employment is terminated constitute more than 15
percent of the employees at that facility.
(F) A comparison of--
(i) involuntary separation benefits provided to employees
of Department of Energy contractors and subcontractors under
such plans; and
(ii) involuntary separation benefits provided to employees
of the Federal Government.
(G) A comparison of costs to the Federal Government
(including costs of involuntary separation benefits) for--
(i) involuntary separations of employees of Department of
Energy contractors and subcontractors; and
(ii) involuntary separations of employees of contractors
and subcontractors of other Federal Government departments
and agencies.
(H) A description of the length of service and hiring dates
of employees of Department of Energy contractors and
subcontractors provided benefits under such plans in the two-
year period preceding the date of the enactment of this Act.
(3) Report on study.--The Comptroller General shall submit
a report to Congress on the results of the study not later
than March 31, 1999.
(4) Definition.--In this section, the term ``defense
nuclear facility'' has the meaning provided the term
``Department of Energy defense nuclear facility'' in section
3163 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484; 42 U.S.C. 7274j).
(d) Effect on USEC Privatization Act.--(1) Section
3110(a)(5) of the USEC Privatization Act (Public Law 104-134;
110 Stat. 1321-341; 42 U.S.C. 2297h-8(a)(5)) is amended by
adding at the end the following: ``With respect to such
section 3161, the Secretary shall, on and after the effective
date of the repeal of such section, provide assistance to any
such employee in accordance with the terms of such section as
in effect on the day before the effective date of its
repeal.''.
(2) After the effective date of the repeal of section 3161
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1993 (42 U.S.C. 7274h), no funds appropriated to the
Department of Energy for atomic energy defense activities may
be used to provide assistance under that section (by reason
of the amendment made by paragraph (1)) to the adversely
affected employees described in section 3110(a)(5) of the
USEC Privatization Act (Public Law 104-134; 110 Stat. 1321-
341; 42 U.S.C. 2297h-8(a)(5)).

SEC. 3152. REQUIREMENT FOR PLAN TO MODIFY EMPLOYMENT SYSTEM
USED BY DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY IN DEFENSE
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.

(a) Plan Requirement.--(1) The Secretary of Energy shall
develop a plan to modify the Federal employment system used
within the defense environmental management programs of the
Department of Energy to allow for workforce restructuring in
those programs.
(2) The plan shall address strategies to recruit and hire--
(A) individuals with a high degree of scientific and
technical competence in the areas of nuclear and toxic waste
remediation and environmental restoration; and
(B) individuals with the necessary skills to manage large
construction and environmental remediation projects.
(3) The plan shall include an identification of the
provisions of Federal law that would need to be changed to
allow the Secretary of Energy to restructure the Department
of Energy defense environmental management workforce to hire
individuals described in paragraph (2), while staying within
any numerical limitations required by law (including section
3161 of Public Law 103-337 (42 U.S.C. 7231 note)) on
employment of such individuals.
(b) Report.--The Secretary shall submit to Congress a
report on the plan developed under subsection (a).
(c) Limitation on Use of Certain Funds.--The Secretary of
Energy may not use more than 75 percent of the funds
available to the Secretary pursuant to the authorization of
appropriations in section 3102(a)(6) (relating to program
direction) until the Secretary submits the report required by
subsection (b).

SEC. 3153. REPORT ON STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIP CRITERIA.

(a) Requirement for Criteria.--The Secretary of Energy
shall develop clear and specific criteria for judging whether
the science-based tools being used by the Department of
Energy for determining the safety and reliability of the
nuclear weapons stockpile are performing in a manner that
will provide an adequate degree of certainty that the
stockpile is safe and reliable.
(b) Report.--Not later than March 1, 1999, the Secretary of
Energy shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the
Senate and the Committee on National Security of the House of
Representatives a report on the efforts by the Department of
Energy to develop the criteria required by subsection (a).
The report shall include--
(1) a description of the information needed to determine
that the nuclear weapons stockpile is safe and reliable and
the relationship of the science-based tools to the collection
of that information; and
(2) a description of the criteria required by subsection
(a) to the extent they have been defined as of the date of
the submission of the report.
TITLE XXXII-DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

SEC. 3201. AUTHORIZATION.

There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year
1999, $17,500,000 for the operation of the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board under chapter 21 of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2286 et seq.).
TITLE XXXIII--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE

SEC. 3301. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) The term ``National Defense Stockpile'' means the
stockpile provided for in section 4 of the Strategic and
Critical Materials Stock Piling Act (50 U.S.C. 98c).
(2) The term ``National Defense Stockpile Transaction
Fund'' means the fund in the Treasury of the United States
established under section 9(a) of the Strategic and Critical
Materials Stock Piling Act (50 U.S.C. 98h(a)).

SEC. 3302. AUTHORIZED USES OF STOCKPILE FUNDS.

(a) Obligation of Stockpile Funds.--During fiscal year
1999, the National Defense Stockpile Manager may obligate up
to $82,647,000 of the funds in the National Defense Stockpile
Transaction Fund for the authorized uses of such funds under
section 9(b)(2) of the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock
Piling Act (50 U.S.C. 98h(b)(2)).
(b) Additional Obligations.--The National Defense Stockpile
Manager may obligate amounts in excess of the amount
specified in subsection (a) if the National Defense Stockpile
Manager notifies Congress that extraordinary or emergency
conditions necessitate the additional obligations. The
National Defense Stockpile Manager may make the additional
obligations described in the notification after the end of
the 45-day period beginning on the date Congress receives the
notification.
(c) Limitations.--The authorities provided by this section
shall be subject to such limitations as may be provided in
appropriations Acts.
TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES

SEC. 3401. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) The term ``naval petroleum reserves'' has the meaning
given the term in section 7420(2) of title 10, United States
Code.
(2) The term ``Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 2'' means
the naval petroleum reserve, commonly referred to as the
Buena Vista unit, that is located in Kern County, California,
and was established by Executive order of the President,
dated December 13, 1912.
(3) The term ``Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 3'' means
the naval petroleum reserve, commonly referred to as the
Teapot Dome unit, that is located in the State of Wyoming and
was established by Executive order of the President, dated
April 30, 1915.
(4) The term ``Oil Shale Reserve Numbered 2'' means the
naval petroleum reserve that is located in the State of Utah
and was established by Executive order of the President,
dated December 6, 1916.
(5) The term ``antitrust laws'' means has the meaning given
the term in section 1(a) of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C.
12(a)), except that the term also includes--
(A) the Act of June 19, 1936 (15 U.S.C. 13 et seq.;
commonly known as the Robinson-Patman Act); and
(B) section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15
U.S.C. 45), to the extent that such section applies to unfair
methods of competition.
(6) The term ``general land laws'' includes the Mineral
Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) and the Materials Act of
1947 (30 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), but excludes the Mining Law of
1872 (30 U.S.C. 22 et seq.).
(7) The term ``petroleum'' has the meaning given the term
in section 7420(3) of title 10, United States Code.

SEC. 3402. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are hereby
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Energy
$22,500,000 for fiscal year 1999 for the purpose of carrying
out--
(1) activities under chapter 641 of title 10, United States
Code, relating to the naval petroleum reserves;
(2) closeout activities at Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered
1 upon the sale of that reserve under subtitle B of title
XXXIV of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal
year 1996 (Public Law 104-106; 10 U.S.C. 7420 note); and

[[Page H3550]]

(3) activities under this title relating to the disposition
of Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 2, Naval Petroleum
Reserve Numbered 3, and Oil Shale Reserve Numbered 2.
(b) Availability of Appropriations.--Funds appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in subsection
(a) shall remain available until expended.

SEC. 3403. PRICE REQUIREMENT ON SALE OF CERTAIN PETROLEUM
DURING FISCAL YEAR 1999.

Notwithstanding section 7430(b)(2) of title 10, United
States Code, during fiscal year 1999, any sale of any part of
the United States share of petroleum produced from Naval
Petroleum Reserve Numbered 2 or Naval Petroleum Reserve
Numbered 3, shall be made at a price not less than 90 percent
of the current sales price, as estimated by the Secretary of
Energy, of comparable petroleum in the same area.

SEC. 3404. DISPOSAL OF NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVE NUMBERED 2.

(a) Disposal of Ford City Lots.--(1) Subject to section
3407, the Secretary of Energy shall dispose of that portion
of Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 2 located within the town
lots in Ford City, California, as generally depicted on the
map of Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 2 that accompanies
the report of the Secretary entitled ``Report and
Recommendations on the Management and Disposition of the
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves (Excluding Elk
Hills)'', dated March 1997.
(2) The Secretary of Energy may carry out the disposal of
that portion of Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 2 described
in paragraph (1) by competitive sale or lease consistent with
commercial practices, by transfer to another Federal agency
or a public or private entity, or by any other means. Any
competitive sale or lease under this subsection shall provide
for the disposal of all right, title, and interest of the
United States in the property to be conveyed. The Secretary
of Energy may use the authority provided by the Act of June
14, 1926 (43 U.S.C. 869 et seq.; commonly known as the
Recreation and Public Purposes Act), in the same manner and
to the same extent as the Secretary of the Interior, to
dispose of that portion of Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 2
described in paragraph (1).
(3) The Secretary of Energy may extend to a purchaser or
other transferee of property under this subsection such
indemnities and warranties as the Secretary considers
reasonable and necessary to protect the purchaser or
transferee from claims arising from the ownership of the
property by the United States or the administration of the
property by the Secretary of Energy.
(b) Eventual Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction.--(1)
The Secretary of Energy shall continue to administer Naval
Petroleum Reserve Numbered 2 (other than the portion of
the reserve subject to disposal under subsection (a)) in
accordance with chapter 641 of title 10, United States
Code, until such time as the Secretary makes a
determination to abandon oil and gas operations in Naval
Petroleum Reserve Numbered 2 in accordance with commercial
operating practices.
(2) After oil and gas operations are abandoned in Naval
Petroleum Reserve Numbered 2 under paragraph (1), the
Secretary of Energy shall transfer to the Secretary of the
Interior administrative jurisdiction and control over all
public domain lands included within Naval Petroleum Reserve
Numbered 2 (other than the portion of the reserve subject to
disposal under subsection (a)) for management in accordance
with the general land laws.
(c) Relationship to Antitrust Laws.--This section does not
modify, impair, or supersede the operation of the antitrust
laws.

SEC. 3405. DISPOSAL OF NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVE NUMBERED 3.

(a) Continued Administration Pending Termination of
Operations.--The Secretary of Energy shall continue to
administer Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 3 in accordance
with chapter 641 of title 10, United States Code, until such
time as the Secretary makes a determination to abandon oil
and gas operations in Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 3 in
accordance with commercial operating practices.
(b) Disposal Authority.--(1) After oil and gas operations
are abandoned in Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 3, the
Secretary of Energy may dispose of, subject to section 3407,
the reserve by sale, lease, transfer, or other means. Any
sale or lease shall provide for the disposal of all right,
title, and interest of the United States in the property to
be conveyed and shall be conducted in accordance with
competitive procedures consistent with commercial practices,
as established by the Secretary of Energy.
(2) The Secretary of Energy may extend to a purchaser or
other transferee of property under this subsection such
indemnities and warranties as the Secretary considers
reasonable and necessary to protect the purchaser or
transferee from claims arising from the ownership of the
property by the United States or the administration of the
property by the Secretary of Energy.
(c) Relationship to Antitrust Laws.--This section does not
modify, impair, or supersede the operation of the antitrust
laws.

SEC. 3406. DISPOSAL OF OIL SHALE RESERVE NUMBERED 2.

(a) Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction.--Subject to
section 3407, effective September 30, 1999, the Secretary of
Energy shall transfer to the Secretary of the Interior
administrative jurisdiction and control over all public
domain lands included within Oil Shale Reserve Numbered 2 for
management in accordance with the general land laws.
(b) Relationship to Indian Reservation.--The transfer of
administrative jurisdiction under this section does not
affect any interest, right, or obligation respecting the
Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation located in Oil Shale
Reserve Numbered 2.

SEC. 3407. ADMINISTRATION.

(a) Contract Authority.--Using the authority provided by
section 303(c)(7) of the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253(c)(7)), the Secretary of
Energy and the Secretary of the Interior may separately enter
into contracts for the acquisition of such services as the
Secretary considers necessary to carry out the requirements
of this title, except that the notification required under
subparagraph (B) of such section for each such contract shall
be submitted to Congress not less than seven days before the
award of the contract.
(b) Protection of Existing Rights.--At the discretion of
the Secretary of Energy, the disposal of property under this
title shall be subject to any contract related to the United
States ownership interest in the property in effect at the
time of disposal, including any lease agreement pertaining to
the United States interest in Naval Petroleum Reserve
Numbered 2.
(c) Deposit of Receipts.--Notwithstanding any other law,
all monies received by the United States from the disposal of
property under this title or under section 7439 of title 10,
United States Code, including monies received from a lease
entered into under this title or such section, shall be
deposited in the general fund of the Treasury.
(d) Treatment of Royalties.--Any petroleum accruing to the
United States as royalty from any lease of lands transferred
under this title or under section 7439 of title 10, United
States Code, shall be delivered to the United States, or
shall be paid for in money, as the Secretary of the Interior
may elect.
(e) Elements of Lease.--A lease under this title may
provide for the exploration for, and development and
production of, petroleum, other than petroleum in the form of
oil shale.
(f) Relationship to Current Law.--Except as otherwise
provided in this title, chapter 641 of title 10, United
States Code, does not apply to the disposal of property under
this title and ceases to apply to property in Naval Petroleum
Reserve Numbered 2, Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 3, and
Oil Shale Reserve Numbered 2, upon the final disposal of
the property.
TITLE XXXV--PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION

SEC. 3501. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES TO PANAMA CANAL ACT OF
1979.

(a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the ``Panama
Canal Commission Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999''.
(b) References to Panama Canal Act of 1979.--Except as
otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this title an
amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to,
or repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference
shall be considered to be made to a section or other
provision of the Panama Canal Act of 1979 (22 U.S.C. 3601 et
seq.).

SEC. 3502. AUTHORIZATION OF EXPENDITURES.

(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the Panama
Canal Commission is authorized to use amounts in the Panama
Canal Revolving Fund to make such expenditures within the
limits of funds and borrowing authority available to it in
accordance with law, and to make such contracts and
commitments, as may be necessary under the Panama Canal Act
of 1979 (22 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.) for the operation,
maintenance, improvement, and administration of the Panama
Canal for fiscal year 1999.
(b) Limitations.--For fiscal year 1999, the Panama Canal
Commission may expend from funds in the Panama Canal
Revolving Fund not more than $90,000 for official reception
and representation expenses, of which--
(1) not more than $28,000 may be used for official
reception and representation expenses of the Supervisory
Board of the Commission;
(2) not more than $14,000 may be used for official
reception and representation expenses of the Secretary of the
Commission; and
(3) not more than $48,000 may be used for official
reception and representation expenses of the Administrator of
the Commission.

SEC. 3503. PURCHASE OF VEHICLES.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the funds
available to the Commission shall be available for the
purchase and transportation to the Republic of Panama of
passenger motor vehicles built in the United States, the
purchase price of which shall not exceed $23,000 per vehicle.

SEC. 3504. EXPENDITURES ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH TREATIES.

Expenditures authorized under this title may be made only
in accordance with the Panama Canal Treaties of 1977 and any
law of the United States implementing those treaties.

SEC. 3505. DONATIONS TO THE COMMISSION.

Section 1102b (22 U.S.C. 3612b) is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:
``(f)(1) The Commission may seek and accept donations of
funds, property, and services from individuals, foundations,
corporations, and other private and public entities for the
purpose of carrying out its promotional activities.
``(2) The Commission shall establish written guidelines
setting forth the criteria to be used in determining whether
the acceptance of funds, property, or services authorized by
paragraph (1) would reflect unfavorably upon the ability of
the Commission (or any employee of the Commission) to carry
out its responsibilities or official duties in a fair and
objective manner or would compromise the integrity or the
appearance of the integrity of its programs or of any
official in those programs.''.

SEC. 3506. SUNSET OF UNITED STATES OVERSEAS BENEFITS JUST
BEFORE TRANSFER.

(a) Repeals.--Effective 11:59 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time),
December 30, 1999, the following provisions are repealed and
any right or condition of employment provided for in, or
arising from, those provisions is terminated: sections

[[Page H3551]]

1206 (22 U.S.C. 3646), 1207 (22 U.S.C. 3647), 1217(a) (22
U.S.C. 3657(a)), and 1224(11) (22 U.S.C. 3664(11)),
subparagraphs (A), (B), (F), (G), and (H) of section
1231(a)(2) (22 U.S.C. 3671(a)(2)) and section 1321(e) (22
U.S.C. 3731(e)).
(b) Savings Provision for Basic Pay.--Notwithstanding
subsection (a), benefits based on basic pay, as listed in
paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (5), and (6) of section 1218 of the
Panama Canal Act of 1979, shall be paid as if sections
1217(a) and 1231(a)(2) (A) and (B) of that Act had been
repealed effective 12:00 p.m., December 31, 1999. The
exception under the preceding sentence shall not apply to any
pay for hours of work performed on December 31, 1999.
(c) Nonapplicability to Agencies in Panama Other Than
Panama Canal Commission.--Section 1212(b)(3) (22 U.S.C.
3652(b)(3)) is amended by striking out ``the Panama Canal
Transition Facilitation Act of 1997'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``the Panama Canal Transition Facilitation Act of
1997 (subtitle B of title XXXV of Public Law 105-85; 110
Stat. 2062), or the Panama Canal Commission Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1999''.

SEC. 3507. CENTRAL EXAMINING OFFICE.

Section 1223 (22 U.S.C. 3663) is repealed.

SEC. 3508. LIABILITY FOR VESSEL ACCIDENTS.

(a) Commission Liability Subject to Claimant Insurance.--
(1) Section 1411(a) (22 U.S.C. 3771(a)) is amended by
inserting ``to section 1419(b) of this Act and'' after
``Subject'' in the first sentence.
(2) Section 1412 (22 U.S.C. 3772) is amended by striking
out ``The Commission'' in the first sentence and inserting in
lieu thereof ``Subject to section 1419(b) of this Act, the
Commission''.
(3) Section 1416 (22 U.S.C. 3776) is amended by striking
out ``A claimant'' in the first sentence and inserting in
lieu thereof ``Subject to section 1419(b) of this Act, a
claimant''.
(b) Limitation on Liability.--Section 1419 (22 U.S.C. 3779)
is amended by designating the text as subsection (a) and by
adding at the end the following:
``(b) The Commission may not consider or pay any claim
under section 1411 or 1412 of this Act, nor may an action for
damages lie thereon, unless the claimant is covered by one or
more valid policies of insurance totalling at least
$1,000,000 against the injuries specified in those sections.
The Commission's liability on any such claim shall be limited
to damages in excess of all amounts recovered or recoverable
by the claimant from its insurers. The Commission may not
consider or pay any claim by an insurer or subrogee of a
claimant under section 1411 or 1412 of this Act.''.

SEC. 3509. PANAMA CANAL BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS.

(a) Establishment and Pay of Board.--Section 3102(a) (22
U.S.C. 3862(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``shall'' in the
first sentence and inserting in lieu thereof ``may''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Compensation for members of the Board of Contract
Appeals shall be established by the Commission's supervisory
board, except that such compensation may not be reduced
during a member's term of office from the level established
at the time of the appointment.''.
(b) Deadline for Commencement of Board.--Section 3102(e)
(22 U.S.C. 3862(e)) is amended by striking out ``, but not
later than January 1, 1999''.

SEC. 3510. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

(a) Panama Canal Act of 1979.--The Panama Canal Act of 1979
is amended as follows:
(1) Section 1202(c) (22 U.S.C. 3642(c)) is amended--
(A) by striking out ``the day before the date of the
enactment of the Panama Canal Transition Facilitation Act of
1997'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``November 17, 1997,'';
(B) by striking out ``on or after that date''; and
(C) by striking out ``the day before the date of
enactment'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``that date''.
(2) Section 1212(b)(3) (22 U.S.C. 3652(b)(3)) is amended by
inserting ``the'' after ``by the head of''.
(3) Section 1313 (22 U.S.C. 3723) is amended by striking
out ``subsection (d)'' in each of subsections (a), (b), and
(d) and inserting in lieu thereof ``subsection (c)''.
(4) Sections 1411(a) and 1412 (22 U.S.C. 3771(a), 3772) are
amended by striking out ``the date of the enactment of the
Panama Canal Transition Facilitation Act of 1997'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``by November 18, 1998''.
(b) Public Law 104-201.--Effective as of September 23,
1996, and as if included therein as enacted, section
3548(b)(3) of the Panama Canal Act Amendments of 1996
(subtitle B of title XXXV of Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat.
2869) is amended by striking out ``section'' in both items of
quoted matter and inserting in lieu thereof ``sections''.

TITLE XXXVI--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

SEC. 3601. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
1999.

Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 1999, to be available without fiscal year limitation if
so provided in appropriations Act, for the use of the
Department of Transportation for the Maritime Administration
as follows:
(1) For expenses necessary for operations and training
activities, $70,553,000.
(2) For expenses under the loan guarantee program
authorized by title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46
U.S.C. App. 1271 et seq.), $20,000,000 of which--
(A) $16,000,000 is for the cost (as defined in section
502(5) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C.
661a(5))) of loan guarantees under the program; and
(B) $4,000,000 is for administrative expenses related to
loan guarantee commitments under the program.

SEC. 3602. CONVEYANCE OF NDRF VESSEL M/V BAYAMON.

(a) Authority To Convey.--The Secretary of Transportation
may convey all right, title, and interest of the United
States Government in and to the vessel M/V BAYAMON (United
States official number 530007) to the Trade Fair Ship
Company, a corporation established under the laws of the
State of Deleware and having its principal offices located in
New York, New York (in this section referred to as the
``recipient''), for use as floating trade exposition to
showcase United States technology, industrial products, and
services.
(b) Terms of Conveyance.--
(1) Delivery of vessel.--In carrying out subsection (a),
the Secretary shall deliver the vessel--
(A) at the place where the vessel is located on the date of
conveyance;
(B) in its condition on that date; and
(C) at no cost to the United States Government.
(2) Required conditions.--The Secretary may not convey a
vessel under this section unless--
(A) the recipient pays consideration equal to the domestic
fair market value of the vessel as determined by the
Secretary;
(B) the recipient agrees that any repair, restoration, or
reconstruction work for the vessel will be performed in the
United States;
(C) the recipient agrees to hold the Government harmless
for any claims arising from exposure to hazardous material,
including asbestos and polychlorinated biphenyls, after the
conveyance of the vessel, except for claims arising before
the date of the conveyance or from use of the vessel by the
Government after that date; and
(D) the recipient provides sufficient evidence to the
Secretary that it has adequate financial resources in the
form of cash, liquid assets, or a written loan commitment to
complete the reconstruction of the vessel.
(3) Additional terms.--The Secretary may require such
additional terms in connection with the conveyance authorized
by this section as the Secretary considers appropriate.
(c) Proceeds.--Any amounts received by the United States as
proceeds from the sale of the M/V BAYAMON shall be deposited
in the Vessel Operations Revolving Fund established by the
Act of June 2, 1951 (chapter 121; 46 App. U.S.C. 1241a).

SEC. 3603. CONVEYANCE OF NDRF VESSELS BENJAMIN ISHERWOOD AND
HENRY ECKFORD.

(a) Authority To Convey.--The Secretary of Transportation
may convey all right, title, and interest of the United
States Government in and to the vessels BENJAMIN ISHERWOOD
(TAO-191) and HENRY ECKFORD (TAO-192) to a purchaser for the
purpose of reconstruction of those vessels for sale or
charter.
(b) Terms of Conveyance.--
(1) Delivery of vessel.--In carrying out subsection (a),
the Secretary shall deliver the vessel--
(A) at the place where the vessel is located on the date of
the conveyance;
(B) in its condition on that date; and
(C) at no cost to the United States Government.
(2) Required conditions.--The Secretary may not convey a
vessel under this section unless--
(A) the recipient pays consideration equal to the domestic
fair market value of the vessel, as determined by the
Secretary;
(B) the recipient agrees to sell or charter the vessel to a
member nation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for
use as an oiler;
(C) the recipient provides sufficient evidence to the
Secretary that it has adequate financial resources in the
form of cash, liquid assets, or a written loan commitment to
complete the reconstruction of the vessel;
(D) the recipient agrees that any repair, restoration, or
reconstruction work for the vessel will be performed in the
United States; and
(E) the recipient agrees to hold the Government harmless
for any claims arising from defects in the vessel or from
exposure to hazardous material, including asbestos and
polychlorinated biphenyls, after the conveyance of the
vessel, except for claims arising before the date of the
conveyance or from use of the vessel by the Government after
that date.
(3) Additional terms.--The Secretary may require such
additional terms in connection with a conveyance authorized
by this section as the Secretary considers appropriate.
(c) Proceeds.--Any amounts received by the United States as
proceeds from the sale of a vessel under this section shall
be deposited in the Vessel Operations Revolving Fund
established by the Act of June 2, 1951 (chapter 121; 46 App.
U.S.C. 1241a).
(d) Duration of Authority.--The authority of the Secretary
under this section may only be exercised during the one-year
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3604. CLEARINGHOUSE FOR MARITIME INFORMATION.

Of the amount authorized to be appropriated pursuant to
section 3601(1) for operations of the Maritime
Administration, $75,000 shall be available for the
establishment at a State Maritime Academy of a clearinghouse
for maritime information that makes that information publicly
available, including by use of the Internet.

SEC. 3605. CONVEYANCE OF NDRF VESSEL EX-USS LORAIN COUNTY.

(a) Authority To Convey.--The Secretary of Transportation
may convey all right, title, and interest of the Federal
Government in and to the

[[Page H3552]]

vessel ex-USS LORAIN COUNTY (LST-1177) to the Ohio War
Memorial, Inc., located in Sandusky, Ohio (in this section
referred to as the ``recipient''), for use as a memorial to
Ohio veterans.
(b) Terms of Conveyance.--
(1) Delivery of vessel.--In carrying out subsection (a),
the Secretary shall deliver the vessel--
(A) at the place where the vessel is located on the date of
conveyance;
(B) in its condition on that date; and
(C) at no cost to the Federal Government.
(2) Required conditions.--The Secretary may not convey a
vessel under this section unless--
(A) the recipient agrees to hold the Government harmless
for any claims arising from exposure to hazardous material,
including asbestos and polychlorinated biphenyls, after
conveyance of the vessel, except for claims arising before
the date of the conveyance or from use of the vessel by the
Government after that date; and
(B) the recipient has available, for use to restore the
vessel, in the form of cash, liquid assets, or a written loan
commitment, financial resources of at least $100,000.
(3) Additional terms.--The Secretary may require such
additional terms in connection with the conveyance authorized
by this section as the Secretary considers appropriate.
(c) Other Unneeded Equipment.--The Secretary may convey to
the recipient of the vessel conveyed under this section any
unneeded equipment from other vessels in the National Defense
Reserve Fleet, for use to restore the vessel conveyed under
this section to museum quality.

The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute is in order except amendments printed in House Report
105-544, or considered by order of the House to have been so printed,
and amendments en bloc described in Section 3 of the resolution.
Except as specified in Section 5 of the resolution, each amendment
printed in the report shall be considered only in the order specified,
may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered read, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of
the question.
Unless otherwise specified in the report or in the resolution, each
amendment printed in the report shall be debatable for 10 minutes,
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent of the
amendment, and shall not be subject to amendment, except that the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on National
Security each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of
further debate on any pending amendment.
Consideration of amendments printed in part A of the report shall
begin with an additional period of general debate, which shall be
confined to the subject of the policy of the United States with respect
to the People's Republic of China and shall not exceed 2 hours, equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member.

{time} 1215

Consideration of amendments printed in part C of the report shall
begin with an additional period of general debate, which shall be
confined to the subject of the assignment of members of the Armed
Forces to assist in border control and shall not exceed 30 minutes,
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member.
It shall be in order at any time for the chairman of the Committee on
National Security or his designee to offer amendments en bloc
consisting of amendments printed in part D of the report not earlier
disposed of or germane modifications of any such amendment. The
amendments en bloc shall be considered read, except that modifications
shall be reported, shall be debatable for 20 minutes, equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
committee, or their designees, shall not be subject to amendment and
shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question.
The original proponent of an amendment included in the amendments en
bloc may insert a statement in the Congressional Record immediately
before disposition of the amendments en bloc.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may recognize for
consideration of amendments printed in the report out of the order in
which they are printed, but not sooner than 1 hour after the chairman
of the Committee on National Security or a designee announces from the
floor a request to that effect.
It is now in order to debate the subject of the policy of the United
States with respect to the People's Republic of China.
The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) and the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) each will control 1 hour.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump).
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, perhaps it is just a coincidence. Perhaps
it is just a coincidence that the President turned a blind eye as one
of his wealthiest campaign contributors harmed our national security by
helping the Chinese improve their ballistic warheads.
Maybe the President did not mean to accept campaign donations from
the Chinese Red Army at the same time he changed U.S. policy to benefit
China's missile program.
There may be an innocent explanation for the President's decision to
ignore his Secretary of State, the Director of the CIA and the Pentagon
and to allow his campaign donors to help China's military.
Finally, maybe it was just an accident when the President gutted the
Justice Department's investigation into the matter. If there is an
innocent explanation, though, the American people have not heard it
yet.
The facts, as we know them, are deeply disturbing. What frightens,
angers, and troubles me is that we do not know all the facts yet.
These are serious matters. China has 13 missiles aimed at U.S.
cities, and it would be shocking if the President helped to make the
missiles more accurate. Clearly, the American people deserve an
explanation. Unless and until we get such an explanation, the President
should postpone his scheduled trip to China.
After receiving campaign donations from the People's Liberation Army,
after associating with Chinese agents and after changing U.S. policy to
benefit the Chinese military, the President has no business jetting off
to Tiananmen Square to attend ceremonies with China's Communist
leaders. To do so would be an insult to the American people and those
Chinese who lost their lives in the fight for democracy.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Last week, the Committee on Rules received some 12 amendments dealing
in one form or another with China. Those amendments were combined and
fashioned into the four that we will address here today.
As a footnote question, however, I would be interested in knowing the
source of the information that the gentlewoman just said regarding
missiles being targeted toward us. I would appreciate that in a timely
fashion.
The two broad targets of these amendments are, first, the
administration policy of engagement with respect to China, and, second,
the alleged improper flow of U.S. technology to China. These four
amendments are either redundant, Mr. Chairman, or simply
counterproductive.
Let me first discuss the administration policy of engagement with
China. A quarter century ago, President Richard Nixon traveled to China
initiating a new relationship with the world's largest country. It is a
relationship that has evolved over the past quarter century through six
administrations, Republican and Democratic.
Over that time, we have seen China make great strides economically as
it adopted market reforms. The earlier policy under President Nixon
shifted during the Bush administration as the Cold War came to an end.
The strategic component that brought the two countries closer together
in 1972, a mutual concern about the Soviet threat, ended upon the
breakup of the Soviet Union.
President Bush, the Nixon administration's first Ambassador to China,

[[Page H3553]]

understood the important role that China would play in world affairs as
the 20th Century drew to a close and the 21st approached. He realized
that a country with a quarter of the world's population a country, with
nuclear weapons, a country having one of the five permanent seats at
the United Nations, a country successfully adopting Western market
reforms was a country that the United States had to engage.
The aim was to help China become a cooperative power in both Asia and
the world, to have it become a responsible world power interested in
promoting stability, not promoting revolution.
U.S. and China relations over the more than 25 years have had more
than their share of controversies, over human rights, over trade
imbalances, and over proliferation. The two countries will continue to
have differences in the future. However, the overall effect should be
to establish a relationship where those differences can be reduced and
managed in such a fashion that China sees it to be in its own interest
to promote a stable international order.
The Clinton administration has continued the Bush administration
policy. Two years ago, relations between the two countries were at a
low point, as symbolized by the Straits of Taiwan incident. Since then,
the relationship has improved, with a new generation of leaders
adopting policies more in keeping with those of a responsible world
power.
Last year's October summit between President Clinton and President
Jiang Zemin marked a turning point. Recent actions seem to bear out
this positive development.
Last fall, for example, during the Southeast Asia's economic crisis,
China took measures to stabilize the situation. It provided Thailand a
billion dollar loan and resisted the temptation to devalue its
currency. In financial circles, China earned high marks for acting in a
responsible fashion.
Let us look at a more recent crisis, the Indian detonation of five
nuclear weapons last week. Under Mao, China was unconcerned about the
spread of nuclear weapons.
One of the difficult issues that the Clinton administration sought to
address over the past five years has concerned the Chinese nuclear
technology relationship with Pakistan.
After the Indian explosions we see a China acting with great caution,
assuming a role of responsibility on this difficult issue. It described
the Indian action as showing brazen contempt for international efforts
to halt the spread of nuclear weapons.
Recent newspaper accounts have the Chinese government trying to
reassure the Pakistani government so that it does not feel compelled to
meet the Indian actions with nuclear tests of its very own.
I say all this, Mr. Chairman, because I believe that the actions that
we take here today rather than protect U.S. security interests may
actually tend to harm them. The effort to coax China along, to help
those responsible figures in this government to proceed in a positive
direction, will probably suffer if we succeed in bashing China today in
an attempt to criticize administration policy.
The tenor of the amendments is to make judgments about important
policy issues before we have all the facts. We need to deal with these
important matters with great care and great deliberation. I will listen
to each of the amendments with great care along that line. I am afraid
that we are not going to be doing a great deal positively through this
debate. I hope that I am wrong.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 10 minutes to the
gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Hunter), chairman of the
Subcommittee on Military Procurement of the Committee on National
Security.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the
time. I want to say how much I appreciate the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Skelton), the ranking member, for his comments in this area and
for his stalwart support of what has been the policy of the Committee
on National Security in that, even in times of marked partisanship in
the House in recent years, one bipartisan effort has been the effort by
the Committee on National Security often resulting in unanimous votes
in the committee to halt the movement of American technology,
militarily critical technology; that is, technology that could end up
killing American men and women on battlefields or killing Americans in
our cities, to keep that technology from moving to those who might use
it against us. So, Republicans and Democrats, we have been together on
this issue.
We have this very troublesome issue that the committee has battled
with and now that the American people have to battle with; and it is
the issues that are surrounding the transfer of satellite launching
technology to Communist China.
It has now become clear, we all know this now, that, in fact, a
number of Chinese missiles are aimed at American cities. Those Chinese
missiles have nuclear tips. It is in our interest not to give those
Chinese missiles more reliability. Because of our diplomatic efforts
notwithstanding, we cannot predict the future, and we cannot say
absolutely that those missiles will never be launched against the
cities that they are presently aimed at. So we do not want those
missiles to be reliable. We do not want them to be accurate. We would
hope that, in a time of launch, they do not even have the capability to
leave the ground. That would be the best thing.
Juxtaposed against that national security concern is a commercial
concern of some American companies, and that is that they have
satellites to launch and they want to launch them cheap.
The cheapest launchers in the world are the Communist Chinese; that
is, they will send up an American satellite built by Hughes or another
American company on a pretty inexpensive basis atop a Chinese missile.
The so-called ``Long March'' missile is the missile of choice. That
Chinese missile that sends up satellites also is the same missile that
has nuclear warheads on top of it that is aimed at American cities.
So we have a problem. We want to make sure that American companies,
in putting their satellite packages atop these Chinese Communist ``Long
March'' missiles, do not inadvertently show them how to make the
missiles more reliable, more accurate, and have a number of factors
that would allow them to destroy American cities with nuclear warheads.
We have this major problem.
I asked for these charts to be placed over here because I think the
charts very effectively explain some of the things that we have
inadvertently taught the Chinese rocket ministry; that is, the people
in charge of destroying American cities in a time of war how to make
their missiles more reliable.
Let me just describe a few of those. We talk about the launch of
April 1990, taught the Chinese why and how to build clean rooms for
satellite launch investigation and introduced them to the need to
protect fragile complex payloads against significant thermal dynamic
change.

{time} 1230

In 1992 we confirmed the Chinese analysis that the launch problem was
in engine control of the launcher's first stage rather than altitude
control. In 1992 we gave them information relating to the design of
payload fairings. In May of 1995 we validated China's solid rocket
satellite kick motor. This motor was still in development and had only
been tested once before with the attitude-altitude controlled defective
launch of a Pakistani satellite. It was a new system; we validated that
system. In 1996, 1997 and 1998 we validated the Chinese upper stage
separating technology, and we shared vibration and load coupling
analysis with them.
Now, another very troubling thing happened in 1996. That is, one of
the Long March rockets went down. They are considered not to be the
most dependable rockets. It went down. It was destroyed before it got
very far off the ground, and it carried a Loral-Hughes payload, an
American satellite payload, worth a couple hundred million dollars. So
Loral and Hughes, to make their stockholders happier, had to figure out
how to make these missiles that carry them up into space more reliable.
So they then engaged with the Chinese scientists and engineers and
showed them how to make these missiles more reliable. That is the
information that we have right now.
Now, the problem is, it is very difficult to get more information
from

[[Page H3554]]

the administration. This committee, the Committee on National Security,
under the leadership of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence),
and the Committee on International Relations under the leadership of
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), and I might say the ranking
Democrats on both of those committees, has sought information as to
exactly what happened with respect to this information sharing and this
accuratizing of the Chinese missiles.
We do know this: The Department of Defense has issued a statement
after analyzing that debriefing and that information sharing, and they
said this, which should be of interest to every American mother and
father. They said American national security has been damaged by this
transfer of technology.
We are trying to find out exactly what was transferred, what
happened, what reliability that is going to give to these nuclear
systems that the Chinese have, and we are not getting any answers.
Against that backdrop, we are offering four amendments today. The
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Gilman) are offering an amendment that expresses the sense of
the Congress that business interests must not be placed over U.S.
national security interests, I think every American would agree with
that, and that the United States should not agree to a variety of
initiatives at the upcoming presidential summit in China, including,
and these are some of the things we think our administration may be
offering China, support for Chinese membership in the missile
technology control regime; a blanket waiver of Tiananmen Square
sanctions; an increase in space launches from China; agreeing to
unverifiable arms control initiatives; increasing the level of
military-to-military contacts; and entering any new agreements
involving space or missile-related technology.
That amendment is being offered by the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). I think
every Member should vote for that.
We have the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) offering an
amendment. This amendment would prohibit U.S. participation in any
postlaunch failure investigation involving the launch of a U.S.
satellite from China.
The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) very wisely is addressing
the very occurrence that we just talked about. We had a big American
payload of a $200 million satellite on top of a Chinese missile. The
missile went down, so the $200 million satellite was destroyed, did not
get launched. So Hughes stockholders and Loral stockholders said, ``We
need to get more money. We have just lost $200 million. We need to help
the Chinese accuratize their missiles and make them more accurate,''
not thinking about the fact those were the same missiles that are aimed
at American cities with nuclear warheads. So we debriefed the Chinese
engineers and scientists on the problems their missile had and on how
they could correct it. That is currently the subject of an ongoing
investigation.
The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) is saying, wait a minute.
Let us not agree to any more debriefings. We do not share technology.
When the guillotine is over our head and sticking, we do not say we
think we see your problem and we want to solve it for you.
The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) has an amendment. The
amendment would prohibit the export or reexport of any missile
equipment or technology to the People's Republic of China.
This says listen, let us put the brakes on. We have made a major
mistake. Our own Department of Defense under the Clinton Administration
has said national security has been damaged. Let us stop everything and
try to figure out exactly what has happened and what we can do to
rectify it. An excellent amendment by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Hefley).
Finally, I have an amendment that prohibits the export or reexport of
U.S. satellites, including commercial satellites and satellite
components to the People's Republic of China. This says the lives of
our children, the safety of our cities, are more important than the
shareholders seeing their stock go up a few points because they have
sent the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction into our own
American cities.
Now, the administration needs to be forthcoming. They need to send us
information on exactly what happened when we had this Loral and Hughes
debriefing of the Chinese engineers and scientists in 1996. They need
to send us information on exactly what the situation is with respect to
the new capability of the Chinese missiles as a result of that.
I think until they do that, they do not deserve to have us allowing
them to move forward with American companies continuing to send
American satellites and interacting with the very people in the launch
program in communist China who work both with domestic satellites,
sending those satellites into space, and who work with preparing
nuclear-tipped missiles for launch at American cities. This says, let
us hold everything up until we shake this thing out.
So we are offering those four amendments. I would hope that Democrats
and Republicans all vote for those amendments. This should be a time of
reorganization and reexamination.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Wexler).
Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, almost a year and a half ago I received and
began for me what was the proudest day of my professional life, being
sworn in as a Member of the United States House of Representatives. I
was elected as a Democrat from the State of Florida. But far more
important than being elected as a Democrat, even far more important
than being elected as a Floridian, I was an American, an American first
and American only. And I came to this Congress with a devotion and a
respect of the principles of the United States of America, for the
basic freedoms that we enjoy in our Bill of Rights.
Then I listened to debate after debate in this House, where I
disagreed vehemently with the Speaker with respect to his policies on
Medicare, or Social Security, or education or the environment, and I
disagreed vehemently at times with the direction that the Republican
leadership of this Congress wishes to take this Nation.
But never would I dare, never would I dare question the patriotism
and the devotion to this country of the Speaker or any Republican
Member of the Congress. Never would I dare suggest that a Republican
Member of this Congress has any less love for this country than I do,
because I may differ with him on a policy, and I am confident that most
Americans appreciate that those people who are elected to this
Congress, regardless of their political beliefs, and those few
individuals in our history that have been so privileged to lead our
Nation as our President, have anything but a complete devotion to our
country and our national security.
Yet, in the last months we have seen extraordinary allegations thrown
at this President. Not simple allegations, but allegations that rise to
the level of being involved in a murder plot, allegations rising to the
level of being involved in a rape, allegations involving at one time or
another almost every crime imaginable.
But the height was reached this week when Members of this House
accused the President of the United States and the administration of
acting in a treasonous fashion, of endangering the national security of
the United States. And over what? What evidence is presented?
Taken in its most simplistic form, the allegation is the Chinese
Government sent some money, a significant amount of money, $100,000, to
the national Democratic Party, and then the President made a foreign
policy decision where he said, ``There is the money. Now we are going
to send some missile technology to China that will endanger the United
States, that will create a nuclear proliferation program.''
Let us look at the specifics of the allegations. The money in
question, the alleged money, did not wind up in the Democratic coffers
until July and August of 1996. But what the accusers failed to say is
the President issued the waiver in March of 1996. And what the accusers
failed to say is that the money was then given back after it was

[[Page H3555]]

given, and then after the money was given back, another waiver was
issued.
If you listen to the accusers, you would think President Clinton
dreamed up this idea of waivers. No, the first waivers were given by
President Bush, and President Bush decided it was in our national
interest to allow American companies to send off their communications
satellites because there were not enough American rockets going up to
do so.
These were communication satellites. And if you listen to the
allegations, you would think we just handed them to the Chinese, when
in fact it was American companies that handed them to our Department of
Defense. It was the American Department of Defense that transported the
satellite, the American Department of Defense that put the satellite in
its proper place, and it was guarded the whole way by the American
Department of Defense.
Let us get down right to the bottom line of the argument, that money
was given and a political decision made. If that is in fact the case,
then all of us in Washington need to be brave and stand up and admit
that all of us are guilty then, because whenever there is a
contribution given, we will act on the contribution and do what the
contributor said. And yes, yes, then it happens every day. And then,
yes, it would seem it would be legitimate to argue that because the
tobacco companies have given millions to the Republican party, that is
why they are giving them tax breaks.
But I would not dare suggest that nexus, because I would not have the
audacity to suggest that another Member of Congress is corrupt or is
corrupted. And for Members of this Congress to suggest that the
President of the United States has in some way endangered our national
security, without a single shred of evidence, is there a single shred
of evidence that suggests that this President took the money, knew what
he was doing, and then said, send the missile, send the satellite to be
on the missile because of the money? Not a single shred of evidence. It
is treasonous, they say, without a single shred of evidence.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I am kind of surprised at the gentleman's tirade here,
because this gentleman never mentioned money, never mentioned treason,
rarely mentioned the President. And when I went over the litany or the
chronology of missile launches, I started with the Bush Administration
in 1990.
This is a Committee on National Security. We are not worried about
where the money came from or what it did or whether there was
influence. What we are concerned about, very simply, is this statement,
this statement made by President Clinton's Department of Defense.
Hopefully that is not part of a right wing conspiracy, I would say to
my friend who just spoke.
``In May 1997 the administration was jolted by a classified Pentagon
report concluding that scientists from Hughes and Loral Space and
Communications had turned over expertise that `significantly improved
the reliability of China's nuclear missiles.' '' That is the New York
Times, April 13, 1998. Our Department of Defense said American security
has been damaged. That is what we are concerned about.
I think what we are going to have to do, both Republicans and
Democrats, is when we have colleagues that come in and start ranting
about the money, is very firmly but quietly push them aside to get
their part of the debate over, and then go into what really concerns
the American people, and that is this: that we have two conflicting
pressures here. We have the pressure of our domestic satellite
industry, like Hughes and Loral, that wants to sell things and make
money; and they make money by taking advantage of the cheap launch that
the Chinese offer by putting their satellite packages on top of Chinese
missiles. That is the one factor, the one pressure.
The second pressure, of course, and a concern of ours, is national
security. Because those very same missiles that carry the domestic
satellite launches that we make money on, and Loral and Hughes, also
carry nuclear-tipped missiles that are presently aimed at the United
States, and conceivably in a conflict the reliability of those missiles
to carry its nuclear payload into American cities should be something
of great concern to us.

{time} 1345

That is what we are talking about here.
If I could have that second chart over here, let us talk about that
for just a second. Incidentally, I have never heard of the New York
Times being called part of a right-wing conspiracy. I hope they have
not changed overnight. But I think this chart is pretty descriptive
because it tells how, in working out commercial launches, in doing
commercial launches in China, we are inadvertently increasing the
capability of their nuclear strategic systems.
Payload dispersal technology. Payload dispersal technology allows
single commercial rockets to deliver more than a single satellite into
space per each launch. The same technology can be used to develop
Multiple Independently-targetable Reentry Vehicles. We talked about
those in the Cold War on this floor. Those are known as MIRVs. A MIRV
is when we send one missile up, one missile, and when it gets to a
certain altitude when it is over American cities or over another
military target, it disperses 3 or 4 or 5 or as many, in the case of
the Soviet Union, as many as 10 warheads to different targets, so it
can usher in absolutely massive destruction with as many as 10 targets
from one single rocket.
That MIRV capability is something that we were hoping that the
Chinese would not obtain, because they do not have too many ICBMs, and
we were hoping that they would not get the capability to have more than
one nuclear warhead per missile, because it is very difficult to
handle, if we ever do get defenses, to handle 10 warheads coming out of
each missile. But they have gotten some of that technology from our
commercial satellite application.
A second area where they desperately needed capability in their
nuclear strategic arsenal and they got that as a result, or got some
help as a result of their interaction with our satellite people, is
kick motor technology. Kick motors are used to propel satellites
precisely into their described orbits. This same technology can be
applied to warhead delivery systems to enable them to evade ballistic
missile defense systems.
Radiation-hardened electronics. These specialized chips are designed
to resist electromagnetic interference in space as well as
electromagnetic pulses in a nuclear combat environment.
Encryption devices. In both commercial and military applications,
encryption devices allow only authorized users to control the system.
Launcher altitude control, another vital area. Stage separation
systems, a very critical area for launching successful, making
successful missile launches, whether one is launching a satellite or
launching a nuclear payload.
So let me just close by saying this. This committee, Democrats and
Republicans, looked at this issue several years ago. We were asked to
place this satellite launching technology, the licensing for this
technology, to move it out of the control of the Department of Defense,
the overview of the Department of Defense and the Department of State.
Typically, the Department of Defense has always been very tough on
allowing this technology to go overseas. A lot of the users like Hughes
and Loral wanted to move it into the Department of Commerce, where the
object is to sell things and make money, where they thought they would
be given a little more liberal license to transfer this technology to
China. This committee fought that, and we had a vote in this committee,
Democrats and Republicans. As I recall, and I could be wrong, it was
unanimous, except for I think either 1 or 2 votes. It was almost
unanimous, Democrats and Republicans, and in fact, one of the leaders
on the Democrat side was Mr. Dellums, and the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spence) was our leader on the Republican side.
So this is not a partisan issue, this is not about money, this is
about security, and we need to pass these 4 amendments, put this whole
transfer of satellite technology on hold until we

[[Page H3556]]

have sorted this thing out, figured out how much damage has been done
to the American people and go from there.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me add some facts. One can have one's own opinions, but one
cannot have one's own facts. Let me add a few of the facts. It is my
understanding that in response to a letter from the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the chairman, that was sent to various
officials here in this city seeking the secret DOD report was responded
to by 3 folks, one from DOD, one from the ACDA, and the other from
Justice, that there is an ongoing criminal investigation by the
District Attorney of the District of Columbia, and the turnover of any
evidence on this matter might jeopardize the case.
Mr. Chairman, being a former prosecuting attorney in the State of
Missouri, I fully understand that response. I think that the facts
should be clear on that issue.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the chairman of the Committee on National
Security.
(Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, later today the House will have an
opportunity to vote on a series of amendments that address recent
revelations concerning the possible illegal transfer of sophisticated
American missile technology to China. I urge my colleagues to consider
this issue carefully and to support these amendments.
Over the past few days and weeks, the American people have witnessed
a flood of news articles about the decisions 2 years ago and again
earlier this year by the Clinton administration to allow the transfer
of sophisticated American satellite technology to China, technology
that can be used to improve Chinese ballistic missiles targeted on the
United States.
While many important aspects of these reports and allegations remain
unclear, the administration is doing little to help clarify the
situation, as repeated requests by the Congress for information
continue to be ignored. Nevertheless, that which we do know is deeply
troubling. Although sanctions imposed on China in 1990 at the Tiananmen
massacre were intended to prevent the transfer of missile technology to
China, those sanctions have repeatedly been waived to allow the export
of United States satellites containing militarily-sensitive technology.
In 1996, 2 American companies participated in a review of a failed
launch of a U.S. satellite on a Chinese rocket. As a result of this
investigation, sensitive export control information was exchanged,
information that could be used by China to improve its long-range
nuclear ballistic missile capability. The necessary export license for
this information was neither sought nor obtained by the American
companies in question. The transfer of this sensitive information
reportedly led the Department of Defense to conclude that ``United
States national security has been harmed,'' and resulted in the Justice
Department initiating a criminal investigation.
Unfortunately, this investigation was undermined when the White House
apparently, over the objections of the Justice Department earlier this
year, approved the export to China of similar military-related
technology. In light of a recently reported CIA study that concludes
that China has targeted 13 long-range nuclear missiles on the United
States, the danger of helping China perfect its missile capability with
technology ``Made in the USA'' is apparently obvious to just about
everyone except the White House.
Last month, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of
the Committee on International Relations, and I jointly sent letters to
the Departments of Defense, Commerce and State and the Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency requesting documents relating to the 1996 transfer
of technology and the White House's more recent 1998 decision to waive
restrictions on the transfer of similar technology to China. The
Committee on National Security is intensely interested in reviewing the
Defense Technology Security Administration report on the 1996 transfer,
which concluded that the transfer did harm United States' national
security. Unfortunately, one month later, and not one document has been
provided. The administration asserts that releasing these documents to
Congress would compromise its ongoing criminal investigation. In
reality, the administration appears to be hiding behind the veneer of a
Justice Department investigation that the White House's own decision
earlier this year is likely to have already compromised.
Mr. Chairman, the United States satellite industry has long supported
a relaxation on restrictions on the export of satellites and satellite-
related technology in the name of making money. Unfortunately, much of
this technology is indistinguishable from the missile-related
technology. The administration, nevertheless, liberalized the export of
certain satellites in 1996 by removing them from the strictly
controlled United States munitions list and placing them on the less
restricted dual-use commodity control list administered by the Commerce
Department. This decision was a fundamental reversal of the position
articulated by Vice President Candidate Gore during the 1992 election
campaign. He warned that allowing the launch of United States satellite
by China would allow that country to ``gain foreign aerospace
technology that would be otherwise unavailable to it.''
Mr. Chairman, the transfer of satellite and missile-related
technologies in question is only one in a series of examples of this
administration's easing of restrictions on the export of militarily
sensitive United States technology to China.
Last year at this time, the House voted overwhelmingly and on a
bipartisan basis to close a loophole in the administration's export
control policy that allowed the transfer of supercomputers to, among
others, Chinese institutes involved in the research and development of
ballistic missiles. This year, Congress is once again faced with the
need to close another loophole in current export law and we should act
immediately.
While I recognize that much still remains to be learned about this
latest controversy, the urgency of the export issue itself requires the
Congress to act decisively and quickly in an attempt to ensure that no
further damage is done to our national security. Moreover, I believe
that Congress should be heard loud and clear before the President
travels to China next month.
For this reason, I ask my colleagues to support the amendments
offered.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair as to how much
time each side has remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), has 48
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), has 34
minutes remaining.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) is
recognized for 4 minutes.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, there is nobody in this House on the
other side of the aisle that I respect more than my colleague, the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). He knows that that is true.
White House treason? No. But I would say to my colleague, I think
that there has been some very poor decisions made, decisions that
should concern every American family. It is not just in the China
issue, it deals with foreign policy, it deals with national security
that in my estimation, our defense forces are the worst off than I have
seen them in 30 years that I have been associated with it.

{time} 1300

That is both from taking money out of defense, and the deployments
that take money like Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, that take money out of the
operation and maintenance, already out of a low budget. I think those
kinds of decisions are made when you surround yourselves with very
left-wing oriented members of your cabinet and staff, like Strobe
Talbott. The decisions that you make, you need people there that have
some kind of sense of what is good.
Let us face it, China is not the same China it was 20 years ago.
There have

[[Page H3557]]

been a lot of changes in China. I would tell the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), today China is still one of the biggest threats
the United States faces. So is the former Soviet Union. They are not
our friends. We have to keep working in that direction, but they are
very, very dangerous.
It is like a pit bull that you put inside a fence to guard you at
night. You would not let that pit bull out to play with your children.
That is what we are doing by this technology transfer to China. China
shipped chemical and biological weapons to Iran and Iraq.
That is one of the reasons we are in Iraq right now, because COSCO,
the Chinese shipping company, is right out of China, owned by the PLA,
the same company that the alleged allocations went forth with the
money, but yet, we turn over Long Beach Naval Shipyard to them at the
President's insistence. That is wrong, and that is a poor decision.
That is letting them in our back door when they are dealing with
chemical and biological weapons and then missile technology.
The second thing, the nuclear triggers to Iraq, right in San Diego,
my own city, Iraq tried to steal out nuclear components. Yet, China is
shipping to those countries. That is dangerous. Yet, we enhance their
ability on missile technology? That is wrong.
I would tell my friend that both foreign policy decisions, and I
would include the United States Marine Corps in Lebanon, I think that
was very poor policy under a Republican President, trapping our marines
there and not letting them fight back.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, all I want to point out is that in our
committee there was an amendment that passed overwhelmingly against the
COSCO Chinese company taking over Long Beach. I think that was
important.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am aware of that. I thank the gentleman for that.
That was a good decision by the committee, but I think a very poor
decision by the White House, as I am trying to point out.
Foreign policy, like the extension of Somalia, where we changed from
going humanitarian to going after General Aideed, and then drawing down
our forces, and our military asked for armor, we do not give it, and we
lose people; Haiti could have sat there in my opinion for another 200
years. But all of those cost billions of dollars, and we are taking
money out of defense to pay for them. We cannot even get an FEHBP bill
for veterans, and we pay $16 billion for Haiti and Bosnia. Those kinds
of decisions, is what I am telling my friend, I believe are wrong.
Russia is a threat. Under the Ural Mountains, the gentleman has seen
the intelligence reports, they are building a first strike nuclear site
the size of inside the beltway here. They have launched six Typhoon Red
October class submarines. It is a very dangerous world. Yet, my
colleagues on the other side say, well, the Cold War is over.
The Cold War is not over, and when we are giving potential enemies
like China and Russia technology, that should be a concern of every
Member in this body. I know it is for the gentleman. It is not an issue
on treason, it is an issue on national security, and one that I think
that both sides of the aisle ought to stress, and we ought to look
forward to it.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Burton).
(Mr. BURTON of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the point of all this is, was
our national security jeopardized because of campaign contributions
coming from Communist China? Was a technology transfer made that
endangered the security of the people of this country by giving MIRVing
technology, so they can hit several cities with one rocket, for
campaign contributions?
Let us look at the facts. Johnny Chung has told investigators that he
received $300,000 from Liu Chaoying. Who is Liu Chaoying? Liu Chaoying
is a lieutenant colonel who is also an executive, an executive of China
Aerospace. She is a lieutenant colonel in the Red Chinese army. Her
father was the top military commander of the entire Red Chinese army.
He is a senior member of the Communist party in China.
She gave $300,000 to Johnny Chung to give to the Democrat National
Committee. They do not do that for their health. You do not give money
to a foreign government or a foreign campaign for your health. There
was a reason behind it.
We believe there were other contributions of this type that came into
the Democrat National Committee, and other campaigns in the United
States of America. In fact, I am sure of it. I am sure of it. What were
these monies for? We know that this technology transfer took place. We
know that the Justice Department was investigating it. We know that the
President of the United States gave a waiver so this technology could
go forth.
Was there a connection? Was our national security jeopardized because
of these campaign contributions and because of this technology
transfer? These are things the American people have a right to know,
because every man, every woman, and every child in the future may be
jeopardized because of these decisions.
Was it treason? I do not know. I hope not. I do not believe it was. I
hope not. Was it incompetence? Maybe. Was it because of greed for
campaign contributions? Possibly, and maybe likely. But we need to have
the answers. That is why a full-scale investigation needs to take
place. That is why witnesses who want to talk need to be immunized.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle need to be patriots
first and politicians second, patriots first and politicians second,
because the security of the United States is at risk and at stake. I
urge them to vote with me for immunity, for the sake of this country.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on
International Relations.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in strong support of the
legislation before us today, and the amendments we will shortly
consider specifically relating to the curbs on the export of technology
enabling China to improve the reliability of its nuclear weapons
delivery systems.
In 1992, when then candidate Clinton attacked President Bush for
coddling dictators, including those who ordered the massacre of pro-
democracy demonstrators at Tiananmen Square, few could have imagined
how President Clinton's administration would face charges of
compromising our national security at the hands of the same Chinese
leaders.
Yet, in May of 1997 a highly classified Pentagon report has
reportedly concluded that scientists from two leading American
satellite manufacturing firms, Loral Space and Communications and
Hughes, provided expertise that significantly improved the guidance and
reliability of China's nuclear weapons delivery systems.
I am concerned that in their desire to promote the commercial
interests of key U.S. companies, that this administration might have
compromised its own efforts to limit the spread of missile technology
to China, which remains today as the leading exporter of the weapons of
mass destruction around the world.
As the President prepares to go to China and to visit the very same
square where protesters were killed some 9 years ago, he must be
mindful that any efforts to permanently waive these sanctions could
further undermine our national security, and clearly give the Chinese
the message that our policies on the spread of weapons and human rights
abuses could be reversed by commercial considerations.
As he prepares for his summit meeting with Chinese officials,
President Clinton should leave the bag of carrots at home. There should
be no concessions, no deals, no permanent waivers, no new technology or
science agreements, and most importantly, no shoehorning of China into
a missile technology control regime that they

[[Page H3558]]

have been busy violating over the past decade.
In light of the fact that the President is unwilling to suspend the
export of American satellites to China pending the outcome of the
ongoing criminal investigation, Congress should appropriately consider
amendments to the bill which will effectively curtail the export of
these items. Accordingly, I urge our Members to support the amendments
which will be before them today.
Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, it is very interesting, listening to this debate. I
really was not going to get into it. But the previous speaker, not the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), but the previous speaker to that,
just dropped a few words in there that kind of triggered me off to jump
to my feet.
He did not accuse anybody, but he said, is it not treasonous? He
dropped that word. Is it incompetence? He dropped that word. Is it
greed? And then had the audacity to say, I would tell that side, be
patriots first and politicians second.
This is what is wrong with this debate. I do not really understand.
This is a political debate, this is not a debate about China. Everybody
understands the investigation that is going on. It is funny, I have not
seen anything. I have read it in the papers. Now, maybe our committee
should be the one that investigates this, because it is national
security.
But please, let us bring ourselves up to a higher debate. Do not
question the other side's patriotism. That is the wrong thing to do.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Fowler), a member of the committee.
(Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my grave concern about
these recent revelations concerning the transfer of missile and other
technologies to the Peoples' Republic of China, and to express my
support for the package of amendments we will be taking up shortly.
I have been tracking issues relating to the transfer of critical
technologies to the Peoples' Republic for some time. I must tell my
colleagues that allegations regarding missile technologies are only the
latest in a long series of very questionable transfers.
Previously, U.S. firms have transferred supercomputers, production
hardware that would enable the Chinese to build intercontinental
bombers and missiles, gas turbine technology, and much more. Some of
these sales have been explicitly authorized by this administration.
Others have occurred because of gray areas in the law which need to be
addressed.
Allegations that campaign contributions may have influenced policy
raise deeply troubling questions. I believe Congress now needs to do
two things: First, it needs to go on record in opposition to the kinds
of technology transfers that have recently made headlines. We have that
opportunity today. I hope all of my colleagues will support the
amendments before us.
Second, Congress needs to look into these questions. Allegations have
been made that the administration acted inappropriately. The
administration has denied wrongdoing. Mr. Chairman, the American people
should know the truth. The administration should have the opportunity
to explain its actions.
I would hope, however, that any initiative to look into these issues
will occur in an atmosphere devoid of the kind of partisan bickering
that we have seen elsewhere in this Congress recently. There are very
important national security issues involved here, not the least of
which is the relationship between our Nation and the world's most
populous state, which is also a nuclear power.
We need to consider these matters with sobriety and a judicious
temperament. The right time to begin to sort out these issues is today.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendments before us.
Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, really, only in a Republican-led Congress could we have
women serving all over the world defending our country and have back
here this Congress rolling back their rights of equality of treatment
in the military.
I refer specifically to the segment of this bill that will roll back
women to segregated training. I do not know anyone who supports this
except the Republican leadership. Three of the four branches of the
armed service do not want it, the trainees do not want it, all the
experts have recommended against it, and I am honestly not sure why we
are being forced to consider, in this legislation, legislation that
would segregate the men and women of our Armed Forces.

{time} 1315

Earlier today and last night in a bipartisan way, the Women's Caucus
asked for a bipartisan amendment that would strike this language from
the bill. Our amendment was not placed in order. I cannot understand
why they would not even allow a floor debate on this or a vote on this
issue. I guess they think that they know that we would win.
Another problem with it is that we allocated last year $2.2 million
to set up a commission to study this and other things. We have not even
gotten the results of this commission. The Army says that it will cost
them $159 million to implement it, when absolutely no one wants it.
Basic training is a time to build trust and camaraderie. It is a time
to solve problems while there is ultimate control over them. Right now
I do not see what the problem is.
The military is not having a woman problem. In my opinion, it is more
of a man problem. It is no longer the men at the top of the Department
of Defense. General Shalikashvili, Secretary Cohen, all of them have
called for integrated training. The problem is with the men who are
controlling this House, the Republican leadership.
Men and women must train as they fight. You cannot solve a social
problem with a logistical maneuver. Right now, as I am speaking, men
and women are fighting together in Bosnia defending freedom. I do not
believe that divide and conquer, which they are trying to do with this
maneuver, will work here. Separating the sexes during basic training
would be a tremendous mistake, a rollback. It creates an atmosphere of
distrust and may affect military readiness.
I hope that this Congress will refuse in the conference committee to
accept this rollback to segregate women and men in the Armed Services.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of these four
amendments. My colleague from Virginia a few moments ago asserted that
this is, this has been turned into a debate that is a political debate
rather than a debate about China. I hope that those who read this
account in the Congressional Record will remember and take that remark
and put it into perspective.
It seems that every time that alleged wrongdoing by this Democrat
President is challenged or investigated, it becomes political. There is
no person so pure or so consistent enough in his past behavior to
investigate this President of the United States in charges that he may
have done something that endangers the national security or was in some
way corrupt. And given that reality to the Members on the other side of
the aisle, they feel absolutely justified in obstructing and dragging
out and confusing any type of investigation into this President's
activities.
It is becoming clear to the American people that something has been
done when it comes to our relations with China. Something terrible has
happened. Every man, woman and child in this country may have been put
in jeopardy because American technology could well have been
transferred to the Communist Chinese in order to perfect their nuclear
weapons delivery systems.
What does that mean to the American people? It means that all of us
are going to be put at risk if we are ever to confront the Chinese when
they commit aggression or become belligerent

[[Page H3559]]

or do things that threaten our national security in the future. Now,
perhaps because American technology has been transferred to these
Communist Chinese that enable them to launch their nuclear weapons at
us more effectively, all of us are going to be put in jeopardy. This is
not a political issue. This is a national security issue, just as all
of those other issues were legitimate in being investigated.
I will say this, those other investigations, if they would not have
been obstructed, if they would not have, if there was not intentional
efforts being made to confuse the issues in those investigations, the
public would have understood the importance of those issues as well.
But this is too important to let politics get in the way, and it is not
politics coming from this side of the aisle. It is politics which is
preventing the American people from learning the truth when eight
members of the Democratic Party prevent witnesses from testifying in
our investigation in one of our own committees.
I strongly support this and the American people deserve to know the
truth, whether they have been betrayed or not.
Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is obvious that the gentleman does not know this gentleman very
well, and we do not. But I can tell him this, those who know me know
that I think this is a very serious problem, if it is true, an
extremely serious problem. The thing that bothers me is painting
everybody, to keep referring to this side. Why? We may have some
liberals over here, we may have some moderates, we may have some
conservatives, but I do believe one thing, we do have patriotism over
here. We do care about our country, and I know this gentleman cares
about his country.
The only reason that I mentioned those other facts are the words, the
words out there. That is the only reason. Let us keep this debate on a
high level. I can assure the gentleman from California that this
gentleman would want to investigate anything that has to do with
nuclear weapons.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to my friend the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky) that he and I and the gentleman
from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) are on the same side. There is no
question about it. We work closely together as members of the Committee
on Armed Services, and I just want him to know that the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter), who is sitting here by me, and the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cunningham) want to convey to the gentleman how
much we appreciate having been able to work with him as Americans from
two different parties on these issues. We appreciate that very much.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to just address this issue of high tech
transfer from perhaps a slightly different point of view. I offered an
amendment or I asked that an amendment be made in order by the
Committee on Rules which I am terribly disappointed was not. It has to
do with Hong Kong and transfer through Hong Kong of technology to
China. There are currently two separate sets of export laws that apply
to China and Hong Kong. Everyone here knows that in 1997, Hong Kong
came under the rule of China. And yet we continue to have these two
separate sets of laws.
So this morning in a Joint Economic Committee hearing, we asked some
very knowledgeable witnesses, who, frankly, are associated or have been
associated with the CIA, whether our concerns are valid on this issue.
I would say to the well meaning Members of the Committee on Rules who
may be listening, I think they made a mistake on this issue because
witness after witness has said that these concerns are valid. This came
to my attention, Mr. Chairman, because of a contractor wanting to
transfer a weapons system which, if it had not been for some of us here
sitting here now, would have never been a reality, a modified version
of a weapons system transferred to Hong Kong, presumably eventually to
be transferred to China.
Our amendment was not made in order, and I am terribly disappointed
by that. But we will have other days and other forums on which to make
those points.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to reiterate to my friend the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky) that one of the great things
about the Committee on National Security over the last couple of years
has been that despite our strong debate, especially on strategic
systems on the House floor, and I admit I am often a partisan in that
debate with respect to the Strategic Defense Initiative and other
initiatives that I think have been given short shrift, we have always
been together on technology transfer. We have been very close on that,
and we have kind of held the line against other interests, particularly
against commercial interests, because there is that compelling interest
in commercial operations to press the advantage, to make that last
sale, even though it may be militarily critical technology that is
involved that one day could harm our troops on the battlefield. We have
always stuck together.
Interestingly, it has been not only Republicans and Democrats, it has
been conservatives and liberals. Mr. Dellums was one of the foremost
proponents of restricting technology transfer and many of the people
who testified before us came from various political divisions of the
left and right and center in America, experts who felt that we should
not send military technology to potential adversaries.
Let us work this problem on that basis. Walk through this thing, find
out how much damage was done to American security and how we can stop
it from further eroding.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank first of
all my good friend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) for his
leadership and for my good friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton) for his leadership. This is truly a bipartisan committee, and
this is truly a bipartisan bill. And this effort aimed at China and our
concerns on proliferation is a bipartisan concern.
I, like my colleagues, will attest to the fact that Members on the
other side have been equally aggressive to Members on our side in
focusing on the proliferation problem. There has not been a division
that is a political division. In fact, we have been very much united
when it comes to proliferating activities, not just by China but also
by Russia and other entities, North Korea and so forth.
I also rise to say that I have been one who has supported the
President on China policy. I voted for MFN. In fact, in the last
session of Congress, I took two delegations to China. I was the first
policymaker from this country to be asked to address a group of mid-
level officers in the PLA at the National Defense University in
Beijing. Twice I interacted with them. Twice I discussed with them our
concerns about proliferation and our concerns about our security
relationship.
I plan to go back to China again this year. I believe in the policy
of engagement with China. But I rise today to, in the strongest
possible terms, relate to our colleagues in this body that we have a
problem. The proliferation that has continually taken place by China
and also by other nations, especially Russia, has got to be stopped.
Mr. Chairman, the problem is over the past several years, it actually
was not just under this administration, to some extent it was done in
previous administrations, in looking at our arms control agreements
that are the basis of our bilateral relationships with Russia and in
this case China, we have not enforced those agreements when we have
caught proliferators selling off and transferring technologies to other
nations.
Mr. Chairman, tomorrow there will be an op ed in the L.A. Times which
will summarize my point in very great detail, as I did last Wednesday
night on the floor of this body. Thirty-eight separate times in the
past 7 years we have had documented cases of proliferating activities
coming from two countries, coming from Russia and coming from China.
Those proliferating activities

[[Page H3560]]

have sent technology in the area of nuclear weapons, chemical and
biological weapons and missile technology to Iran, Iraq, India and
Pakistan.
Now we face the music. We face a crisis. India and Pakistan are saber
rattling each other with technology that we could have stopped, if we
would have taken aggressive action to stop that proliferation from
occurring, which is a requirement of a number of arms control
agreements, the missile technology control regime, the Arms Export
Control Act and a whole host of other agreements. If we would have
taken steps to impose sanctions in more than half of those 38
occasions, let alone just the three where sanctions were imposed, I
would argue we would not be in the position we are in today.
It is absolutely imperative that this body and this committee support
the leadership on both sides of the aisle, pass these four amendments
and send a signal to China that we will not tolerate any future
proliferation of technology, any missile technology, any nuclear
technology to Pakistan or any other Nation.

{time} 1330

Because that then causes us to have to spend more money to defeat
that threat once it emerges in some other Nation's hands.
So I support my chairman, I support my ranking member, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Stump), and my ranking Democrat, the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), on their leadership, and I urge all of our
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on each of the amendments that will be
brought before us shortly.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider the amendments printed
in part A of House Report 104-544, which shall be considered in the
following order:
Amendment No. 1 by Representative Spence or Gilman;
Amendment No. 2 by Representative Bereuter;
Amendment No. 3 by Representative Hefley; and
Amendment No. 4 by Representative Hunter.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in part A of
House Report 105-544.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Spence

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Part A amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 105-544
offered by Mr. Spence:
At the end of title XII (page 253, after line 3), insert
the following new section:

SEC. 1206. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

It is the sense of the Congress that--
(1) United States business interests must not be placed
above United States national security interests;
(2) at the Presidential summit meeting to be held in the
People's Republic of China in June of 1998, the United States
should not--
(A) support membership of the People's Republic of China in
the Missile Technology Control Regime;
(B) agree to issue any blanket waiver of the suspensions
contained in section 902 of the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (Public Law
101-246), regarding the export of satellites of United States
origin intended for launch from a launch vehicle owned by the
People's Republic of China;
(C) agree to increase the number of launches of satellites
to geosynchronous orbit by the People's Republic of China
above the number contained in Article II(B)(ii) of the 1995
Memorandum of Agreement Between the Government of the United
States of America and the Government of the People's Republic
of China Regarding International Trade in Commercial Launch
Services;
(D) support any cooperative project with the People's
Republic of China to design or manufacture satellites;
(E) enter into any new scientific, technical, or other
agreements, or amend any existing scientific, technical, or
other agreements, with the People's Republic of China
involving space or missile-related technology;
(F) agree to any arms control initiative that cannot be
effectively verified, including any initiative relating to
detargeting of strategic offensive missiles; or
(G) support any increase in the number or frequency of
military-to-military contacts between the United States and
the People's Republic of China;
(3) the decision of the executive branch in 1998 to issue a
waiver allowing the export of satellite technology to the
People's Republic of China was not in the national interest
of the United States, given the ongoing criminal
investigation by the Justice Department of the transfer in
1996 of satellite technology to that country;
(4) the executive branch should ensure that United States
law regarding the export of satellites to the Peoples
Republic of China is enforced and that the criminal
investigation described in paragraph (3) proceeds with all
due dispatch; and
(5) the President should indefinitely suspend the export of
satellites of United States origin to the People's Republic
of China, including those satellites licensed in February
1998 as part of the Chinasat-8 program.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 441, the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence).
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
(Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise along with the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Gilman) to offer this amendment expressing the sense of
Congress on the transfer of United States satellite missile technology
to China.
As the events surrounding the Clinton administration's decision to
transfer sensitive military-related technology to China continue to
unfold, it is becoming increasingly clear that United States national
security continues to take a back seat to trade with China. Our
amendment would place the Congress clearly on record in opposition to
any agreements that the President might negotiate at next month's
summit in China that would make it easier for China to acquire our
technology that can be used to improve its military capability, in
particular its ballistic missile capability.
As has been reported in the press, the administration is reportedly
considering issuing a blanket waiver of the so-called Tiananmen Square
sanctions against China, approving the export of more United States
satellites to China, and even allowing joint satellite production.
This amendment would also express the sense of Congress that the
President's decision to allow the export of satellite technology to
China earlier this year, despite the reported DOD assessment that
``United States national security has been harmed'' by a previous
satellite transfer of technology, was not in the national interest.
The administration has reportedly developed plans in recent weeks to
increase the level of space cooperation with China and to encourage the
sharing of missile and space technology. In a memorandum reportedly
prepared by the National Security Council and printed in full in the
Washington Times, and I would like to submit that for the Record, it
was suggested that additional space- and missile-related technology
might be transferred to China as an incentive for China to join the
Missile Technology Control Regime.
As a member of that regime, China would be eligible to acquire
missile technology it cannot currently attain legally. However, while
China has already said it would abide by the regime's restrictions,
those pledges have repeatedly proven to be hollow. China's record of
missile proliferation should give Members little comfort about
Beijing's willingness to abide by its international nonproliferation
obligation.
In simple terms, Congress must speak loudly and clearly today to
ensure that the United States does not take any action that helps China
to improve its military capability, especially its ballistic missile
capabilities.
Mr. Chairman, China is clearly working overtime to improve its
military might, and it views ballistic missiles as a quick and
effective way to do so. The United States should refuse to be an
accomplice to that effort, yet under the guise of constructive
engagement and increasingly open trade, we are doing just that.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Spence-Gilman
amendment and to send a clear message to the President before he
travels to China next month that the Congress strongly opposes any
policy that places business interests over the national security
interest.

[[Page H3561]]

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a coauthor of the amendment
offered by my good friend, the gentleman from South Carolina, the
distinguished Chairman of the Committee on National Security, Mr.
Spence.
I hope that this amendment would be unanimously adopted by the House.
It simply sets forth the sense of the Congress on an issue of vital
importance to America's national security--the transfer of missile
technology to China.
To that end, this amendment calls on the President to indefinitely
suspend the export of U.S. satellites to China, including those
satellites licensed in February of 1998 as part of the CHINA-SAT-8
program.
This amendment also expresses the sense of the Congress that during
the Presidential summit meeting to be held in China next month, the
United States should not support or enter into any agreements with
China which would further expand cooperation with China.
I am particularly concerned about the Administration's stated intent
to support China's membership in the Missile Technology control Regime.
China continues to provide missile technology and components to both
Pakistan and Iran. Since 1991 the United States has sanctioned China
twice for violations of U.S. missile proliferation laws.
I do not comprehend the logic, given China's record, of offering them
MTCR membership. Perhaps it is for the reasons explicitly stated in a
National Security Council memorandum. Regrettably these are precisely
the wrong reasons.
That memorandum, which is dated March 12, 1998, states that the U.S.
should support Chinese membership because [quote] this would provide
China with political prestige, the ability to shape future MTCR
decisions, substantial protection from future U.S. missile sanctions
and would expedite somewhat the consideration of U.S. exports to China.
[unquote]
I am concerned that in the mad rush to obtain better relations with
the Chinese, we will enter into another deal with china to be delivered
at the June summit, in which we throw our non-proliferation principles
out the window.
In order to cut the nuclear deal at last year's summit, we sacrificed
full scope safeguards. What will we sacrifice for a missile deal?
We all know this Administration was too eager to offer the Russian
membership in the MTCR. The Russians have flouted every precept of the
MTCR by transferring missile components and technology to Iran.
Moreover, let me point out that this amendment calls upon the
Administration to ensure that U.S. laws regarding the export of
satellites to China are enforced and that the criminal investigation of
U.S. companies proceed with all due dispatch. This is a critical
consideration which we must not overlook.
Accordingly, I urge all Members to fully support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in strong support of this amendment that is offered by
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Gilman).
The total umbrella of American issues with the Chinese, and there are
lots of issues, most of them commercial issues, a lot of them
technology transfer issues, is largely governed by the administration's
policies that are brought about in these discussions with Chinese
leaders.
There is going to be an upcoming presidential summit. That has been
pointed out. A lot of the things that we are concerned about, like
Chinese membership in the Missile Technology Control Regime, the waiver
the gentleman from South Carolina mentioned of the Tiananmen Square
sanctions, increases in space launches, a number of those critical
issues are going to be discussed. I think it is very important for this
House to lay down its marker right now and let the administration know
that we are very concerned on a national security basis of what he is
doing in this next meeting with Chinese leaders.
I think this is an absolutely appropriate amendment. I hope everybody
would vote ``yes''.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 441, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spence) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in part A of
House Report 105-544.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order by the
rule.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Part A amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Bereuter:
At the end of title XII (page 253, after line 3), insert
the following new section:

SEC. 1206. INVESTIGATIONS OF SATELLITE LAUNCH FAILURES

(a) Participation in Investigations.--In the event of the
failure of a launch from the People's Republic of China of a
satellite of United States origin, no United States person
may participate in any subsequent investigation of the
failure.
(b) Definition.--As used in this section, the term ``United
States person'' has the meaning given that term in section 16
of the Export Administration Act of 1979, and includes any
officer or employee of the Federal Government or of any other
government.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 441, the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit United
States participation in any post-launch failure investigations
involving the launch of a U.S. satellite from the People's Republic of
China.
On February 15, 1996, a Chinese rocket carrying a satellite built by
the Loral Corporation crashed on liftoff from a launch facility in
southern China. In the aftermath of that launch failure, the PRC
established a review commission to investigate the failure and
determine what went wrong. American technical experts from Loral and
Hughes electronics participated in this investigation. On May 10th of
that year, this commission completed a preliminary report finding that
the cause of the accident was an electrical failure in the electronic
flight control system. The report discussed very sensitive aspects of
the rocket's guidance system and flight control system. Copies of this
unredacted report, including much highly sensitive material, was
promptly shared with the Chinese prior to its presentation to U.S.
officials!
In the aftermath, the U.S. Air Force and the National Air
Intelligence Center completed a damage assessment of the incident, and
found that U.S. national security had been harmed. My colleagues will
understand that providing technical information designed to address
problems in Chinese rocket guidance and flight control systems also
addressed the same problems in Chinese Intercontinental Ballistic
Missiles (ICBMs). There is a real question as to whether Chinese ICBMs
are more accurate and reliable because of the advise of American
citizens, and ICBMs pose a very real risk to the United States.
Regrettably, and amazingly, Mr. Speaker, some of those Americans who
participated in the Chinese rocket failure investigation argued that
they were under no obligation to return the copies of this highly
sensitive report.
Now, the background on this amendment is that it seeks to prevent the
transfer of sensitive military-related information to China. In 1996,
two companies, Loral and Hughes, participated in a launch failure
investigation involving the failed launch from China of a U.S.
satellite on a Chinese launch vehicle.
As a result of that investigation, information was passed to China
that quite apparently could be used to improve the guidance accuracy
and warhead delivery capability of China's missiles. The information
was reportedly transferred illegally, without a license from the State
Department, that is, and the incident is now the subject of a Justice
Department criminal investigation.
Even asking questions, Mr. Chairman, of the Chinese during
investigations can transmit technical information and assist China in
improving its launch capabilities. Anybody that understands even a
little bit about gaining intelligence knows this is a process for
gaining intelligence, even though it

[[Page H3562]]

would be the intention, perhaps, and certainly would be the intention,
I would imagine, of these firms not to transfer classified and
sensitive information.
Now, this amendment would make it clear that the Congress is opposed
to assisting China in the development of its space launch and missile
capabilities. Why? Because Chinese missiles are targeted at U.S. cities
and, obviously, we do not want to make them more accurate and
jeopardize American lives.
I can tell my colleagues that as unfortunate as the Indian nuclear
explosions are, that is a related incident, because if Chinese missiles
are more accurate, it creates instability not only in Asia but
certainly in South Asian countries like India. This amendment would
help prevent the transfer of militarily sensitive U.S. technology to
China that could be used to improve that missile capability.
The amendment would relieve American industry from the burden of
determining what information can and cannot be transmitted to China by
preventing U.S. participation in launch failure investigations.
The amendment would also discourage U.S. satellite companies from
seeking to launch satellites on Chinese launch vehicles. That is not
the primary intent, but that is likely to be the result. If those
launch vehicles are likely to be a failure or prone to failure, that
would encourage alternative, more commercially viable launch options,
including commercial American launch services.
The amendment, therefore, Mr. Chairman, would send what should be a
very obvious and certainly important signal prior to President
Clinton's upcoming summit trip to China that the United States should
not agree to measures that would help China improve its space launch or
missile launch capabilities. The guidance systems on these missiles are
all-important in determining how vulnerable our population really is,
and so it is in our best interest not to have this technology flowing
to China or, for that matter, to any other country.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri, the
distinguished ranking Democrat member of the Armed Services Committee,
now called the Committee on National Security.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Nebraska for
yielding to me.
I take this opportunity, however, to point out that in our research
the amendment, in part, simply repeats well-established legal
requirements, and we are going to hammer that nail in, I guess, twice
today.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Buyer), and I apologize it is not more.
Mr. BUYER. Thirty seconds?
Well, in 30 seconds, let me just say, let us do the right thing.
I am a Member that is very disturbed about the transfers of
technology. Just pause for a moment in this body. We serve a greater
cause than corporations. Corporations serve the bottom line, called
profit, and their responsibility is to their stockholders. Our
responsibility is, in fact, to the taxpayers and the citizens of this
country under the umbrella of national security.
So for the White House to sell out for other reasons, to corporations
for profit, by pressure, we serve a greater cause here and there better
be a deep appreciation of this.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter)
has expired.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to
claim the opposition's time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Indiana?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) may control the
time otherwise reserved for the opposition.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
What was very concerning to me was to learn that in 1996 Loral and
Hughes had exported commercial satellites to China to launch the
Chinese missile and then, in fact, it had exploded.
A Loral subsidiary provided technicians and a report on improving the
reliability of the Long March Rocket without first consulting U.S.
officials.
And then to learn that the Chinese military officer, in fact, had
funneled $100,000 to the Clinton campaign, allegedly through Johnny
Chung.
We also have Mr. Schwartz, the chairman of Loral Space
Communications, who was the leading soft money donor for the Democrat
Party in 1996 in the amount of $366,000. Subsequently, there was a
Justice Department investigation.
And then in February of 1998 the Justice Department criminal inquiry
was dealt a very serious blow when President Clinton quietly approved
the export to China of similar guidance technology by Loral. Basically,
what that did was then defunct the Justice Department investigation.

{time} 1345

There are so many allegations that are happening in this town with
regard to the administration and what is going on, I cannot even keep
up with them. But what I can say when it comes to matters of national
security, the proliferation issues, the transfers of technology, to
think that the United States would transfer these technologies by
redefining what a satellite is, is no longer under the munitions
definition, somehow being slick in getting around definitions, believe
me, other countries out there react to it.
So people in America, when they were surprised to learn about India's
detonation and learning about their nuclear capacities, should not be
surprised, because if the administration is doing such things like
this, it will cause reactions.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I
appreciate everything he has said, and I think it goes right to the
heart of the Bereuter amendment, which prohibits the U.S. participation
in what we call these post-launch failure investigations or debriefings
involving the launch of a satellite from China.
The problem is that the Long March rockets, which are used in their
strategic systems that are nuclear tipped, some of which are aimed at
U.S. cities, are the same rockets that we launch these satellite
payloads on. And the way that Loral and Hughes got into trouble here
was after a launch went down and they lost a $200 million package, they
realized it was in their economic self-interest to show the Chinese how
the missile worked. Once again, it was like the guy laying under the
guillotine saying, ``I think I see your problem,'' when the guillotine
sticks.
So by banning these post-launching debriefings after a failure, which
is exactly what the very wise gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter)
does here, we take away the temptation from American companies to not
only show them how they messed up on this particular launch, but to
give them a little more liability for future launches, because they
know the profit margin of their stockholders are in part riding on the
reliability of these Chinese missiles, which also carry nuclear
warheads, which are sometimes aimed at U.S. cities.
So we have got this conflict between commercial interests and
national security interests, and the Bereuter amendment is right on
point.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this is not solely about
rockets that may reach U.S. cities. We also have allies in the Pacific
Rim for which we have responsibilities within that security of the
world. And to think that China, when they had threatened Taiwan and the
more we sophisticate their weaponry to inflict harm upon our own
allies, how can we in fact count on them if we cannot stand with them
in moments like this?
Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman would continue to yield, he is
absolutely right. We are going to be seeing a requirement for greater
and greater American deterrent force to go to places like Taiwan as we
see the strategic missile capability of the Communist Chinese increase.
He is right on point.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.

[[Page H3563]]

The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 441, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter)
will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 3 printed in part A of
House Report 105-544.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Hefley

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Part A amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Hefley:
At the end of title XII (page 253, after line 3), insert
the following new section:

SEC. 1206. PROHIBITION ON EXPORTS OF MISSILE EQUIPMENT AND
TECHNOLOGY TO CHINA.

No missile equipment or technology (as defined in section
74 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2797c)) may be
exported to the People's Republic of China.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 441, the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, may I at this point, since no Member has
risen in opposition, ask unanimous consent to be permitted to control
the time normally allotted to the opposition?
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Missouri?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri may control time otherwise
reserved for opposition.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is actually the Hefley-Ryun amendment, and I would
like to speak just a few minutes on it. Mr. Chairman, it is a very
simple amendment that would address what I think is a fatal flaw in the
Administration's current policy on China. That amendment deals with not
all the other things that have been talked about here today, this deals
strictly and thoroughly with national security.
The amendment would simply prohibit the export or reexport of United
States missile technology or equipment to the People's Republic of
China. One would think common sense tells us that we should not send
any of our defense-related technology or equipment to the only
remaining communist country in the world that maintains a nuclear
capability.
In 1996, the Clinton administration reportedly permitted the two U.S.
firms to transfer technology which would improve the accuracy and
capability of Chinese ballistic missile forces. Some may say trade
involving space launch vehicles and satellite technology used for
commercial purposes should not be impeded. But the commercial and
military technology in this case are virtually identical, and it is a
risk we simply cannot take.
If we launch a rocket which has the capability of launching more than
one satellite, then we have the same technology that we do for multiple
warheads on an intercontinental ballistic missile, same technology.
The Chinese had a problem. Their rockets tended to blow up and they
tended not to get to where they were supposed to go. So we stepped in
and we said, let us help you. Let us fix that. I think if every Member
of this body were to ask their constituents back home if the current
policy makes sense, they would hear a resounding ``no.''
This is a clear vote to make it harder for potential adversaries to
threaten the American people, and I urge all Members to support this
amendment.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would appreciate if the gentleman would tell me what this does that
is not already applicable under the existing law.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, what this does is it removes the waiver
system under which what happened did happen so no missile-related
technology could be transferred to the Chinese.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The main point that I want to make really has less to do with this
amendment than my concern about the bill in general. As Members of
Congress, all of us want to do all kinds of things. One can make an
argument that the military today needs $270 billion. But I think, given
the growing gap between the rich and the poor in America, given the
fact that millions of senior citizens in this country are unable to
afford their prescription drugs, given the fact that there is an
enormous crisis in child care in this country, given the fact that
there has been a growth in recent years of people using emergency food
shelters, people sleeping out on the streets, I think the time is now
to get our priorities right.
I believe that this country needs a strong military, but I think that
there are other needs out there that are not being adequately addressed
as we put $270-some-odd billion into the military, more than is needed
by the intelligence agencies. And we should also recognize that not
only are we putting substantial sums of money into our military, we are
also part of NATO, which is a major military alliance as well.
The bottom line for me is to say that now that the Cold War is over,
is it appropriate to continue spending so much money on the military
when there are so many other needs in this country? Is it appropriate
to continue to build weapons systems that we do not need when this
country continues to have by far the highest rate of childhood poverty
in the industrialized world? Is it appropriate that we are spending
money on the military with the end of the Cold War when our educational
system is lacking in so many respects, when the weakest and most
vulnerable people in this country are hurting and not getting the
governmental support that they need?
So I want to just thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for
yielding me this brief time to suggest that I will be voting against
the entire bill. Because I think it does not, now that the Cold War is
over, indicate a rationale and sensible set of priorities for this
country.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pappas).
(Mr. PAPPAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of these
amendments.
Mr. Chairman, I serve on the National Security Committee. I see where
we are trying to keep many fires burning in all corners of the world.
America is sending troops to Bosnia, sending carriers to places like
the Persian Gulf, trying to prepare a missile defense system, modernize
equipment, invent future technologies while cutting troops, stopping
research, and extending the life of old systems.
Now we have to add a new need to the mix. And it is an urgent need.
Communist China. Missiles aimed at America. How do we as a Congress
respond?
Well, I think what we must do is to protect America first. Congress
must provide for the national defense of our country. Business
interests, as much as I support them in many areas, must be second to
the protection of U.S. national security interests. We must stop the
flow of sensitive technology that makes the Chinese Army and Navy
stronger.
I am concerned about the politics involved but that can not be used
by any party to distract from defending our country or as an excuse to
point fingers and not do anything. This is our chance to plug these
loopholes now! Partisanship can wait for another day.
We have seen the results of failure to stop the spread of this
missile technology. India has recently tested nuclear devices. One of
the reported main reasons for this test has been India's fear of
China's ability to use nuclear technology against them. Rightly or
wrongly, India perceives the advances in Chinese technology, with U.S.
help as a threat. Now the world is facing a possible renewed nuclear
arms race. Perhaps this could have been avoided if our country had the
foresight to stop this.
As such, I would urge this Congress to support the four amendments
dealing with Chinese technology today. We must empower

[[Page H3564]]

this Congress and our Defense Department to make national security
decisions, not business people solely concerned with the bottom line.
I also would draw this Congress' attention to an amendment that was
offered by Mr. Saxton that was not ruled in order that would close the
loophole to China known as Hong Kong. Last time I checked, Hong Kong
was now under Communist Chinese Control and the previous government has
been replaced by PLA representation. However, we can send sensitive
military technology to Hong Kong but not China. Although this amendment
was not ruled in order, I hope this Congress will continue to pay
attention to this loophole that will probably be the conduit to more
threats against U.S. interests.
I would ask that this Congress support these four amendments. Each
should send a bipartisan measure that this Congress does not want to
arm potential adversaries with weapon systems for nuclear capabilities.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun), the cosponsor of this amendment.
(Mr. RYUN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RYUN. Mr. Chairman, one thing that has been truly a pleasure in
serving our national security is that when we come to an issue such as
this that is really a national security issue for this country, I have
seen this committee come together in such a way that they worked on
policy and not on politics. So I hope today that it will be unanimous
and strong support for this amendment, the Hefley-Ryun amendment,
because I do believe there is a threat with communist nuclear missiles.
In 1996, after the failed launch of the Chinese Long March missile,
engineers from the United States aerospace firms went to China to lend
their expertise to Great Wall Industries, the manufacturer of these
particular missiles.
A 1997 classified Department of Defense report concluded that at
least one U.S. company gave sensitive missile guidance technology to
the Chinese. The DOD report then concluded that that transfer damaged
our national security. So that is why this is beyond politics and it is
really into policy.
Next month, President Clinton will visit Beijing. He is expected to
announce a new space cooperation agreement and possibly discuss lifting
sanctions on the transfer of further military technology. As long as
China remains a communist country and transfers technology to regimes
such as Iran and Pakistan are possible through China, the United States
should not share its commercial space technology that could be used
against us for military purposes.
China has 13 long-range missiles aimed at the United States. The CIA
just confirmed this a couple weeks ago. It also considers the United
States its number one security threat. No agreement increasing
technology transfers to Communist China should be pursued. It is
irresponsible to advance the military capabilities of a communist
country, even more so as the U.S. lacks missile defense programs that
are necessary to combat these.
It is unfortunate that we need to offer this amendment today. The
issue is clear. The United States should not provide missile technology
to communist countries. And it is my hope that colleagues on the
opposite side of the aisle will join us in supporting the Hefley-Ryun
amendment.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) has 30 seconds
remaining. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

{time} 1400

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding to me. I just
wanted to do a reminder to my colleagues.
If you recall, it was several years ago we had a debate in the
Committee on National Security, and that was who should make these
decisions on the transfers of these type of technologies. At the time,
the administration wanted the Committee on Commerce to do that and to
take the Pentagon out of that question. We made the decision in a very
bipartisan manner in the Committee on National Security, that we felt
matters such as this are so important to our Nation that the Pentagon
needs to be in the loop.
When we force the Pentagon into the loop and when the Pentagon raises
objections, they then get squashed, that is not a good thing.
I support the Hefley amendment to remove the waiver authority by the
President.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to strongly endorse the Hefley
amendment. This chart shows all of the aspects of missile technology
that are manifest in a commercial satellite program. They include
payload disbursal technology, kick motor technology, radiation hardened
electronics, encryption devices, launcher attitude control.
So there are a lot of aspects of technology beyond the mere
delivering of a package that can assist the Chinese rocket program. So
the amendment of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) is right on
target; I would recommend its approval.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 441, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley)
will be postponed.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed
in part A of House Report 104-544.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Hunter

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Part A, amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Hunter:
At the end of title XII (page 253, after line 3), insert
the following new section:

SEC. 1206. PROHIBITION ON EXPORTS AND REEXPORTS OF SATELLITES
TO CHINA.

(a) In General.--No satellites of United States origin
(including commercial satellites and satellite components)
may be exported or reexported to the People's Republic of
China.
(b) Prohibition With Respect to Information, Equipment, and
Technology.--No information, equipment, or technology that
could be used in the acquisition, design, development
(including codevelopment), or production (including
coproduction) of any satellite or launch vehicle may be
exported or reexported to the People's Republic of China.
(c) Applicability.--Subsections (a) and (b) apply to any
satellite, information, equipment, or technology that as of
the date of the enactment of this Act has not been exported
or reexported to the People's Republic of China, whether or
not an export license for such export or reexport has been
approved as of such date.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 441, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, since no Member has risen in opposition, I
ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to control the time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Missouri?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr.
Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we have spoken about this amendment for some time now
during this debate. I think most of the folks that are listening to the
debate understand the problem. The problem is that there is an
inextricable link between the satellite technology that we have been
transferring to China pursuant to our satellite launch partnership with
them and their nuclear missile capability.
While we are trying to sort this problem out, Mr. Chairman, it makes
sense for us to stop the train, to put on the brakes and say we are not
going to make any transfers, no export or reexport of U.S. satellites,
including commercial satellites and satellite components, to the
People's Republic of

[[Page H3565]]

China. That is what this amendment does.
Mr. Chairman, in this crash we saw another problem that we had not
thought about, and that is that we have these packages which, in
theory, are protected against Chinese scientists and engineers being
able to examine the contents even while they are in China. I listened
to the President of Hughes Electronics tell me very passionately how
these packages are guarded and nobody is allowed to come close to them,
so the engineers in this Communist country will have no ideas what is
inside the packages.
The problem is, if you have an aborted launch like the one that we
had or a disastrous launch where the Chinese missile with the satellite
package atop it goes down in China, and the damage is then recovered
and analyzed by the People's Liberation Army of China, they then have
access to all of the contents of that satellite package.
Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, without having the most recent
briefings, which the administration I think has been somewhat reluctant
to give, on exactly what transpired after the crash, I am concerned and
I am worried that some things were recovered by the People's Liberation
Army that should not have been recovered.
So this amendment bans the export and reexport of U.S. satellites,
including commercial satellites and satellite components into the
People's Republic of China. I think it is a timely amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out that we are hammering the nail in
that is already been flush to the board. Nevertheless, let me point
this out: No controlled information relevant to ballistic missiles or
warhead delivery technology has been authorized to be made available to
Chinese authorities in connection with past space launches of
commercial satellites.
The existing procedures, including the technical safeguards agreement
negotiated under the Bush administration, that is the previous
Republican administration, signed in February 1993, explicitly prohibit
transfer of technology related to launch vehicles. Warhead delivery
technology was also prohibited.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the author of the amendment.
Earlier I rose and discussed that this question came up several years
ago in the Committee on National Security with regard to the
jurisdiction question on commodity.
As I understand, on commodity jurisdiction, the transfer from the
State Department with regard to satellites that used to be classified
under the munitions has now been transferred to the Commerce
Department, who would look at the satellite and say this is really
dual-use technology. Am I understanding that correctly?
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield to me, that is
right. Oversight or the primary review of the satellite transfers has
now been taken away from the Department of Defense, who look at it from
a national security standpoint, and given to the Department of
Commerce, which arguably does not have the experts to understand
exactly what is being transferred, and does not have probably the
political will that the Department of Defense has to keep critical
militarily strategic components from going to the hands of our
potential adversaries. The Defense Department is tougher on these
transfers.
Mr. BUYER. But the sensitivity about the duality of the purposes,
saying that this is a rocket system that could only launch a satellite,
in essence is the same rocket system that it would take to send a
nuclear warhead anywhere in the world.
Mr. HUNTER. The gentleman is exactly right. In fact, it is exactly
the same missile. The Chinese use the same missile both for the
satellite launch and for the nuclear weapons launch. That is why it is
so critical to really examine these packages.
Mr. BUYER. So earlier when the House adopted an amendment that said
no to the President on waivers of munitions, this amendment is saying
no to the waivers on the commodities?
Mr. HUNTER. That is right. This thing bans the export and reexport.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) has 1 minute
remaining.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me just make this clear. This bans the export and
reexport of U.S. satellites, including commercial satellites and
satellite components, to the People's Republic of China. I think it is
necessary at this time.
My friend the gentleman from Missouri pointed out that we have waived
or we have allowed these transfers in the past under the Bush
administration. That is true. I led off my debate by saying this has
gone back a long way.
I think, in light of the activities that have taken place in recent
years, 1996 through 1998, I personally have a problem in trusting the
folks that are making the decision to go or no go on satellite
transfer, to allow them to have the discretion at this time.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is a prudent thing for the House to put on
the brakes at this point and to hold up all transfers until we sort out
how much damage has been done, and damage has been done, according to
the Department of Defense.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 441, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter)
will be postponed.

Sequential Votes Postponed In The Committee Of The Whole

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 441, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed
in the following order: Amendment No. A-1 offered by the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spence); amendment No. A-2 offered by the gentleman
from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter); amendment No. A-3 offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley); and amendment No. A-4 offered by
the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. A-1 offered by Mr. Spence

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spence) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 417,
noes 4, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 167]

AYES--417

[[Page H3566]]

Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--4

Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
McDermott
Wexler

NOT VOTING--11

Bateman
Cannon
Carson
Clay
Ewing
Gonzalez
Harman
Meeks (NY)
Mollohan
Stabenow
Stark

{time} 1429

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida and Mr. McDERMOTT changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment A-2 offered by Mr. Bereuter

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 414,
noes 7, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 168]

AYES--414

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner

[[Page H3567]]

Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--7

Campbell
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
McDermott
Watt (NC)
Wexler
Yates

NOT VOTING--11

Bateman
Carson
Clay
Cox
Diaz-Balart
Ewing
Gonzalez
Harman
Meeks (NY)
Norwood
Stabenow

{time} 1439

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

personal explanation

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 168, I was
inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Amendment A-3 Offered By Mr. Hefley

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 412,
noes 6, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 169]

AYES--412

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--6

Campbell
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
McDermott
Moran (VA)
Wexler

NOT VOTING--14

Bateman
Brady
Carson
Clay
Cox
Ewing
Fawell
Gonzalez
Harman
Hill
McIntosh
Meeks (NY)
Stabenow
Weldon (FL)

{time} 1448

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

personal explanation

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 169, I was
inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Amendment A-4 Offered by Mr. Hunter

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a five-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 364,
noes 54, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 170]

AYES--364

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Fawell
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez

[[Page H3568]]

Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Spence
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--54

Ackerman
Allen
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Berry
Brown (CA)
Campbell
Clayton
Conyers
Crane
Dicks
Dixon
Dooley
Dreier
Ehlers
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Furse
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Houghton
Johnson (CT)
Kilpatrick
Kolbe
LaFalce
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Manzullo
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
Moran (VA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pickett
Reyes
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sawyer
Serrano
Skaggs
Smith, Adam
Tauscher
Thomas
Waters
Watt (NC)
Wexler
Yates

NOT VOTING--14

Bass
Bateman
Carson
Clay
Cox
Ewing
Gonzalez
Harman
Kasich
Meeks (NY)
Owens
Souder
Spratt
Stabenow

{time} 1457

Mr. DOOLEY of California changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed
in Part B of House Report 105-544.

Amendment No. 1 offered by Mrs. Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows.

Part B amendment No. 1 offered by Mrs. Lowey:
At the end of subtitle A of title VII (page 189, after line
5) insert the following new section:

SEC. 705. RESTORATION OF POLICY AFFORDING ACCESS TO CERTAIN
HEALTH CARE PROCEDURES FOR FEMALE MEMBERS OF
THE ARMED FORCES AND DEPENDENTS AT DEPARTMENT
OF DEFENSE FACILITIES OVERSEAS.

Section 1093 of title 10 United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking out ``(a) Restriction on
Use of Funds.--''; and
(2) by striking out subsection (b).

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 441, the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Lowey) and a Member opposed each will control 20
minutes.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and
claim the time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) will be
recognized for 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

{time} 1500

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and I are pleased to
offer an amendment today on behalf of the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Harman), who unfortunately cannot be here. The Lowey-Harman-
Morella amendment would give military women access to the health care
they need and deserve.
Our amendment will repeal a provision of law which prevents
servicewomen and female dependents of servicemen from using their own
funds to obtain legal abortion services in military hospitals. Women
who volunteer to serve in the Armed Forces already give up many
freedoms and risk their lives in defending our country. They should not
also have to sacrifice their health, their safety and their basic
constitutional rights to a policy with no valid military purpose.
I want to make sure that every Member of Congress knows that the
Department of Defense itself is opposed to the current policy. Our
amendment is first and foremost about protecting women's health. Local
facilities and foreign nations are often not equipped to perform
abortions safely and medical safety and medical standards are often far
lower than those in the United States.
A woman forced to seek an abortion at local facilities or forced to
wait to travel to acquire safe abortion services faces tremendous
health risks. Do we really want American servicewomen overseas seeking
back-alley abortions on their own in a foreign country?
This amendment does not allow taxpayer-funded abortions at military
hospitals, nor does it compel any doctor who opposes abortion to
perform an abortion. The amendment merely reinstates the policy that
was in effect from 1973 to 1988, and again from 1993 to 1996, giving
women in the military who are stationed overseas the same rights as
military women in their own country: the right to purchase a safe and
legal abortion with their own private money.
Servicewomen and military dependents stationed abroad do not expect
special treatment, only the right to receive the same services
guaranteed to American women under Roe v. Wade. This bill penalizes
women who have volunteered to serve their country by prohibiting them
from exercising their constitutionally protected right to choose.
I urge my colleagues, consider the irony of the United States
military, the greatest and most powerful in the world, denying overseas
servicewomen and servicemen and their families the rights and freedoms
we are so justifiably proud of at home.
I urge support for the Lowey-Harman-Morella amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, over the past three decades, the availability of
abortion services at military medical facilities has been the subject
of numerous changes and interpretations over the years. In January of
1993, President Clinton signed an executive order directing the
Department of Defense to permit privately funded abortions be performed
in military treatment facilities.
The changes ordered by the President, however, did not have the
effect of greatly increasing access to abortion services. Few abortions
were performed at military treatment facilities overseas for two
principle reasons:
First, the United States military follows the prevailing laws and
rules of foreign countries regarding abortions and, secondly, the
military had a difficult time finding health care professionals in
uniform willing to perform the abortions.
The current law is consistent with the Hyde language. It allows
military women and dependents to receive abortions in military
treatment facilities in cases of rape, incest or when necessary to save
the life of the mother.

[[Page H3569]]

This is the same policy that has been in effect from June 1988, until
President Clinton signed the executive order. The House has voted
several times to ban abortions at overseas military hospitals. Last
year this amendment was offered and defeated at full committee markup
and during floor consideration.
In 1996, between the defense authorization bill and the defense
appropriations bill, this House voted 8 times in favor of the ban on
abortions at military treatment facilities. In those overseas areas,
where female beneficiaries do not have access to safe, legal abortions,
beneficiaries have the option of using space-available travel for
returning to the United States or traveling to another overseas
location for the purpose of obtaining an abortion.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman
for yielding me the time.
This amendment does not fund abortions with tax dollars. Let us get
that very clear. Tax dollars under current law may not pay for
abortions. Tax dollars under this amendment will not pay for abortions.
This amendment merely assures that soldiers, sailors, Marines do not
become second class citizens when they don the uniform of our great
Nation to defend freedom.
This amendment merely assures that our servicemen and servicewomen
and their spouses do not have less freedom than the people they defend.
All this amendment guarantees is that a servicewoman or a serviceman's
wife has the same right any other American woman has to terminate a
pregnancy in, for example, the first trimester, in a safe, clean health
care facility. Any serviceman's wife or servicewoman who would want to
would have to pay for the procedure themselves. This does not provide
tax dollars for the procedure. In fact, this amendment only does three
things:
It provides equal rights to our military servicemen and servicewomen
to legal medical care. It provides equal protection against care in
substandard hospitals by substandard physicians. And thirdly, it
provides equal protection under the law. Remember, the way the current
policy is written, if you are a colonel, a major, and you are well
paid, yes, you can fly back to the States to have care. If you are an
enlisted man, frankly, you cannot. So this prevents discrimination on
an economic basis and merely guarantees to servicemen's wives and to
servicewomen exactly the same rights to access to medical care that all
other Americans enjoy.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond and say
that space-available travel is at no cost to the service member so
there is no discrimination between rank of officers and enlisted.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Remember, space available, I have a lot
of family in the military, is hard to get, and there is timeliness
involved in this issue.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there is no difference
in treatment between the officer corps and the NCO corps, the enlisted
corps on this measure.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time.
I rise again in opposition to this amendment. We have debated this
amendment now every year since I was first elected to the Congress.
Prior to coming to the Congress, I was a practicing physician in
Florida and, prior to going into private practice, I spent 6 years in
the U.S. Army Medical Corps. Indeed, I was in the medical corps when
this policy was first established under the Reagan administration. I
can tell my colleagues that the policy was well received by the people
within the medical corps, the men and women.
The reason it was so well received is the same reason that it is very
controversial here. There are lots of Members who feel that killing the
unborn child in the womb is morally wrong and that we should not be
doing that. To use a military treatment facility and to ask our men and
women in uniform, many of whom have very, very strong objections to
this procedure, they do not consider it a medical procedure, they
consider it killing, is just wrong.
I can tell my colleagues that when I was on active duty, when this
ban went into effect, it was very, very well received by the nurses, by
the physicians. They did not like doing it, and today, still, they do
not like doing it. I would encourage all of my colleagues to vote no on
this amendment. Those who would claim that no taxpayer dollars are
being used, I disagree with that. They are using the facility. They are
using the materials. They are using the infrastructure, the electricity
that is there. I say, do not use in any way tax dollars for this kind
of purpose.
The reason people do not like this is the same reason they could not
find any doctors to do it in the first place, and that is because it is
ending a human life. People will try to dehumanize this whole procedure
and call it something else, but in reality it is taking a living human
being in the womb and abruptly ending its life. I think it is wrong,
and I urge all my colleagues to vote no on this.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds just to remark to
the gentleman that the military does have a conscience clause. No
doctor has to perform this procedure if it is against their own views.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms.
DeGette).
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lowey-
Harman-Morella amendment.
This amendment is simply about restoring the basic rights that have
been denied to women simply because they serve in the military. Every
woman in America has a constitutional right to reproductive choice. Yet
the anti-choice movement in Congress has been relentless to overturn
this constitutional right.
Poor women, women who live in the Nation's capital, women in the
military are just the first victims of a deliberate attempt to outlaw
access to comprehensive reproductive services to all American women.
This amendment ensures that women in the military can exercise the same
rights that all women of America were guaranteed 25 years ago.
The amendment does not require the Department of Defense to pay for
abortions. It simply allows military women to seek and pay for a full
range of health care services. If that includes electricity, I am sure
they can pay for the electricity as well.
If this amendment fails, Congress will jeopardize the health of all
women who serve in the military overseas. I urge my colleagues to think
about the message they are sending and to vote aye on this amendment.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, for many years before it was
law, no abortions were done in our military hospitals. The reason was
that military doctors will not do abortions. The present policy and its
law is that if the life of the mother is at risk, those abortions are
permitted. As a matter of fact, they are fully funded. In cases of rape
and incest, the abortion is permitted.
When American people are polled, fully 80 percent of them oppose
abortion for birth control. If you exclude life of the mother, rape and
incest, essentially all that remains is abortion for birth control. A
lot has been said about the health of the mother. Killing babies when
the mother's life is not at risk is not a woman's health issue.
Let me close by saying that you do not have a right to do what is
wrong, and killing the preborn baby is wrong.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from
New York for yielding me the time.
I would simply say that, here we go again, on an argument that argues
against the law of the land. Our military personnel deserve to be under
the

[[Page H3570]]

law of the land. So all we are simply asking is that the laws of this
land regarding choice and the right to an abortion be applied to the
women in the United States military. Prohibiting women from using their
own funds to obtain abortion services at overseas military facilities
actually endangers the woman's health. Women stationed overseas depend
on their base hospitals for medical care and are often situated in
areas where local facilities are inadequate or unavailable. This policy
may cause a woman facing a crisis pregnancy to seek out an illegal and
potentially unsafe abortion.
The issue of as space available, I think it is very well known that
even in circumstances of a death at home it becomes very difficult for
our servicemen and women sometimes to be able to get back home.
Certainly space available is going to argue against a crisis situation
when there is the necessity to protect the life and health of the
mother. We need to comply with the law of the land for all of our U.S.
military women. Let us be fair and treat them as they should be.
I strongly support amendment No. 45 which will restore regulations
permitting abortions for service members and their dependents at
overseas Defense Department Medical facilities.
Without this amendment women who have volunteered to serve their
country will continue to be discriminated against by prohibiting them
from exercising their legally protected right to choose abortion simply
because they are stationed overseas.
While the Department of Defense policy respects the laws of host
nations regarding abortions, service women stationed overseas should be
entitled to the same services as do women stationed in the U.S.
Prohibiting women from using their own funds to obtain abortion
services at overseas military facilities endangers women's health.
Women stationed overseas depend on their base hospitals for medical
care, and are often situated in areas where local facilities are
inadequate or unavailable. This policy may cause a woman facing a
crisis pregnancy to seek out an illegal and potentially unsafe
abortion.
Since 1985, the ban on DOD abortions was made permanent by the DOD
authorization bill. This amendment does not require the Department of
Defense to pay for abortions, it simply repeals the current ban on
privately funded abortions at U.S. military facilities overseas.
Absolutely no Federal funds will be used for abortion services.
In addition, all three branches of the military have a ``conscience
clause'' provision which will permit medical personnel who have moral,
religious or ethical objections to abortion or family planning services
not to participate in the procedure. These provisions will remain
intact as well.
Access to abortion is a crucial right for American women, whether or
not they are stationed abroad. This amendment must be supported as
women who serve our country must be able to exercise their choice
whether or not they are on American soil.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth).
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment. Indeed the law of the land was passed on February 10, 1996.
It was with regard to this issue. It is entitled the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 and was signed into law by
President Clinton.
This act contained a provision to prevent DOD medical treatment
facilities from being used to perform abortions except where the life
of the mother is endangered or in the case of rape or incest. Quite
simply, should this amendment be adopted, not only would taxpayer-
funded facilities be used to support abortion on demand, but resources
would also be used to search for, to hire and to transport new
personnel so that abortions could be performed.

{time} 1515

Mr. Chairman, this is unacceptable and disturbing. Military treatment
centers must remain dedicated to healing and nurturing life. As such,
they should not be forced to facilitate the taking of the most innocent
human life, the child in the womb.
I urge my colleagues to protect the sanctity of life and vote ``no''
on this amendment.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the
Lowey-Harman amendment to the defense authorization bill because it is
fair and it is right.
Women serving our Nation overseas should have access to
constitutionally protected health care procedures. The United States
military should provide for all the health needs of all its members.
Health needs are health needs.
Women who are proudly serving and protecting the security of our
Nation overseas should be able to depend on their base hospitals for
all of their medical services. Therefore, women should have access to
reproductive health care just as they have access to treatment for the
flu.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to make a couple of
observations.
One is that, in fact, the amendment before us is striking language.
So with regard to the last speaker, when he said we only want to
provide constitutionally protected abortion access, then what we do is
we set forth the scenario of having also late-term abortions. Partial-
birth abortions could also then be performed at military treatment
facilities. I do not think that is what we want at military treatment
facilities.
We also have the scenario where it was argued this would not have
anything to do with taxpayer funds. Well, if in fact our problem is we
cannot find a military doctor willing to perform an abortion, then are
we going to have to contract out to have that abortion performed? And
if it is contracted out, who pays for that? So I think we are talking
about some taxpayer funding.
Also, I am paying attention to the language here, and I think
everyone should. I guess what we are calling abortions here on the
House floor, the proponents of this amendment do not want to call it
abortion. They call it women's health and comprehensive reproductive
health services. But let us call it what it is. This is taking the life
of another.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Maryland (Mrs. Morella), my former co-chair of the Congressional Caucus
on Women's Issues.
(Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time.
I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this amendment offered by my
friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and also the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman). As we know, this amendment is
simply going to give our U.S. servicewomen stationed overseas access to
the Department of Defense health facilities by repealing a provision of
law which bars them from using their own funds, and I emphasize that,
to obtain legal abortion services in military hospitals.
Base hospitals are sometimes the only facilities for medical care,
and in countries like Bosnia, usually there is no other resort because
local health facilities are frequently inadequate. They just do not
meet our standards of health. And so, without having the amendment that
we offer, in order to resolve the problem of not having adequate
medical facilities, illegal procedures perhaps might be the result of
it, or unsafe operations.
And abortion is a constitutional right. We ask many sacrifices of our
service people. Let us not compel them to sacrifice basic health
rights, the rights of privacy and the constitutional rights that others
do have.
Also, this amendment is about fairness. Our servicewomen and military
dependents stationed abroad are not asking for any special treatment,
they are only asking for the ability to have the very same rights that
all Americans have under the Constitution.
And, also, there is a matter of looking economically at it. Yes,
there might be those who say, well, members can go home for those
services. Well, maybe those who are highly paid can, but there are a
certain group of officers who have served us so very well, where the
expense would be prohibitive and so, therefore, they are stuck. So
there is an economic inequity in that.
I want to reiterate that we are not asking that every doctor perform
the abortion, even though it is constitutional. We are not asking for
taxpayers to fund it at military hospitals. Any doctor who opposes it
on principle or a

[[Page H3571]]

matter of conscience would not have to perform the abortion, even if it
is legal.
And this does not mean that we have the expense of having to pay for
it at another facility. The amendment merely reinstates the policy that
was in effect from 1973 until 1988 and then it was again in effect from
1993 to 1996.
Let me finally just point out the strong support from health care
providers, those groups that know and do work with health care
organizations like the American Nurses Association, the American Public
Health Association, the American Medical Women's Association, the
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Planned Parenthood
Federation of America. Those among many others have expressed their
strong support for this amendment.
It is also supported by the Department of Defense, I would like to
emphasize. So I hope that Members would join us in supporting this
amendment.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the committee.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I spent 20 years in the military and
not once, not one time did I ever see a woman's right to choose denied.
If there was a need for that individual to come back and do it and get
the procedure, they were allowed. Whether we are for or against
abortion, it should not be in this body, and that includes funding for
it.
But in the military, if a woman is overseas and they are in a unit,
they are in a combat backup unit, they do not want somebody there that
has gone through an abortion. They want them out of the country. They
want them out of that unit until they can recover and then come back.
I have heard that it denies the basic rights. It does not. The
statute says that they have the right, especially in the case of rape,
incest or life of the mother. And any other case, the military will
bring them back.
Those folks that are for this very amendment are the same folks that
are cutting defense and cutting defense and cutting defense. In the
case of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), her biggest
contributor is Loral, the one that sold the technology to the Chinese.
If my colleagues want to worry about men and women in the military,
then take care of the military and quit bringing these kinds of
amendments up.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for
yielding me this time and congratulate her on this important amendment.
I rise in strong support of the Lowey-Harman amendment.
Do we hear what we are saying in this debate to the women of our
armed services? Make the choice to serve your country in the armed
services of the United States and lose your choice over your own body.
Join the armed services, sisters, and lose your constitutional rights.
All the red herrings in the world will not make this palatable to
young women in this country today. The notion about whether their own
money or taxpayers' money is involved, for example. Women would agree
to paying the full cost, including the electricity, for the Member who
was concerned there. Include the full cost of the abortion. The
gentleman wants to know about contracting out. The last time I heard,
we contract out for the full cost of the service.
Show some respect for women serving their country. Imagine the
position we put them in in Haiti or in Bosnia, having to find a safe
place for an abortion. Suppose it is a crisis pregnancy but not one
resulting from rape or incest. Why would any Member of this body want
to put any woman serving in the armed forces at risk? Why? Why even
would we want to put her at any inconvenience? She has signed up to
serve her country. I think she deserves all the respect we can muster.
And let me be clear. The armed services today needs its women more
than its men, because it is the women whose percentages are rising. It
is the percentage of men that is going down. Women are indispensable in
the armed services today. They are very young; they may have a
different life-style from many Members of this body, but we had better
understand this: the services will have to close up shop without them.
This is the wrong message at the wrong time to send to the young
women the services are trying to recruit today. The women's numbers are
going up. They are at 14 percent. In 1990 they were at 11 percent. They
keep rising. They are the cream of the crop. They are listening to this
debate, and I believe I speak for them and for the women now serving
when I say eliminate discrimination against women in the armed forces,
stand with the women serving their country.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to respond.
This is not a question of those in the military versus women who
serve in the military, and I think that is an insulting argument for
anybody to use and it is a red herring in this argument.
If my colleague wants to talk about respect, I have respect for the
sanctity of human life. That is what this is about. My colleague is a
little uncomfortable about that, is she not? That is what this is
about. It is about human life.
Think about our military. The purpose we have in the military is to
protect our freedoms and our liberties, and when that is laid out in
the Constitution, we believe, we, those of us who believe in the
sanctity of life, believe, and I am just as happy that the
gentlewoman's parents decided to have her, just as I am glad my parents
decided to have me, and I am appalled that someone would come to the
floor and say this is something about women's rights.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is appalled because the
message strikes home. The gentleman is appalled because this Member is
calling for respect. And as the gentleman respects human life on his
set of values, there are no set of values on which the gentleman should
not be respectful of women in the armed forces.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time to say I respect human
life, yes, on my set of values, on the set of values that is the
proponent of life as opposed to killing a human being.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the Lowey-Harman-
Morella amendment.
DACOWITS, the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services,
found that women soldiers had difficulty getting access to medical care
overseas, particularly in the Pacific. This unequal ban exacerbates
this problem.
Last time I checked, an American woman still had the right to choose,
that is if she is living in the United States. When she decides to
defend our country, she loses that constitutional right. When a female
soldier is defending the rights and privileges of this country, she is
denied some of the same rights and privileges.
If a male member of the armed services needs medical attention
overseas, he receives the best. If a female member of the armed
services needs a specific medical procedure, she is forced to either
wait until she can travel to the United States, at extreme
inconvenience and expense, or go to a foreign hospital which may be
unsanitary and dangerous.
This bill will cost the American taxpayer absolutely nothing. Each
woman will pick up her own tab. All she wants is the constitutional
right that she has in this country to also be provided when she is
serving overseas in American bases; to be able to go to American
hospitals and receive the same rights.

{time} 1530

Women have waited long enough to receive equal treatment in the
military. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will
vote for this amendment and give these most-deserving soldiers back
what is rightfully theirs.
I might add, only in a Republican Congress would constitutional
rights that are given to our citizens over here

[[Page H3572]]

be denied to them when they are overseas defending probably many men
that did not even serve in the military.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond.
I believe the remarks of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney)
are probably very insulting to conservative Democrats.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lowey-
Harman amendment.
This amendment restores, this is essentially what it does, it
restores equal access to safe medical treatment for U.S. military
servicewomen, military dependents who are stationed overseas. It
reinstates a policy that would allow these women to use their own
private funds to obtain a legal abortion or abortion services in
military hospitals overseas. Women who joined the military to protect
our rights should not have to check their constitutional rights at the
border.
Let me emphasize several points about the amendment. First, the
amendment would not allow Federal funds to be used to pay for
abortions. It simply allows women to use their own funds. It is worth
repeating because we can never say it often enough, it does not get
understood. Their own funds. Women use their own funds to pay for
services in military hospitals overseas.
Second, the amendment would not force doctors to perform abortions
due to the conscience clause that exists in the military services. No
medical personnel would be forced to participate in or perform these
services.
Third, this in not a new policy. Privately funded abortions were
allowed overseas at military facilities from 1973 to 1988, including
all but a few months of the Reagan administration. And then they were
permitted again under an executive order between 1993 and 1996.
The current ban is an exception. It is not the rule. The ban is a
direct attack on the rights of American women who valiantly served
their country. They put their lives on the line every single day.
I urge my colleagues to please ensure that female military personnel
and military dependents have access to safe and legal medical care that
the men in our Armed Forces do and which they deserve. Vote ``yes'' on
the Lowey-Harman amendment.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pappas).
Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, we are again embarking on another battle to export
America's disrespect for the value of human life. Not only do we kill
our unborn children here, we are going to vote today to allow
abortions, yes, even partial birth abortions in our medical facilities
overseas.
I do not think our defense hospitals, needed to treat our war
fighters, should be turned into abortion clinics. When the 1993 policy
permitting abortions was first promulgated, all military physicians, as
well as many nurses and supporting personnel, refused to perform or
assist in elective abortions. In response, the Clinton administration
sought to hire a civilian doctor to conduct abortions.
Therefore, if the Harman amendment were adopted, not only would
taxpayer funded facilities be used to support abortion on demand, but
resources would be used to search for, hire, and transport new
personnel simply so that abortions could be performed.
Rather, let us use this defense budget to make our military stronger
and not use it to help us establish abortion clinics. Military
treatment centers, which are dedicated to healing and nurturing human
life, should not be forced to facilitate the taking of the most
innocent human life, the child in the womb.
I urge my colleagues to maintain the current law and vote against
this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a copy of the letter from the
Archbishop for Military Services, Edwin F. O'Brien, sent to Members of
Congress:
Archdiocese for the

Military Services, USA,

Washington, DC, May 20, 1998.
Dear Member of Congress: As one concerned with the moral
well being of our Armed Services I write to urge you to
oppose the Harman Amendment to the FY 99 National Defense
Authorization Act (H.R. 3616).
This amendment would compel taxpayer funded military
hospitals and personnel to provide elective abortions and
seeks to equate abortion with ordinary health care.
The life-destroying act of abortion is radically different
from other medical procedures. Military medical personnel
themselves have refused to take part of this procedure or
even to work where it takes place. Military hospitals have an
outstanding record of saving life, even in the most
challenging times and conditions.
Please do not place this very heavy burden upon our
wonderful men and women of America's Armed Services.
Thank you for your kind consideration of this message.
Sincerely,
Edwin F. O'Brien,
Archibishop for the Military Services.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Sanchez).
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would give U.S.
servicewomen stationed overseas access to Department of Defense health
facilities by repealing a provision of the law which bars these women
from using their own funds to obtain medical treatment in military
hospitals.
Women serving in the military overseas depend on these base hospitals
for medical care and they may be stationed in areas where local health
care facilities are inadequate. The ban may cause a woman who needs
medical care to delay treatment while she looks for a safe provider, or
it may force a woman to seek an illegal, unsafe procedure locally.
Women who volunteer to serve in our Armed Forces already give up many
freedoms and risk their lives to defend our country. They should not
have to sacrifice their privacy, their health, or their basic
constitutional rights to a policy with no valid military purpose.
This amendment is about women's health. Local facilities in foreign
nations are often not equipped to handle a procedure, and medical
standards may be far lower than those in the United States. We are
putting our own defenders at risk by forcing them to seek local
facilities from medical procedures.
This amendment is also supported by the Department of Defense.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) for yielding and for his excellent
work on this and other provisions in this important bill.
Mr. Chairman, the national debate on partial birth abortion has
proven beyond any reasonable doubt that abortion is violence against
children. Most Americans and I believe most Members of Congress on both
sides of the aisle, Democrats, Republican, liberals, conservatives and
moderates, were shocked and dismayed and frankly very saddened to learn
that partial birth abortions were routine and commonplace and that it
was completely legal to partially deliver a baby, shove a scissors into
the back of that baby's head, and then hook up a hose to suction out
that baby's brain. That is the reality of what choice is all about.
I think it is about time, Mr. Chairman, we connected the dots about
the violence of abortion. The other methods are no less heinous. They
kill children. They are no less violent. This is child abuse. And that
collective denial that we as a country have engaged in for so many
years needs to be put away.
Mr. Chairman, abortion methods dismember children. Razor blade tipped
suction devices 20 to 30 times more powerful than the average household
vacuum cleaner, after the child's arms and legs and torso and head has
been decapitated, turn on the suction machine and the baby is literally
turned into a bloody pulp. This is the uncensored reality of what
choice is all about. Abortion methods also include injecting various
deadly poisons, including high concentrated salt solutions.
I chair the Committee on International Operations on Human Rights,
Mr. Chairman. I have had in excess of 70 hearings, many of them on
torture in overseas prisons by dictatorships. And I can tell my
colleagues, when I look at the badly burned, chemically burned bodies
of unborn children who

[[Page H3573]]

have been killed with salioamniocentesis abortions, they are no
different at all to those others who have been tortured because of
their faith, or because of their beliefs in democracy or their human
rights advocacy.
They have been killed. A high concentrated salt injection usually
takes 2 hours for the baby to die. And we know that a child feels pain.
And when that child is born dead, if we open up the fist that is
usually tightly collapsed, we can see that all the scalding and
corrosive effects of that salt fails to get on the palm because the
child is in pain. That is the reality, Mr. Chairman, of this so-called
choice rhetoric.
The Lowey amendment if enacted, Mr. Chairman, will turn DOD medical
facilities into abortion mills where this kind of violence, including,
as my good friend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) pointed out
earlier, where this kind of violence, including partial birth, would be
sanctioned.
The Lowey amendment makes a false distinction based not on what
happens to a baby in an abortion, in other words a violent death, but
on who provides some of the cash. It also completely overlooks the
costs that are borne by the taxpayers to facilitate that abortion, like
the provision of operating rooms, the hiring of abortionists.
Thank God that when Mr. Clinton's executive order was in effect not a
single overseas military doctor would engage in this violence against
children. They have had to go out with Planned Parenthood's help and
look and seek to find abortionists. Well, that takes taxpayers'
dollars. The nominal fee that a woman might pay to procure that
abortion would in no way cover that.
This amendment, Mr. Chairman, says in effect, it is okay to tear up
an unborn child, to rip that child to pieces. Mr. Chairman, I have been
in the pro-life movement for 26 years. I am amazed at how so many good
and decent people sanitize the unthinkable. We did it on this floor
when we talked about partial birth, Members that I deeply respect and
work arm in arm on human rights with.
Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, and let me say that good and decent
people have defended the unthinkable, that which is not defensible, in
terms of partial births in these other methods. And now we are being
called upon to use overseas military facilities for abortion. It
facilitates abortion.
One of our colleagues said earlier that we do not want to treat women
as second-class citizens. Nobody does. But providing the means to kill
their babies, we would welcome the unborn being treated as second-class
citizens.
Unfortunately, this amendment and our zeitgeist, our law decreed by
the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973, treats the unborn child as a throwaway,
as garbage, as so much junk. And God did not make junk. And every child
is precious regardless of race or color or gender. Every one of those
kids should matter.
Medicine, Mr. Chairman, is all about caring and curing and mitigating
diseases. Unless my colleagues think pregnancy is a disease to be
vanquished, those kids should be nurtured. We should be talking about
maternal health care, how do we beef that up. Prenatal care, that is
what it is about, not simultaneously saying, if we do not want the
child, the child could be injected with salt or dismembered.
Vote no on the Lowey amendment.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman
for yielding to me.
I want to say, it is really unbelievable to me that we are really on
this floor discussing this issue. This is not an issue of Row v. Wade.
That issue has been decided.
Women in this country have a constitutional right to have a safe,
legal abortion. This country made a decision to do that because it did
not like the public health impacts of having abortion illegal. Like it
or not, women were being killed in back-alley abortions; and the fact
is we changed the law and the Constitution of the United States
reflects that a woman has a right to a legal, safe abortion so her
health is not in jeopardy. That is a public health issue.
Now what we are talking about is, these Constitutional rights are not
selective. We cannot just say, ``I want free speech just in Rhode
Island and I do not want free speech in California. I want free speech
here and not there.'' This is a constitutional right that applies to
every single American. And for us to say it will not apply to the
Americans, our soldiers, our women in uniform who are defending our
rights overseas to me is unconscionable.
The story here, Mr. Chairman, is that these are United States
servicewomen and their lives are going to be put in jeopardy if we do
not pass this amendment and make this bill protect a woman's right to
have a legal and safe abortion.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just to remind the
Members, with regard to national security issues, the Supreme Court
permits the Congress of the United States to establish the laws. And in
particular, we do set out rules and policies that end up discriminating
against people and we have rules and procedures that are unequal when
we compare sometimes what we do compared to what happens in the
civilian sector.
We get to discriminate whether someone is too tall, overweight,
whether they are diabetic. Those discriminations are permitted as we
make many different decisions on building unit cohesions. So we get to
make these decisions within this body, so I wanted to share that with
everyone.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Hostettler), a member of the committee.

{time} 1545

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment. The Supreme Court has told us that we have to allow the
killing of preborn children. It has not, however, told us that
government has an obligation to provide this service. This amendment
would do just that.
This amendment obligates the United States to make sure abortion
services and facilities are available at U.S. military bases. It is
this obligation that I believe the Committee on National Security and
the House soundly rejected in recent years on so many occasions and
should again reject.
Abortion remains a very divisive practice in America and, indeed, the
world. Allowing abortions to be performed on military installations
would bring that discord and dissension right onto our military bases
complete with pickets and the like.
The core principle at issue here is whether the government has the
obligation to provide for what is merely a right is a serious issue
with serious ramifications.
Does the freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment
obligate the Federal Government to provide every interested American
with a printing press? Does the Federal Government have to provide a
U.S. flag and a set of matches to anyone who wants to burn our flag
just because the Supreme Court has said that flag burning is a right
protected under the First Amendment.
Does the right to distribute pornography, which also has been upheld
by the court, obligate the military to distribute it to the troops? And
because prostitution is legal in one State, does this obligate that
State government to provide prostitution services to its employees? Of
course the answer to these absurd questions is a resounding no.
Congress has the clear responsibility under the Constitution to
provide for the rules and regulations of the military. We must not make
it the policy of the United States to use its military institutions to
facilitate destructive behaviors such as killing innocent preborn life.
I urge a no vote on this amendment.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, as I understand, the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Lowey) has the right to close?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) has the right to
close.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) has \3/4\ minute
remaining, and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) has \3/4\
minute remaining.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to close by thanking my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle who have spoken and supported the Lowey-Harman-Morella
amendment.

[[Page H3574]]

Let me reiterate, this amendment is not an issue of taxpayer-funded
abortions. Under the amendment, the patient, not the government, would
pay for the procedure. I close the debate by reminding Members that our
American servicewomen take very seriously their duty to protect the
constitutional rights of all United States citizens. Yet, we deny them
time and time again the rights we extend to women on U.S. soil.
It is time to stop the hypocrisy. The right to choose gives women the
right to make this personal decision. Vote for the Lowey-Harman-Morella
amendment.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I guess I would share with some of the speakers, the
proponents of this amendment, they should bring the amendment to be the
proponents for those who are diabetic and fight for the diabetes or
fight for someone that is overweight or that is too tall or too short.
There are many rules and regulations that are out there that I want to
share with the body.
On this issue, we also have the issue of military medical readiness.
We train all of our nurses and doctors how to do proper triage for
saving of life from the battlefield. One of the things that is not on
there is the performing of an abortion service to take life. Mr.
Chairman, I urge everyone to oppose the amendment.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, the Lowey-Harman amendment will restore the
ability of our female service members and female dependents stationed
overseas to exercise their constitutional right to choose safe abortion
services, using their own funds to obtain services in military
hospitals.
This is an important access-to-health-care amendment. Military women
depend on their base hospitals for all of their medical services. This
amendment gives them access to the same range and quality of health
care that they could obtain in the United States.
This amendment has the strong support of organizations like the
American Nurses Association, the American Public Health Association,
the American Women's Association, the American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists, and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
This amendment also has the support of the Department of Defense. No
surprise here, as the policy of denying women access to safe health
care serves no military purpose.
Still, anti-choice Members of Congress would endanger the lives of
women in foreign countries where local health care facilities are
inadequate--where quality care is not available. They would force women
into the hands of untrained medical professionals, or into unsterilized
facilities--increasing the danger and the risk to the health of these
women.
Make no mistake about it--their objective is the same as always: to
make abortion services difficult to obtain, prohibitively expensive,
and physically risky for physicians and women alike.
True to form, the conservative majority have extended their reach to
discriminate against women who have volunteered to serve their country
by prohibiting them from exercising their legally protected right to
choose.
Women serving this country have lost a legal right. Vote for the
Lowey-Harman amendment to end this blatant disregard for the health,
safety and constitutional rights of women.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lowey-
Harman amendment to repeal the provision in this bill prohibiting
privately funded abortion services in U.S. military hospitals overseas.
I commend my colleagues for their leadership on this important issue.
Women stationed overseas in service to their country and female
military dependents rely on base hospitals for medical care. Access to
comprehensive reproductive health is essential for all women, civilian
or military. Under the bill, as it currently stands, however, these
women who volunteer to protect and serve their country in the military
are denied the same protections under Roe v. Wade as the Americans they
are serving and protecting. This is not a request for special
treatment--it is a need for equal treatment and equal access to health
care.
This amendment does not permit taxpayer-funded abortions. No Federal
funds are used for abortion--that will not change. It simply repeals
the current ban on privately funded abortions in military hospitals and
restores equal access to reproductive health care for military women
stationed overseas. And it preserves the conscience clause and would
not coerce any doctor to perform abortions. It provides military women
the right they already have as American women--to make a safe and legal
choice with their own funds. I urge my colleagues to repeal this unfair
ban and vote yes on the Lowey-Harman amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 441, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey)
will be postponed.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed
in part B of House Report 105-544.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Gilman

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Part B, amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Gilman:
At the end of title XII (page 253, after line 3), insert
the following new section:

SEC. 1206. PROHIBITION ON RESTRICTION OF ARMED FORCES UNDER
KYOTO PROTOCOL TO THE UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK
CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, no provision of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change, or any regulation
issued pursuant to such protocol, shall restrict the
procurement, training, or operation and maintenance of the
United States Armed Forces.
(b) Waiver.--A provision of law may not be construed as
modifying or superseding the provisions of subsection (a)
unless that provision of law--
(1) specifically refers to this section; and
(2) specifically states that such provision of law modifies
or supersedes the provisions of this section.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and a Member
opposed each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, since no Member has risen in opposition to
this amendment, I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to control the
time on this side.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Missouri?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Gilman).
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer the Gillman-Danner-Spence-
Sensenbrenner-Rohrabacher amendment. In short, this amendment will
exempt U.S. Armed Forces from the restrictions of the U.N. Kyoto
Climate Change Treaty.
Mr. Chairman, last December the Clinton administration approved a
U.N. Climate Change Treaty that forces the United States to make
drastic cuts in carbon emissions by the year 2010. The economic
recesssions of the late 1970s and early 1980s caused our Nation to cut
emissions by 2 percent of our total emission. The Kyoto treaty now
imposes restrictions three times larger than the cuts made by the
recessions in the 1970s.
In sum, U.S. Government laboratories, industry, and labor groups
estimate that the treaty is going to cost hundreds of billions of
dollars and could throw two million Americans out of work. While the
treaty imposes restrictions on our Nation and 38 other countries, it
exempts China, Brazil, South Korea, Mexico, India, and 125 other
countries from its limitations.
Our Armed Forces are responsible for over 70 percent of the Federal
Government's carbon emissions. The Department of Defense recently
estimated that a 10 percent cut in its emissions could trigger the
following cuts in the readiness of our Armed Forces. For example, armor
training would be cut by 328,000 miles per year, naval steaming days
could be cut by 2,000 days per year, and Air Force flying hours could
be cut by some 210,000 hours.
Prior to Kyoto, the Defense Department requested a blanket waiver
from carbon emissions restrictions. During the negotiations, Vice
President Gore overrode the Defense Department's position and exempted
only multilateral operations consistent with the U.N. charter. That
left unilateral U.S. operations, like Panama or Grenada, and all
domestic operations subject to the

[[Page H3575]]

Kyoto restrictions. Over time, Mr. Chairman, the Kyoto Protocol would
exert a strong pressure on future administrations to curtail our
military training and readiness.
Recently, Undersecretary of Defense Goodman claimed that Kyoto will
not impair or adversely affect military operations and training. This
contradicts the direct language of the treaty that only exempts
multilateral operations that are consistent with the U.N. charter.
Mr. Chairman, our amendment will lock into law the current
administration's verbal promises to protect our Armed Forces from U.N.
restrictions. This amendment is necessary because the administration
could retract its position on DOD emissions when climate change
negotiators meet again this November in Buenos Aires, just after our
congressional elections.
The amendment simply states that no provision in the Kyoto Protocol
will restrict the procurement, the training, the operation, or
maintenance of our U.S. Armed Forces, as just promised by the
administration.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment was endorsed by the Veterans of Foreign
Wars, the Navy League, and the Air Force Association. I have their
letters here and will make them available to our colleagues. I also
understand that, since this amendment implements current administration
policy, the Department of Defense does not oppose its adoption.
Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support this amendment.
Our national security is much too important to risk on the U.N. treaty
and the bureaucracy that would oppose it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) is
recognized.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the gentleman on his
amendment. I know of no opposition to that amendment on this side, and
we would also urge its passage.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), chairman of
the Committee on National Security.
(Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Gilman
amendment that would exempt the United States Armed Forces from the
restrictions of the United Nation Kyoto Climate Change Treaty.
My colleagues may be wondering what possible connection an
environmental protection treaty has to do with the defense of the
United States, and in particular, to the operation of the United States
forces worldwide. The Kyoto treaty, if ratified by the Senate or if
imposed by executive order or regulation, imposes substantial
restrictions on the amount of United States carbon emissions.
In a highly industrialized society, these restrictions will have
enormous economic impact. The United States Government laboratories,
industry, and labor groups estimate that implementation of the Kyoto
Protocol would result in hundreds of billions of dollars in lost
economic growth and perhaps two million lost American jobs.
The restrictions called for in the Kyoto Protocol would, if
implemented, obviously apply to the Federal Government. Because the
operations and training of the United States military forces account
for more than 70 percent of the Federal Government's carbon emissions,
the impact of the Kyoto treaty on our Armed Forces would be tremendous.
Unless our military is given a blanket waiver from the Kyoto
restriction, a waiver that was recommended by the Secretary of Defense,
Mr. Cohen, everyday operations and training will be affected.
The Pentagon estimates, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman)
said, that even a requirement that emissions be reduced by 10 percent
would result in tank training being cut by 328,000 miles per year,
Naval steaming days being cut by 2,000 days per year, Air Force flying
hours being cut to the tune of 210,000 hours per year.
As serious as the Kyoto treaty's restrictions would be on the
military's peacetime training, the restrictions would dramatically
affect the conduct of United States military operations.
The Pentagon estimates that the Kyoto treaty's restrictions would
degrade the readiness of Army divisions and could add an additional 6
weeks to training and deployment in the event of war.
As a result, strategic deployment schedules would be missed and
operations placed at risk. Should Saddam Hussein continue to threaten
the stability of the Persian Gulf, the ability of the United States to
operate military forces would be governed, and limited, by the
provisions of the United Nations environmental treaty.
Ironically, the administration did agree to include one exemption in
the Kyoto treaty for ``multilateral operations consistent with the U.N.
charter.''
In other words, the administration believes U.N. peacekeeping
operations like Bosnia and Somalia should be exempt from environmental
treaties while unilateral American operations like the invasion of
Grenada in 1983 or Panama in 1989 would have to be conducted, if at
all, in an environmentally friendly fashion, as dictated by the United
Nations.
As nonsensical as this may sound, it is an accurate assessment of the
implications of the administration's posture on the Kyoto treaty. As I
indicated, prior to the Kyoto environmental summit, the Department of
Defense requested a blanket waiver from restrictions on carbon
emission, but Vice President Gore apparently overrode the Department's
request.
Although protecting the environment is something we all strive for
and, as a Nation, need to improve on, we cannot afford for it to be a
primary focus of our military's combat training or of their conduct of
operations. Their job is to protect America, its citizens, and its
security interest by operating around the globe in peacetime and
prevailing during war.
War is a hard and violent business, and the effectiveness of the
weapons is not measured by the level of carbon emissions. The 70-ton
M1-A1 tank is the world's best, but it consumes a lot of gas. It
measured its progress down the Euphrates River Valley in the Gulf War
in gallons per mile, not miles per gallon. While the M1-A1 may not be
environmentally friendly, it helped to decimate the Iraqi Republican
Guard, shorten the war, and, in so doing, limit the loss of life.
In conclusion, let me cite the words of former Secretary of Defense
Frank Carlucci, who wrote recently ``Regardless of how the
administration interprets the treaty, the Congress must demand a
blanket exemption for all military operations.''
That is what the Gilman amendment proposes, and I strongly urge my
colleagues to support it. As Carlucci said ``Our national security
deserve no less.''

{time} 1600

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Missouri (Ms. Danner).
Ms. DANNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be a sponsor of the Gilman-
Danner-Spence-Sensenbrenner-Rohrabacher amendment. Numerous studies
have shown that the Kyoto Protocol will not only harm the U.S. economy,
but, in addition, it has the potential to threaten America's military
preparedness.
Defense Secretary William Cohen has been quite clear with regard to
the devastating effects Kyoto will have on American national security,
stating in a recent article in the Washington Times: ``We must not
sacrifice our national security to achieve reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions.''
Basically, the treaty forces United States armed services to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions while exempting ``multinational operations
consistent with the United Nations charter.''
Our domestic military training will be damaged by the decisions made
in Kyoto by subjecting our military to restrictions that the treaty
does not impose upon countries such as China, India and Mexico,
countries that we know have high levels of emissions. I think this is
completely inequitable. Indeed, growing military powers such as China
will not be required to adhere to the same standards to which our
military will be held.

[[Page H3576]]

Reducing Army fuel use by 10 percent alone would downgrade readiness
and require up to six additional weeks to prepare and deploy our
troops, according to our Pentagon officials. Since the United States
armed forces produce over 70 percent of the Federal Government's energy
use, you may be very certain that it will be the United States military
that will be the most seriously affected as an aspect of our government
if subjected to the Kyoto requirements. The Kyoto Protocol must not
stand as a barrier to necessary United States military operations.
Furthermore, decisions that impact our armed forces should be made by
our commanders, our generals and our admirals, and not be subject to an
international environmental accord drafted by international
bureaucrats.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment represents an opportunity to protect
America's national security and hold the administration to its word, as
it was presented to us before the Committee on International Relations
just recently. Therefore, I urge all Members to support it.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Science who also was the Chair of our
delegation to the Kyoto conference.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York
for yielding me this time, and rise in support of this common sense
amendment to prohibit any provision of law, any provision of the Kyoto
Protocol, or any regulation issued pursuant to the protocol, from
restricting the procurement, training or operation and maintenance of
the United States armed forces.
As chairman of the Committee on Science, I spent a great deal of time
analyzing this protocol, the U.N. treaty on climate change, including
chairing three full Committee on Science hearings on the outcome and
implication of the Kyoto climate change negotiations, and this past
December I led the congressional delegation to the Kyoto conference.
Facts I have reviewed lead me to believe that the Kyoto Protocol is
seriously flawed; so flawed, in fact, that it cannot be salvaged. The
treaty is based upon science, costs too much, leaves too many
procedural questions unanswered, is grossly unfair because developing
nations such as China, India, Brazil and Mexico are not required to
participate, and will do nothing to solve the speculative problem it is
intended to solve. I have heard nothing today to persuade me otherwise.
The amendment addresses one of the protocol's many absurdities that
the Clinton-Gore administration agreed to in Kyoto, namely the threat
to our national security. Under the Protocol, the administration has
committed the United States to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 7
percent below 1990 levels in the 2008 to 2012 time frame, or about the
level that we were emitting 20 years ago in 1978.
Since the Federal Government is the Nation's largest energy user and
greenhouse gas emitter, and the Department of Defense is the
government's largest emitter, the administration essentially agreed to
impose restrictions upon military operations, in spite of Pentagon
analyses that showed that such restrictions would not only
significantly downgrade the operational readiness of our armed forces,
but also threaten their ability to meet the requirements of our
national military strategy.
The text of the Kyoto Protocol is silent with respect to greenhouse
gas emissions. However, the decision taken by the Framework Convention
of the Climate Change's Conference of Parties exempts military
operations ``pursuant to the United Nations charter,'' but requires
``that all other operations shall be included in the national emissions
totals,'' with the effect of penalizing our armed forces for
maintaining world peace.
The administration claims that this decision was one of its great
triumphs in Kyoto, but I believe, however, it is one of the many
mistakes made by Vice President Gore and his minions that guided the
Kyoto negotiations.
As pointed out in a January 22, 1998 letter to the President by the
Committee to Preserve American Security and Sovereignty, a concerned
group of former U.S. national security and foreign policy officials
that includes three past Secretaries of Defense and two past
Secretaries of State, ``The Kyoto treaty threatens to limit the
exercise of military power by exempting only military exercises that
are multinational and humanitarian. Unilateral military actions, as in
Grenada, Panama and Libya, will become politically and diplomatically
charged.''
It is time too correct this Kyoto absurdity. Support this amendment
and say ``yes'' to our national security and ``no'' to Kyoto.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I might say that I personally favor this amendment. I
will not oppose it. It is also my understanding that the administration
as well is in favor of it. So I compliment the gentleman from New York
for bringing this to our attention.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would note that this amendment prevents U.N. Climate
Change Treaty restrictions from applying to our United States armed
forces. It has been endorsed by our major veterans' groups, the
Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Navy League and the Air Force
Association. The Department of Defense does not oppose the amendment.
It implements current administrative policy to prevent the Kyoto
Climate Change Treaty from cutting our national defense.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Gilman Amendment
which insures the safety and security of Americans are not compromised
to promote questionable scientific theories. The Kyoto Treaty may not
succeed in combating the phantom threat of global warming, but it has
sinister consequences for our military and our security.
Simply put the Kyoto Treaty will restrict military fuel consumption.
This will cut armor training by 328,000 miles per year, cut naval
steaming by 2,000 days per year and cut Air Force training by 210,000
hours per year while placing no restriction on the Chinese and other
militaries. The Gilman Amendment will stop this onslaught on America's
security. The Gilman amendment will safeguard our independence.
My colleagues, let's defend our sovereignty from real foes not
phantom threats. Please join me in voting to safeguard our independence
and vote for the Gilman Amendment.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to address this amendment offered
by Mr. Gilman (Prohibition on Restriction of Armed Forces under Kyoto
Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change). First, I
want to clarify whether DoD's technical changes were made to this
amendment. Of course I support protection of our national security
interests and want to make sure that no provisions of U.S. law enacted
to implement U.S. obligations under the Kyoto Protocol would jeopardize
our military readiness. However, while I support the principle behind
this amendment, this should not be used as an opportunity to undermine
the Kyoto Protocol nor U.S. efforts, as one of 160 nations who were
involved in negotiating this treaty, to protect our global climate.
Undersecretary of State Eisenstat has emphasized repeatedly that the
U.S. will not take steps that would require mandatory action at the
macroeconomic level or with respect to specific sectors of our economy
in order to reach the Kyoto target before the President has obtained
the advice and consent of the Senate. Further, Undersecretary Eisenstat
consulted with top national security and military officials and had
their assurances that the Kyoto Protocol does in fact meet our national
security needs and interests. We secured exemptions for bunker fuels
and for other activities that are covered under other existing
agreements. If this Protocol were ever signed or ratified by the
Senate, our domestic legislation would ensure protection of our
national interests. Nor would we trade emissions credits with any other
nations that with whom we would not otherwise conduct transactions.
Thus, I do not understand the purpose of, nor the need for, this
amendment.
I also want to clarify that this amendment should not be interpreted
to be able to prevent the U.S. Armed Forces from continuing to adopt
practical energy efficient measures. More efficient heating and cooling
systems for military buildings, energy saving engines, and other such
technology applications would save money and could improve the
readiness and capabilities of our Armed Forces. The Defense Department
has stated this position, as well. To date, the Defense Department
actually is on the forefront of implementing energy efficient measures
that have saved substantial

[[Page H3577]]

amounts of money and energy and increased our environmental protection.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the intent of Mr. Gilman's
amendment and support it. Indeed, the Kyoto Protocol will improve the
national security of the United States by reducing the risk of
catastrophic climate change, which would create upheaval and unrest
throughout the world, including the potential for millions of
environmental refugees.
Furthermore, measures to implement the Kyoto Protocol can improve our
security by reducing our dependence on imported oil through improved
energy efficiency and increased reliance on domestic renewable energy
resources.
At the same time, the Administration has issued clear policy guidance
assuring that implementation of the Kyoto Protocol will not impair or
adversely affect the training or operation and maintenance of the
United States Armed Forces.
I am concerned, however, that the Amendment as drafted could be
ambiguous. The Department of Defense was a leader in reducing the use
of ozone depleting substances and has received awards for its efforts
from the Environmental Protection Agency. In recent years DoD has made
great strides in increasing energy efficiency in military housing. it
has also invested in technologies, such as fuel cells, that could
improve military effectiveness and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I
am supporting the amendment because I do not believe it prevents DoD
from pursuing these valuable goals. I urge the chairman to work with
the Department of Defense to clarify this language in conference
committee.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 441, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Gilman) will be postponed.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider Amendment
No. 3 printed in part B of House Report 105-544.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Hefley

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Part B amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Hefley:
At the end of title X (page 234, after line 4), insert the
following new section:

SEC. 1044. PROHIBITION ON ASSIGNMENT OF UNITED STATES FORCES
TO UNITED NATIONS RAPIDLY DEPLOYABLE MISSION
HEADQUARTERS.

No funds available to the Department of Defense may be used
to assign or detail any member of the Armed Forces to duty
with the United Nations Rapidly Deployable Mission
Headquarters (or any similar United Nations military
operations headquarters).

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 441, the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and a Member opposed each will
control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment which would prohibit the
Department of Defense from spending U.S. taxpayer dollars on the
assignment or detailing of any member of the U.S. military to duty with
the United Nations Rapidly Deployable Missions Headquarters or any
similar U.N. organization.
As many of you know, this proposed headquarters is intended by the
Secretary General of the United Nations to form the core of a standing
U.N. military force; now, let me repeat that, a standing U.N. military
force. And the administration has already spent a limited amount of
funds to help establish the headquarters operation.
Now, think about this for a moment. The United Nations wants to
create a rapidly deployable standing military force, including United
States soldiers, and the administration seems to be willing to go
along.
I have a quote from the Washington Times that reads, ``The U.N. wants
standby forces that could be called up immediately to permit U.N.
headquarters to tailor foreign military units to suit the countries or
regions to which they are assigned.''
The U.N. complains that under current conditions they must develop
each mission from scratch after a vote by the Security Council, and in
some cases this can take too long. I think they should have to start
from scratch on each mission to ensure nations understand their
commitments thoroughly.
Why should the committee support this amendment? The answer is the
ambiguity of the current administration policy with regard to U.S.
participation in U.N. peacekeeping and other military operations.
Although the administration formally denies any intent to assist in the
creation of a standing U.N. military force, and despite repeated
congressional actions to limit or prohibit the involvement of U.S.
forces in many U.N. operations and any such U.N. force, the U.S. State
Department transferred $200,000 from its voluntary peacekeeping account
in October 1997 to fund the establishment of the U.N. Rapidly
Deployable Mission Headquarters, the standing U.N. army.
Time and time again this administration has supported peacekeeping
operations around the world. They can continue to still do that. But
most of those efforts have been controversial. Indeed, the operation in
Bosnia is still problematic, and, of course, that is not a U.N.
operation.
The simple fact is, Congress ought to be involved in any decision to
commit U.S. forces to U.N. peacekeeping operations. It is these kinds
of open-ended and at times back door operations that have led to this
amendment, and I think all Members will agree we should cut off the
funds for this organization until a clear statement is made that our
troops will be accountable only to United States command and control.
What is also disturbing to me is that it is unclear what command
arrangements would govern any forces assigned to the U.N. Rapidly
Deployable Mission Headquarters. The key question of whether any U.S.
troops assigned would be under the command of the U.N. Secretary
General or their national command authorities has not been answered.
In addition, consider that these forces could be sent out over the
objections of the United States Congress. Let me repeat, our forces
could be sent into conflict that the Congress does not support or
approve of.
The United Nations is a forum for international policy discussion,
and should remain so. It is also not a sovereign territory. It has no
citizens and no constitutional authority to send U.S. troops into
harm's way. Member states should make their contributions to
peacekeeping and other multilateral efforts involving military forces
consistent with their constitutional requirements in each of those
countries. We should not be locked into a conflict or a peacekeeping
operation simply because we happen to have U.S. personnel in a standing
U.N. army.
This is not an effort to undercut the U.N., and I would say to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), I hope you believe this, that I
am not here to bash the United Nations with what I am trying to do
here. I am simply saying that we want to preserve this Congress'
prerogatives in the commitment of United States military forces. In
other words, for 50 years we have participated in U.N. operations
around the world. We could continue to do that, even if this amendment
passes, but we would not have a standing U.N. army under the command
and control of the Secretary General of the United Nations.
Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to vote for this amendment and keep U.S.
forces under U.S. control.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1615

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to say that with sadness, I find that I must disagree and oppose this
amendment. Mr. Chairman, I read it. Let me read it to the body. ``No
funds available to the Department of Defense may be used to assign or
detail any member of the Armed Forces to duty with the United Nations
Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters (or any similar United Nations
military operations headquarters).'' This amendment could lead to
disaster.

[[Page H3578]]

First, Mr. Chairman, let me state unequivocally that I am against a
standing union army. I will repeat that. I am against a United Nations
standing army. That is not right. Also, thinking of the words of my
friend from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), who is my good friend, he speaks of
the commitment of the United States forces being kept with Congress,
and if he will recall, not so long ago our colleague, the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) and I, made that case very well, and
successfully, on this floor through our debate, and I think the
gentleman from Colorado agreed with us, that the forces at that time
should not be deployed to Bosnia.
So on the very basics of which the gentleman from Colorado speaks, I
agree, but that is not what we are passing into law.
What is being passed into law is the amendment that I just read. It
could create some real problems for American soldiers. It could create
some real problems for American leadership. For instance, it restricts
the flexibility of the President's ability to detail or otherwise
deploy U.S. military personnel in his capacity as Commander in Chief
with the advice of his military advisors. That is very, very important.
I speak not just for this President, I speak for those future
Presidents regardless of what political party to which they belong.
I also mention the fact that it would undermine our efforts
encouraging other nations to play a greater role in U.N. peacekeeping
activities. If we are not helping plan something, and they know we are
the best, and we are the best, whether it be at planning or in the
field, it would undermine those nations' confidence, playing a role in
those activities where we participate. But more than that, it concerns
me a great deal that this amendment would prevent the best and the
brightest of our Armed Forces to plan with other nations and to be a
leading part of planning with those other nations in an operational
situation.
Mr. Chairman, this would be similar to prohibiting the United States
of America's military forces from planning NATO operations. This does
not prevent them from being in the field; this does not prevent or
interfere with the Commander in Chief's prerogatives. This prevents
good military thinking, and we are the best.
I have spent a great deal of time, as my friend from Colorado (Mr.
Hefley) will recall, with the military war colleges, both intermediate
war colleges such as at Fort Leavenworth and the senior war colleges
such as the National War College, and we put a lot of time, effort and
money into making our captains and majors and lieutenant commanders the
best and the brightest for planning things. We are good at it. We are
going to say to the finest military planners, whether it be an
operation that involves risk, or an operation that involves
humanitarianism, or an operation that involves peacekeeping; this is
going to say to the best and brightest planners in military uniform of
the United States you cannot participate. You can send the troops out
there, but you cannot participate in the planning.
That is an invitation for disaster for some fine young Americans. One
of the problems that we had in Somalia, if the gentleman remembers, was
that there was no central planning for that operation.
What this amendment will allow, for instance, it would allow the
Bangladeshis, the Ethiopians, the Kazakhstanis, to do the planning for
American forces to go out in the field. I am not about to let that
happen. I am not about to let other people plan for the American
troops. That is wrong. When American troops are involved, when their
safety is involved, when their mission is involved, I cannot and I will
not support that.
I must compliment the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) in his
attempt to stand, as I do, against a standing in our Nation's army. But
as so often happens, this rifle shot, Mr. Chairman, sadly misses the
mark.
In truth and fact, the U.S. forces in Korea would be affected because
that was and is a United Nations operation. The troops that we have,
and I visited them, and I am so proud of them, in Macedonia on
peacekeeping, watchful duty, no American military personnel could plan
what they do. Do we want those other folks to tell where they are going
to be, what they are going to be doing and how they are going to be
doing it? No. I want Americans planning this.
I would really hope that my friend from Colorado would take a good
look at this and if he would like to have an amendment that would say
that he stands against a standing by the United Nations army, I am with
the gentleman. I think that is absolutely wrong. But let us not risk
the lives of bright young Americans by not having bright, a little bit
older Americans, plan what they are going to do in humanitarian or
peacekeeping crisis situations.
So I find myself driven to the conclusion that I must oppose this.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
before I yield to the chairman of the Committee on National Security.
I find it unusual that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and
I are ever in disagreement on anything, and I think it illustrates that
people of goodwill and with good reading ability can read the same
thing and find very, very different meanings in it.
What this is meant to do is exactly what the gentleman said he would
support, and that is not to have a standing U.N. army. As to the
gentleman's explanation, I do not want all of those things either, I
would say to the gentleman. I do not want to undermine our efforts to
get others to participate, but for 50 years we have gotten others to
participate without a standing U.N. army.
The gentleman talks about us letting others plan. That is the very
idea. We do not want others to plan our command and control of our
troops. They are not to be a standing army. If we are going to get
involved with the U.N., we want it to function like it has over the
last 50 years. We get involved. Generally we take the lead. Generally
we do the planning. Generally the others join in with us as in the
Persian Gulf War to accomplish a U.N. mission.
So I think the goal is the same. The gentleman is reading into this
amendment things that I simply do not see there.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the chairman of the Committee on
National Security.
(Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hefley amendment
prohibiting the assignment of United States Armed Forces to the United
Nations Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters.
Last October, the State Department approved $200,000 from its
voluntary peacekeeping account to create a U.N. Rapidly Deployable
Mission Headquarters. This was the first down payment in the United
Nations $2.3 million plan for this organization. Officially, the
purpose of this RDMH, or whatever we call it, is to set up a command
and control center for U.N. forces anywhere in the world. The
headquarters is to have 8 officers, apparently permanently detailed to
the U.N., and already has a Canadian Army Lieutenant Colonel who is
``on loan'' to organize the headquarters and recruit other officers to
join in.
Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt that such an arrangement could improve
the performance and professionalism of U.N. peacekeeping forces, and
they certainly need it. However, it is clear that the U.N. continues to
pursue a broader agenda, and that is the key element we are talking
about here today.
Choi Young-Jin, the Korean diplomat, who is the U.N.'s Assistant
Secretary General for Peacekeeping, recently admitted that the U.N.
remains committed to establishing a standing army. The U.N.'s official
spokesman later tried to clarify that, and said that Rapidly Deployable
Mission Headquarters is an interim step, an interim step. That is
exactly what we are talking about, since a standing army is ``too
ambitious for the time being.''
We are looking at the long haul in this legislation today.
There are also legitimate questions over whether Rapidly Deployable
Mission Headquarters represents a first step toward U.N. military
independence. It already promises to weaken

[[Page H3579]]

the ability of the Congress to influence United States military action.
The first mission of the headquarters is reported to be in the Central
African Republic to replace the French army as it withdraws from that
troubled Nation. But just this March, Congress blocked the
administration's $9.5 million request to pay the U.S. share of that
mission. Nonetheless, the administration has supported the mission in
the Security Council, and now apparently the Rapidly Deployable Mission
Headquarters will lead the way into the Central African Republic.
Confronted with the charge that this headquarters represents a first
step toward a standing U.N. force, State Department officials do not
simply deny the link between the two. Indeed, they go further, saying
that they support the Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters because
it does not support the standing army concept. That does not make
sense. This makes no sense.
Let me review the facts. This headquarters unit will provide the core
capability for a U.N. standing army. The nations which support a
standing army concept welcome this development, and U.N. officials
describe it as an interim step toward a standing army. Think of the
implications of a standing U.N. army. Will they defend the United
States of America against others? What part will our own Armed Forces
play in it in such an event?

{time} 1630

The lesson learned in recent years, especially in places like Bosnia
and Somalia, is that the United Nations military operations are more
likely to draw U.S. forces into a mess, rather than to keep them out. I
wonder whether the eight soldiers who are supposed to form the U.N.
Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters in the Central African Republic
will once again prove to be an advance party for what becomes an
American operation?
Time and time again the Congress has passed legislation to limit the
participation of United States troops in U.N. missions. Only
congressional vigilance, and where necessary, preemptive action such as
the Hefley amendment, can prevent the further subcontracting of
American foreign security policy to the United Nations. I strongly urge
my colleagues to support the Hefley amendment.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me say that if what we are really after is the same
thing, why do we not amend this or rewrite it and say that the United
States shall not participate in a standing United Nations army? That is
not what this says.
I am very, very concerned that, after the fact, we may very well find
some fine young Americans, as a result of not being able to plan ahead
and not have people planning ahead who know what they are doing, and
Americans who know what they are doing, injured or even killed. It is a
deep concern of mine.
I know full well, Mr. Chairman, that on the very substance of this
issue that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and I agree, but
the wording of this frankly causes me a great deal of concern. If we
read this very carefully, we will see that it opens a door to Ukranians
and Russians and Kazakhstanis and Bangladeshis for planning what our
armed forces are going to do. I cannot, I cannot, stand by and let that
happen.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings).
(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to approach this
subject very carefully. First, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton) for yielding time to me. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) are two people
that I have the greatest respect for, as I do virtually all of the
Members of this institution.
Mr. Chairman, this particular amendment, most respectfully, is
attempting to solve a problem that does not exist. We have all, at some
point, been critical of the United Nations. Many have criticized the
United Nations for its failure to respond promptly to conflict
overseas. Our colleagues on the Committee on National Security often
criticize the U.N. for not having professional military capabilities.
However, this proposed U.N. Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters
is a response to these criticisms. It would be a very small unit in New
York, staffed by a handful of U.N. employees and personnel, on loan
from member states which could deploy quickly to the field to establish
communications links, make a survey of the ground situation, and other
commonsense steps. This unit is not a stalking horse for a United
Nations standing army.
I remember reading something in the Washington Times to that effect,
and I think that that article in and of itself was ill-advised, to
suggest that the military, or those of us here in Congress who pay
attention to the defense and foreign policy matters, would not have the
ability to understand that a standing army had been created at the
United Nations without our knowledge.
If we want the United Nations to be more professional in its
peacekeeping operations, and we do, I cannot understand why we would
want to prohibit United States military personnel from participating in
such a unit. We would all agree, I would hope, that the United States
military is the finest in the world. Why would we not want, on a
voluntary basis, to contribute, say, a communications specialist to
this very small unit at the United Nations?
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose this amendment. In my view,
and in the view of several of us that serve on the Committee on
International Relations, it is unnecessary and it is harmful to our
interests. It is patently obvious that the administration opposes it,
but I call on all my colleagues in this body to oppose this amendment,
as well.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I hope the gentleman who just spoke listened to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Spence) when he read the
statement from the Secretary General's office which says that this is
an interim step, that we cannot get the standing army yet, but this is
the interim step. So this is the start of their idea of a standing
army.
I think most of us would agree we do not want a standing army. So
where do we stop it? We stop it at the outset.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HEFLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman think for one minute that the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) or any of the fine Members of the
Committee on National Security or anyone else on the Committee on
International Relations would stand idly by and allow that to develop?
This is not a step in that direction, I say to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Hefley). I honestly think we can stop it. The gentleman
is asking for something that is just not a problem.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, we have
already put $200,000 into it, and we did not stop it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Idaho
(Mrs. Chenoweth).
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding time
to me, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hefley amendment, which
would, very simply, prohibit President Clinton from putting our troops
under the command of a newly created United Nations organization known
as the Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters.
The U.N. Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters is designed to
function as a worldwide command and control network for U.N. forces.
This new organization, which is here, which is being funded, would
create a worldwide standby army for peacekeeping operations which could
mobilize at any time.
Most of my colleagues, most Members of Congress on both sides of the
aisle, would be really disturbed to know that the Clinton
administration, without authorization, has given the U.N. $200,000 as
seed money to organize this army. That is the problem, Mr. Chairman,
that is the problem.
This Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters would report to an
eight-

[[Page H3580]]

member command unit at the United Nations, which functions under the
U.N. Security Council. In other words, this is a permanent military
unit which functions directly under the control of the United Nations.
It appears to be a backdoor way for creating a standing army when
Congress has specifically prohibited U.S. support for a standing army.
Mr. Chairman, I want to remind my colleagues of the tragedy that
occurred in Mogadishu, Somalia. We might recall watching in horror as
the U.S. Army helicopter was attacked and our troops were dragged
through the streets, held hostage, tortured, and killed.
Members might also recall that the multinational military unit
created for the Somalia engagement functioned under the control of the
U.N. An investigation revealed that the primary factor was not
centralized planning, Mr. Chairman. The primary factor which led to
this terrible incident was the inability of the various military
commanders to communicate to one another because of the language
barriers. They could not talk to one another.
If we allow another military engagement to function under the control
of the U.N., similar types of tragedies are certain to happen. In fact,
it happens the creation of the Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters
could be the precursor to a deployment in highly unstable and dangerous
Central African Republic. The first mission of the headquarters was
reported to be in the Central African Republic, to replace the French
army as it withdraws from that troubled Nation.
Just this March Congress blocked the administration's $9.5 million
request to pay the U.S. share of that mission. However, by supporting
the Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters, the Clinton administration
has simply ignored the mandate by Congress not to get our troops
involved in the Central African Republic. That is the problem. That is
what this amendment is addressing, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I find myself betwixt and between two very, very good
Members of this committee, two excellent Members of Congress.
If I listen to both of the Members, I find them saying almost the
same thing. They are both saying we do not want a standing U.N. army,
and I agree with that. The difference I see is in the point that the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) makes, which is why, when there
will be a joint operation, when there will be a joint operation, do we
prohibit the very best from participating?
Last October I had lunch with the head of the British forces, the
head of the French forces, the head of the Italian forces over in
Bosnia, very proud people who spent their whole lives getting to the
top of their profession.
It must have been very difficult for them to say what they said, but
what they said was that they could not do it without the Americans;
that when they went in without the Americans, their peacekeepers were
chained to the lightpost, and people were raped and murdered and
tortured in front of them, to show them how helpless they were. All
that changed when the American troops came in.
What I would like the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) to do is I would like to see the
amendment of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) move on, but I
would hope that in the very long time we have between now and the
conference committee, that the Members work this out so that we
accomplish what I know to be the Members' mutual goals.
I would simply ask the author of this amendment if he would be
willing to try to work with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton)
on this, because I am hearing the Members saying way too many of the
same things for us to get involved in a fight on the floor about this.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Taylor) is absolutely right. I think the goals of the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and me are the same as the gentleman's probably
are. If we can work out a better way to word this so it takes care of
the concerns of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), I will be happy to do that.
We all do not want a standing army, that is what we are all trying to
avoid. I would pledge to work with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton) to see if we cannot get this wording to all of our
satisfaction.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Paul)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me, and I would like to compliment the gentleman for bringing this
amendment to the floor.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make a couple of points. One, the other side
of the aisle has mentioned that this is only a small amount. We are
just introducing this idea. We are only giving a couple of dollars now.
It reminds me of the arguments in 1913, let us have an income tax, but
it is only going to be a fraction of 1 percent. We know what happened.
There are plans for what they are doing. This is the time to stop it.
I think another point that we ought to make is, how did they get any
money already? They got it from the Defense Department. We did not even
appropriate the money. They have already started it. They have used
American taxpayers' money without a direct appropriation from this
Congress, and it is about time we stopped that type of legislation.
That is the point. Where did the money come from? The Defense
Department. It goes over into the United Nations for meddling, meddling
overseas. It is taken away, literally, from defense.
We have a problem in this country for national defense. We have Air
Force people who do not get flying time. Our men are not trained. We do
not have the right equipment. We continuously spend all our money
overseas, endlessly getting involved in Bosnia and Somalia, and
wherever.
I think it is policy that needs to be addressed. It is the policy
that allows our administration to do this, because there is too much
complicity in allowing the United Nations to assume our sovereignty.

{time} 1645

That is the point here. The American people deserve better
protection. They deserve better protection of their money. They deserve
better protection of their youngsters who may get drafted and may get
sent overseas. There is a great deal of danger in the Bosnia and Kosovo
area, yet here we are talking about starting a new U.N. organization
that unfortunately dwells on the term and brags about rapidly
deployable. That is the last thing we need from the United Nations. I
would like to slow it up, but now they want to take away our
sovereignty to go and get involved more easily than ever and more
quickly than ever.
So this is absolutely the wrong direction that we are going in today.
This is a further extension of the notion that our obligation is to
police the world. We are supposed to make the world safe for democracy.
Just think, since World War II, we have not had one declared war, but
we sure have been fighting a lot. We have lost well over 100,000 men
killed. We have lost, we have had hundreds of thousands of men injured
because we have a policy that carelessly allows us to intervene in the
affairs of other nations, and we allow the United Nations to assume too
much control over our foreign policy.
It is up to the U.S. Congress to do something about that; that is, to
take away the funding. This is a great amendment. I cannot conceive of
anybody voting against this amendment and pretending that this is only
a little bit.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
(Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, our President may be a

[[Page H3581]]

globalist. He may genuinely believe that if we support a U.N. army that
is stronger than the military of any member state, that this will
permit the United Nations to keep the peace in the world. This rapid
response force could very easily be a first step in this direction.
Clearly, the President means it to be a step in whatever direction he
intends to go because he has given them $200,000.
I have some problem understanding how he can do this because Article
I, section 9 of the Constitution says, ``No money shall be drawn from
the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law.''
The Congress makes those appropriations. We made no such
appropriation. I do not understand how the President can give our
taxpayers' money to the U.N. without an act of Congress.
The citizens of our country do not support any such idea as a
standing army or rapid response force in the United Nations. They
support the Constitution, which says very clearly, in Article I,
section 8, ``The Congress shall have power to declare war.''
The President cannot do this, and any time he sends troops in harm's
way it is the equivalent of a declaration of war, and I submit that
that is technically in violation of the Constitution.
Mr. Chairman, if we vote down this amendment, Americans will think
that we have gone mad. If we are going to be involved in military
activities, we need to do so as Americans and under the control of
Americans.
The gentleman from Missouri made the argument that if we pass this
amendment that we will limit the President's ability to send our troops
hither and yon in the world. I should hope so. I think that when he
uses taxpayers' money in sending our troops to faraway lands where they
are in harm's way, that is the exact equivalent of a declaration of
war. Except in a dire emergency, he has no right to do this. Americans
do not want him to continue to do this. That is Congress's
responsibility, as defined by the Constitution.
Americans in poll after poll support the spirit of this amendment by
at least 4 to 1. This amendment does not say we cannot participate in
planning or in execution. It simply says, our involvement will not be
automatic because we are a member of some rapid response force. It says
that we will decide each time what is in our best national interest.
The amendment does not prohibit joint operations. It simply says that
when we are involved, we will decide and we will control.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very common sense amendment which Americans
overwhelmingly support. We must support it here also.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Ryun).
Mr. RYUN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hefley
amendment to prohibit the assignment of U.S. Armed Forces to United
Nations Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters.
It is no secret that the United Nations wants to establish a standing
army. My concern is that we may be starting down a slippery slope
toward the goal of placing our troops under the command of the United
Nations. U.S. troops are already deployed around the world to U.N.
peacekeeping operations, and this is very important, which have little
to do with U.S. security issues, this is also important, which have
questionable success rates.
These deployments are putting a strain on our defense budget, and
they are also shrinking our military and they are putting our people,
our military people in harm's way. Our defense budget continues to
decline. Readiness shortfalls are common. No U.S. military resources
should be made available to the U.N. Rapidly Deployable Missions
Headquarters.
If the administration is able to find money, and it is my prayer that
they can find money, but we can use it on national security, as opposed
to contributing money to a new U.N. project. I know I have plenty of
military housing quality-of-life problems back in my district which
should be funded before we spend additional taxpayer dollars on new
U.N. bureaucracies.
I urge my colleagues to protect our Armed Forces from any future U.N.
infringements and vote yes on the Hefley amendment.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I have made my thoughts clear, and I oppose a standing United Nations
army. I oppose the United States military forces being part of a
standing United Nations army. What I am concerned about is the wording
in this amendment that may cause in the long run some injuries and
casualties to wonderful United States troops.
I think that is our job in this body, to support the troops. And in
my small way, in reading this amendment and the wording of this
amendment, I am standing up for American troops.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In summary, again, I think the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton)
and I are on the same track. We interpret the wording of this amendment
a little differently. I think we are on the same track as to what we
want to do. I hope that we can work this out.
Let me just read again a brief paragraph that the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spence) emphasized: Choi Young-Jin, the Korean
diplomat who is the U.N.'s Assistant Secretary General for
Peacekeeping, recently admitted that the U.N. remains committed to
establishing a standing army. Now get that, the U.N. remains committed
to establishing a standing army.
The U.N.'s official spokesman later tried to clarify what Mr. Choi
meant to say, that this rapidly deployable headquarters is an interim
step, he said, since a standing army is too ambitious for the time
being. In other words, one of the leading diplomats, the Assistant
Secretary General for Peacekeeping said that the U.N. is committed to a
standing army and, of course, he went too far and so he tried to
explain it and then he said, well, that is too ambitious a step for
right now.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HEFLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, he is absolutely wrong. I am not for that.
I am not for that at all.
What bothers me is the wording of this amendment. I think this
amendment, as worded, as I explained a few moments ago, should it
become law, could very well invite some real disasters for our troops.
I really think that it can be rewritten much, much better.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman may be absolutely right. It
may be able to be worded much better, but if he and I believe the same
thing, that we do not want a standing army, the way for us to assure
that is to let this amendment go ahead and progress. I have committed
to the gentleman that I will work with him as we go through this
process and try to get the wording in a way that we can both agree on.
But if we kill the amendment here today on the floor of the House, then
there is no opportunity for us to do that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the
amendment offered by gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 441, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Hefley) will be postponed.

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 441,
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further
proceedings were postponed in the following order:
Amendment No. B-1 offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
Lowey); amendment No. B-2 offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Gilman); amendment No. B-3 offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Hefley).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. B-1 Offered by Mrs. Lowey

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a

[[Page H3582]]

recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Lowey) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 190,
noes 232, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 171]

AYES--190

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Castle
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Ehrlich
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Foley
Ford
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E.B.
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kolbe
Lampson
Lantos
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
White
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NOES--232

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Borski
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Forbes
Fossella
Fox
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kildee
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Mica
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Poshard
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--10

Bateman
Carson
Clay
Ewing
Gonzalez
Harman
Meeks (NY)
Murtha
Stabenow
Wise

{time} 1716

The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:

Ms. Stabenow for, with Mr. Ewing against.

Mr. GEKAS and Mr. LAZIO of New York changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
Mr. KIND and Mrs. CLAYTON changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Pursuant to House Resolution
441, the Chair announces that it will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes
the period of time within which a vote by electronic device will be
taken on each amendment on which the Chair has postponed further
proceedings.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Gilman

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Gilman) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 420,
noes 1, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 172]

AYES--420

[[Page H3583]]

Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

PRESENT--1

Frank (MA)

NOT VOTING--11

Bateman
Carson
Clay
Ewing
Gonzalez
Harman
McDade
Meeks (NY)
Murtha
Stabenow
Wise

{time} 1725

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment B-3 Offered by Mr. Hefley

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on amendment No. 3 offered by the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Hefley) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 250,
noes 172, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 173]

AYES--250

Aderholt
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Etheridge
Everett
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--172

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Cardin
Clayton
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Greenwood
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Houghton
Hoyer
Hyde
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NOT VOTING--10

Bateman
Carson
Clay
Ewing
Gonzalez
Harman
Meeks (NY)
Murtha
Stabenow
Wise

{time} 1733

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us today represents
our best efforts to fashion a defense authorization bill that meets the
national security requirements of the country within a constrained
budget. This year marks the 14th consecutive year of real decline in
defense spending; a fact that has led to the military being slashed by
more than one-third. As a percentage of the Gross National Product,
this defense budget represents only 3 percent; the lowest level since
before World War II.
I raise these points as a warning. As a Nation who has invested
dearly to amass the

[[Page H3584]]

greatest military in the world, we cannot continue the erosion of our
national security capabilities without assuming greater risk in our
ability to meet the many and varied challenges of America's security
interests. The Joint Chiefs have all testified that we can still get
the job done under this budget, but the associated risk factor to meet
the national threat assessment continues to increase. The unfunded
requirements also continue to grow, amounting to $54 billion over the
next 5 years according to the Chiefs. These unfunded requirements range
from the modernization of key weapon systems, to real property
maintenance backlogs, to quality of life issues effecting the dedicated
military personnel and their families. In addition to these massive
unmet requirements, the Congressional Budget Office has indicated that
Clinton's 5-year defense budget will not even keep pace with today's
mild rate of inflation. This fact broadens the defense budget problems
by another $54.4 billion shortfall between now and fiscal 2003.
These sobering realities of the defense budget are important to note,
because this administration continues to task the military with
countless forward deployments while failing to provide the resources
necessary to conduct these missions. The Op Tempo rate of our military
personnel is at the breaking point. The Bosnia peacekeeping mission and
Operation Southern Watch in Iraq continue to sap the readiness accounts
of the services, requiring Congress to approve last-minute emergency
supplemental appropriations bills to pay for critical training accounts
depleted by these foreign policy forays. These trends are an indication
of poor management of the country's national defense.
With that said, I must commend Chairman Spence and the subcommittee
chairman for their work in crafting this bill under these difficult
circumstances. We have been able to provide additional funds for key
weapon systems procurement like the UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters and
Javelin precision guided missiles and speed up the testing and
development of the RAH-66 Comanche, while also adding critical funds to
help improve and maintain the infrastructure on our military
installations. I urge all members to support the bill.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I join my colleagues today in support of
H.R. 3616, the FY 1999 Defense Authorization Bill. This bipartisan
effort has been well received and will do much to ensure that the
security of the United States and its territories will be preserved.
Mr. Chairman, these are dangerous times. Today, the United States is
faced with multifaceted threats from all corners of the globe. The list
is enormous: illicit Ballistic Missile technology transfers from Russia
and China, North Korean and Iranian ballistic missile development, a
potential nuclear arms race in South Asia, continuing strife in Bosnia,
Iraq's failure to completely comply with U.N. weapons inspectors,
rioting, oppression, and a secession crisis in Indonesia, a seemingly
insurmountable international narcotrafficking problem and the specter
of global and domestic terrorism. Our military forces are being
stretched to the limit, being forced to do more with less. These
threats matched against our Nation's shrinking defense budget all
create a tense security environment that our Nation must contend with.
But, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3616 is not just about outfitting our
military with the best equipment and training to meet these challenges,
it is also about doing more for our uniformed men and women. H.R. 3616
includes several measures that I introduced that enhances the lives of
our service personnel. I was able to obtain language that would allow
National Guardsmen to have equal PX/BX and Commissary privileges as the
active duty servicemen when called up for duty during a federally
declared disaster. We learned of this inequity only too well when
Typhoon Paka struck Guam last December. Additionally, I reintroduced an
amendment that will authorize the reimbursement for the cost of a
rental car, after a permanent change of station transfer to a new duty
station overseas under the travel automobile rental allowance
authorized to service members. This provision would apply only to
service members whose motor vehicle has not arrived by the promised
shipping date. This initiative, suggested to me by Colonel Adolf
Sgambelluri of Guam, became a reality after working closely with
Congressman Steve Buyer and Congressman Gene Taylor.
Mr. Chairman, the House National Security Committee also manages a
vital oversight function over the Department of Defense. My colleagues
and I treat this responsibility very seriously. Two oversight
initiatives that I had included in this bill are (1) to secure
directive report language that requires the Department of Defense to
report to Congress on the reasons that led to the establishment of
Department of Defense Dependents School (DoDDS), their plan of
reintegration between the DoDDS and the public school system on Guam,
and report on the specific plans to construct any structure on Guam for
the expressed purpose of housing DoDDS facilities on Guam; and (2) to
require the Department of Defense to report to Congress their proposed
plan for privatization of public (departmental and military) owned
electric and water utilities and the real property that these utilities
are located on. The report also requires that DoD describe the
criterion where such a conveyance will not be made on the grounds of
national security. I worked closely with Chairman Joel Hefley on this
initiative and would like to thank him for his foresight in including
this important initiative.
Mr. Chairman, one note of dissent, I am not in support of this bill's
provision that will mandate gender-separate training and barracks for
all services of the armed forces during basic training. I have often
commented on the growing rift in military/civilian relations. I believe
that for 50 years the armed forces has been the most successful
institution that promotes inclusion of both race and gender. To reverse
that noble history, which this measure will certainly do, is to run the
risk of dangerously turning our military into an organization that will
be further separated from the society that it is charged to defend.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned with the Department of
Defense's continuing utilization of the A-76 process in its quest to
mete out savings and increase productivity. While I recognize that the
Department can no longer conduct business the way it had during the
Cold War, it seems shortsighted and thankless to potentially lay off
thousands of government employees who have served for so long. Despite
that the A-76 process, at a minimum, provides a chance for Government
employees to compete, we must recognize that this is an inglorious
method to show our gratitude for all their years of public service. I
believe that the Department of Defense is relying too heavily on A-76,
privatization and other outsourcing initiatives to provide sorely
needed savings for their programs. I remain skeptical over the
estimates that DoD claims they will reap from these processes.
Essentially, I am concerned that the retirement benefit packages of
Federal employees is penalized severely for early retirement.
Currently, there is no provision to protect the full receipt of
benefits if the employee is displaced by a private sector worker as a
result of A-76. The devastating inequity of A-76 is that a federal
worker who is 2 to 3 years away from retirement will lose out on a full
pension through no fault of their own. In conclusion, it is my hope
that the Department will seriously review the process to protect its
loyal employees and the retirement benefits that they were promised.
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Gibbons) having assumed the chair, Mr. Pease, Chairman pro tempore of
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
3616) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for military
activities of Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel
strengths for fiscal year 1999, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.

____________________