[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 66 (Thursday, May 21, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3666-H3690]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1452


                     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. Pease (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose on 
Wednesday, May 20, 1998, amendment No. 3 printed in Part B of House 
report 105-544 had been disposed of.


     Part D Amendments En Bloc, as Modified, Offered by Mr. Spence

  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments en bloc, as modified.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc and 
report the modifications.
  The text of the amendments en bloc is as follows:

  Part D amendments en bloc offered by Mr. Spence:
       Part D amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Bryantt:
       At the end of title X (page 234, after line 4), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 1044. CLARIFICATION OF STATE AUTHORITY TO TAX 
                   COMPENSATION PAID TO CERTAIN EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Limitation on State Authority To Tax Compensation Paid 
     to Individuals Performing Services at Fort Campbell, 
     Kentucky.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 4 of title 4, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 115. Limitation on State authority to tax compensation 
       paid to individuals performing services at Fort Campbell, 
       Kentucky

       ``Pay and compensation paid to an individual for personal 
     services at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, shall be subject to 
     taxation by the State or any political subdivision thereof of 
     which such employee is a resident.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The table of sections for 
     chapter 4 of title 4, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

``115. Limitation on State authority to tax compensation paid to 
              individuals performing services at Fort Campbell, 
              Kentucky.''.
       (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply to pay and compensation paid after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

[[Page H3667]]

       (b) Clarification of State Authority To Tax Compensation 
     Paid to Certain Federal Employees.--
       (1) In general.--Section 111 of title 4, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``(a) General Rule.--'' before ``The 
     United States'' the first place it appears, and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Treatment of Certain Federal Employees Employed at 
     Federal Hydroelectric Facilities Located on the Columbia 
     River.--Pay or compensation paid by the United States for 
     personal services as an employee of the United States at a 
     hydroelectric facility--
       ``(1) which is owned by the United States,
       ``(2) which is located on the Columbia River, and
       ``(3) portions of which are within the States of Oregon and 
     Washington,

     shall be subject to taxation by the State or any political 
     subdivision thereof of which such employee is a resident.
       ``(c) Treatment of Certain Federal Employees Employed at 
     Federal Hydroelectric Facilities Located on the Missouri 
     River.--Pay or compensation paid by the United States for 
     personal services as an employee of the United States at a 
     hydroelectric facility--
       ``(1) which is owned by the United States,
       ``(2) which is located on the Missouri River, and
       ``(3) portions of which are within the States of South 
     Dakota and Nebraska,

     shall be subject to taxation by the State or any political 
     subdivision thereof of which such employee is a resident.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection 
     shall apply to pay and compensation paid after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
                                  ____

  Part D amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Cunningham:
       Strike out section 2812 (page 299, beginning line 1), and 
     insert the following new section:

     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 extent reasonably 
     practicable, that outdoor recreation opportunities (including 
     fishing, hunting, trapping, wildlife viewing, boating, and 
     camping) made available to the public also provide access for 
     persons described in paragraph (2) when topographic, 
     vegetative, and water resources allow access for such persons 
     without substantial modification to the natural environment.
       ``(2) Persons referred to in paragraph (1) are the 
     following:
       ``(A) Disabled veterans.
       ``(B) Military dependents with disabilities.
       ``(C) Other persons with disabilities, when access to a 
     military installation for such persons and other civilians is 
     not otherwise restricted.
       ``(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 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.--''.
                                  ____

       Part D amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Underwood:
       At the end of section 653(e) (page 183, line 7), insert the 
     following: ``The report shall be submitted not later than six 
     months after the date of the enactment of this Act and shall 
     include, in addition to the certification, a description of 
     the system used to recover from commercial carriers the costs 
     incurred by the Department under such amendments.''.
                                  ____

       Part D amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Traficant:
       At the end of title VIII (page 199, after line 25), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 804. TIME FOR SUBMISSION OF ANNUAL REPORT RELATING TO 
                   BUY AMERICAN ACT.

       Section 827 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2611; 41 
     U.S.C. 10b-3) is amended by striking out ``90 days'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``60 days''.
                                  ____

       Part D amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Traficant:
       At the end of title X (page 234, after line 4), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 1044. REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE BURIAL FLAGS WHOLLY 
                   PRODUCED IN THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) Requirement.--Section 2301 of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(f)(1) Any flag furnished pursuant to this section shall 
     be wholly produced in the United States.
       ``(2) For the purpose of paragraph (1), the term `wholly 
     produced' means--
       ``(A) the materials and components of the flag are entirely 
     grown, manufactured, or created in the United States;
       ``(B) the processing (including spinning, weaving, dyeing, 
     and finishing) of such materials and components is entirely 
     performed in the United States; and
       ``(C) the manufacture and assembling of such materials and 
     components into the flag is entirely performed in the United 
     States.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to flags furnished by the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs under section 2301 of title 38, United States Code, 
     after September 30, 1998.
                                  ____

       Part D amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Traficant:
       At the end of part II of subtitle D of title XXVIII (page 
     320, after line 11), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 2843. LAND CONVEYANCE, NAVAL AND MARINE CORPS RESERVE 
                   FACILITY, YOUNGSTOWN, OHIO.

       (a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Navy may 
     convey, without consideration, to the City of Youngstown, 
     Ohio (in this section referred to as the ``City''), all 
     right, title, and interest of the United States in and to a 
     parcel of excess real property, including improvements 
     thereon, that is located at 315 East Laclede Avenue in 
     Youngstown, Ohio, and is the location of a Naval and Marine 
     Corps Reserve facility.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of the conveyance under 
     subsection (a) is to permit the City to use the parcel for 
     educational purposes.
       (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 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.
                                  ____

       Part D amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Bartlett of Maryland 
     and Mr. Solomon:
       At the end of title X (page 234, after line 4), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC.   . INVESTIGATION OF ACTIONS RELATING TO 174TH FIGHTER 
                   WING OF NEW YORK AIR NATIONAL GUARD.

       (a) Investigation.--The Inspector General of the Department 
     of Defense shall investigate the grounding of the 174th 
     Fighter Wing of the New York Air National Guard and the 
     subsequent dismissal, demotion, or reassignment of 12 
     decorated combat pilots of that wing.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Inspector General shall submit to 
     the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the 
     Committee on National Security of the House of 
     Representatives a report describing the results of the 
     investigation under subsection (a).
                                  ____

       Part D amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Frank of 
     Massachusetts and Mr. Sisisky:
       At the end of title XII (page 253, after line 3), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 1206. LIMITATION ON PAYMENTS FOR COST OF NATO EXPANSION.

       (a) The amount spent by the United States as its share of 
     the total cost to North Atlantic Treaty Organization member 
     nations of the admission of new member nations to the North 
     American Treaty Organization may not exceed 10 percent of the 
     cost of expansion or a total of $2,000,000,000, whichever is 
     less, for fiscal years 1999 through 2011.
       (b) If at any time during the period specified in 
     subsection (a), the United States'

[[Page H3668]]

     share of the total cost of expanding the North Atlantic 
     Treaty Organization exceeds 10 percent, no further United 
     States funds may be expended for the costs of such expansion 
     until that percentage is reduced to below 10 percent.
                                  ____

       Part D amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Hobson:
       At the end of title VII (page 197, after line 5) insert the 
     following new sections:

     SEC. 726. REQUIREMENT THAT MILITARY PHYSICIANS POSSESS 
                   UNRESTRICTED LICENSES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1094(a) of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3) In the case of a physician under the jurisdiction of 
     the Secretary of a military department, such physician may 
     not provide health care as a physician under this chapter 
     unless the current license of the physician is an 
     unrestricted license which is not subject to limitation on 
     the scope of practice ordinarily granted to other physicians 
     for a similar specialty by the jurisdiction that granted the 
     license.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 727. ESTABLISHMENT OF MECHANISM FOR ENSURING COMPLETION 
                   BY MILITARY PHYSICIANS OF CONTINUING MEDICAL 
                   EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--(1) Chapter 55 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 1094 the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 1094a. Mechanism for monitoring of completion of 
       Continuing Medical Education requirements

       ``The Secretary of Defense shall establish a mechanism for 
     the purpose of ensuring that each person under the 
     jurisdiction of the Secretary of a military department who 
     provides health care under this chapter as a physician 
     completes the Continuing Medical Education requirements 
     applicable to the physician.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``1094a. Mechanism for monitoring of completion of Continuing Medical 
              Education requirements.''.

       (b) Effective Date.--Section 1094a of title 10, United 
     States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall take effect on 
     the date that is three years after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.
                                  ____

       Part D amendment No. 10 offered by Mrs. Maloney of New 
     York:
       At the end of subtitle D of title VI (page 178, after line 
     20), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 642. REVISION TO COMPUTATION OF RETIRED PAY FOR ENLISTED 
                   MEMBERS WHO ARE REDUCED IN GRADE BEFORE 
                   RETIREMENT.

       (a) Pre-September 8, 1980 Members.--Section 1406(i) of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph (2):
       ``(2) Exception for members reduced in grade.--Paragraph 
     (1) does not apply in the case of a member who after serving 
     as the senior enlisted member of an armed force is reduced in 
     grade as the result of a court-martial sentence, nonjudicial 
     punishment, or other administrative process, as determined by 
     the Secretary concerned.''.
       (b) Post-September 7, 1980 Members.--Section 1407 of such 
     title is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(f) Limitation for Enlisted Members Reduced in Grade.--
       ``(1) Basic pay disregarded for grades above grade to which 
     reduction in grade is made.--In computing the high-three 
     average of a retired enlisted member who has been reduced in 
     grade, the amount of basic pay to which the member was 
     entitled for any covered pre-reduction month (or to which the 
     member would have been entitled if serving on active duty 
     during that month, in the case of a member entitled to 
     retired under pay under section 12731 of this title) shall 
     (for the purposes of such computation) be deemed to be the 
     rate of basic pay to which the member would have been 
     entitled for that month if the member had served on active 
     duty during that month in the grade to which the reduction in 
     grade was made.
       ``(2) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Retired enlisted member who has been reduced in 
     grade.--The term `retired enlisted member who has been 
     reduced in grade' means a member or former member who--
       ``(i) retires in an enlisted grade, transfers to the Fleet 
     Reserve or Fleet Marine Corps Reserve, or becomes entitled to 
     retired pay under chapter 12731 after last serving in an 
     enlisted grade; and
       ``(ii) had at any time previously been reduced in grade as 
     the result of a court-martial sentence, nonjudicial 
     punishment, or other administrative process, as determined by 
     the Secretary concerned.
       ``(B) Covered pre-reduction month defined.--The term 
     `covered pre-reduction month' means, in the case of a retired 
     enlisted member who has been reduced in grade, a month of 
     service of the member before the reduction in grade of the 
     member during which the member served in a grade higher than 
     the grade to which the reduction in grade was made.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply in the case of a member who is reduced in grade 
     by sentence of a court-martial only in the case of a court-
     martial conviction on or after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act. Subsection (f) of section 1407 of title 10, United 
     States Code, as added by the amendment made by subsection 
     (b), shall not apply to the retired or retainer pay of any 
     person who becomes entitled to that pay before the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Technical Amendment.--Subsection (e) of section 1407 of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking out 
     ``high-36 average shall be computed'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``high-three average shall be computed under 
     subsection (c)(1)''.
                                  ____

       Part D amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Markey:
       At the end of title XXXI (page 363, after line 5), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 3154. PROHIBITION ON USE OF TRITIUM PRODUCED IN 
                   FACILITIES LICENSED UNDER THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT 
                   FOR NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVE PURPOSES.

       (A) Prohibition.--Section 57(e) of the Atomic Energy Act of 
     1954 (42 U.S.C. 2077(e)) is amended by inserting after 
     ``section 11,'' the following: ``or tritium''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 108 of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 2138) is amended by inserting ``or tritium'' after 
     ``special nuclear material'' in the second and third 
     sentences each place it appears.
                                  ____

       Part D amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Stenholm and Mr. 
     Thune:
       At the end of title VII of the bill (page 197, after line 
     5), insert the following new section:

     SECTION 726. PROPOSAL ON ESTABLISHMENT OF APPEALS PROCESS FOR 
                   CLAIMCHECK DENIALS AND REVIEW OF CLAIMCHECK 
                   SYSTEM.

       Not later than November 1, 1998, the Secretary of Defense 
     shall submit to Congress a proposal to establish an appeals 
     process in cases of denials through the ClaimCheck computer 
     software system of claims by civilian providers for payment 
     for health care services provided under the TRICARE program.
                                  ____

       Part D amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. McKeon:
       At the end of title X (page 234, after line 4), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 1044. FACILITATION OF OPERATIONS AT EDWARDS AIR FORCE 
                   BASE, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) Facilitation of Operations.--The Secretary of the Air 
     Force may, in order to facilitate implementation of the 
     Edwards Air Force Base Alliance Agreement, authorize 
     equipment, facilities, personnel, and other resources 
     available to the Air Force at Edwards Air Force Base to be 
     used in such manner as the Secretary considers appropriate 
     for the efficient operation and support of either or both of 
     the organizations that are parties to that agreement without 
     regard to the provisions of section 1535 of title 31, United 
     States Code (and any regulations of the Department of Defense 
     prescribed under that section).
       (b) Preservation of Financial Integrity of Funds.--The 
     Secretary shall carry out subsection (a) so as to preserve 
     the financial integrity of funds appropriated to the 
     Department of the Air Force and the National Aeronautics and 
     Space Administration.
       (c) Edwards Air Force Base Alliance Agreement.--For 
     purposes of this section, the term ``Edwards Air Force Base 
     Alliance Agreement'' means the agreement entered into in May 
     1995, between the commander of the Air Force Flight Test 
     Center and the director of the Dryden Flight Research Center 
     of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, both of 
     which are located at Edwards Air Force Base, California, to 
     develop and sustain a working relationship between the two 
     organizations to improve the efficiency of the operations of 
     both organizations while preserving the unique missions of 
     both organizations.
       (d) Delegation.--The authority of the Secretary under this 
     section may be delegated, at the Secretary's discretion, to 
     the commander of the Air Force Flight Test Center, Edwards 
     Air Force Base, California.
       (e) Report.--Not later than May 1, 1999, the Secretary of 
     Defense and the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and 
     Space Administration shall submit to Congress a joint report 
     on the implementation of this section.
                                  ____

       Part D amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. Hunter:
       At the end of title XII (page 253, after line 3), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 1206. COMMODITY JURISDICTION FOR SATELLITE EXPORTS.

       (a) Control on Munitions List.--All satellites of United 
     States origin, including commercial satellites and satellite 
     components, shall be placed on the United States Munitions 
     List, and the export of such satellites shall be controlled 
     under the Arms Export Control Act, effective 60 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Regulations.--Regulations to carry out subsection (a) 
     shall be issued within 60 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
                                  ____

       Part D amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Spence:

[[Page H3669]]

       At the end of subtitle D of title X (page 228, after line 
     13), insert the following new section:

     SEC.  . TRANSMISSION OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH REPORTS PROVIDING 
                   CONGRESS WITH CLASSIFIED SUMMARIES OF ARMS 
                   CONTROL DEVELOPMENTS.

       (a) Reporting Requirement.--The Director of the Arms 
     Control and Disarmament Agency (or the Secretary of State, if 
     the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency becomes an element of 
     the Department of State) shall transmit to Congress on a 
     periodic basis reports containing classified summaries of 
     arms control developments.
       (b) Contents of Reports.--The reports required by 
     subsection (a) shall include information reflecting the 
     activities of forums established to consider issues relating 
     to treaty implementation and treaty compliance, including the 
     Joint Compliance and Inspection Commission, the Joint 
     Verification Commission, the Open Skies Consultative 
     Commission, the Standing Consultative Commission, and the 
     Joint Consultative Group.
                                  ____

       Part D amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Sessions:
       At the end of subtitle D of title III (page 67, after line 
     3), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 340. BEST COMMERCIAL INVENTORY PRACTICES FOR MANAGEMENT 
                   OF SECONDARY SUPPLY ITEMS.

       (a) Development and Submission of Schedule.--Not later than 
     180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of each military department shall develop and 
     submit to Congress a schedule for implementing within the 
     military department, for secondary supply items managed by 
     that military department, inventory practices identified by 
     the Secretary as being the best commercial inventory 
     practices for the acquisition and distribution of such supply 
     items consistent with military requirements. The schedule 
     shall provide for the implementation of such practices to be 
     completed not later than five years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``best commercial inventory practice'' includes cellular 
     repair processes, use of third-party logistics providers, and 
     any other practice that the Secretary of the military 
     department determines will enable the military department to 
     reduce inventory levels and holding costs while improving the 
     responsiveness of the supply system to user needs.
       (c) GAO Reports on Military Department and Defense 
     Logistics Agency Schedules.--(1) Not later than 240 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller 
     General shall submit to Congress a report evaluating the 
     extent to which the Secretary of each military department has 
     complied with the requirements of this section.
       (2) Not later than 18 months after the date on which the 
     Director of the Defense Logistics Agency submits to Congress 
     a schedule for implementing best commercial inventory 
     practices under section 395 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85; 
     111 Stat. 1718; 10 U.S.C. 2458 note), the Comptroller General 
     shall submit to Congress an evaluation of the extent to which 
     best commercial inventory practices are being implemented in 
     the Defense Logistics Agency in accordance with that 
     schedule.
                                  ____

       Part D amendment No. 18 offered by Mr. Gibbons:
       At the end of title XII (page 253, after line 3), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 1206. RELEASE OF EXPORT INFORMATION HELD BY THE 
                   DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE FOR PURPOSE OF NATIONAL 
                   SECURITY ASSESSMENTS.

       (a) Release of Export Information.--The Secretary of 
     Commerce shall transmit any information relating to exports 
     that is held by the Department of Commerce and is requested 
     by the officials designated in subsection (b) for the purpose 
     of assessing national security risks. The Secretary of 
     Commerce shall transmit such information within 5 days after 
     receiving a written request for such information. Information 
     referred to in this section includes--
       (1) export licenses, and information on exports that were 
     carried out under an export license issued by the Department 
     of Commerce; and
       (2) information collected by the Department of Commerce on 
     exports from the United States that were carried out without 
     an export license.
       (b) Requesting Officials.--The officials referred to in 
     subsection (a) are the Director of Central Intelligence, the 
     Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Energy. The 
     Director of Central Intelligence, the Secretary of Defense, 
     and the Secretary of Energy may delegate to other officials 
     within their respective agency and departments the authority 
     to request information under subsection (b).
       Part D amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Hunter and Mr. 
     Jones:
       At the end of title X (page 234, after line 4), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING TAX TREATMENT OF 
                   PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE OF MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES 
                   WHILE AWAY FROM HOME ON ACTIVE DUTY.

       It is the sense of Congress that a member of the Armed 
     Forces should be treated as using property as a principal 
     residence during any period that the member (or the member's 
     spouse) is serving on extended active duty with the Armed 
     Forces, but only if the member used the property as a 
     principal residence for any period during or before the 
     period of extended active duty.
                                  ____

       Part D amendment No. 23 offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida:
       At the end of title X (page 234, after line 4), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC.--. OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND UPGRADE OF AIR FORCE 
                   SPACE LAUNCH FACILITIES.

       Funds appropriated pursuant to the authorizations of 
     appropriations in this Act for the operation, maintenance, or 
     upgrade of the Western Space Launch Facilities of the 
     Department of the Air Force (Program Element 35181F) and the 
     Eastern Space Launch Facilities of the Department of the Air 
     Force (Program Element 351821F) may not be obligated for any 
     other purpose.
                                  ____

       Part D amendment No. 24 offered by Mr. Barr of Georgia:
       At the end of subtitle C of title X (page 227, after line 
     14), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 1023. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING ESTABLISHMENT OF 
                   COUNTER-DRUG CENTER IN PANAMA.

       In anticipation of the closure of all United States 
     military installations in Panama by December 31, 1999, it is 
     the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of State, should continue 
     negotiations with the Government of Panama for the 
     establishment in Panama of a counter-drug center to be used 
     by the Armed Forces of the United States in cooperation with 
     Panamanian forces and military personnel of other friendly 
     nations.
                                  ____

       Part D amendment No. 25 offered by Mr. Hastings of 
     Washington:
       At the end of subtitle C of title XXXI (page 356, after 
     line 14), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 3136. HANFORD TANK CLEANUP PROGRAM REFORMS.

       (a) Establishment of Office of River Protection.--The 
     Secretary of Energy shall establish an office at the Hanford 
     Reservation, Richland, Washington, to be known as the 
     ``Office of River Protection''.
       (b) Management.--The Office shall be headed by a senior 
     official of the Department of Energy, who shall be 
     responsible for managing all aspects of the Tank Waste 
     Remediation System (also referred to as the Hanford Tank Farm 
     operations), including those portions under privatization 
     contracts, of the Department of Energy at the Hanford 
     Reservation. The Office shall be responsible for developing 
     the integrated management plan under subsection (d).
       (c) Department of Energy Responsibilities.--The Secretary 
     of Energy shall--
       (1) provide the manager of the Office of River Protection 
     with the resources and personnel necessary to manage the tank 
     waste privatization program in an efficient and streamlined 
     manner; and
       (2) establish a five-member advisory committee, including 
     the manager of the Richland operations office and a 
     representative of the Office of Privatization and Contract 
     Reform, to advise the Office.
       (d) Integrated Management Plan.--Not later than 90 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, 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 an integrated management plan for all aspects 
     of the Hanford Tank Farm operations, including the roles, 
     responsibilities, and reporting relationships of the Office 
     of River Protection. In developing the plan, the Secretary 
     shall consider the extent to which the Office should be 
     physically and administratively separate from the Richland 
     operations office.
       (e) Report.--After the Office of River Protection has been 
     in operation for two years, the Secretary of Energy shall 
     submit to Congress a report on the success of the Tank Waste 
     Remediation System and the Office in improving the management 
     structure of the Department of Energy.
       (f) Termination.--The Office of River Protection shall 
     terminate after it has been in operation for five years, 
     unless the Secretary of Energy determines that such 
     termination would disrupt effective management of Hanford 
     Tank Farm operations. The Secretary shall inform the 
     Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee 
     on National Security of the House of Representatives of this 
     determination in writing.
                                  ____

       Part D amendment No. 26 offered by Mr. Hastings of 
     Washington:
       At the end of title XXXI (page 363, after line 5), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 3154. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT AND EMERGENCY 
                   RESPONSE TRAINING PROGRAM.

       The Secretary of Energy may enter into partnership 
     arrangements with Federal and non-Federal entities to share 
     the costs of operating the hazardous materials management and 
     hazardous materials emergency response training program 
     authorized under section 3140(a) of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337; 
     108 Stat. 3088). Such arrangements may include the exchange 
     of equipment and services, in lieu of payment for the 
     training program.
                                  ____

       Part D amendment No. 27 offered by Mrs. Fowler:

[[Page H3670]]

       At the end of title IX (page 217, before line 20), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 910. ANNUAL REPORT ON INDIVIDUALS EMPLOYED IN PRIVATE 
                   SECTOR WHO PROVIDE SERVICES UNDER CONTRACT FOR 
                   THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

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

     ``Sec. 2222. Information system to track quantity and value 
       of non-Federal services

       ``(a) Implementation of System.--The Secretary of Defense 
     shall implement an information system for the collection and 
     reporting of information by the Secretaries of the military 
     departments, Directors of the Defense Agencies, and heads of 
     other DOD organizations concerning the quantity and value of 
     non-Federal services they acquired. The system shall be 
     designed to provide information, for the Department of 
     Defense as a whole and for each DOD organization, concerning 
     the following:
       ``(1) The number of workyears performed by individuals 
     employed by non-Federal entities providing goods and services 
     under contracts of the Department of Defense.
       ``(2) The labor costs to the Department of Defense under 
     the contracts associated with the performance of those 
     workyears.
       ``(3) The value of the goods and services procured by the 
     Department of Defense from non-Federal entities.
       ``(4) The appropriations associated with the contracts for 
     those goods and services.
       ``(5) The Federal supply class or service code associated 
     with those contracts.
       ``(6) The major organization element contracting for the 
     goods and services.
       ``(b) Annual Reports to Secretary of Defense.--Not later 
     than February 1 of each year, the head of each DOD 
     organization shall submit to the Secretary of Defense a 
     report detailing the quantity and value of non-Federal 
     services obtained by that organization. The report shall be 
     developed from the system under subsection (a) and shall 
     contain the following:
       ``(1) The total amount paid during the preceding fiscal 
     year to obtain goods and services provided under contracts, 
     expressed in dollars and as a percentage of the total budget 
     of that organization, and shown by appropriation account or 
     revolving fund, by Federal supply class or service code, and 
     by any major organizational element under the authority of 
     the head of that organization.
       ``(2) The total number of workyears performed during the 
     preceding fiscal year by employees of non-Federal entities 
     providing goods and services under contract, shown by 
     appropriation account or revolving fund, by Federal supply 
     class or service code, and by any major organizational 
     element under the authority of the head of that organization.
       ``(3) A detailed discussion of the methodology used under 
     the system to derive the data provided in the report.
       ``(c) Annual Report to Congress.--Not later than February 
     15 of each year, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to 
     Congress a report containing all of the information 
     concerning the quantity and value of non-Federal services 
     obtained by the Department of Defense as shown in the reports 
     submitted to the Secretary for that year under subsection 
     (b). The Secretary shall include in that report the 
     information provided by each DOD organization under 
     subsection (b) without revision from the manner in which it 
     is submitted to the Secretary by the head of that 
     organization.
       ``(d) Development of Information.--(1) The Secretary of 
     Defense may prescribe regulations to require contractors 
     providing goods and services to the Department of Defense to 
     include on invoices submitted to the Secretary or head of a 
     DOD organization responsible for such contracts the number of 
     hours of labor attributable to the contract for which the 
     invoice is submitted.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall require that each DOD 
     organization provide information for the information system 
     under subsection (a) and the annual report under subsection 
     (b) in as uniform manner as practicable.
       ``(e) Assessment by Comptroller General.--(1) The 
     Comptroller General shall conduct a review of the report of 
     the Secretary of Defense under subsection (c) each year and 
     shall--
       ``(A) assess the appropriateness of the methodology used by 
     the Secretary and the DOD organizations in deriving the 
     information provided to Congress in the report; and
       ``(B) assess the accuracy of the information provided to 
     Congress in the report.
       ``(2) Not later than 90 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).
       ``(e) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) 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.
       ``(2) The term `workyear' means the private sector 
     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.
       ``(3) The term `contract' has the meaning given such term 
     in parts 34, 35, 36, and 37 of title 48, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.
       ``(4) The term `labor costs' means all compensation costs 
     for personal services as defined in part 31 of title 48, Code 
     of Federal Regulations.
       ``(5) The term `major organizational element' means an 
     organization within a Defense Agency or military department 
     that is headed by a Senior Executive Service official (or 
     military equivalent) and that contains a contract 
     administration office (as defined in part 2 of title 48, Code 
     of Federal Regulations).
       ``(6) The term `Federal supply class or service code' is 
     the functional code prescribed by section 253.204-70 of the 
     Department of Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation 
     Supplement, as determined by the first character of such 
     code.
       ``(f) Construction of Section.--The Secretary of Defense 
     shall ensure that the provisions of this section are 
     construed broadly so as enable accurate and full accounting 
     for the volume and costs associated with contractor support 
     of the Department of Defense.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``2222. Information system to track quantity and value of non-Federal 
              services.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The system required by subsection (a) 
     of section 2222 of title 10, United States Code, as added by 
     subsection (a), shall be implemented not later than one year 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                  ____

       Part D amendment No. 28 offered Mr. Bishop:
       At the end of subtitle B of title VI (page 176, after line 
     2), insert the following new section:

     SEC. __. HARDSHIP DUTY PAY.

       (a) Duty for Which Pay Authorized.--Subsection (a) of 
     section 305 of title 37, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking out ``on duty at a location'' and all that follows 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``performing duty in the United 
     States or outside the United States that is designated by the 
     Secretary of Defense as hardship duty.''.
       (b) Repeal of Exception for Members Receiving Career Sea 
     Pay.--Subsection (c) of such section is repealed.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Subsections (b) and (d) of 
     such section are amended by striking out ``hardship duty 
     location pay'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``hardship duty 
     pay''.
       (2) Subsection (d) of such section is redesignated as 
     subsection (c).
       (3) The heading for such section is amended by striking out 
     ``location''.
       (4) Section 907(d) of title 37, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking out ``duty at a hardship duty location'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``hardship duty''.
       (d) Clerical Amendment.--The item relating to section 305 
     in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 5 of 
     such title is amended to read as follows:

``305. Special pay: hardship duty pay.''.
                                  ____

       Part D amendment No. 29 offered by Mr. Bilbray:
       At the end of title X (page 234, after line 4), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING NEW PARENT SUPPORT 
                   PROGRAM AND MILITARY FAMILIES.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the New Parent Support Program that was begun as a 
     pilot program of the Marine Corps at Camp Pendleton, 
     California, has been an effective tool in curbing family 
     violence within the military community;
       (2) such program is a model for future programs throughout 
     the Marine Corps, the Navy, and the Army; and
       (3) in light of the pressures and strains placed upon 
     military families and the benefits of the New Parent Support 
     Program in helping these high ``at-risk'' families, the 
     Department of Defense should seek ways to ensure that in 
     future fiscal years funds are made available for those 
     programs for each of the Armed Forces in amounts sufficient 
     to meet requirements for those programs.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 120 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit 
     to Congress a report on the New Parent Support Program of the 
     Department of Defense. The Secretary shall include in the 
     report the following:
       (1) A description of how the Army, Navy, Air Force, and 
     Marine Corps are each implementing a New Parent Support 
     Program and how each such program is organized.
       (2) A description of how the implementation of programs for 
     the Army, Navy, and Air Force compare to the fully 
     implemented Marine Corps program.
       (3) The number of installations that each service has 
     scheduled to receive support for the New Parent Support 
     Program.
       (4) The number of installations delayed in providing the 
     program.
       (5) The number of programs terminated.
       (6) The number of programs with reduced support.
       (7) The funding provided for those programs for each of the 
     four services for each of fiscal years 1994 through 1998 and 
     the amount projected to be provided for those programs for 
     fiscal year 1999 and, if the amount provided for any of those 
     programs for any such year is less that the amount

[[Page H3671]]

     needed to fully fund for that program for that year, an 
     explanation of the reasons for the shortfall.
                                  ____

       Part D amendment No. 30 offered by Mr. Weldon of 
     Pennsylvania:

       At the end of subtitle B of title II (page 24, after line 
     25), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 214. NEXT GENERATION INTERNET PROGRAM.

       (a) Funding.--Of the funds authorized to be appropriated 
     under section 201(4), $53,000,000 shall be available for the 
     Next Generation Internet program.
       (b) Limitation.--Notwithstanding the enactment of any other 
     provision of law after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     amounts may be appropriated for fiscal year 1999 for 
     research, development, test, and evaluation by the Department 
     of Defense for the Next Generation Internet program only 
     pursuant to the authorization of appropriations under section 
     201(4).
                                  ____

       Part D amendment No. 31 offered by Mr. Weldon of 
     Pennsylvania and Mr. Skelton:
       At the end of Division A of the bill (page 265, after line 
     8) insert the following new title:
         TITLE XIV--DEFENSE AGAINST WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

     SEC. 1401. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Defense Against Weapons of 
     Mass Destruction Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 1402. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Many nations currently possess weapons of mass 
     destruction and related materials and technologies, and such 
     weapons are increasingly available to a variety of sources 
     through legitimate and illegitimate means.
       (2) The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is 
     growing, and will likely continue despite the best efforts of 
     the international community to limit their flow.
       (3) The increased availability, relative affordability, and 
     ease of use of weapons of mass destruction may make the use 
     of such weapons an increasingly attractive option to 
     potential adversaries who are not otherwise capable of 
     countering United States military superiority.
       (4) On November 12, 1997, President Clinton issued an 
     Executive Order stating that ``the proliferation of nuclear, 
     biological, and chemical weapons (``weapons of mass 
     destruction'') and the means of delivering such weapons 
     constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the 
     national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United 
     States'' and declaring a national emergency to deal with that 
     threat.
       (5) The Quadrennial Defense Review concluded that the 
     threat or use of weapons of mass destruction is a likely 
     condition of future warfare and poses a potential threat to 
     the United States.
       (6) The United States lacks adequate preparedness at the 
     Federal, State, and local levels to respond to a potential 
     attack on the United States involving weapons of mass 
     destruction.
       (7) The United States has initiated an effort to enhance 
     the capability of Federal, State, and local governments as 
     well as local emergency response personnel to prevent and 
     respond to a domestic terrorist incident involving weapons of 
     mass destruction.
       (8) More than 40 Federal departments, agencies, and bureaus 
     are involved in combating terrorism, and many, including the 
     Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, the 
     Department of Energy, the Department of Health and Human 
     Services, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, are 
     executing programs to provide civilian personnel at the 
     Federal, State, and local levels with training and assistance 
     to prevent and respond to incidents involving weapons of mass 
     destruction.
       (9) The Department of Energy has established a Nuclear 
     Emergency Response Team which is available to respond to 
     incidents involving nuclear or radiological emergencies.
       (10) The Department of Defense has begun to implement a 
     program to train local emergency responders in major cities 
     throughout the United States to prevent and respond to 
     incidents involving weapons of mass destruction.
       (11) The Department of Justice has established a National 
     Center for Domestic Preparedness at Fort McClellan, Alabama, 
     to conduct nuclear, biological, and chemical preparedness 
     training for Federal, State, and local officials to enhance 
     emergency response to incidents involving weapons of mass 
     destruction.
       (12) Despite these activities, Federal agency initiatives 
     to enhance domestic preparedness to respond to an incident 
     involving weapons of mass destruction are hampered by 
     incomplete interagency coordination and overlapping 
     jurisdiction of agency missions, for example:
       (A) The Secretary of Defense has proposed the establishment 
     of 10 Rapid Assessment and Initial Detection elements, 
     composed of 22 National Guard personnel, to provide timely 
     regional assistance to local emergency responders during an 
     incident involving chemical or biological weapons of mass 
     destruction. However, the precise working relationship 
     between these National Guard elements, the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency regional offices, and State and local 
     emergency response agencies has not yet been determined.
       (B) The Federal Emergency Management Agency, the lead 
     Federal agency for consequence management in response to a 
     terrorist incident involving weapons of mass destruction, has 
     withdrawn from the role of chair of the Senior Interagency 
     Coordination Group for domestic emergency preparedness, and a 
     successor agency to chair the Senior Interagency Coordinator 
     has not yet been determined.
       (C) In order to ensure effective local response 
     capabilities to incidents involving weapons of mass 
     destruction, the Federal Government, in addition to providing 
     training, must concurrently address the need for--
       (i) compatible communications capabilities for all Federal, 
     State, and local emergency responders, which often use 
     different radio systems and operate on different radio 
     frequencies;
       (ii) adequate equipment necessary for response to an 
     incident involving weapons of mass destruction, and a means 
     to ensure that financially lacking localities have access to 
     such equipment;
       (iii) local and regional planning efforts to ensure the 
     effective execution of emergency response in the event of an 
     incident involving a weapon of mass destruction; and
       (iii) increased planning and training to prepare for 
     emergency response capabilities in port areas and littoral 
     waters.
       (D) The Congress is aware that Presidential Decision 
     Directives relating to domestic emergency preparedness for 
     response to terrorist incidents involving weapons of mass 
     destruction are being considered, but agreement has not been 
     reached within the executive branch.
                   Subtitle A--Domestic Preparedness

     SEC. 1411. DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS FOR RESPONSE TO THREATS OF 
                   TERRORIST USE OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

       (a) Enhanced Response Capability.--In light of the 
     continuing potential for terrorist use of weapons of mass 
     destruction against the United States and the need to develop 
     a more fully coordinated response to that threat on the part 
     of Federal, State, and local agencies, the President shall 
     act to increase the effectiveness at the Federal, State, and 
     local level of the domestic emergency preparedness program 
     for response to terrorist incidents involving weapons of mass 
     destruction by developing an integrated program that builds 
     upon the program established under title XIV of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 
     104-201; 110 Stat. 2714).
       (b) Report.--Not later than January 31, 1999, the President 
     shall submit to Congress a report containing information on 
     the actions taken at the Federal, State, and local level to 
     develop an integrated program to prevent and respond to 
     terrorist incidents involving weapons of mass destruction.

     SEC. 1412. REPORT ON DOMESTIC EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS.

       Section 1051 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85; 111 Stat. 1889) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Annex on Domestic Emergency Preparedness Program.--As 
     part of the report submitted to Congress under subsection 
     (b), the President shall include an annex which provides the 
     following information on the domestic emergency preparedness 
     program for response to terrorist incidents involving weapons 
     of mass destruction (as established under title XIV and 
     section 1411 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1999):
       ``(1) information on program responsibilities for each 
     participating Federal department, agency, and bureau;
       ``(2) a summary of program activities performed during the 
     preceding fiscal year for each participating Federal 
     department, agency, and bureau;
       ``(3) a summary of program obligations and expenditures 
     during the preceding fiscal year for each participating 
     Federal department, agency, and bureau;
       ``(4) a summary of the program plan and budget for the 
     current fiscal year for each participating Federal 
     department, agency, and bureau;
       ``(5) the program budget request for the following fiscal 
     year for each participating Federal department, agency, and 
     bureau;
       ``(6) recommendations for improving Federal, State, and 
     local domestic emergency preparedness to respond to incidents 
     involving weapons of mass destruction that have been made by 
     the Advisory Commission on Domestic Response Capabilities for 
     Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction (as 
     established under section 1421 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999), and actions taken as 
     a result of such recommendations; and
       ``(7) requirements regarding additional program measures 
     and legislative authority for which congressional action may 
     be recommended.''.

     SEC. 1413. PERFORMANCE OF THREAT AND RISK ASSESSMENTS.

       (a) Threat and Risk Assessments.--(1) Assistance to 
     Federal, State, and local agencies provided under the program 
     under section 1411 shall include the performance of 
     assessments of the threat and risk of terrorist employment of 
     weapons of mass destruction against cities and other local 
     areas. Such assessments shall be used by Federal, State,

[[Page H3672]]

     and local agencies to determine the training and equipment 
     requirements under this program and shall be performed as a 
     collaborative effort with State and local agencies.
       (2) The Department of Justice, as lead Federal agency for 
     crisis management in response to terrorism involving weapons 
     of mass destruction, shall, through the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation, conduct any threat and risk assessment 
     performed under paragraph (1) in coordination with 
     appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, and shall 
     develop procedures and guidance for conduct of the threat and 
     risk assessment in consultation with officials from the 
     intelligence community.
       (3) The President shall identify and make available the 
     funds necessary to carry out this section.
       (b) Pilot Test.--(1) Before prescribing final procedures 
     and guidance for the performance of threat and risk 
     assessments under this section, the Attorney General, through 
     the Federal Bureau of Investigation may, in coordination with 
     appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, conduct a 
     pilot test of any proposed method or model by which such 
     assessments are to be performed.
       (2) The pilot test shall be performed in cities or local 
     areas selected by the Department of Justice, through the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation, in consultation with 
     appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies.
       (3) The pilot test shall be completed not later than 4 
     months after the date of the enactment of this Act.
      Subtitle B--Advisory Commission to Assess Domestic Response 
    Capabilities For Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction

     SEC. 1421. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment.--There is hereby established a 
     commission to be known as the ``Advisory Commission on 
     Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving 
     Weapons of Mass Destruction'' (hereinafter referred to as the 
     ``Commission'').
       (b) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 15 
     members, appointed as follows:
       (1) 4 members appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives;
       (2) 4 members appointed by the majority leader of the 
     Senate;
       (3) 2 members appointed by the minority leader of the House 
     of Representatives;
       (4) 2 members appointed by the minority leader of the 
     Senate;
       (5) 3 members appointed by the President.
       (c) Qualifications.--Members shall be appointed from among 
     individuals with knowledge and expertise in emergency 
     response matters.
       (d) Deadline for Appointments.--Appointments shall be made 
     not later than the date that is 30 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (e) Initial Meeting.--The Commission shall conduct its 
     first meeting not later than the date that is 30 days after 
     the date that appointments to the Commission have been made.
       (f) Chairman.--A Chairman of the Commission shall be 
     elected by a majority of the members.

     SEC. 1422. DUTIES OF COMMISSION.

       The Commission shall--
       (1) assess Federal agency efforts to enhance domestic 
     preparedness for incidents involving weapons of mass 
     destruction;
       (2) assess the progress of Federal training programs for 
     local emergency responses to incidents involving weapons of 
     mass destruction;
       (3) assess deficiencies in training programs for responses 
     to incidents involving weapons of mass destruction, including 
     a review of unfunded communications, equipment, and planning 
     and maritime region needs;
       (4) recommend strategies for ensuring effective 
     coordination with respect to Federal agency weapons of mass 
     destruction response efforts, and for ensuring fully 
     effective local response capabilities for weapons of mass 
     destruction incidents; and
       (5) assess the appropriate role of State and local 
     governments in funding effective local response capabilities.

     SEC. 1423. REPORT.

       Not later than the date that is 6 months after the date of 
     the first meeting of the Commission, the Commission shall 
     submit a report to the President and to Congress on its 
     findings under section 1422 and recommendations for improving 
     Federal, State, and local domestic emergency preparedness to 
     respond to incidents involving weapons of mass destruction.

     SEC. 1424. POWERS.

       (a) Hearings.--The Commission or, at its direction, any 
     panel or member of the Commission, may, for the purpose of 
     carrying out this Act, hold such hearings, sit and act at 
     times and places, take testimony, receive evidence, and 
     administer oaths to the extent that the Commission or any 
     panel member considers advisable.
       (b) Information.--The Commission may secure directly from 
     any department or agency of the United States information 
     that the Commission considers necessary to enable the 
     Commission to carry out its responsibilities under this Act.

     SEC. 1425. COMMISSION PROCEDURES.

       (a) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of a 
     majority of the members.
       (b) Quorum.--Eight members of the Commission shall 
     constitute a quorum other than for the purpose of holding 
     hearings.
       (c) Commission.--The Commission may establish panels 
     composed of less than full membership of the Commission for 
     the purpose of carrying out the Commission's duties. The 
     actions of each such panel shall be subject to the review and 
     control of the Commission. Any findings and determinations 
     made by such panel shall not be considered the findings and 
     determinations of the Commission unless approved by the 
     Commission.
       (d) Authority of Individuals To Act for Commission.--Any 
     member or agent of the Commission may, if authorized by the 
     Commission, take any action which the Commission is 
     authorized to take by this Act.

     SEC. 1426. PERSONNEL MATTERS.

       (a) Pay of Members.--Members of the Commission shall serve 
     without pay by reason of their work on the Commission.
       (b) Travel Expenses.--The members of the Commission shall 
     be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from their homes or regular places of 
     business in the performance of services for the Commission.
       (c) Staff.--(1) The Commission may, without regard to the 
     provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing 
     appointments in the competitive service, appoint a staff 
     director and such additional personnel as may be necessary to 
     enable the Commission to perform its duties.
       (2) The Commission may fix the pay of the staff director 
     and other personnel without regard to the provisions of 
     chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, 
     United States Code, relating to classification of positions 
     and General Schedule pay rates, except that the rate of pay 
     fixed under this paragraph for the staff director may not 
     exceed the rate payable for level V of the Executive Schedule 
     under section 5316 of such title and the rate of pay for 
     other personnel may not exceed the maximum rate payable for 
     grade GS-15 of the General Schedule.
       (d) Detail of Government Employees.--Upon request of the 
     Commission, the head of any Federal department or agency may 
     detail, on a nonreimbursable basis, any personnel of that 
     department or agency to the Commission to assist it in 
     carrying out its duties.
       (e) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
     The Commission may procure temporary and intermittent 
     services under section 3109(b) of title 5, United States 
     Code, at rates for individuals which do not exceed the daily 
     equivalent of the annual rate of pay payable for level V of 
     the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of such title.

     SEC. 1427. MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

       (a) Postal and Printing Services.--The Commission may use 
     the United States mails and obtain printing and binding 
     services in the same manner and under the same conditions as 
     other departments and agencies of the United States.
       (b) Miscellaneous Administrative and Support Services.--
     Upon the request of the Commission, the Administrator of 
     General Services shall provide to the Commission, on a 
     reimbursable basis, the administrative support services 
     necessary for the Commission to carry out its duties under 
     this title.
       (c) Experts and Consultants.--The Commission may procure 
     temporary and intermittent services under section 3109(b) of 
     title 5, United States Code.

     SEC. 1428. TERMINATION OF COMMISSION.

       The Commission shall terminate not later than 60 days after 
     the date that the Commission submits its report under section 
     1423.

     SEC. 1429. FUNDING.

       Funds for activities of the Commission shall be provided 
     from amounts appropriated for the Department of Defense for 
     operation and maintenance for Defense-wide activities for 
     fiscal year 1999.
                                  ____

       Part D amendment No. 32 offered by Mr. Weldon of 
     Pennsylvania:
       At the end of title XXXI (page 363, after line 5), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 3154. ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH PROJECT.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Currently in the post-cold war world, there are new 
     opportunities to facilitate international political and 
     scientific cooperation on cost-effective, advanced, and 
     innovative nuclear management technologies.
       (2) There is increasing public interest in monitoring and 
     remediation of nuclear waste.
       (3) It is in the best interest of the United States to 
     explore and develop options with the international community 
     to facilitate the exchange of evolving advanced nuclear 
     wastes technologies.
       (4) The Advanced Technology Research Project facilitates an 
     international clearinghouse and marketplace for advanced 
     nuclear technologies.
       (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of Congress 
     that the President should instruct the Secretary of Energy, 
     in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of 
     Defense, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency, and other officials as appropriate, to consider the 
     Advanced Technology Research Project and submit to the 
     Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee 
     on National Security of the House of Representatives a report 
     containing the following:

[[Page H3673]]

       (1) An assessment of whether the United States should 
     encourage the establishment of an international project to 
     facilitate the international exchange of information 
     (including costs data) relating to advanced nuclear waste 
     technologies, including technologies for solid and liquid 
     radioactive wastes and contaminated soils and sediments.
       (2) An assessment of whether such a project could be funded 
     privately through industry, public interest, and scientific 
     organizations and administered by an international 
     nongovernmental organization, with operations in the United 
     States, Russia, and other countries that have an interest in 
     developing such technologies.
       (3) Recommendations for any legislation that the Secretary 
     of Energy believes would be required to enable such a project 
     to be undertaken.
                                  ____

       Part D amendment No. 33 offered by Mr. Weldon of 
     Pennsylvania and Mr. Spratt:
       At the end of subtitle C of title II (page 29, after line 
     21), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 236. RESTRUCTURING OF THEATER HIGH-ALTITUDE AREA DEFENSE 
                   SYSTEM ACQUISITION STRATEGY.

       (a) Establishment of Alternative Contractor.--(1) The 
     Secretary of Defense shall select an alternative contractor 
     as a potential source for the development and production of 
     the interceptor missile for the Theater High-Altitude Area 
     Defense (THAAD) system within a ``leader-follower'' 
     acquisition strategy.
       (2) The Secretary shall take such steps as necessary to 
     ensure that the prime contractor for that system prepares the 
     selected alternative contractor so as to enable the 
     alternative contractor to be able (if necessary) to assume 
     the responsibilities for development or production of an 
     interceptor missile for that system.
       (3) The Secretary shall select the alternative contractor 
     as expeditiously as possible and shall use the authority 
     provided in section 2304(c)(2) of title 10, United States 
     Code, to expedite that selection.
       (4) Of the amount authorized under section 201(4) for the 
     Theater High-Altitude Area Defense system, the amount 
     provided for the Demonstration/Validation phase for that 
     system is hereby increased by $142,700,000, of which 
     $30,000,000 shall be available for the purposes of this 
     subsection, and the amount provided for the Engineering and 
     Manufacturing Development phase for that system is hereby 
     reduced by $142,700,000.
       (b) Cost Sharing Arrangement.--The Secretary of Defense 
     shall contractually establish an appropriate cost sharing 
     arrangement with the prime contractor as of May 14, 1998, for 
     the interceptor missile for the Theater High-Altitude Area 
     Defense system for flight test failures of that missile 
     beginning with flight test nine.
       (c) Engineering and Manufacturing Development Phase for 
     Other Elements of the THAAD System.--The Secretary of Defense 
     shall proceed as expeditiously as possible with the milestone 
     approval process for the Engineering and Manufacturing 
     Development phase for the Battle Management and Command, 
     Control, and Communications (BM/C3) element of the 
     Theater High-Altitude Area Defense system and for the Ground-
     Based Radar (GBR) element for that system. That milestone 
     approval process for those elements shall proceed without 
     regard to the stage of development of the missile interceptor 
     for that system.
       (d) Requirement Before Procurement of UOES Missiles.--The 
     Secretary of Defense may not obligate any funds for 
     acquisition of User Operational Evaluation System (UOES) 
     missiles for the Theater High-Altitude Area Defense system 
     until there have been two successful tests of the interceptor 
     missile for that system.
       (e) Limitation on Entering Engineering and Manufacturing 
     Development Phase.--The Secretary of Defense may not approve 
     the commencement of the Engineering and Manufacturing 
     Development phase for the interceptor missile for the Theater 
     High-Altitude Area Defense system until there have been three 
     successful tests of that missile.
       (f) Successful Test Defined.--For purposes of this section, 
     a successful test of the interceptor missile of the Theater 
     High-Altitude Area Defense system is a body-to-body intercept 
     by that missile of a ballistic missile target.
                                  ____

       Part D amendment No. 34 offered by Mr. Spence:
       At the end of title XII (page 253, after line 3), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 1206. EXECUTION OF OBJECTION AUTHORITY WITHIN THE 
                   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

       Section 1211 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85; 111 Stat. 1932) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Delegation of Objection Authority Within the 
     Department of Defense.--For the purposes of the Department of 
     Defense, the authority to issue an objection referred to in 
     subsection (a) shall be executed for the Secretary of Defense 
     by an individual at the Assistant Secretary level within the 
     office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. In 
     implementing subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense shall 
     ensure that Department of Defense procedures maximize the 
     ability of the Department of Defense to be able to issue an 
     objection within the 10-day period specified in subsection 
     (c).''.
                                  ____

       Part D amendment No. 35 offered by Mr. Weldon of 
     Pennsylvania and Mr. Pickett:
       Page 21, line 12, strike out ``$3,078,251,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$4,208,978,000''.
                                  ____

       Part D amendment No. 36 offered by Mr. Riley:
       Page 19, strike line 2 and all that follows through page 
     20, line 16 and insert the following:

     SEC. 141. ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR DESTRUCTION OF 
                   ASSEMBLED CHEMICAL WEAPONS.

       (a) Program Management.--(1) The program manager for the 
     Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment program shall continue 
     to manage the development and testing (including 
     demonstration and pilot-scale facility testing) of 
     technologies for the destruction of lethal chemical munitions 
     that are potential or demonstrated alternatives to the 
     baseline incineration program. In performing such management, 
     the program manager shall act independently of the program 
     manager for Chemical Demilitarization and shall report to the 
     Secretary of the Army, or his designee.
       (2) 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 Assembled Chemical Weapons 
     Assessment program from the Under Secretary to the Secretary.
       (3) Oversight of the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment 
     program shall be transferred pursuant to the plan submitted 
     under paragraph (2) 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)).
       (b) Post-Demonstration Activities.--(1) The program manager 
     for the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment program may 
     carry out those activities necessary to ensure that an 
     alternative technology for the destruction of lethal chemical 
     munitions may be implemented immediately after--
       (A) the technology has been demonstrated to be successful;
       (B) the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
     Technology has submitted to Congress a report on the 
     demonstration; and
       (C) a decision has been made to proceed with the pilot-
     scale facility phase for an alternative technology.
       (2) To prepare for the immediate implementation of any such 
     technology, the program manager may, during fiscal years 1998 
     and 1999, take the following actions:
       (A) Establish program requirements.
       (B) Prepare procurement documentation.
       (C) Develop environmental documentation.
       (D) Identify and prepare to meet public outreach and public 
     participation requirements.
       (E) Prepare to award a contract for the design, 
     construction, and operation of a pilot facility for the 
     technology to the provider team for the technology not later 
     than December, 1999.
       (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) Funding.--Of the amount authorized to be appropriated 
     in section 107, $12,600,000 shall be available for the 
     Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment program for the 
     following:
       (1) Demonstration of alternative technologies under the 
     Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment program.
       (2) Planning and preparation to proceed immediately from 
     demonstration of an alternative technology to the development 
     of a pilot-scale facility for the technology, including 
     planning and preparation for--
       (A) continued development of the technology leading to 
     deployment of the technology;
       (B) satisfaction of requirements for environmental permits;
       (C) demonstration, testing, and evaluation;
       (D) initiation of actions to design a pilot program;
       (E) provision of support at the field office or depot level 
     for deployment of the technology; and
       (F) educational outreach to the public to engender support 
     for the development.
       (3) An independent cost and schedule evaluation of the 
     Assembled Chemical Weapons Assembled program, to be completed 
     not later than December 30, 1999.
       (e) Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment Program 
     Defined.--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.
                                  ____

       Part D amendment No. 37 offered by Mr. Porter:
       At the end of part I of subtitle D of title XXVIII (page 
     317, after line 3), insert the following new section:

[[Page H3674]]

     SEC. --. LAND CONVEYANCE, FORT SHERIDAN, ILLINOIS.

       (a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army may 
     convey to the City of Lake Forest, Illinois (in this section 
     referred to as the ``City''), all right, title, and interest, 
     of the United States in and to all or some portion of the 
     parcel of real property, including improvements thereon, at 
     the former Fort Sheridan, Illinois, consisting of 
     approximately 14 acres and known as the northern Army Reserve 
     enclave area.
       (b) Consideration.--As consideration for the conveyance 
     under subsection (a), the City shall pay to the United States 
     an amount equal to not less than the fair market value of the 
     real property to be conveyed, as determined by the Secretary.
       (c) Use of Proceeds.--In such amounts as are provided in 
     advance in appropriations Acts, the Secretary may use the 
     funds paid by the City under subsection (b) to provide for 
     the construction of replacement facilities and for the 
     relocation costs for Reserve units and activities affected by 
     the conveyance.
       (d) 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.
       (e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require such additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United 
     States.
                                  ____

       Part D amendment No. 38 offered by Mr. Doolittle:
       At the end of subtitle D of title X (page 228, after line 
     13), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 1032. REPORT ON PERSONNEL RETENTION.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     submit to Congress a report containing information on the 
     retention of members of the Armed Forces on active duty in 
     the combat, combat support, and combat service support forces 
     of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.
       (b) Required Information.--The Secretary shall include in 
     the report information on retention of members with military 
     occupational specialties (or the equivalent) in combat, 
     combat support, or combat service support positions in each 
     of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. Such 
     information shall be shown by pay grade and shall be 
     aggregated by enlisted grades and officers grades and shall 
     be shown by military occupational specialty (or the 
     equivalent). The report shall set forth separately (in 
     numbers and as a percentage) the number of members separated 
     during each such fiscal year who terminate service in the 
     Armed Forces completely and the number who separate from 
     active duty by transferring into a reserve component.
       (c) Years Covered by Report.--The report shall provide the 
     information required in the report, shown on a fiscal year 
     basis, for each of fiscal years 1989 through 1998.

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modifications.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Part D amendment No. 13, as modified, offered by Mr. Hall 
     of Ohio:
       The amendment as modified is as follows:
       At the end of subtitle B of title II (page 24, after line 
     25), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 214. SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FUNCTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT 
                   OF DEFENSE.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) to ensure sufficient financial resources are devoted to 
     emerging technologies, a goal of at least 10 percent of funds 
     available under title II for each of the Army, Navy, and Air 
     Force should be dedicated to science and technology in each 
     military department;
       (2) management and funding for science and technology for 
     each military department should receive a level of priority 
     and leadership attention equal to the level received by 
     program acquisition, and the Secretary of each military 
     department should ensure that a senior member of the 
     department holds the appropriate title and responsibility to 
     ensure effective oversight and emphasis on science and 
     technology;
       (3) to ensure an appropriate long-term focus for 
     investments, a sufficient percentage of science and 
     technology funds should be directed toward new technology 
     areas, and annual reviews should be conducted for ongoing 
     research areas to ensure that those funded initiatives are 
     either integrated into acquisition programs or discontinued;
       (4) the military departments should take appropriate steps 
     to ensure that sufficient numbers of officers and civilian 
     employees in each department hold advanced degrees in 
     technical fields; and
       (5) of particular concern, the Secretary of the Air Force 
     should take appropriate measures to ensure that sufficient 
     numbers of scientists and engineers are maintained to address 
     the technological challenges faced in the areas of air, 
     space, and information technology.
       (b) Study.--
       (1) Requirement.--The Secretary of Defense, in cooperation 
     with the National Research Council of the National Academy of 
     Sciences, shall conduct a study on the technology base of the 
     Department of Defense.
       (2) Matters covered.--The study shall--
       (A) recommend the minimum requirements to maintain a 
     technology base that is sufficient, based on both historical 
     developments and future projections, to project superiority 
     in air and space weapons systems, and information technology;
       (B) address the effects on national defense and civilian 
     aerospace industries and information technology by reducing 
     funding below the goal described in paragraph (1) of 
     subsection (a); and
       (C) recommend the appropriate level of staff holding 
     baccalaureate, masters, and doctorate degrees, and the 
     optimal ratio of civilian and military staff holding such 
     degrees, to ensure that science and technology functions of 
     the Department of Defense remain vital.
       (3) Report.--Not later than 120 days after the date on 
     which the study required under paragraph (1) is completed, 
     the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the 
     results of the study.
                                  ____

       Part D amendment No. 22, as modified, offered by Mr. 
     Kennedy of Rhode Island:
       The amendment as modified is as follows:
       Page 135, beginning on line 7, strike out ``AND OTHER 
     NATIONS'' and insert in lieu thereof ``OTHER NATIONS, AND 
     INDIGENOUS GROUPS''.
       Page 135, after line 16, insert the following (and 
     redesignate the succeeding paragraphs accordingly):
       (2) Indigenous groups, such as the Hmong, Nung, Montagnard, 
     Kahmer, Hoa Hao, and Cao Dai contributed military forces, 
     together with the United States, during military operations 
     conducted in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam conflict.
       Page 135, beginning on line 17, strike out ``the combat 
     forces from these nations'' and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``these combat forces''.
       Page 136, line 1, insert ``, indigenous groups,'' after 
     ``Vietnamese''.
       Page 136, line 13, insert ``, as well as members of the 
     Hmong, Nung, Montagnard, Kahmer, Hoa Hao, and Cao Dai,'' 
     after ``the Philippines''.
                                  ____

       Amendment deemed printed in part D of the report by order 
     of the House of May 20, 1998, as modified, offered by Mr. 
     Everett:
       The amendment as modified is as follows:
       At the end of title XII (page 253, after line 3), insert 
     the following:

     SEC. 1206. TRANSFER OF EXCESS UH-1 HUEY HELICOPTERS AND AH-1 
                   COBRA HELICOPTERS TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

       (a) In General.--(1) Chapter 153 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 2581. Transfer of excess UH-1 Huey helicopters and AH-
       1 Cobra helicopters to foreign countries

       ``(a) Requirements.--The Secretary of Defense shall make 
     all reasonable efforts to ensure that any excess UH-1 Huey 
     helicopter or AH-1 Cobra helicopter that is to be transferred 
     on a grant or sales basis to a foreign country for the 
     purpose of flight operations for such country shall meet the 
     following requirements:
       ``(1) Prior to such transfer, the helicopter receives, to 
     the extent necessary, maintenance and repair equivalent to 
     the depot-level maintenance and repair, as defined in section 
     2460 of this title, that such helicopter would need were the 
     helicopter to remain in operational use with the armed forces 
     of the United States.
       ``(2) Maintenance and repair described in paragraph (1) is 
     performed in the United States.
       ``(b) Exception.--The requirements of subsection (a) shall 
     not apply with respect to salvage helicopters provided to the 
     foreign country solely as a source for spare parts.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``2581. Transfer of excess UH-1 Huey helicopters and AH-1 Cobra 
              helicopters to foreign countries.''.

       (b) Effective Date.--Section 2581 of title 10, United 
     States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall apply with 
     respect to the transfer of a UH-1 Huey helicopter or AH-1 
     Cobra helicopter on or after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

  Mr. SPENCE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the modifications be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 441, the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence).
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute 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, I rise in strong support of 
the en bloc amendment, and thank the chairman of the committee for 
including the Bartlett-Solomon amendment in this package. I believe 
that a picture

[[Page H3675]]

is worth a thousand words, and this picture shows a scene which should 
grab the attention of every Member of Congress.
  Last Thursday, on the East Front of the Capitol, 12 members of the 
New York Air National Guard, all of whom were combat-decorated 
veterans, surrendered their combat medals and decorations on the steps 
of the Capitol in protest.
  These men, who are some of our Nation's best and brightest, were 
protesting the actions of the New York Air National Guard, who, with 
reckless abandon and complete disregard for combat capability, bowed at 
the altar of political correctness and rushed an unqualified female 
pilot into the combat unit at the expense of military readiness.
  When the members of the Air Guard brought their allegations to their 
chain of command, their unit was grounded, and the pilots who brought 
the allegations forward were transferred, demoted, or dismissed.
  These brave men, in whom our country has invested over $20 million, 
have shown that the New York Air Guard investigation into these 
allegations was fraught with charges of coverup, withholding of 
evidence, and perjury.
  We cannot allow political correctness to ruin the lives and careers 
of members of the military who have sacrificed their lives for this 
country. The Bartlett-Solomon amendment will require a DOD inspector 
general to investigate the grounding of the Air National Guard. I urge 
support of the en bloc amendment.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the debate 
time for consideration of amendments en bloc be expanded by 30 minutes, 
and that such time be equally divided and controlled by the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and myself.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from South Carolina?
  Mr. SKELTON. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, that gives 
each side how much time total?
  Mr. SPENCE. If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Chairman, that is 25 
minutes.
  Mr. SKELTON. 25 minutes each? All right.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
South Carolina?
  Mr. WAMP. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, is there any 
way we could designate that extended time, 10 minutes on the Markey 
amendment, divided 5 minutes per side, on this critical issue of 
tritium production in the United States of America?
  Mr. SPENCE. If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Chairman, we have about 
30 people who want to speak now. That just about takes that up.
  Mr. WAMP. I understand that, sir. This is a $4.5 billion issue. I 
think it deserves at least 10 minutes on the floor of the U.S. House of 
Representatives at this critical time in history, please.
  Mr. SPENCE. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, I 
suggest to the gentleman he might get 10 people to say that much, and 
that would be 10 minutes.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation, and ask the 
ranking member and the chairman to please make sure we get our due time 
on the floor.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, it is my honor today to 
rise as a proud sponsor of the Kennedy amendment in the en bloc 
amendments. This amendment would recognize the services of the military 
forces of South Vietnam, other nations, as well as indigenous groups in 
connection with the United States Armed Forces during the Vietnam 
conflict.
  From 1965 to 1971, these indigenous groups, such as the Kahmer, Nung, 
Hmong, Lao, Montagnard, Hao Hao, and Cao Dai, were the spearhead in the 
struggle for freedom in Southeast Asia. They fought against both the 
North Vietnamese army and the South Vietnamese insurgents.
  They rescued downed American pilots and protected American air bases, 
bases from which thousands of missions were flown against North 
Vietnam. They were armed, equipped, fed, paid, and often transported 
into and out of conflict by the United States military. They all 
provided an invaluable service to the American military and to their 
own people.
  By supporting this amendment, we will be giving these veterans the 
respect and recognition that they deserve. If we support this 
amendment, no one will ever again say that America and the world does 
not recognize the valor and courage demonstrated by these veterans in 
the struggle for freedom in Southeast Asia.

                              {time}  1500

  They can take pride in the fact that they will live on in American 
history as part of a long line of soldiers who fought to make the world 
a safer place.
  In particular, Mr. Chairman, I would like to acknowledge and 
recognize the contributions of the Hmong and Lau veterans who comprise 
such a vital segment of the population in my own State of Rhode Island 
and with whom I have had a good personal working relationship.
  On behalf of every one of the 86 Hmong and Lau veterans in my State 
of Rhode Island and on behalf of the 14,000 Hmong and Lau veterans in 
this country, I would like to ask my colleagues to show their support 
for this cause that they fought alongside our American service people 
with and show that America does not forget them.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Solomon), chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, following up on the Bartlett-Solomon 
amendment, it is under very grave circumstances that we come to the 
floor today to ask the Inspector General of the Department of Defense 
to undertake an impartial investigation into a very disturbing and 
controversial case involving the 174th Fighter Wing of the Air National 
Guard in my home State of New York.
  We cannot explain it all in one minute, but let me just say the 
members of the 174th, often referred to as the ``Boys from Syracuse,'' 
have had their names besmirched and their careers destroyed. They 
should not be kept in the dark any longer. They have turned in their 
medals from 15 heroes in the Vietnam War because of their protesting of 
the treatment they got because of politics in the New York State Air 
National Guard. I hope that we accept the amendment. Let us get on with 
this investigation.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment I have co-authored 
with my good friend and member of the National Security Committee, 
Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland.
  Unfortunately, it is under very grave circumstances that we come to 
the floor today to force the Inspector General of the Department of 
Defense to undertake an impartial investigation into a very disturbing 
and controversial case involving the 174th Fighter Wing of the Air 
National Guard in my home state of New York.
  Particularly, we are asking the IG to examine what seem to be 
retaliatory tactics taken against a number of members of that unit 
after they came forward to report what they believed to be serious 
wrong-doing by a trainee and superiors in their midst.
  The worst part is that this stemmed from another social experiment in 
the military gone wrong when former Governor Cuomo's administration 
forced the acceptance of a female pilot into the wing who proved to be 
incapable of flying in a fighter wing and a constant source of 
controversy.
  Even though this situation dates back several years to 1993, the 
fallout has been tragic and continues today.
  Just last week, I had two of my own constituents turn in all of the 
medals they had earned from the Air Force as decorated members of the 
174th Fighter Wing.
  All tolled 15 pilots from the unit turned in their medals and Air 
Force Wings, many of whom are combat decorated veterans of the Persian 
Gulf War.
  The question is why would so many members of one distinguished unit 
feel compelled to take such a dramatic step?
  Why would the members of a wing who flew 1600 missions in the Persian 
Gulf War suddenly renounce their allegiance to the Air Force and the 
New York Air Guard they once so proudly and expertly represented?
  Well, Mr. Chairman, the answer is simple to anyone who takes a minute 
to listen to their story.

[[Page H3676]]

  These men were forced to retire, had their mental stability placed in 
question, accused of discrimination, reassigned to jobs copying papers, 
after being trained to fly fighters at a cost of $20 million to we 
taxpayers I might add, and otherwise humiliated.
  In short, their distinguished military careers were destroyed and 
their future employment as private pilots jeopardized.
  And for what? Because they had the guts to come forward and report 
wrongdoing in their unit and because they questioned the capability of 
the high-profile female trainee who couldn't pass muster as a fighter 
pilot.
  Mr. Chairman, the military is not intended to be a social lab.
  The American military has to be founded on a warrior culture that 
strives for uncompromising excellence because their mission is to fight 
wars and protect our way of life.
  This case highlights just how much we place our national security and 
military preparedness at risk by continuing to press these politically 
correct experiments.
  These principal pilots and officers were concerned for their units 
combat readiness yet their calls were ignored and they were punished.
  That's exactly why we want the IG to examine this case now, Mr. 
Chairman.
  We want to know what rules were violated and by whom, regardless of 
rank.
  We want to know who did or did not perjure themselves during 
subsequent investigations, one by the military, the other by New York 
State's Inspector General.
  We want to know if there was retaliation by superiors in the military 
against six pilots who made whistle-blower complaints and expected to 
be protected by whistle-blower laws.
  We want to know if combat readiness was jeopardized.
  And most importantly, we want all of this to be made public in full 
once and for all.
  The members of the 174th, often referred to as the `Boys from 
Syracuse', have had their names besmirched and their careers destroyed.
  They shouldn't be kept in the dark any longer and they deserve to 
have an investigation into this mess that is open and fair.
  Requirinfg this investigation and a report to Congress will provide 
that and is a positive step toward their complete vindication.
  Please support the Bartlett/Solomon amendment.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the ranking 
minority member yielding me the time. I appreciate the support on this 
I am getting, not just from the chairman and the ranking minority 
member, but from the gentleman from Virginia who has been an active 
proponent.
  Last year we passed overwhelmingly, unanimously, an amendment that 
said the United States will not spend more than $200 million per year 
for our share of the cost of NATO expansion. NATO expansion is one 
thing. But an American subsidy of France and Germany and England and 
Italy and Scandinavia and the Benelux countries is quite another. We 
have a continuing problem.
  Our wealthy, powerful European allies, who do not themselves face 
serious threats, have gotten so used to the American taxpayer picking 
up the tab for the common defense that they do not make a contribution. 
Part of the objection to NATO was an objection over an excessive 
contribution from Americans. We in this amendment take what the State 
Department and Defense Department told us it would cost and we say that 
will be the maximum.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I would say the gentleman is absolutely 
correct. It is a good amendment. We all should support it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
because this may become a dispute between this body and the Senate, and 
I hope we will have our conferees standing firm for the American 
taxpayer if the Senate tries to kill it.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Members on both 
sides of the aisle for their overwhelming support which enables 
disabled veterans and their disabled family members to participate in 
outdoor activities. For example, if they go fishing, they want a rail 
with a wheelchair or a sub. All funds are paid for by private funds. It 
has had overwhelming support from the Sportsmen's Caucus with over 200 
members.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton) and other members of the Committee on National Security for 
accommodating my amendment as part of the manager's en bloc amendment. 
The amendment that I offered allows service personnel who serve on the 
Joint Task Force for Full Accounting in Southeast Asia and who are 
working to seek a full accounting of our MIAs, it will allow them to 
receive hardship duty pay. There are about 155 members of the task 
force at any given time and hardship duty pay is up to $300 per month 
per person.
  The men and women on these teams have volunteered for this tour of 
duty. They are dedicated to recovering and repatriating the remains of 
their colleagues, but must often work in areas that are littered with 
unexploded cluster bomb units and Sidewinder missiles. Add to that the 
malaria and snake infested, poisonous snake infested areas.
  They provide great service to our Nation by giving the families of 
our lost service personnel hope and closure. They fully deserve our 
support. This small measure will demonstrate our commitment and show 
that we appreciate the danger that they encounter while on the job.
  I had the opportunity to travel there and to see them at work and to 
experience firsthand the arduous ordeal that they go through in 
discharging this very, very sacred duty of returning the remains of our 
lost servicemen and women.
  I appreciate this, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the accommodation and 
certainly this is, I think, in the best interest of our service 
personnel and certainly in the best interest of the families of our 
lost servicemen who have not yet been repatriated.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank our chairman for yielding me the 
time. I want to yield to the gentlewoman from Washington and to the 
gentleman from North Carolina to explain a very important provision 
which will give the same tax breaks to our uniformed folks that we have 
given to the rest of the country with respect to a home sale.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Linda Smith).
  Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, this provision 
expresses Congress's resolve to fix something that we did not do quite 
right last year in the Taxpayer Relief Act. Under the Taxpayer Relief 
Act, we allow people who sell their residence to exclude the first 
$250,000 of profit or $500,000 for a married couple. To qualify, 
though, the couple has to live in the home two of the last five years. 
In military States like mine and the two gentlemen standing with me, 
that does not always work with the deployment practices of this 
administration. So we just ask that we change this to say that if they 
are actively deployed, that also is considered as living in the home. 
It is only fair and they deserve it.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Jones).
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I join the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Hunter) and the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Linda Smith) in 
offering this amendment today to urge the House to address this issue 
quickly.
  The truth is Congress never intended to change the longstanding 
policy, that is, to understand the unique nature of homeownership for 
the American taxpayer serving in the military, when we drafted the 
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. It was an oversight. Clearly, it is unfair 
to deny men, women in the military the same tax relief as their 
civilian counterparts. That is exactly what is happening. I urge my 
colleagues to support this resolution and the legislation to correct 
this unfairness.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, this just says if you are stationed around 
the world and you may have been renting your home out for two of the 
last five years because of the extraordinary demands on uniformed 
service people, you can designate that home as your place of residence 
even though you

[[Page H3677]]

may be deployed in a different place. I thank both the authors of this 
legislation. They have done a lot to help our uniformed folks.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from Missouri for 
yielding me this time.
  I rise to commend the bipartisan support for this bill and the 
leadership.
  However, I am concerned that the level of modernization funding for 
our aging tactical trucks, specifically the HMMWV and the 2\1/2\ ton 
truck extended service program, may be inadequate. The Army and Marine 
Corps have placed HMMWV near the top of their unfunded requirements 
priority list, but the fiscal year 1999 HMMWV budget request level 
would result in a gap in HMMWV production.
  The Army would require an increase to the budget of $65.7 million to 
meet existing requirements and avoid a production gap. The Marine Corps 
would require an increase of $37 million to accelerate replacement of 
aging HMMWVs with corrosion problems. In addition, the 2\1/2\ ton truck 
ESP program is critical to our Army Guard and Reserve forces which have 
large fleets of overage trucks. To meet existing requirements and to 
avoid a production gap, the 2\1/2\ ton truck ESP request needs to be 
increased by $93 million. The Senate version does this, and I would 
encourage the conferees to support the Senate authorization levels for 
these programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky).
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I understand the concerns of the 
distinguished gentleman from Indiana. The committee recognizes the 
importance of HMMWV and 2\1/2\ ton truck ESP and their unique roles in 
meeting defense requirements. I would like to assure the gentleman that 
I will ensure your concerns are carefully considered as this bill moves 
through the conference process.
  Mr. ROEMER. I thank the gentleman from Virginia and the gentleman 
from Missouri and our Republican leadership on this bill.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Hansen) for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman of the 
Committee on National Security regarding the development of fiber optic 
sensor technology in the Navy's anti-submarine warfare program.
  Mr. Chairman, for several years the Committee on National Security 
has recommended additional funds for research and development of fiber 
optic technology for the Navy's anti-submarine warfare program. This 
effort has been highly successful.
  Fiber optic technology is playing a major role in the development of 
advanced sonar centers and arrays for submarines, including the new 
attack submarine, surface ships, and the advanced deployable system.
  This year, however, I am particularly concerned that funding for the 
advanced deployable system did not specifically address fiber optics 
and may inadvertently preclude the Navy from accelerating this 
technology, even though the Navy program office views fiber optics as a 
high priority.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to report to the gentleman 
that despite the severe constraints on the budget, the committee fully 
funded the Navy's budget request for the development of fiber optic 
technology, including $11.3 million to complete the development of the 
All Optical Deployable System. The Navy's request represents an 
increased emphasis on the use of fiber optic technology, and I 
understand that the Navy's anti-submarine warfare plan emphasizes the 
exploitation of this technology in the future.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
for the information and trust that he will continue to work with me to 
accelerate the development of these important naval technologies.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Riley).
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 1997 National Defense 
Authorization Act directed the Department of Defense to conduct an 
assessment of alternative technologies for the disposal of assembled 
chemical munitions. Congress allocated $40 million for the Assembled 
Chemical Weapons Assessment program in the past year, better known as 
the ACWA program. ACWA is expected to deliver its recommendations to 
Congress this December.
  My amendment, which has been drafted in consultation with the House 
Committee on National Security staff, will allow the Department of 
Defense to continue the ACWA program beyond the demonstration phase. 
The Riley amendment transfers oversight of the alternative technology 
program from the Under Secretary of Defense for acquisition and 
technology to the Secretary of the Army. In addition, it provides $12.6 
million for a full pilot demonstration of an alternative to high 
temperature incineration.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe we must continue the progress that we have 
made in the development of alternative chemical demilitarization 
technologies. I thank the chairman and the staff for working with me on 
this amendment and urge my colleagues to support the en bloc amendment.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman, the 
distinguished ranking member for putting my amendments en bloc. One is 
a Buy American amendment with a compliance report which must be 
submitted in 60 days. The other would be a simple transfer, some task 
keeping in my district. I appreciate their help on the transfer of that 
property.
  The third one was an unusual request from the veterans of America to 
me on my issue of Buy American. It states that when a veteran passes, 
that flag that is placed in that coffin shall be 100 percent made in 
America. That is what they wanted.

                              {time}  1515

  An unusual request. They did not want the flag to be made somewhere 
else. And that is in here, and I thank the gentleman because we did not 
get into any big debate about it.
  But there is a fourth very important issue that I ask the chairman 
and the ranking member to consider. Nearly every major aviation tragedy 
has been due to bad weather, where the runway was absolutely missed 
with the existing technology. I am asking that report language, if 
necessary, or the conference, take up the position that would allow for 
and authorize a limited testing of laser-guided systems that work 
second to none in bad weather.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Duke Cunningham) knows this; that 
when a pilot gets down into that cloud cover, they do not have a whole 
lot of time to react. And most of these aviation tragedies, including 
Ron Brown's, is they misjudged that landing strip.
  So, now, this is not in there. And all I am asking, and I am not even 
asking that we put money into it, just get the Air Force, with whatever 
money they can find, if they can find it, to retrofit one air base and 
try it; where the pilot locks in and lands in the same spot on that 
runway every time.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's position. As 
he knows, we have been talking about this thing before, and I will do 
all I can as we go through the process to make this happen.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's efforts.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I first of all thank my 
distinguished chairman for yielding me this time, and thank again our 
ranking member for his cooperation.
  I will speak briefly. I have four amendments, all of which are in the 
en

[[Page H3678]]

bloc, or five amendments, actually. One is a noncontroversial amendment 
I have cosponsored with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Pickett) 
clarifying our R&D section of the bill.
  A second clarifies our jurisdiction over next generation internet, to 
make sure that all the funding for next generation internet paid for by 
the Department of Defense is, in fact, authorized by the defense 
authorization bill.
  The third amendment, Mr. Chairman, deals with the issue of a nuclear 
race cooperative program with Russia, a very severe problem. It allows 
our military, where they desire, to in fact exchange cooperative 
assistance to the Russians in cleaning up what is, in fact, a very real 
problem with their spent nuclear fuel and with their deactivated 
nuclear submarines.
  The two major amendments I wanted to focus on, first off all is the 
THAAD amendment. We had, unfortunately, the fifth unsuccessful test of 
the THAAD program. Working with my colleague, the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt), we have gone in and we have tweaked the 
contractor. We are giving the Department of Defense the authorization 
to impose liability on any further failures of the test of THAAD. We 
break off the missile program to allow the radar and the BMC cube to 
move forward. They are both very successful. And we say to the 
Pentagon, bring in a second contractor team to help oversee the THAAD 
program.
  And, finally, the last amendment I do with a distinguished Member, 
who is the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), 
and that is to look at the whole issue of how we respond to terrorist 
incidents. The gentleman from Missouri has been a lead in the body. He 
has, in fact, requested four consecutive GAO reports on the problems 
associated with response to planning for weapons of mass destruction 
and terrorist activities in this country.
  My subcommittee has held five hearings on this issue. There are 
severe problems. James Lee Witt, the head of FEMA, just recently pulled 
FEMA out of the directorate role because of confusion. What we say to 
the administration is, it is time to step back and look at reorganizing 
this process to be more efficient and effective in responding to 
terrorist incidents.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It gives me great pleasure to jointly offer this amendment with the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon). I take this opportunity to 
commend him for his leadership and his effort, and I certainly enjoy 
working with him on this very, very important issue for our country, 
and I thank him for that.
  The amendment contains several promising provisions. I am 
particularly pleased with section 1413, which contains language 
authorizing a domestic preparedness pilot program. The pilot, aimed at 
improving the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996, 
allows the FBI to assist Federal, State and local agencies with threat 
and risk assessments in order to determine training and equipment 
requirements. This is something we need. I believe this is a step in 
the right direction.
  Mr. Speaker, addressing the threat of terrorism presents great 
challenges for our Nation. At present, at least 43 Federal departments, 
agencies and bureaus are involved. At times, uneven and nearly 
incompatible levels of expertise exist, and duplication and poor 
communication may also complicate our effort.
  Furthermore, GAO, at my request, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Weldon) pointed out, recently concluded a series of terrorism 
studies with these observations: That no regular governmentwide 
collection and review of funding data exists; that no apparent 
governmentwide set of priorities has been established; that no 
assessment process exists to coordinate and focus government efforts; 
and that no government office or entity maintains the authority to 
enforce coordination.
  It is, therefore, within this context that I ask the House to 
consider this amendment. This language offers the potential to better 
prioritize training and assistance to American cities. It is also a 
timely and complementary amendment, in that, as I understand, the 
President will soon announce recommended improvements to our response 
program.
  Together, these two efforts, this language and the President's 
proposal, should bring us one step closer to attaining adequate 
coordination throughout all aspects of government. With an eye aimed 
toward this goal, I look forward to working with both the majority and 
the administration over the next several weeks.
  I again compliment the gentleman from Pennsylvania and thank him for 
his coordination and cooperation with me.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Doolittle).
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the committee for their attempt to bring 
objectivity and honesty to the readiness reporting system.
  When I visit with military people in the field, I often hear about 
the lack of ammunition, spare parts, fuel and other essential equipment 
that is degrading their training for combat.
  I thank the chairman also for incorporating my amendment in the en 
bloc amendments. This amendment would require the Secretary of Defense 
to report to Congress on the vital issue of retention. Air Force and 
Navy pilots, perhaps the most intensely and expensively trained members 
of the military, are leaving in droves, and other highly trained 
members of our Armed Forces are also leaving.
  Why? Because over the past 5 years they have been asked repeatedly to 
do more with less. That means more missions of marginal value to the 
security of the United States, executed with fewer people, older 
equipment and, most vitally, less combat training.
  This amendment will take a look at this. And I want to urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment and to support the bill.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in support of the en bloc amendment, and I am very 
happy that the committee has agreed to accept the amendments sponsored 
by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and myself for 
inclusion in the en bloc amendment.
  This amendment, quite briefly, continues to make this distinction 
between nuclear power plants, which are used to generate electricity 
that have light bulbs and toast made for civilians in their homes, and 
nuclear power plants or linear accelerators which are used to construct 
nuclear bombs.
  For 50 years in America we have kept these two facilities separate. 
When people have their lights go on at home, they know they are not 
making any material that could be used in the construction of a nuclear 
weapon.
  Now, the Congress realized this, and back in 1982, Senator Hart and 
Senator Simpson were able to pass an amendment which memorialized this. 
Kept them separate. But there is a little bit of a loophole. They did 
not mention the word ``tritium.'' And what the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Graham) and I are seeking to do is add that word, this 
critical ingredient for nuclear bombs as well.
  Otherwise, the TVA, civilian electricity generator for use in homes, 
will be able to qualify as a nuclear weapons material bomb making 
factory. And that is not good, especially when we are trying to 
convince the Indians that they should not use their civilian reactors 
for nuclear material; the Pakistanis that they should not use their 
civilian reactors for nuclear materials; that only military facilities 
should be used.
  The facility that we are talking about here is a civilian facility 
that is overseen by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This is a policy 
which has served America well for 50 years. I urge the committee to 
adopt the en bloc amendment.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the Reuse Technology Adoption 
Program, RTAP, assists the military services and defense agencies 
through

[[Page H3679]]

the reuse of computer software, originally developed for older defense 
systems, in the development of new defense systems.
  For fiscal year 1998, Congress provided $2.5 million to continue RTAP 
as a part of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's Computing 
Systems and Communications Technology program. Advanced software 
engineering techniques and training developed under the RTAP program 
have contributed to the reuse of software and programs such as the 
Joint Strike Fighter, the F-22, the EF-111 aircraft, the small ICBM, 
the global positioning system, and the Comanche helicopter. Other RTAP 
products have also been used in the software technology for Adaptable 
Reliable Systems programs and by the Institute for Defense Analysis.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe the Reuse Technology Adoption Program will 
result in lower software development and acquisition costs, increase 
the quality and productivity of software intensive systems, and assist 
the Department of Defense in developing more efficient and cost 
effective systems for our Armed Forces.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I share the gentleman's views on the 
results of the programs, such as Reuse Technology Adoption Program, and 
the contribution such programs can make towards stretching the 
increasingly limited research and development funds available to DOD.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
chairman of the committee.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining 
on each side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) has 11 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) 
has 13 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Cramer).
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
this time.
  I rise reluctantly in opposition to the en bloc amendments. Our 
colleague from Massachusetts just spoke about the tritium issue. The 
Markey-Graham amendment is a dangerous amendment, and I hope my 
colleagues will listen to me.
  The issue is tritium. We will be interrupting, if we adopt this 
amendment in the en bloc amendments, we will be interrupting an already 
mandated process by DOE to evaluate how we produce tritium.
  This country must have tritium for bombs. But tritium is not a 
substance that we are not already seeing commercial use of. It is used 
on airport runways. It is used in exit signs. There have been 
opportunities before for us to use this very important substance.
  Back in 1988, we decided we had enough tritium. In 1993, we decided 
that we needed more tritium; that we needed to advance the production 
of it. So we mandated that DOE begin a process of evaluating how we 
would do that. If we adopt this amendment today, we are eliminating one 
of the two options for producing tritium that are under consideration 
by DOE.
  So the Members need to be aware this is a very controversial 
amendment. This is a very controversial process that we will be getting 
into. And if Members are confused, they should vote against the en bloc 
amendments in order to allow DOE and the administration to complete a 
process that we started.
  So please pay attention to this amendment. It should not be in the en 
bloc amendments. There has been no hearing over this particular issue 
at all, and here we are on the floor, within a matter of a few minutes 
that we can squeeze out, trying to decide an issue that is extremely 
important to this country.
  Please vote against the en bloc amendments because of the Markey-
Graham amendment.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  My amendment would require the secretaries of each military 
department to draft a plan and set a schedule for implementing best 
inventory practices for secondary inventory items.
  This may sound rather innocuous, Mr. Chairman, but this tiny 
amendment would reap substantial savings for the Department of Defense, 
the American people and, perhaps more importantly, the fighting men and 
women of this great country.
  The General Accounting Office recently reported that 62 percent of 
the hardware items purchased by DOD went unused for an entire year, and 
that an additional 21 percent of these items had enough inventory to 
last for more than 2 years.

                              {time}  1530

  That means that 77 percent of the Department of Defense's $5.7 
billion hardware inventory is wasting away in some warehouse.
  With innovative solutions throughout the Department of Defense, our 
fighting men and women will have more reliable logistic systems at a 
lower cost, and that is what this amendment is about.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to 
thank the chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), and 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member, for 
accepting one of my amendments regarding soldiers' pensions en bloc.
  While I understand this sort of protection is necessary for those who 
have served honorably, I was most disappointed to see it used as a 
loophole for enlisted men who have a felony conviction to avoid 
punishment. My amendment closes this loophole, and I thank them for 
accepting.
  I also rise in support of the Session amendment requiring the 
Department of Defense to begin using modern, best-business practices, 
common-sense business practices for its inventory control. I am happy 
to see that he, as well as members of the Committee on National 
Security, are finally taking up an issue on which I have been working 
for many years.
  The Department of Defense controls some of the most advanced 
technology in the world, but its inventory management practices are 
stuck in the stone ages. Last year, the General Accounting Office 
reported that DOD was holding a secondary inventory worth $67 billion, 
and they further reported that $41 billion of which was not needed. 
They reported there was a hundred-year supply of some items that were 
totally unnecessary and that it cost taxpayers $90 million a year just 
to house it.
  This amendment will require the Department of Defense to order 
supplies on an as-needed basis. It will save taxpayers billions of 
dollars in useless parts and supplies.
  I compliment my colleague, and I am glad that he has brought this to 
the floor, and I hope that it passes.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Scarborough) in a colloquy on the issue of ship scrapping.
  Mr. Scarborough, as we know, the government's program for scrapping 
obsolete ships of the Department of Defense and the Maritime 
Administration has recently come under scrutiny because of 
environmental, health and safety violations that have occurred at some 
domestic ship breakers and concerns about the conditions under which 
ships are scrapped overseas.
  As chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation 
Subcommittee of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I 
held a hearing on the problems of this program in March and will hold a 
follow-up hearing on June 4, 1998.
  Based upon testimony at the March hearing and the recently published 
report of an interagency panel studying the issue, I continue to have 
concerns about the ability of DOD and MARAD

[[Page H3680]]

to develop a satisfactory plan to dispose of obsolete vessels.
  I intend to aggressively pursue the ship scrapping issue with a goal 
of developing legislation to address this problem next year. I hope to 
work closely with the Merchant Marine Panel of the Committee on 
National Security to pursue the goal of establishing a viable and 
environmentally responsible ship scrapping program.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, I understand the concerns of my 
colleague and want to work with him to examine this issue and work with 
him for a solution for the ship disposal problem that does not impose 
additional regulatory or financial burdens upon the Department of 
Defense or the Maritime Administration.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Scarborough) and the Chairman for their cooperation in this matter.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  (Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I am coming back to this tritium issue, the 
Markey amendment. We need to focus on this as part of this en bloc 
amendment.
  Tritium is a gas. It is necessary to maintain our nuclear weapons 
capability in the United States of America. Just look around the world 
and we know that we need to do that. So we have to produce a tritium 
source again by a date certain. The Department of Energy was given a 
mandate, as the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) said, by Congress 
to pursue these legitimate options. And we must produce tritium.
  Two options exist. One is an accelerator-based project, which would 
be built in the State of South Carolina, at an estimated cost of more 
than $4 billion with a pretty high annual operation cost. The 
accelerator has not been built, so the technology is really unproven 
and untested.
  The other option, which has been tested, is to use a commercial 
reactor. TVA, the Tennessee Valley Authority, which has a defense 
mission in its charter, was given the Department of Energy project to 
test tritium. It has been enormously successful. We have tested the 
production of tritium in a commercial reactor. It is safe and reliable, 
and the operational costs are lower. And the initial capital cost, the 
total cost, is $2\1/2\ billion less than the accelerator.
  But the Markey amendment, working with the leadership of this 
committee, is eliminating the cheaper option completely. The Senate 
will not revive it, I am afraid. This may be the last chance to save 
the taxpayers $2\1/2\ billion and do the right thing.
  The National Taxpayers Union is against it. Citizens Against 
Government Waste is against it. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) speaks eloquently. But, frankly, there is fear tactics being 
implemented about the safety of testing tritium or producing tritium at 
a commercial reactor.
  This is a political power play that is going to cost the American 
taxpayers big time over time. This is arbitrary. Please vote and 
reluctantly vote against the en bloc amendment.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, now the rest of the story about tritium.
  The good news is that when we are talking about tritium, something we 
ought to be talking about, my good friend the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Wamp) is absolutely right, it is an essential component to keep a 
nuclear deterrent force operational.
  I speak about it from representing a district that has made tritium 
for the United States military for about 50 years. There is parochial 
interests involved. If they do not have a dog in this tritium, they 
make a decision they think is good for the country. But let me point a 
couple things out to my colleagues.
  The reactor they are talking about that TVA owns is 85 percent 
complete. They do not have the money to complete it. Nobody will buy 
it, and they are trying to dump it on the Department of Energy. Let me 
tell my colleagues what would be so dangerous to let this happen.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) is right. Seldom do we 
agree on anything. And this is an historic agreement in Congress when 
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Graham) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) can agree on something.
  But if we allow a commercial reactor to make a nuclear weapons 
product, we are taking 50 years of American public policy and turning 
it on its head at a time the world is in the most danger it has been in 
recent times. And what are we going to tell the Indians when they use 
their commercial power plants to make nuclear weapons? ``Do not do that 
like us''? That is not what we want to tell them.
  Let us talk about money. I will take my position as a fiscal 
conservative against anybody in this body. The $4 billion price tag we 
hear about the accelerator, the other way of making tritium, is too 
much. $4 billion is too much to spend.
  A modular design is being had right now to reduce the cost of the 
accelerator to $2.6 billion. If they use the TVA numbers to complete 
this reactor, which is 85 percent complete, they say $2\1/2\ billion. A 
utility that looked at buying the thing said it cost over $4 billion to 
complete.
  If they go down this road, they will be in court forever. Because 
every group in this country will sue them to keep them from using a 
commercial reactor to make a military product, and they ought to sue 
them. It will never happen. Do not take a bad reactor off TVA's hands 
and mess up American military policy.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, tritium production is necessary for our 
national defense; and it is certainly reasonable to select the safest, 
most economical source of production.
  The Markey amendment which we have discussed today would force the 
Department of Energy to select an unproven accelerator option that is 
three times the cost of proven commercial lot water reactor technology.
  The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste opposes the Markey 
amendment, and with good reason. Should the accelerator option not 
perform well or suffer delays in development, the government could be 
forced to purchase a light-water reactor in addition to the accelerator 
in order not to hamper our national security.
  We can safely spend $1.8 to $2 billion on a commercial light-water 
reactor or risk $4 billion to $6 billion on the accelerator option. 
Unless the Markey amendment is removed, I must vote against the en bloc 
amendments and strongly encourage my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Barr) for a unanimous consent request.


    Modification to Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Barr of Georgia

  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment at the desk in place of amendment D-24 be inserted in this en 
bloc amendment.
  Chairman. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment, as modified, offered by Mr. Barr of Georgia:
       The amendment as modified is as follows:
       At the end of subtitle C of title X (page 227, after line 
     14), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 1023. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING ESTABLISHMENT OF 
                   COUNTER-DRUG CENTER IN PANAMA.

       In anticipation of the closure of all United States 
     military installations in Panama by December 31, 1999, it is 
     the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of State, should continue 
     negotiations with the Government of Panama for the 
     establishment in Panama of a counter-drug center to be used 
     by military and civilian personnel of the United States, 
     Panama, and other friendly nations.

  Mr. BARR of Georgia (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Georgia?

[[Page H3681]]

  There was no objection.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to 
have this amendment in the en bloc amendment, and particularly as 
amended.
  This amendment puts the Congress of the United States firmly on 
record as encouraging and supporting and urging the administration of 
this country and the administration in Panama to do everything possible 
to move forward the negotiations for the development of a multinational 
counter-drug center to be located in Panama after the date of December 
31, 1999, which is when all U.S. military and civilian presence in 
control of the canal ceases.
  This is a very important set of negotiations that are moving forward. 
They have not been moving forward with the dispatch that is necessary. 
And I think it is important in our joint effort with Panama and our 
colleagues in Latin America to go on record as encouraging, supporting 
and proactively moving forward with these very important negotiations 
for the development of a multinational counter-drug center to be 
located in Panama with military and civilian personnel from Panama, the 
United States and other friendly nations to fight the war against 
drugs.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chairman of the 
Committee for yielding me the time, and I thank the ranking member for 
supporting my amendment, which is included in the en bloc amendment. 
And I encourage all my colleagues to vote for the en bloc amendment.
  My amendment is an amendment to fence off the funds for the 
modernization of the eastern test range located in Cape Canaveral in my 
district in Florida, as well as the western test range in California.
  For years now, DOD, because of multiple demands from all of these 
overseas deployments, has been raiding various accounts, to include the 
account for modernizing our test ranges. The result is that the range 
modernization programs are falling way behind.
  I recently witnessed a launch of a probe to Mars being scrubbed at 
Cape Canaveral because of the failure of a tube. Yes, a tube. We are 
relying on antiquated technology to keep our launch ranges operational. 
This is a disgrace. Support the modernization of our ranges. This is a 
critical issue to our national security. I encourage a yes vote on the 
en bloc amendment.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Doolittle) for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spence) for his commitment to force readiness. He 
knows well how the cuts in training have put our national security at 
risk.
  But I would like to ask for his commitment that when this bill is in 
conference that he will fight to maintain the House readiness reporting 
language and will work to keep my amendment on retention in the 
conference report.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, he can depend 
on it. We realize the importance of readiness is one of the important 
problems we have, and we will do our best to keep it in there.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this en bloc 
amendment package, which includes my amendment to require that all 
excess military helicopters meet certain safety and operational 
requirements before they can be transferred to foreign governments. Any 
work required to meet these standards must be done by a qualified U.S. 
company in the United States. The amendment has been modified to meet 
the concerns of the International Relations Committee.
  The purpose of this amendment is two-fold.
  First, to ensure that when we transfer these helicopters (primarily 
UH-1 Huey's) to our allies for counter drug missions or other purposes, 
that the aircraft are actually operational, and at least, meet minimum 
safety standards. The current ``where is, as is'' standard often means 
these aircraft are not airworthy when they are transferred. Mexico has 
a large fleet of our excess Huey's rotting in a field, because they 
haven't been overhauled and can't fly.
  Secondly, to help maintain the aviation industrial base, any work 
necessary to bring these aircraft up to these minimum standards ought 
to be done in the United States, by American workers. This would be 
consistent with the standard that we currently use for the transfer of 
naval vessels.
  In the near term, most of these excess aircraft are destined for 
Columbia and other South American countries to help them fight the war 
on drugs. If America is serious about stemming the tide of the illegal 
drugs that are infiltrating our borders, we ought to send our allies 
overhauled Huey's with a five to ten year life extension, rather then 
an ``as is'' Huey that may last two months.
  This policy change makes sense and I urge all members to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment pending before the House, 
offered by Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania and Mr. Skelton of Missouri 
addresses matters relating to domestic terrorism involving weapons of 
mass destruction. Such matters fall within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure through our jurisdiction 
in Rule X, clause (1)(q) over ``Federal management of emergencies and 
natural disasters,'' including activities of the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA), the lead federal agency for domestic 
emergency preparedness and response.
  While I have some concerns about how broadly this amendment has been 
drafted, I fully support the intent of this Weldon/Skelton amendment to 
provide for proper coordination of Federal, State, and local efforts to 
prepare for and respond to domestic terrorism. Accordingly, I look 
forward to working with members of the National Security Committee in a 
House-Senate conference on this bill to provide some additional 
direction to the President to ensure that the authorizations provided 
by this amendment will not be used to undertake activities beyond the 
intent of Congress.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hall-
Boehlert Amendment which contains a series of sense-of-the Congress 
expressions directing the Department of Defense to focus more attention 
to long-term scientific research. It also requires the Secretary of 
Defense to initiate a study and recommend minimum requirements to 
maintain a defense technology base that is sufficient to project 
superiority in air and space weapons systems and information 
technology.
  The amendment urges that the Defense Department give science and 
technology attention equal to the level received by program 
acquisition; that the secretary of each military department ensure that 
a senior member of the department holds the appropriate title and 
responsibility to ensure effective oversight and emphasis on science 
and technology; and that annual reviews should be conducted to ensure a 
sufficient percentage of science and technology funds are directed 
toward new technology areas.
  In the past, establishing science and technology as a priority for 
our military has effectively contributed to our National defense and it 
will be even more important in the future. Once, in an era of simpler 
technology, America's superior brain power could over take the enemy's 
technology through sudden spurts of scientific development. But now, 
with longer lead times for technology development, the Nation no longer 
has the luxury of ramping up scientific research only during the time 
of crises. Only a vital, invigorated, and ongoing science and 
technology program will provide our military with the technology 
required to maintain air, space, and information superiority.
  Recent budget requests by the services, especially the Air Force, do 
not reflect the need for basic scientific research to maintain future 
military supremacy. My hope is that this amendment will instill the 
longer term view needed in the services to create quantum leaps in 
capability in the next century.
  I thank Mr. Boehlert, the cosponsor of the amendment for his support 
on this issue. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc amendment, 
which includes the Weldon-Capps provision. I want to commend my 
colleague from Florida, Dr. Weldon, for his hard work and leadership on 
this issue and I am pleased that the Committee has agreed to accept 
this important amendment.
  This bill continues the commitment that we must make to ensure that 
our national defenses are strong enough to keep our country safe. It 
also continues the commitment that we have to the men and women of our 
armed services to ensure that they are provided with the equipment, 
facilities and support necessary to do their jobs safely and 
efficiently. They deserve nothing less.
  The Weldon-Capps amendment does one simple thing: It protects funds 
in the Air Force Budget that are supposed to go to modernize our two 
launch ranges at Vandenberg AFB and Cape Canaveral. The upgrading of 
these facilities is crucial for our national defense and to support our 
growing commercial space industry.
  The Air Force is currently undertaking a multi-year, $1.3 billion 
range modernization program for these two sites. Originally, it was

[[Page H3682]]

to be completed in 2003. However, this modernization program for our 
launch ranges is now running three years behind schedule, and is now 
not expected to be completed until at least 2006.
  This delay has arisen because over the last five years funds have 
been continually siphoned off and used for other Air Force projects. 
This has needlessly delayed the much needed upgrade of the launch 
ranges at Vandenberg and at Cape Canaveral.
  These are the primary launch facilities in the continental United 
States and their role is crucial in all of our space activities. 
However, a lack of modern infrastructure has seriously hindered U.S. 
space launch capabilities and it costs the Air Force money to maintain 
outdated facilities.
  Unless we act to ensure that these funds are dedicated to this 
critical project, we will continue to hinder our military, NASA and 
commercial launches.
  I am grateful that the Committee has recognized the value of this 
amendment to our national security and will support its addition to the 
bill.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Gilman 
amendment although I agree with many of the concerns about nuclear 
proliferation which he expresses.
  I oppose the Gilman amendment because it is unnecessary, and it runs 
counter to our efforts to discourage nuclear proliferation. Non-OECD 
countries like Taiwan, Thailand, and others, are planning the 
construction of several nuclear power facilities over the next decade. 
U.S. companies are on the cutting edge of these technologies having 
recently developed and licensed advanced light water reactors which are 
strong competitors for this business. Business which could run into the 
billions of dollars.
  But our interests here are not just commercial. Unlike their 
counterparts designed in Russia and elsewhere, U.S. light water 
reactors are at very little risk for nuclear proliferation. Our reactor 
designs are not conducive to the production of highly enriched uranium, 
plutonium, or other weapons materials. U.S. citizens can rest easier 
knowing that reactors built in these non-OECD countries are not 
producing weapons materials.
  Sometimes the United States must sacrifice its commercial interests 
for the sake of national security, and I have supported that. But in 
the area of nuclear power technology, encouraging the use of U.S. 
designs significantly enhances our nonproliferation efforts, and 
enhances nuclear safety. And these sales will produce significant 
revenues for the U.S. treasury. The treasury will receive royalties as 
a result of our contribution to the Advanced Light Water Reactor 
program.
  Current law already requires licenses and an opportunity for public 
comment in the export of these technologies. Adding a layer of 
complexity to this process is unnecessary. I urge a no vote on the 
Gilman amendment.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Weldon-
Spratt amendment.
  On May 12 the U.S. Army performed its eighth test of the THAAD anti-
ballistic missile system. The test was a failure, and this failure 
comes despite almost a year of preparation following a string of 3 
earlier unsuccessful intercept tests.
  The Weldon-Spratt amendment addresses this problem in an aggressive 
manner. The amendment directs the Department to identify and contract 
with a company capable of producing the THAAD system in a leader-
follower contract arrangement. In other words, we are telling Lockheed 
Martin that if they cannot fix the THAAD interceptor, the contract may 
be taken away from them. The amendment also directs DOD to modify its 
contract to ensure that THAAD's primary contractor shares in the cost 
of future test failures. Both steps are needed to bring necessary 
accountability to this program. Both steps are taken in the sincerest 
desire that they help the program succeed.
  We take steps for the simple reason that THAAD is too important to 
fail. The THAAD system is the archetype upon which we are patterning 
our family of systems for missile defense. It is the mother of all 
missile defense systems, if you will.
  THAAD is not the first system to experience difficulties in testing, 
and the Weldon-Spratt amendment builds on past experience in utilizing 
the prospect of competition to encourage improved program performance. 
Many members will remember the numerous problems experienced with the 
C-17, where the prospect of competition was used effectively by the 
Congress to bring focus back to the program. And the C-17 is now a 
success.
  It is important to recognized that large portions of the THAAD system 
are and have been working well. The THAAD radar and its battle 
management command, control, and communications systems are working 
well. The Weldon-Spratt amendment allows these components of THAAD to 
proceed to the Engineering Manufacturing and Development (EMD) phase 
when they are ready.
  Finally, the Weldon-Spratt amendment clarifies the criteria for 
allowing the program to proceed with the procurement of 40 UOES test 
missiles. We mandate two successful kinetic kill intercepts before any 
funding is committed for UOES procurement.
  Mr. Chairman, these steps are necessary and prudent and I urge all 
members to support the Weldon-Spratt amendment.
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, today, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Markey-Graham amendment which would prohibit the production of tritium 
at Commercial Light Water Reactors (CLWR) for defense purposes. But I 
also want to raise the fact that this amendment is being considered in 
Mr. Spence's ``en bloc'' amendment with a group of amendments that are 
non-controversial in nature. And, for the most part I support the en 
bloc amendments.
  However, the Markey-Graham amendment deserves an up or down vote on 
its own. This is a controversial issue and a major policy decision. 
This should not be buried in the en bloc amendment. Because, if we were 
to vote on this amendment alone--Members would have to vote against 
Markey-Graham. From a budgetary and fiscal standpoint, the Markey-
Graham amendment eliminates choice of a more economic and 
scientifically proven method for tritium production--use of an existing 
commercial light water reactor.
  Tritium gas is an essential component for nuclear weapons. In fact, 
tritium gas is used in every U.S. nuclear weapon to enhance its 
explosive yield. The last time the U.S. production tritium was in 1988 
at a test reactor at Savannah River. That facility was shut down and 
the U.S. has not produced tritium since then.
  In 1993, both the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense 
determined that the production of tritium must be resumed to enable the 
U.S. to maintain its weapons stockpile. Under current law, DOE will 
make a decision on tritium production by December of this year.
  DOE has been engaged in a lengthy, thorough examination of the 
technology, environmental impact, cost, reliability, and 
nonproliferation concerns of each option. It is imperative to allow DOE 
to finish their review of the options an make an informed decision, 
selecting the option that best serves the national interest. This 
amendment would short circuit that important process and arbitrarily 
force DOE to select the accelerator option.
  The accelerator option--by any standard--costs at least two times as 
much as the commercial reactor option. That's right, estimates from DOE 
and CBO show that the commercial reactor projected costs range from 
$1.8-$2.0 billion while the costs for the accelerator are in the $3.9-
$6.72 billion range. Plus, approximately $150 million in federal funds 
for annual operating expenses would be required at the accelerator, 
whether it manufactures tritium or not. Do the math. It defies fiscal 
responsibility to eliminate the commercial reactor option from 
consideration.
  And, it is important to remember that tritium production in a 
commercial reactor is NOT a proliferation issue. Let me repeat that--
according to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty the production of 
tritium in a commercial reactor is not a proliferation issue. Tritium 
is not considered to be special nuclear material. And, it can be 
produced for commercial use--it is used to illuminate objects such as 
airport runway lights and non-electrical signs.
  There is no question in my mind that my constituents and yours--and 
all American taxpayers--deserve an informed decision that has 
considered the cost and technological advantages, as well as the 
proliferation concerns of each option.
  That is why I am voting no on the Markey amendment and urge my 
colleagues to vote no on the Markey amendment, as well.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of an amendment 
which will improve TRICARE, the military managed health care program. I 
have the privilege of representing the 17th District of Texas which 
includes Abilene, TX. Abilene is located one of the first regions in 
which TRICARE was implemented. There were many problems with the start 
up of the TRICARE Program in our area, and although many of the initial 
bugs have been worked out of the system, there are still several areas 
of improvements to the program which are needed--improvements which 
will help to maintain and to improve access to quality health care for 
our Nation's military, their dependents, and retirees.
  One of the issues my constituents have identified is claim processing 
and the hassle associated with the TRICARE system. TRICARE requires 
that its regional contractors use a computer software program known as 
ClaimCheck. ClaimCheck is a bundling system similar to the Correct 
Coding Initiative used by the Medicare Program which ``bundles'' claims 
for multiple services performed during a single visit to a health care 
provider. When claims are bundled, services considered to be incidental 
to the primary service are reimbursed at a lower rate.

[[Page H3683]]

  Currently there is no provision for appeals from ClaimCheck denials 
even though the Department of Defense has acknowledged that ClaimCheck 
software in some cases contradicts Department policy. The Department of 
Defense has indicated an interest in establishing a formal appeal 
process; however, no concrete steps toward establishing such a process 
have been taken. The amendment Congressman Thune and I have proposed 
would simply require the Department to prepare and submit a proposal to 
establish an appeal process which could simply mean incorporating 
ClaimCheck denials into the existing appeals process. The amendment 
does not dictate the nature of the process.
  Although this is a small step to decrease the hassle-factor for both 
military patients and civilian doctors, I believe it is an important 
step in the right direction to improve the military health care system 
and the quality of life of those who serve and have served our nation.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment by voting for the en 
bloc amendment in which it is included.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering before 
the House today will compel the Secretary of Commerce to transmit any 
information that is requested by the Director of Central Intelligence, 
Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Energy, and Designees of these three 
officials in a timely manner (defined as within 5 days of request) upon 
receiving a written request for such material. The information that 
these officials could request includes: export licenses and information 
on exports that were carried out under an export license by the 
Department of Commerce and information collected by the Department of 
Commerce on exports from the United States that were carried out 
without an export license.
  The amendment doesn't ask them to produce new data or collect 
additional information. It simply requires the Secretary of Commerce to 
provide the information that he maintains--as a part of his 
department's day-to-day mission--to these selected Executive Branch 
Secretaries to enable them to do their jobs of producing intelligence 
and protecting our nation.
  Mr. Chairman, until recently, I would not have believed that this 
body would have to mandate timely cooperation between Executive branch 
departments. However, when the defense of this nation and it's citizens 
is challenged or compromised--the time has come.
  The current situation with China and the transfer of satellite 
technology is in the news right now, but similar situations inside the 
administration are proliferating almost as quickly weapons of mass 
destruction are around the world.
  Let me share the example that focuses on the seriousness of the 
issue.
  In last year's defense bill, the National Security Committee 
recommended a study to assess the extent and the impact of the 
distribution of U.S. and allied supercomputers to China, the former 
Soviet Union, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya.
  The National Security Committee has been increasingly concerned about 
technology transfers of this type in recent years.
  The study would have assessed the effect of the technology transfers 
on the design, development, manufacturing, performance and testing of 
nuclear, chemical and biological weapons; weapons platforms; command 
and control communications; and financial, commercial, government and 
military communications.
  The Defense Intelligence Agency and the Department of Energy were 
assigned the task of conducting the analysis.
  However, they were unable to get any assistance from the Department 
of Commerce.
  They needed assistance from Commerce since Commerce is charged with 
the responsibility to control the export of sensitive technologies that 
have both military and civil applications.
  The Department of Commerce refused to cooperate for the entire period 
of the study. Only after pointed communications from the Chairman and 
Ranking Member of the National Security Committee, did they provide 
``derivative'' data that was not usable for the analysis that had been 
requested.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not uncommon for our intelligence entities to 
have to go to other Executive Branch departments to collect ``raw'' 
information that they process into usable intelligence. It is a common 
requirement that has not presented a problem in the past.
  This ``stonewalling'' behavior by Commerce was unprecedented. While 
it was unprecedented, it was no less excusable!
  This was one Executive Branch department refusing to provide 
information to another Executive Branch department.
  I am at a loss to explain the difference between Commerce's response 
and the responses of the other Executive Branch departments. Did 
Commerce have something to hide or was there something else at play in 
this incident?
  Commerce's intransigence had national security implications and it is 
incumbent on us to ensure that our decisions are not affected by faulty 
information and analysis in the future!
  Our national security demands that the Congress and the President 
make decisions based on timely, accurate and truthful intelligence.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and ensure that our 
national security is not compromised in the future.

 Fiscal Year 1998 NDAA--Implications of Technology Transfer; ``A Case 
                          Study of the Stall''

       July 15, 1997--The HNSC recommended a study be conducted by 
     the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) to study the 
     distribution of United States and allied supercomputers to 
     China, the former Soviet Union, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya 
     to Assess the impact of Technology Transfers on:
       Nuclear weapons design, development, manufacturing, 
     performance and testing chemical and biological weapon 
     design, development, manufacturing, performance and testing;
       Design, development, manufacturing, performance and testing 
     of major weapons platforms (tactical aircraft, cruise/
     ballistic missiles, submarines);
       Anti-submarine warfare; command and control communications; 
     intelligence collection, processing and dissemination; 
     financial, commercial, government and military 
     communications.
       December 10, 1997--Chariman Spence and ranking minority 
     member Dellums requested the study of DIA and asked for a 
     report by 2 March 1998. Chairman Spence and Mr. Dellums also 
     asked the Department of Energy to conduct a review 
     concentrating on the impact of high performance computer 
     exports on the design, development, manufacturing, 
     performance and testing of nuclear weapons and associated 
     delivery systems.
       Early December 1997--The staffs of DIA and DOE submit oral 
     requests for information from the Department of Commerce for 
     all the info they have on supercomputers to the study target 
     countries. The Department of Commerce is the executive agency 
     with responsibility to control the export of sensitive 
     technologies that have both military and civil applications. 
     These oral requests were denied.
       December 22, 1997--The Director, DIA, LTG Patrick Hughes 
     wrote to the Deputy Secretary of Commerce and requested that 
     the Commerce Department supply the information on 
     supercomputer exports. The Commerce Department finally 
     responded on 3 February 1998.
       January 7, 1998--Chairman Spence and Mr. Dellums wrote to 
     William Daley, Secretary of Commerce asking that the 
     Department of Commerce provide the requested information to 
     the DIA and DOE.
       February 3, 1998--Under Secretary of Commerce William 
     Reinsch responded to the December 22 letter from DIA.
       Under Secretary Reinsch stated that Commerce would defer to 
     the DCI on who should conduct the study that had been tasked 
     to DIA and DOE. The CIA later attempted to transfer the 
     requested information to the DIA and DOE but the Department 
     of Commerce refused to allow such a transfer.
       March 3, 1998--The Director, DIA wrote the HNSC that he 
     could not complete the study because he was not able to 
     obtain the necessary information from the Department of 
     Commerce.
       March 3, 1998--Chairman Floyd Spence of the House National 
     Security Committee wrote to William Daley, Secretary of 
     Commerce.
       Chairman Spence stated his understanding that the 
     Department of Commerce had declined the DIA and DOE requests 
     for information on supercomputer exports.
       Chairman Spence stated that, ``I find the prospect that 
     information is being denied to intelligence agencies that are 
     attempting to determine the effect of illicit exports on U.S. 
     national security highly disturbing and believe such dilatory 
     tactics are indicative of a cavalier attitude by your 
     department on matters of national security.''
       Chairman Spence again requested the personal assurance of 
     the Secretary of Commerce that Commerce would cooperate fully 
     with the requested intelligence review.
       March 3, 1998--the Secretary of Commerce responded to the 
     January 7, 1998 letter from Chairman Spence and Ranking 
     Minority Member Dellums.
       Secretary Daley's letter stated, ``the Department of 
     Commerce has been in contact with the Director of Central 
     Intelligence regarding this matter, and we intend to defer to 
     his judgment on how to best proceed with respect to the 
     conduct of the study.'' (See the entry for February 3, 
     above.)
       March 9, 1998--the DIA and the DOE received ``derivative'' 
     supercomputer export information from the Department of 
     Commerce.
       April 30, 1998--the Director of the DIA wrote to Under 
     Secretary of Commerce Reinsch thanking him for the 
     ``derivative report'' on the export of high performance 
     computers but stating that the information provided by 
     Commerce ``does not provide the requisite data necessary to 
     complete a comprehensive review.''
       General Hughes asked Commerce to provide DIA with the raw 
     export data obtained from U.S. supercomputer manufacturers so 
     that DIA could conduct its own independent analysis.

[[Page H3684]]

       May 19, 1998--as of this morning, Commerce has not provided 
     any additional information to DIA to enable them to complete 
     the study.

  Mr. Chairman, I offered this amendment today to address a vital 
national security issue. That issue is the failure of the Department of 
Commerce to provide complete and accurate information to our 
organizations that are charged with assessing threats around the globe.
  The need for analysis to have a flow of raw data to produce 
intelligence is as old as war itself. Skilled analysts sift through the 
bits and pieces of everyday trivia and find patterns that allows them 
to formulate an adversary's likely intentions.
  The Congress relies on the technical analysis of national 
intelligence resources. Last year, this Congress was concerned with the 
threat that was posed by the transfer of technology around the world.
  The National Security Committee requested a study addressing the 
impacts of past transfers. Mr. Speaker, I find it inexcusable that the 
study could not be completed because the Department of Commerce refused 
to work with the Departments of Defense and Energy on the study.
  The responsibility for controlling much of this technology was 
transferred by the administration to the Commerce Department last year, 
over the objections of both the Department of State and the Department 
of Defense.
  The recent nuclear tests in India; Pakistan's threats to conduct its 
own tests and the improper transfers of technology to the Chinese 
underscore the dangerous nature of our world today.
  We cannot allow ourselves to be forced to make decision with anything 
less than the best information and intelligence. We cannot allow 
executive branch departments to determine what information is important 
and what isn't.
  This amendment ensures that our intelligence community has access to 
vital information. Let's allow our analysts do their jobs!
  Vote yes on the Gibbons amendment.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
Markey tritium amendment within this en bloc package. It is unfortunate 
that such a contentious issue is being included in what is historically 
a non-contentious package.
  The Markey amendment would change the Atomic Energy Act by 
prohibiting tritium production in commercial nuclear reactors. This 
amendment is bad public policy and reckless economic policy. The 
American taxpayer deserves better than to be forced to pay for a 
project three times as expensive as the competition.
  Tritium is an isotope of hydrogen that is required by all U.S. 
nuclear weapons in order to function as designed. Because tritium 
decays at a rate of about 5.5% per year, it must be replaced 
periodically to maintain our nuclear weapon stockpile.
  The U.S. has not produced tritium since 1988, when the last tritium 
production reactor was shut down. By Presidential Directive, the 
Department of Energy must have a new supply of tritium available by 
2005.
  The Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA), Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 1, 
has been selected by the Department of Energy (DOE) to conduct a one-
time of components, to produce tritium in commercial light water 
reactors. If awarded the contract to produce tritium, the Bellefonte 
nuclear plant would assume the primary role, with Watts Bar as the 
backup. Total cost to the taxpayer for the TVA contract; about $1.8 
billion. However, the competing ``accelerator'' proposal is going to 
sock the American taxpayers with a price tag around $7 billion.
  For reasons ranging from unfair competition to wasteful government 
spending, it is only appropriate that Citizens Against Government Waste 
is also OPPOSED to the Markey amendment.
  Again, the tritium program is a key element in DOE's Stockpile 
Stewardship and Management Program to ensure safety and reliability of 
the nuclear weapons stockpile without testing. We have to produce it 
and we should encourage fair competition.
  The purpose of the Watts Bar test is to confirm excellent results 
from prior testing. This will provide added confidence to utilities, 
the public, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission which regulates 
commercial reactors, of which tritium can be produced to meet national 
security requirements in a technically straightforward, safe and cost-
effective manner.
  The bottom line is this; TVA's professional experience, 
infrastructure and smart economic proposal exceed DOE's criteria. We 
should not legislatively hinder the Department of Energy's ability to 
choose which facility produces tritium.
  By allowing the Markey amendment to pass, the federal government and 
the American taxpayer lose. We will lose the ability or fair 
competition, and we lose the opportunity to save money. The commercial 
reactor proposal allows money to be paid back to the Treasury from the 
sale of energy from the commercial reactor, thus we will recoup costs. 
The ``accelerator'' proposal has NO cost recoupment.
  We must promote competition, and the Markey amendment does not. It 
would force the Department of Energy to choose one proposal for tritium 
production by default, and by doing so, sinks upwards of $8 billion 
into a new special facility.
  I strongly encourage my colleagues to oppose the Markey amendment. 
Let the Department of Energy and their experts determine the most cost 
effective, safe, and professional tritium facility, not Congress.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hall/
Boehlert amendment which is included in the en bloc amendment, our 
amendment expresses the Sense of Congress that adequate resources--
funding and personnel--be applied to the science and technology 
activities of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The amendment will require 
the Secretary of Defense to initiate a study and recommend minimum 
requirements to maintain a defense technology base that is sufficient 
to project superiority in air and space weapons systems, and 
information technology.
  A robust science and technology investment is critical if our Armed 
Forces are to move into the 21st Century and operate at the cutting 
edge of technology. The future of American defense rests on our ability 
to improve our technology and maintain our military superiority.
  We must ensure that our Armed Forces continue to apply the necessary 
attention and resources to science and technology development if we are 
to safeguard our future national security. The investments we make 
today will make the difference tomorrow. I thank my colleague and co-
sponsor, Mr. Hall of Ohio, for his work on this amendment and urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of it.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, we have no further requests for time. 
Thus, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendments en bloc 
offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence).
  The amendments en bloc were agreed to.

                              {time}  1545

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 4 printed in part B of the House Report 105-544.


               Amendment No. 4 Offered By Mr. Thornberry

  Mr. THORNBERRY. 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. 4 printed in House Report 105-544 
     offered from Mr. Thornberry:
       At the end of title VII (page 197, after line 5), add the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 726. DEMONSTRATION PROJECT TO INCLUDE CERTAIN COVERED 
                   BENEFICIARIES WITHIN FEDERAL EMPLOYEES HEALTH 
                   BENEFITS PROGRAM.

       (a) Demonstration Project.--(1) Chapter 55 of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 1108. Health care coverage through Federal Employees 
       Health Benefits program: demonstration project

       ``(a) FEHBP Option Demonstration.--The Secretary of 
     Defense, after consulting with the other administering 
     Secretaries, shall enter into an agreement with the Office of 
     Personnel Management to conduct a demonstration project under 
     which not more than 70,000 eligible covered beneficiaries 
     described in subsection (b) and residing within one of the 
     areas covered by the demonstration project may be enrolled in 
     health benefits plans offered through the Federal Employees 
     Health Benefits program under chapter 89 of title 5.
       ``(b) Eligible Covered Beneficiaries.--(1) An eligible 
     covered beneficiary under this subsection is--
       ``(A) a member or former member of the uniformed services 
     described in section 1074(b) of this title who is entitled to 
     hospital insurance benefits under part A of title XVIII of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395c et seq.);
       ``(B) a dependent of such a member described in section 
     1076(b) or 1076(a)(2)(B) of this title;
       ``(C) a dependent of a member of the uniformed services who 
     died while on active duty for a period of more than 30 days; 
     or
       ``(D) a dependent described in section 1076(b) or 
     1076(a)(2)(B) of this title who is entitled to hospital 
     insurance benefits under part A of title XVIII of the Social 
     Security Act, regardless of the member's or former member's 
     eligibility for such hospital insurance benefits.
       ``(2) A covered beneficiary described in paragraph (1) 
     shall not be required to satisfy

[[Page H3685]]

     any eligibility criteria specified in chapter 89 of title 5 
     as a condition for enrollment in health benefits plans 
     offered through the Federal Employee Health Benefits program 
     under the demonstration project.
       ``(3) Covered beneficiaries who are eligible to enroll in 
     the Federal Employment Health Benefits program under chapter 
     89 of title 5 as a result of civil service employment with 
     the United States Government shall not be eligible to enroll 
     in a Federal Employees Health Benefits plan under this 
     section.
       ``(c) Area of Demonstration Project.--The Secretary of 
     Defense and the Director of the Office of Personnel 
     Management shall jointly identify and select the geographic 
     areas in which the demonstration project will be conducted. 
     The Secretary and the Director shall establish at least six, 
     but not more than ten, such demonstration areas. In 
     establishing the areas, the Secretary and Director shall 
     include--
       ``(1) a site that includes the catchment area of one or 
     more military medical treatment facilities;
       ``(2) a site that is not located in the catchment area of a 
     military medical treatment facility;
       ``(3) a site at which there is a military medical treatment 
     facility that is a Medicare Subvention Demonstration project 
     site under section 1896 of title XVIII of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.); and
       ``(4) not more than one site for each TRICARE region.
       ``(d) Time for Demonstration Project.--(1) The Secretary of 
     Defense shall conduct the demonstration project during three 
     contract years under the Federal Employees Health Benefits 
     program.
       ``(2) Eligible covered beneficiaries shall, as provided 
     under the agreement pursuant to subsection (a), be permitted 
     to enroll in the demonstration project during the open season 
     for the year 2000 (conducted in the fall of 1999). The 
     demonstration project shall terminate on December 31, 2002.
       ``(e) Prohibition Against Use of MTFs.--Eligible covered 
     beneficiaries who participate in the demonstration project 
     shall not be eligible to receive care at a military medical 
     treatment facility.
       ``(f) Term of Enrollment.--(1) The minimum period of 
     enrollment in a Federal Employees Health Benefits plan under 
     this section shall be three years.
       ``(2) A beneficiary who elects to enroll in such a plan, 
     and who subsequently discontinues enrollment in the plan 
     before the end of the period described in paragraph (1), 
     shall not be eligible to reenroll in the plan.
       ``(3) An eligible beneficiary enrolled in a Federal 
     Employees Health Benefits plan under this section may change 
     plans during the open enrollment period in the same manner as 
     any other Federal Employees Health Benefits program 
     beneficiary may change plans.
       ``(g) Separate Risk Pools; Charges.--(1) The Office of 
     Personnel Management shall require health benefits plans 
     under chapter 89 of title 5 that participate in the 
     demonstration project to maintain a separate risk pool for 
     purposes of establishing premium rates for covered 
     beneficiaries who enroll in such a plan in accordance with 
     this section.
       ``(2) The Office shall determine total subscription charges 
     for self only or for family coverage for covered 
     beneficiaries who enroll in a health benefits plan under 
     chapter 89 of title 5 in accordance with this section, which 
     shall include premium charges paid to the plan and amounts 
     described in section 8906(c) of title 5 for administrative 
     expenses and contingency reserves.
       ``(h) Government Contributions.--The Secretary of Defense 
     shall be responsible for the Government contribution for an 
     eligible covered beneficiary who enrolls in a health benefits 
     plan under chapter 89 of title 5 in accordance with this 
     section, except that the amount of the contribution may not 
     exceed the amount of the Government contribution which would 
     be payable if the electing individual were an employee 
     enrolled in the same health benefits plan and level of 
     benefits.
       ``(i) Effect of Cancellation.--The cancellation by a 
     covered beneficiary of coverage under the Federal Employee 
     Health Benefits program shall be irrevocable during the term 
     of the demonstration project.
       ``(j) Report Requirements.--(1) The Secretary of Defense 
     and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall 
     jointly submit to Congress a report containing the 
     information described in paragraph (2)--
       ``(A) not later than the date that is 15 months after the 
     date that the Secretary begins to implement the demonstration 
     project; and
       ``(B) not later than the date that is 39 months after the 
     date that the Secretary begins to implement the demonstration 
     project.
       ``(2) The reports required by paragraph (1) shall include--
       ``(A) information on the number of eligible covered 
     beneficiaries who opt to participate in the demonstration 
     project;
       ``(B) an analysis of the percentage of eligible covered 
     beneficiaries who participate in the demonstration project as 
     compared to usage rates for similarly situated Federal 
     retirees;
       ``(C) information on eligible covered beneficiaries who opt 
     to participate in the demonstration project who did not have 
     Medicare Part B coverage before opting to participate in the 
     project;
       ``(D) an analysis of the enrollment rates and cost of 
     health services provided to eligible covered beneficiaries 
     who opt to participate in the demonstration project as 
     compared with other enrollees in the Federal Employees Health 
     Benefits Program under title 5, United States Code;
       ``(E) an analysis of how the demonstration project affects 
     the accessibility of health care in military medical 
     treatment facilities, and a description of any unintended 
     effects on the treatment priorities in those facilities in 
     the demonstration area;
       ``(F) an analysis of any problems experienced by the 
     Department of Defense in managing the demonstration project;
       ``(G) a description of the effects of the demonstration 
     project on medical readiness and training at military medical 
     treatment facilities located in the demonstration area, and a 
     description of the probable effects that making the project 
     permanent would have on medical readiness and training;
       ``(H) an examination of the effects that the demonstration 
     project, if made permanent, would be expected to have on the 
     overall budget of the Department of Defense, the budget of 
     the Office of Personnel and Management, and the budgets of 
     individual military medical treatment facilities;
       ``(I) an analysis of whether the demonstration project 
     affects the cost to the Department of Defense of prescription 
     drugs or the accessibility, availability, and cost of such 
     drugs to covered beneficiaries;
       ``(J) a description of any additional information that the 
     Secretary of Defense or the Director of the Office of 
     Personnel Management deem appropriate and that would assist 
     Congress in determining the viability of expanding the 
     project to all Medicare-eligible members of the uniformed 
     services and their dependents; and
       ``(K) recommendations on whether covered beneficiaries--
       ``(i) should be given more than one chance to enroll in a 
     Federal Employees Health Benefits plan under this section;
       ``(ii) should be eligible to enroll in such a plan only 
     during the first year following the date that the covered 
     beneficiary becomes eligible to receive hospital insurance 
     benefits under title XVIII of the Social Security Act; or
       ``(iii) should be eligible to enroll in the plan only 
     during the two-year period following the date on which the 
     beneficiary first becomes eligible to enroll in a Federal 
     Employees Health Benefits plan under this section.
       ``(k) Comptroller General Report.--Not later than 39 months 
     after the Secretary begins to implement the demonstration 
     project, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a 
     report examining the same criteria required to be examined 
     under subsection (j)(2).''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``1108. Health care coverage through Federal Employees Health Benefits 
              program: demonstration project.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Chapter 89 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in section 8905--
       (A) by redesignating subsections (d) through (f) as 
     subsections (e) through (g), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(d) An individual whom the Secretary of Defense 
     determines is an eligible covered beneficiary under 
     subsection (b) of section 1108 of title 10 may enroll, as 
     part of the demonstration project under such section, in a 
     health benefits plan under this chapter in accordance with 
     the agreement under subsection (a) of such section between 
     the Secretary and the Office and applicable regulations under 
     this chapter.'';
       (2) in section 8906(b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraphs (2) and 
     (3)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``paragraphs (2), (3), 
     and (4)''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) In the case of individuals who enroll, as part of the 
     demonstration project under section 1108 of title 10, in a 
     health benefits plan in accordance with section 8905(d) of 
     this title, the Government contribution shall be determined 
     in accordance with section 1108(h) of title 10.''; and
       (3) in section 8906(g)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``paragraphs (2) and (3)''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) The Government contribution described in subsection 
     (b)(4) for beneficiaries who enroll, as part of the 
     demonstration project under section 1108 of title 10, in 
     accordance with section 8905(d) of this title shall be paid 
     as provided in section 1108(h) of title 10.''.
       (c) Disposal of National Defense Stockpile Materials To 
     Offset Costs.--
       (1) Disposal required.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), 
     the President shall dispose of materials contained in the 
     National Defense Stockpile and specified in the table in 
     subsection (b) so as to result in receipts to the United 
     States in amounts equal to--
       (A) $89,000,000 during fiscal year 1999;
       (B) $104,000,000 during fiscal year 2000;
       (C) $95,000,000 during fiscal year 2001; and
       (D) $72,000,000 during fiscal year 2002.
       (2) Limitation on disposal quantity.--The total quantities 
     of materials authorized for disposal by the President under 
     paragraph (1)

[[Page H3686]]

     may not exceed the amounts set forth in the following table:



                     Authorized Stockpile Disposals                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Material for disposal                              Quantity          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium Ferroally Low Carbons............  92,000 short tons           
Diamond Stones............................  3,000,000 carats            
Palladium.................................  1,227,831 troy ounces       
Platinum..................................  439,887 troy ounces         
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (3) Minimization of disruption and loss.--The President may 
     not dispose of materials under paragraph (1) to the extent 
     that the disposal will result in--
       (A) undue disruption of the usual markets of producers, 
     processors, and consumers of the materials proposed for 
     disposal; or
       (B) avoidable loss to the United States.
       (4) Treatment of receipts.--Notwithstanding section 9 of 
     the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act (50 
     U.S.C. 98h), funds received as a result of the disposal of 
     materials under paragraph (1) shall be--
       (A) deposited into the general fund of the Treasury; and
       (B) used to offset the revenues that will be lost as a 
     result of the implementation of the demonstration project 
     under section 1108 of title 10, United States Code (as added 
     by subsection (a)).
       (5) Relationship to other disposal authority.--The disposal 
     authority provided in paragraph (1) is new disposal authority 
     and is in addition to, and shall not affect, any other 
     disposal authority provided by law regarding materials 
     specified in the table in paragraph (2).

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 441, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) and a Member opposed, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 10 minutes 
of my time be yielded to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and 
that he may be entitled to yield time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is sponsored by the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), and 
myself. I greatly appreciate their efforts as well as the efforts of 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Buyer), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Mica) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham), as well as others who have worked on this issue.
  The problem is we promised free lifetime medical care to military 
retirees if they serve the country 20 years. The problem is, we cannot 
keep that promise. Particularly with base closings, with the declining 
military budgets, we are not providing that health care.
  We have got situations in this country where bases are closing. We 
have got other situations where there are military treatment facilities 
that are too crowded and other situations where people are a long way 
from any sort of care.
  This amendment takes us a step toward keeping our commitments. We 
already have a pilot for Medicare subvention, which is under way. This 
sets up a demonstration project to allow over-65-year-old military 
retirees to participate in FEHBP.
  The bottom line to the amendment, Mr. Chairman, is that this program 
would allow military retirees the same respect as civilian Federal 
retirees get now. It would treat them the same way. Now they are 
treated worse.
  The pilot project is limited in cost. It is limited as far as the 
number of people who can participate. It is limited in the number of 
sites that can participate. But I think the key thing is that it is 
most important for us to take some action today to show the military 
retirees that we are serious about keeping our commitments, but, 
equally important, to show those young active duty folks that we are 
serious about respecting their service to their country, risking their 
lives for our freedom, and that we intend to keep our commitments to 
them, because that is in serious doubt at this point.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly in opposition because, quite 
frankly, I am sympathetic with the concern, but I wish the gentleman 
who is the cosponsor of the amendment would appreciate the fact that 
this is an attempt to tap directly into the health insurance trust fund 
of Medicare.
  The jurisdiction for the HI trust fund lies wholly within the 
Committee on Ways and Means. That is why, over the last several years, 
as chairman of the Subcommittee on Health from the Committee on Ways 
and Means, I have worked tirelessly to perfect a Department of Defense 
subvention program, which attempts to utilize military hospitals to 
provide the service for military retirees in conjunction with the 
Medicare trust fund. There are a number of safeguards that are 
contained in the Department of Defense subvention program that are 
missing from this program.
  Shortly, perhaps immediately, the week that we come back, a bill will 
be on the floor providing a Veterans Administration subvention program. 
It will be a program for both the part A low-income service disabled 
veterans and for the so-called category C veterans who are not low 
income, nor do they have a service-related disability. That particular 
program has more than a dozen safeguards for the health insurance trust 
fund.
  I am sorry that the subcommittee of jurisdiction was not involved in 
the crafting of this particular program, because, frankly, there are 
just a number of flaws in the bill. They do not just extend to a clear 
protection of the taxpayers in the HI trust fund, although, clearly, 
that is of some concern.
  I would refer Members to a letter which was written in favor of this 
particular amendment by a group called The Military Coalition. Their 
concern is over the funding mechanism and the argument that the 
Congressional Budget Office believes that there will be an increased 
consumption of Medicare usage by these individuals.
  This is not a new argument that we have had with the Congressional 
Budget Office. We had it over the DoD subvention program, the VA 
subvention program. Frankly, I tend to support the argument that, if 
they are already a Medicare eligible user, that they will not 
necessarily increase their Medicare usage.
  The concern comes in the argument that says, ``Roughly 30 percent of 
all Medicare eligible military retirees have Medigap coverage right 
now. These are people that will switch to the FEHBP because it provides 
better coverage,'' that is the Federal Employees Health Benefit 
Program, ``at a lower cost than Medigap.''
  This is a 3-year program. It is designed to terminate after 3 years. 
These people will give up their Medigap and take private dollars and 
substitute them for taxpayer dollars 75 cents out of every dollar.
  In a moment, I will speak to the problems in the bill because these 
military retirees are not treated like any other Federal employee under 
the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program. They are treated entirely 
differently.
  But let us take a look at this person who decides to get into this 
program, give up their Medigap, go under the

[[Page H3687]]

FEHBP, and, in 3 years, the program ends. They now will be forced to go 
back into the Medigap market, and they may, in fact, face that concern 
that all of us face in terms of trying to go back and buy insurance 
after you released it, and the potential of not being able to get the 
kind of insurance that they had prior to going into this program.
  I would caution any military retiree who has Medigap insurance that I 
would be very, very careful of giving up my Medigap insurance to go 
into a program that has no guarantee that it would continue.
  Let us take a look in an attempt, I assume, to control costs what 
this particular amendment actually does. It says military retirees will 
go into the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, but they will not 
go in like every other Federal employee, including the retiree program. 
They have to create a separate risk pool for these people.
  It means that, if they are in the separate risk pool, they are 
already Medicare eligible. They are above 65. They have gone through 
rigorous military duty. Their per-capita cost could be considerably 
higher.
  But it says in another section of the amendment that the government's 
amount has to stay at the appropriate amount; that is the statistical 
average of 72 percent.
  The argument that the amount for the Federal Employees Health Benefit 
Program will be exactly the same or lower than the Medigap, which is 
used as an argument in the letter in favor of it, is not necessarily 
true, because the amendment requires a separate risk pool to be 
developed for these individuals.
  It is not clear what the complete role of the HI trust fund is. The 
argument is that it will be completely compensated.
  Remember, the health insurance trust fund is a payroll tax fund paid 
into by individuals. The funding mechanism in this bill is selling 
assets of the Department of Defense, principally precious metals that 
are stored for strategic use. The selling off of those assets go into 
the general fund.
  But the HI is a dedicated trust fund out of the payroll tax. There 
has to be a clear guarantee of transfer of funds to make sure that the 
HI trust fund is held harmless.
  I can go on and on in terms of a series of flaws that are contained 
in this amendment which, as I said, I am sorry no one ever involved the 
committee of jurisdiction to make sure, one, that the HI trust fund was 
protected; two, that it was integrated properly and appropriately in 
the two other defense measures that we are working on in terms of 
people who serve their country, the Department of Defense TriCare 
subvention program and the Veterans Vision subvention program.
  I would have to tell Members that this particular amendment is so 
fundamentally flawed that I am going to have to ask for a ``no'' vote 
on this amendment. I would very much like to sit down and see if there 
is not some way that we could correct these fundamental flaws.
  But absent that, you may be exposing the HI trust fund; probably more 
insidious, you may be exposing these military retirees to a test 
program which will not allow them to get the Medigap coverage they had 
in the first place that they are giving up to go into this test 
program. It just does not make sense the way it is written.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. At the outset of 
this debate, I first wanted to express my gratitude to the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), chairman, and to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking minority member, for their 
leadership on this issue and to Donna Hoffmeier, Mieke Eoyang of the 
Committee on National Security staff, and especially to Mike Brown of 
my staff for all the work that they have done to enable us to bring 
this amendment to the floor today.
  This amendment establishes a demonstration project through which 
Medicare eligible military retirees will be able to join the Federal 
Employees Health Benefits Program.
  We have taken the basic text of H.R. 1766, which is cosponsored by 
284 Members of this body, and we have added one refinement after 
another until we have ensured that every concern has been addressed. As 
of this morning, every concern had been addressed that we have been 
told about.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield on my time?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Shortly.
  Mr. THOMAS. On my time.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Sure.
  Mr. THOMAS. I would not want to take the gentleman's time.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. On his time, I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, what is the provision that protects those military 
retirees who choose to give up their Medigap program to go into this 3-
year test that they can go back to their original Medigap program 
without risk? Where is that guarantee in the amendment?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I 
will tell the gentleman from California that the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Stark), who has also worked on this bill for some time 
and, as you know, serves with you on the Committee on Ways and Means, 
is going to address those issues.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time briefly, I will tell you 
that the gentleman from California, to my knowledge, and of course he 
can speak for himself has not worked on this bill; that the Committee 
on Ways and Means and the Subcommittee on Health has not been involved 
in this bill at all.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, again, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume and tell the gentleman from California that CBO has 
looked at this, has determined that it would cost a maximum of $50 
million. That assumes that military retirees will avail themselves of 
this opportunity and, in fact, will use Medicare to a somewhat greater 
extent than they do now.
  Mr. Chairman, even though every enlisted service member was promised 
free quality lifetime health care as partial compensation for their 
service to their country, Medicare eligible military retirees are not 
provided adequate access to health care.
  Free quality lifetime health care is no longer available to people 
once they become 65 years of age. They are precluded from participating 
in TriCare, they are prohibited from using Champus, and they are placed 
last on the priority list at military medical treatment facilities.
  That is why we have this amendment. Federal civilian retirees and 
former Members of Congress in comparison have excellent health care. 
Civilian retirees are able to participate in the same health insurance 
program they enjoyed when they were active employees.
  The Federal Government does not kick them out of their insurance 
program once they become eligible for Medicare. In fact, many of the 
plans provided for civilian employees provide greater coverage and more 
benefits to those who are Medicare eligible, because that is when they 
need health care the most, when they retire at 65.
  We should correct this inequity in treatment between Federal retirees 
and military retirees by providing Medicare eligible military retirees 
the same options and the same insurance program as we provide Medicare 
eligible Federal retirees.
  That is what this amendment does. It begins this process. It 
establishes a limited demonstration program that will allow 70,000 
Medicare eligible military retirees the option to join the Federal 
Employee Health Benefits Program for 3 years. During that time, they 
have the same rights and benefits as their Federal civilian 
counterparts.
  The amendment establishes separate risk pools to ensure that military 
retirees and Federal civilian beneficiaries do not cross-subsidize one 
another. Then it requires that DoD, the Office of Personnel Management, 
and GAO fully analyze the impact of this FEHBP option after the 
demonstration has ended.

                              {time}  1600

  So we can then decide whether or not we want full national 
implementation based on complete factual information.

[[Page H3688]]

  This is a bipartisan amendment. It is strongly supported by the 
Military Coalition, the National Military Veterans Alliance, the 
Retired Officers Association. Every major military association endorses 
this amendment.
  I know the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) is concerned about 
it. I am disappointed the gentleman is opposed to it. It is going to 
have some minor impact on Medicare, $50 million, but that means in 
addition to the $700 billion Medicare program that Medicare will spend 
over that 3 year period, $50 million might be spent by military 
retirees who are eligible for Medicare? We could save 10 times this 
amount annually if we change HCFA's billing system, for example.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) and I will enter into a 
colloquy with the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) promising to 
work with him to address the concerns of the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Thomas). It is unfortunate the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas) cannot join us to work out these problems.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment and support 
military retirees health care when they need it the most.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I am inclined to support the Watts-Moran-
Thornberry amendment. I am a cosponsor of the legislation of the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), which does roughly the same thing.
  The amendment is revenue neutral. It does have an accounting problem 
as currently drafted. As drafted, the amendment would increase Medicare 
utilization undoubtedly as the retirees find it less expensive to seek 
medical care there.
  As we all know, we have a long-term financing problem in the Medicare 
Trust Fund, and if we increase Medicare spending, it is essential that 
we keep the trust fund neutral.
  This amendment needs an accounting fix to make sure that that money 
that the DOD raises gets into the Medicare Trust Fund and not into 
general revenues. It is my understanding that staff has not yet had 
time to work out the details of the language, and I am wondering if the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) could give us a commitment to 
address this problem in conference?
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank the gentleman, and I thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Stark) for raising this concern.
  Mr. Chairman, we have discussed this issue and completely agree it is 
appropriate to make sure that the Medicare trust funds are not 
negatively impacted by the amendment. The offsets included in this 
amendment do include CBO's estimated Medicare costs, and I assure the 
gentleman I will certainly work with the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spence), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) and others in the weeks ahead to clarify that 
the legislative language addresses those concerns and that there are 
appropriate offsets, in addition to the protections that are needed on 
the concern that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has raised.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we look 
forward it addressing this concern in conference.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I thank 
the authors of the amendment. I think you have a winner. I would 
suggest that if anybody is concerned, that you do not extend it at the 
end of three years. In the balanced budget amendment we made it the law 
that people had to be able to get the Medigap policy back. So if in the 
third year we decide the experiment will not work, we can write that 
into law and see that no one is disadvantaged by losing the Medigap 
policy.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. It sounds like a good solution.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may concern.
  Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the attempted agreement that was just 
made, which is clearly a concern in terms of the trust funds, but what 
I just heard was that the military retirees who give up their Medigap 
program and who may not in fact be able to get insurance, we will worry 
about them three years later when the demonstration program ends.
  I would tell the gentleman, if that is the way you are going to treat 
military retirees, then I can fully understand why you have some 
concern about the DOD program which we are now working on. You may have 
some concern about the VA program. But in every one of those programs 
that we worked with, that we sat down and made sure were done 
correctly, the military retirees were protected from day one.
  What you just heard, Mr. Chairman, was the hope that three years 
later, if this demonstration program does not work, those military 
retirees who gave up their Medigap insurance, we will see if we can 
pass a piece of legislation that will fix that problem. I cannot 
believe that the dialogue that just took place was concerned about the 
HI trust fund alone and showed no concern whatsoever for the military 
retirees that are the guinea pigs in this program.
  Had you sat down with the committee of jurisdiction, we would have 
worked that out to make sure that the military retirees were protected. 
This is just another example of what the gentleman from Virginia said 
was a well-crafted amendment, which leaves every one of those up to 
70,000 military retirees who are asked to participate in this program 
at risk on their Medigap program. I do not believe the House is willing 
to vote on that kind of a risk for our military retirees.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Let me just tell the gentleman, we have been 
working on this for four years. I can verify to you that I introduced 
this five years ago. Now, we have 284 cosponsors. We want to work with 
the gentleman. We did everything we could to work it out in conference.
  Mr. THOMAS. Reclaiming my time, did the gentleman or the gentleman's 
staff ever call the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Ways and 
Means? The answer is if you did everything you could to work it out, it 
seems to me the subcommittee of jurisdiction, which has worked on the 
balanced budget amendment for the DOD subvention, which has worked with 
the Committee on Veterans Affairs on the VA subvention program, and 
which is currently working in the Medicare Commission to make sure that 
those individuals who served time in the military, and especially were 
in theaters of combat, are taken care of.
  The gentleman continues to give this blanket assurance that 
everything has been done. I simply continue to repeat, you never once 
worked with the subcommittee of jurisdiction. I believe that is one of 
the reasons that all these flaws are in the amendment.
  We have taken care of it in every other area that we have worked with 
combining Department of Defense and veterans interests with Medicare. 
They are not in this amendment. It is flawed.
  If someone would indicate that we could sit down and resolve the 
flaws in the amendment, then I am far more interested in going forward. 
What I heard as a resolution for those individuals who are going to 
give up their Medigap is that three years from now, when this 
demonstration ends, maybe we can pass a law that will give them a 
chance to get their Medigap back.
  I do not think that is a very comfortable assurance for military 
retirees. I certainly would not want to gamble my program to go into a 
program that may end on the assurance that this Congress, three or four 
years down the road, is going to be able to make sure I get back the 
insurance I lost when I started this experiment. That is not a solid 
guarantee, and that is what this amendment says, and that is what was 
just discussed on the floor.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield 
further, we have invited the Committee on Ways and Means staff to 
meetings. Let me say, the Parliamentarian did not refer this to the 
Committee on Ways and Means as the committee of jurisdiction. So we 
worked with the Subcommittee on Civil Service within

[[Page H3689]]

the Committee on Government Operations, and we worked with the 
Committee on National Security, because they were referred to us as the 
committee of jurisdiction.
  We are only talking about one line in this bill among many lines, and 
I think we can work that out in conference.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, perhaps the gentleman 
did not hear me. The one line you continue to refer to is the transfer 
of funds from the endangered HI trust fund, which is scheduled to go 
bankrupt in a short number of years. That is why we have the Medicare 
Commission, to protect those funds.
  What I have continued to refer to is the requirement and in fact the 
argument that is made by the military coalition, that these military 
retirees are going to give up their Medigap insurance to get into the 
program. Because certainly they are not going to pay out of pocket 
their own private dollars for a Medigap program, when in fact the 
taxpayers are going to pay 75 cents out of every dollar to put them 
into the FEHBP program.
  So you have the HI trust fund paying for the Medicare, and 75 cents 
out of every dollar of taxpayers money, the employer, to the retired 
military being paid in the FEHBP. They are giving up their private 
sector dollars, the Medigap dollars, to get this.
  But it is a demonstration program. It is only for three years. Why 
could you not write into the program a protection for these military 
retirees? It is not the one line you are talking about, which is the HI 
trust fund. It is the guarantee that you do not lose any more than the 
insurance that you had when you went into the program. That is one of 
the fundamental flaws of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, there are two important points in response to the 
concerns of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas). Number one is I 
think all of us admire the protections that he has worked on in the 
Medicare subvention pilot program and want to work with him to see 
appropriate protections are included in this bill.
  Secondly, before the Subcommittee on Personnel marked up, we were 
aware that the Committee Ways and Means were interested in this issue, 
and I have been informed as a matter of fact that the Committee on Ways 
and Means staff was invited to a meeting on Monday, May 4, 1998, at 
11:30 a.m., and they did not show up. Included in that meeting were 
representatives of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 
CBO and others.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to the sponsor of the amendment, 
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts).
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Watts-Thornberry-Moran 
amendment to H.R. 3616 that the Parliamentarian has cleared and that 
the Committee on Rules has ruled in order. This amendment is to the 
defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1999.
  Just for the record, I have got a long list of support letters here 
from the American Military Retirees Association, the American Retirees, 
Korean War Veterans Association, the National Association of Uniform 
Services, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the list goes on and on.
  This amendment is an important key to improving the delivery of high 
quality health care to our military retirees and their dependents. No 
one deserves the option of enrolling in the Federal Employees Health 
Benefits Program more than these good Americans.
  For decades our government promised millions of people who served in 
the Armed Forces free lifetime health care for themselves and their 
dependents if they served for 20 or more years. They earned that 
benefit, yet we all know that the promise was broken and never fixed.
  As a result, we face a situation wherein thousands of military 
retirees are forced to scramble for adequate health care for themselves 
and their dependents. Many must make do with the TriCare system or 
space available care in a rapidly diminishing number of military 
hospitals.
  If they are 65 years old or older, they must use the Medicare system. 
Those who live far from military treatment facilities or hospitals 
except TriCare often purchase private medical insurance or simply 
remain uncovered.
  The Watts-Thornberry-Moran amendment, again, is an optional program 
that would begin to restore that promise of health care for this group 
by enrolling a limited number of Medicare eligible military retirees in 
the FEHBP program at a number of sights around the country.
  Mr. Chairman, the Watts-Thornberry-Moran amendment is but a small 
optional step, and I encourage Members to support it.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield one minute to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  Mrs. CLAYTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Watts-Moran-Thornberry 
amendment. For almost three years now, I have worked with the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and others on this critical issue of 
providing quality lifetime health care to military retirees.
  I want to thank the gentlemen from Virginia, Oklahoma and Texas for 
the opportunity to urge all of our Members to support this amendment, 
which will demonstrate a way to give the Medicare eligible retirees the 
option of participating in the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program. 
I am assured that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) is going 
to find a way to make this acceptable in the Committee on Ways and 
Means as well.
  On the eve of Memorial Day, it seems not only the appropriate time, 
but it also is the honorable time to keep our promise to the military 
retirees that we would provide them health care.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, Medigap is a wraparound insurance program. There are 
ten standardized Medigap programs that are made available by HCFA. The 
argument is that these military retirees will be giving up their 
Medigap insurance.
  Now, I know as you begin to talk about how this program is supposed 
to fit together, some eyes begin to glaze over, and all you are 
supposed to do is just say, it ought to be done, and therefore it is 
done.
  Well, I will tell you, in trying to work with the DOD subvention 
program, and now successfully with the VA, if you are really interested 
in looking out after the interests of these military retirees, you had 
better have in writing exactly what is going to occur. The Federal 
Employees Health Benefit Program does not match up to any of the 
Medigap programs.
  What are the policies? What are the premiums? You are creating a 
structure which creates a separate risk pool. The premiums may be 
outrageous. You have no protections for the military retirees in that 
regard.
  On page 4 of the amendment, line 11 through 14, if you agree to go 
into this program, what do you agree to do? You agree eligible covered 
beneficiaries who participate in the demonstration project shall not be 
eligible to receive care at a military medical treatment facility.
  Under the DOD subvention program, we try to blend the military 
medical facilities with the HI program. What you do in this is you are 
a military retiree, you are used to going to a military facility, and, 
now, if you enter into this program, you become an FEHBP member, not 
knowing what your premium is going to be, because you are going to be 
in a separate risk pool, not knowing what the benefits are going to be 
in terms of an augmentation, and you get your Medicare money, which you 
also have been utilizing perhaps in conjunction with the military 
medical facility, but you are denied going to the military medical 
facility if you become part of this program.

                              {time}  1615

  You have to find an entirely different health care delivery 
structure, maybe somewhere else if you live by a military reservation 
which you have been going to.
  These are the kinds of things in reading this bill and in analyzing 
it as we did with the DOD subvention and with the VA subvention that 
simply jump

[[Page H3690]]

out at us. There are very many flaws in this bill. Why are we trying to 
rush this forward without putting it together in a way the military 
retiree has some comfort? Is it absolutely necessary to tell them that 
if you enter this program for your own benefit, you have to give up 
military medical facilities completely, you can never go back?
  A lot of times in today's health care system people are saying, I 
want to be able to choose my own doctor. What this demonstration 
program says is you have to give up the doctor you had or you cannot 
get in the program. That makes no sense. But after all, you have X 
number of cosponsors, you have X number of people whose heart is 
certainly in it, and my heart is in it, and the reason I am up here 
today is to tell my colleagues we have to put our heads in it as well 
as our hearts, and it is not impossible to work these out, but if we 
are going to move forward and simply say all of these are going to be 
resolved, unfortunately the end result will be a 3-year program which 
will fail. If we want a successful program, we ought to sit down and 
work out these difficulties, we will have a higher chance of 
succeeding, and perhaps my admonitions will go unheeded, and I am 
sorry, because it will be the military retirees who will have suffered.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I was waiting for the gentleman 
to catch his breath.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, when I feel strongly 
about an issue and I believe that folks are not being treated fairly, I 
do get impassioned.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I am very much impressed, and I 
appreciate the gentleman bringing up these issues.
  What I wanted to say to the gentleman, though, we have talked with 
the insurance companies. The fact is that with a separate risk pool, 
given the fact that these people are eligible for Medicare, Medicare is 
a payer of first resort, the insurance premiums are not going to be 
exorbitant as the gentleman has suggested, they are going to be quite 
affordable.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would inquire of the 
gentleman, under the current program with military retirees, is 
Medicare A the first payer?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield 
further, if one goes to a military treatment facility, it is not the 
first payer, but for many, there is about 70 percent of military 
retirees.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, so for the 
military retirees who use a military facility, that currently is the 
first payer, but they are denied the ability to go there; if they enter 
into this demonstration program, they are forced to find medical 
services elsewhere if they want to go in the program.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the rush is that World War II veterans, 
the average age is 72 years of age. They are not going to be around. 
The Thomas-Stump bill I applaud for what they are trying to do. We are 
both trying to do the same thing to help veterans.
  But the Moran bill, the original Moran-Bond bill was limited, it only 
had two sites. The Thornberry-Watts-Cunningham bill put in $1.5 billion 
to a full program. That is what we need to do. This is a compromise 
between the 2 bills. Subvention does not give them enough care; it is a 
Band-Aid. They do not have access to TriCare. But I ask my colleagues 
to support this, and I look forward to working with the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas) because he is trying to do the same thing we 
are.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The Committee will rise 
informally.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mica) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________