[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.
____________________