Congressional Record: April 27, 1995 (Senate) - Pages S5805 - S5843
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access - DOCID:cr27ap95-42: Part 4
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
Subtitle C--Other Matters
Section 1021. Authorization of transportation between
residence and place of employment
Subsection (a) of this section amends section 1344 of title
31, United States Code, to redesignate the extension period
of transportation for a federal employee or officer from four
90 day extensions to a single extension of one year and to
delete the requirement for the written agency requirement to
include the name of the affected employee or officer. The
purpose of this amendment is to authorize the head of a
federal agency to extend the effective date of an agency
determination for transportation of an employee or officer
between residence and place of employment if a clear and
present danger, an emergency, or a compelling operational
consideration exists.
Currently, four 90-day extensions are required in order to
maintain the home-to-work authorization. However, the
overseas billets for which this transportation has been
authorized by the Secretary of the Navy typically do not
change in each 90-day reporting cycle. To extend the
authorizations for up to one year rather than the present 90-
day cycle would alleviate a redundant reporting requirement.
Since the requirements are long-term, an annual review should
ensure high-level oversight of home-to-work requirements.
This proposal would also delete the requirement for the
written agency determination to include the name of the
officer or employee affected and only require the name of the
affected position. This would alleviate additional reporting
requirements each time the name of the incumbent changed. In
addition, this proposal would permit the delegation of the
authority to make determinations from the Secretary of
Defense to the Heads of Department of Defense Components and
from the Secretary of the
Military Departments to an officer at or above the level of
Vice Chief of each military service. This delegation of
authority would maintain control at a high enough level to
ensure full compliance while eliminating the
administrative delays associated with the signature of the
service secretary.
No additional costs or budget requirements are incurred by
the Department of Defense from this proposed legislation.
Section 1022. National Guard Civilian Youth Opportunities
Program
This section amends section 1091 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (32 U.S.C. 501 note)
to provide permanent authority for the National Guard
Civilian Youth Opportunities Program, presently established
as the National Guard Civilian Youth Opportunities Pilot
Program. The program is now in its third year of operation
and has proven successful in meeting the statutory
objectives.
This section also provides authority for the United States
Property and Fiscal Officer of each state or other
jurisdiction to requisition and lease Government Services
Administration vehicles to be furnished to the National Guard
for use in support of the Civilian Youth Opportunities
Program.
Section 1023. Clarification of authority for requisitioning
and lease of general services vehicles for the National
Guard
This section clarifies the authority for requisitioning and
lease of General Services Administration motor vehicles for
use in the training and administration of the National Guard.
The United States Property and Fiscal Officer for each state
or other jurisdiction would be identified as the
requisitioning authority for leasing vehicles to be furnished
to the state National Guard. Such use of GSA vehicles has
been made for many years. This provision would provide a
clear statutory basis for this practice.
Section 1024. Armed Forces Historical Preservation Program
This section amends section 2572(b)(1) of title 10 to
clarify which historic preservation programs may be
authorized by the service secretaries. The current statute
authorizes ``restoration services,'' but is ambiguous
regarding the scope of that term. The proposed amendment
clarifies the statute to include the full range of modern
historic preservation activity by inserting additional
specific terms.
``Conservation and preservation'' services include
treatment of historic books and documents, metal and wooden
artifacts to reduce deterioration. ``Restoration'' is often
not possible. Most historic documents were not printed on
acid free paper and thus deteriorate with the passage of
time. This has been described as ``a silent fire''
threatening historic collections. This proposal contemplates
both preservation of items and conservation of their contents
by microfilm, photographic and digital means.
``Educational programs'', while inherent in the mission of
all preservation activity, includes such programs as
videotaped tours to provide access by the handicapped to
historic ships and aircraft, publications and cooperative
programs with universities and other educational
institutions.
``Supplies or conservation equipment, facilities and
systems'' includes equipment and supplies for conservation
laboratories used to treat documents and artifacts, museums
with associated storage facilities and equipment and the
H.V.A.C. systems necessary to maintain proper temperature,
humidity and air quality conditions essential for
preservation of historical collections.
Other provisions of the statute would not be changed by
this proposal. These ensure administration of historical
collections of the armed forces and will remain under the
control of the respective service secretaries and subject to
their oversight.
No additional cost or budget requirements are incurred by
the Department of Defense from this proposed legislation.
Section 1025. Amendments to education loan repayment programs
This section amends sections 2171, 16301, and 16302 of
title 10 to include in the existing loan repayment programs
authority to repay loans made by borrowers under the William
D. Ford
Federal Direct Loan Program as authorized by the Student
Loan Reform Act of 1993 and codified at section 1087a et
seq. of title 20. There are no new costs associated with
the enactment of this proposal, as loan repayment under
the expanded authority would be made within existing
program and budget levels for this incentive.
Title XI--Matters Relating to Allies, Other Nations, and International
Organizations
Section 1101. Burdensharing contributions: Accounting
This section amends section 2350j of title 10, United
States Code, to authorize the United States to accept
burdensharing contributions in the currency of the host
nation or in dollars, and to manage it as a separate account,
available until expended. Current law requires that the money
be ``credited to . . . [and] merged with'' existing
Department of Defense appropriations.
There are a number of problems which arise because of the
requirement to ``credit'' and ``merge.'' In law, the term
``merged'' usually means that when ``A'' is merged with
``B'', ``A'' loses its separate identity and becomes part of
``B.'' Thus, the ``merging'' of host nation funds into our
appropriated funds subjects them to the same limitations on
use that govern appropriated funds. However, the practical
fact cannot be overlooked that the host nation contribution
is not United States taxpayers' money, but rather that of the
host nation taxpayers. The source of the host nation
contribution constrains the United States' authority to treat
those funds in the same way that appropriated funds are
treated.
Primarily, the following three limitations on use of
appropriated funds create problems with burdensharing
contributions:
a. The Competition in Contracting Act. For example, the
Republic of Korea provides money on the condition that the
money go to Republic of Korea contractors and suppliers,
where possible. Under the Competition in Contracting Act, we
cannot limit competition to Republic of Korea contractors and
suppliers when using appropriated funds; applying the same
limitation to contracts funded with burdensharing
contributions which have
merged with appropriated funds results in an inability to
meet the condition placed by the Republic of Korea on the
money it contributed.
b. The Foreign Currency Fluctuation Account. For example,
the United States accepts contributions from the Republic of
Korea in won. Since appropriations are in dollars, not in
won, in order to be credited to the Department of Defense
appropriation, the won provided by the Republic of Korea must
be converted to dollars at the market rate. The dollars then
are converted to won for expenditures through a formula
which, in the case of won, usually results in less won than
if the market rate were used. Similarly, where the
contributions from the Republic of Korea are accepted in
dollars and then credited to the appropriation, applying the
Foreign Currency Fluctuation Account conversion rate when
expending those dollars usually results in less won than it
took the Republic of Korea to obtain the dollars.
c. The Fiscal Year. For example, the question of what
happens when money contributed by the Republic of Korea
cannot be expended in the United States fiscal year in which
we receive it. This can happen since the Republic of Korea is
on a calendar year
[[Page S5828]] fiscal year; their supplemental appropriations
bill usually passes in July or August with money coming to
the Department of Defense in August or September. If the
burdensharing contributions cannot be spent for the purpose
for which it was provided, it should not expire along with
the appropriation to which it is credited. In addition,
unobligated appropriations usually revert to the Treasury;
this should not happen to unused contributions from the
Republic of Korea.
Establishing a separate account which can accept, manage,
and disburse in the currency of the host nation and which
does not expire at the end of the United States fiscal year
solves these problems. The money is not confused with
appropriated funds, thus the Competition in Contracting Act
and the Foreign Currency Fluctuation Account do not apply;
further since it is available until expended, it does not
expire and the question of reversion to the United States
Treasury General Fund does not arise.
Section 1102. Relocation of United States Armed Forces in
Japan and the Republic of Korea
This section adds a new section 2530k to title 10, United
States Code, which establishes authority and procedures for
the Secretary of Defense to accept contributions from Japan
and the Republic of Korea for the purposes of relocating
United States armed forces within the host nation when such
relocation is being accomplished at the convenience of the
host nation and for the purpose of deploying United States
troops to the host nation during a contingency deployment.
Currently, relocation expenses are not considered
burdensharing.
Congress has made it clear that burdensharing consists of
our allies sharing a greater portion of the United States
forces overseas basing costs. Most relocations of United
States forces are done at the convenience of the host nation
and are not for any military purposes. It is clear that
Congress does not consider the payment of these relocations
driven by the host nation's convenience to be burdensharing.
Examples of relocations that would fit this category are the
relocation of United States forces from Yongsan to the Osan-
Camp Humphreys area in Korea, and the relocation of
ammunition storage facilities in Okinawa, Japan, for the
expansion of the Zukeyama Dam Water Reservoir.
In addition, by having a separate account to be set up in
the host nation currency, Fly America Act problems with the
use of Korean Airlines (KAL) in a contingency to transport
United States troops to the host nation, in particular to the
Republic of Korea, could be avoided. As the host nation
currency and separate account would not be United States
funds, the Competition in Contracting Act and other
restrictions would not apply. Liability issues would still
exist, but the payment for Korean Airlines flights could be
accomplished in a reasonable manner.
This legislation further outlines the types of expenditures
authorized, the method of contributions, and annual reporting
requirements to Congress.
Enactment of this provision will not increase the budgetary
requirements of the Department of Defense.
Section 1103. Rationalization, standardization and
interoperability
This section amends section 515(a)(6) of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 to remove references to specific
countries and organizations where it states military
personnel assigned to Security Assistance Officers may
promote rationalization, standardization and
interoperability. Section 515(a)(6) of the Foreign Assistance
Act currently indicates that the President may assign to
members of the United States armed forces in a foreign
country the function of ``promoting rationalization,
standardization, interoperability, and other defense
cooperation measures among members of NATO, and the armed
forces of Japan, Australia and New Zealand. . . .'' This
initiative seeks removal of specific country references.
In the post-Cold War international environment, it is
becoming increasingly likely that the forces we fight
alongside may be other than those of NATO, Japan, Australia
or New Zealand. However, as specified in Section 515 of the
Foreign Assistance Act, these are the only countries with
which United States military personnel may promote
rationalization, standardization and itneroperability.
Especially in the Central Region, this self-imposed
limitation in the Foreign Assistance Act precludes the United
States from achieving the greatest possible degree of
interoperability with out coalition partners. For example,
during deployment for Desert Shield, United States forces
derived considerable benefit from the commonality of weapon
and support systems possessed by several of the Middle
Eastern states.
To the extent that interoperability existed, it facilitated
the deployment and employment of a multinational force, many
parts of which were mutually supporting due to common
equipment and training. This interoperability, which was
achieved entirely without legal sanction, has only served to
emphasize the need to promote rationalization,
standardization and interoperability with all our potential
allies.
Section 1104. Cost of leased items which have been destroyed
by the lessee
Paragraph (1) of this section amends section 61(a)(3) of
the Arms Export Control Act to allow leased items, if
destroyed, to be priced at less than replacement value if the
United States Government does not plan to replace the item.
Current legislation requires the leasing country to pay
``The replacement cost (less any depreciation in the value)
of the articles if the articles are lost or destroyed while
leased.'' In circumstances in which the leased item is not
going to be replaced by the United States Government, the
rationale that justified charging the foreign government the
full replacement cost is no longer valid or just. Section
21(a)(1)(A) of the Arms Export Control Act contains a
provision regarding the pricing of items to be sold that the
United States does not intend to replace: ``The President may
sell, if such country agrees to pay, in the case of a defense
article not intended to be replaced at the time such an
agreement is entered into, not less than the actual value
thereof.'' This same rationale should be used in the pricing
of lost or destroyed leased items.
Paragraph (2) of this section authorizes the Secretaries of
the military departments to use amounts paid by the foreign
country or international organization to reimburse for
defense articles lost or destroyed to replace the items (if
the United States intends to replace the item) or to fund
upgrades or modifications of similar systems (if the United
States does not intend to replace the item). These funds
would otherwise go to Miscellaneous Receipts account of the
United States Treasury.
Section 1105. Exchange and returns of defense articles
previously transferred pursuant to the Arms Export
Control Act
This section authorizes repairable exchange programs and
permits the Department of Defense to accept for return
defense articles sold previously through Foreign Military
Sales. This section provides clear statutory authority in
both of these areas, increasing the readiness of both the US
and its allies and friends, particularly in contingency
situations.
Exchange for Repair. Under the present procedure for the
repair of items for Foreign Military Sales customers, the
item is received into the repair system and tracked through
the repair
cycle to ensure that the exact same item is returned to the
Foreign Military Sales customer. Both the cost and the
time taken to repair the item is increased by the
requirement to track the item through the process.
For many components and spare parts, the United States
Armed Forces use a different system for their own needs. An
unserviceable item is returned for repair and the United
States unit immediately receives a serviceable replacement
from Department of Defense stocks. When the unserviceable
item is repaired it is added to Department of Defense stocks
for future use. No tracking of individual items is required.
The proposal would simply allow repairs for Foreign
Military Sales customers to follow the same procedure as that
used for United States forces, reducing the time customers
must wait to receive a serviceable item dramatically (often
by months) and increasing the readiness of Foreign Military
Sales customers.
Repair and exchange would only be allowed for items for
which stock levels are sufficiently high that providing this
service would not adversely affect United States readiness.
The proposal would not place foreign customers ahead of
United States forces--it would simply place them on an equal
footing in the use of the repair process.
Incoming items would be inspected to ensure that repair is
possible and to prevent abuse of the system by foreign
customers. The foreign customer would be charged the same
price as the Department of Defense customer plus a Foreign
Military Sales administrative surcharge.
It is estimated that at least 20,000-25,000 repair and
exchange transactions would be requested each year, with a
value in the range of $60-$70 Million. Most of the items
repaired would be aircraft and electronic components. The
service would be especially useful for allies who cannot
afford to maintain high inventory levels.
Return. The return proposal would allow the Department of
Defense to accept the return of items previously sold to a
foreign government when either the United States has a
requirement for the item or when another eligible foreign
country
or international organization wishes to receive the item
pursuant to Foreign Military Sales procedures.
For example, United States stocks of helicopter engine
blades for T-64 engines became dangerously low during Desert
Shield/Desert Storm. The Navy located stocks of these blades
which had previously been sold to Germany and which Germany
offered to return to the United States. In this instance the
United States bought these blades under a slower authority
(NATO Mutual Logistics Support Agreement). This authority
would have allowed this transaction to occur quickly.
This proposal would not circumvent FAR and DFAR
requirements. Materiel previously sold through Foreign
Military Sales has already been subjected to these
requirements in the process of the original Foreign Military
Sales sale. If the materiel had to be bought back through the
FAR process, it would be subjected twice to these
requirements.
[[Page S5829]] Section 1106. Foreign disaster assistance
A requirement for the President to notify Congress of all
foreign disaster assistance financed with Department of
Defense funds was added this year to title 10 by section 1412
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1995 (Public Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 2912). The intent of the
Senate, who added the requirement, was concern over costly
and long duration foreign operations. The Senate cited as
examples Bangladesh, the Philippines, northern Iraq, Somalia,
and the former Yugoslavia.
Preparation of these reports is a burden and a diversion
for Department of Defense personnel when they are
expeditiously developing and executing disaster relief
missions.
This proposal significantly reduces the burden of reporting
by requiring notification only on foreign disaster missions
that are not natural disasters and are expected to cost $10
million or more or last longer than three (3) months.
Congressional intent, as expressed in Senate Report 103-282,
page 221, is preserved.
Section 1107. Humanitarian assistance
This reporting requirement was enacted by section 304 of
the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993
(Public Law 102-484; 106 Stat. 2361).
In its current form, reports are required twice a year on
the use of Humanitarian Assistance (HA) funds. Information is
required on total funds obligated, the number of missions and
descriptions of cargo, their recipient, and cost. Reports are
required sixty days following enactment of a Department of
Defense Authorization Act and again on June first of each
year.
This initiative reduces reporting to once a year consistent
with the principle of reducing the burden of reporting to a
level consistent with efficient management by Department of
Defense and oversight by Congress. The annual report would
accompany the submission of other justification material
supporting the annual President's budget request.
To further reduce the burden of reporting, the contents of
the report would be reduced by eliminating detailed reporting
of the current and acquisition value of cargo delivered by
mission. However, the total cost for distributing and
transporting the cargo as charged against humanitarian
assistance funds would continue to be reported. Further,
since ``flights'' are not the only mechanism for transporting
relief the language is revised to refer to ``transportation
missions''. This recognizes the use of land and sea
transportation in addition to air deliveries.
Section 1108. Humanitarian assistance program for clearing
landmines
Permanent title 10 authorization language is needed for the
Department of Defense humanitarian demining program with
extended authorities to permit more efficient application of
the program to world-wide needs than currently allowed under
section 1413 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 2913).
The provisions of this section extend the use of demining
funds to the rudimentary construction and repair of
facilities supporting the program. This is identical to the
existing authority under section 401 of title 10 for the
Humanitarian and Civic Assistance program.
The language permits the United Nations and other
international organizations to participate in the program.
Lastly, expanded language identifies the uses of funds for
cooperative agreements and grants, and permits relevant
equipment and technology to be sold or donated to all program
participants.
Section 1109. Reimbursements, credits, and limited payments
for assessments relating to international peacekeeping
and peace enforcement activities
This section amends title 10 by adding a new section 406
which establishes the International Peacekeeping and Peace
Enforcement Activities Account and authorizes the use of
Department of Defense funds to pay for a share of
assessments, the furnishing of personnel, supplies, services,
and equipment in support of United Nations peace operations,
and the reimbursement to the appropriate department of the
Department of Defense for any incremental costs incurred in
the provision of such assistance.
The provisions of this section authorizing the use of
Department of Defense funds to pay for a share of assessments
are designed to ensure that there is adequate funding for
United Nations peace operations in which United States combat
forces participate. The authority to use Department of
Defense funds to pay United Nations peacekeeping assessments
applies only to Chapter VI and Chapter VII United Nations
peace operations in which United States combat forces
participate. The Department of State would continue to have
financial responsibility for all other peace operations.
Section 1110. Extension and amendment of counterproliferation
authorities
This section would extend through fiscal year 1996 the
International Nonproliferation Initiative contained in
section 1505 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484; 106 Stat. 2567; 22
U.S.C. 5859a), as amended by sections 1182(c)(5) and 1602 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994
(Public Law 103-160; 107 Stat. 1772 & 1843) and by sections
1070(c)(1) and 1501 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995
(Public Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 2857 & 2914).
In addition, this section would authorize the Department to
provide assistance and support in the destruction and
elimination of weapons of mass destruction outside the states
of the former Soviet Union. Activities of this nature
demonstrate United States willingness to assist other nations
to dismantle weapons of mass destruction. As new arms control
or assistance agreements come into effect, such efforts could
increase, especially in the chemical, biological, and
ballistic missile weapons arena.
Section 1111. Cooperative research and development agreements
with NATO organizations--technical and conforming
amendments
This is a technical and conforming amendment to bring
section 2350b of title 10 into line with section 2350a of
such title. Section 2350a was amended by section 1301 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995
(Public Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 2888) in a similar manner as
the instant proposal. The following section, section 2350b,
requires a similar amendment for consistency of treatment.
Title XII--Acquisition Reform
Section 1201. Waivers from cancellation of funds
This proposal would provide that, notwithstanding section
1552(a) of title 31, United States Code, funds for satellite
incentive fee and shipbuilding contracts shall remain
available for obligation and expenditure until the purpose
intended to be achieved by the contract is achieved.
The Department believes that these funds, when properly
obligated on a contract should remain available for the
purpose originally intended, i.e., making payments for the
performance of the contract to which they were obligated.
Clearly such funds should not be diverted for any new work or
other purpose unrelated to performance of that contract.
However, with these
unique programs, the funds should remain available to pay
for completion of uncompleted work, contract price
adjustments, close-out costs, settlement of claims, or any
other action arising from performance of the work for
which the funds were originally obligated.
Section 1202. Amendment to conform procurement notice posting
thresholds
This section would conform the defense procurement notice
posting threshold (currently $5,000) to the same threshold as
exists for the civilian agencies (currently $10,000). There
is no logical reason for applying unique notification rules
to DOD rather than setting a government-wide standard. This
proposal would correct this anomaly.
Section 1203. Competitiveness of United States companies
Section 2761(e) of title 22, United States Code, currently
provides for recoupment of non-recurring research and
development charges for products sold through the foreign
military sales program. Repeal of the provision in 22 U.S.C.
2761(e) concerning recoupment of non-recurring research and
development charges would increase United States
competitiveness in global markets and enhance the national
security and industrial base. This proposal will assist
efforts by defense oriented companies to shift toward
commercial activities by eliminating a major barrier to the
free flow of technology between the commercial and defense
sectors of the United States economy. The proposal will also
enhance the ability of American firms to compete for billions
of dollars of business that they might otherwise lose.
Section 1204. Inapplicability of prohibition on gratuities
This section would amend 2207 of title 10 to provide an
exemption for contracts under this simplified acquisition
threshold and for contracts for commercial items. This would
eliminate a contract clause that is inappropriate for
simplified purchases and for commercial item contracts.
Section 1205. Prompt resolution of audit recommendations
This section would delete a requirement that audit
recommendations be acted upon within 6 months, as this
requirement currently exists in regulation. The
requirement can be maintained in regulation without a
statutory mandate. Retaining this requirement in statute
is excessive oversight and removes managerial flexibility
from the Department of Defense.
Section 1206. Repeal of domestic source limitation
This section would repeal 10 U.S.C. 4542, which currently
sets forth limits on the technical data packages that may be
provided to defense contractors for certain armament
production. Only the Secretary of Defense should determine
the appropriate balancing of industrial base, technology
transfer and defense trade policies. Statutory constraints on
that authority hinder effective management of these
sometimes-conflicting policies, especially in a time of
drawdown.
Section 1207. Extraordinary contractual relief
This proposal would repeal a restriction on the use of
extraordinary contractual relief under Public Law 85-804,
limiting its applicability to wartime or national emergency.
Extraordinary contractual relief should be available during
peacetime as well as during wartime or national emergencies.
Relief
[[Page S5830]] under Public Law 85-804 is used for many
purposes unrelated to the existence of national emergency,
e.g., indemnification and recognition of contingent
liability. This limitation has not yet had any direct impact
because the United States has been under a state of national
emergency since the Korean War. However, should this
condition be lifted, this authority would immediately be
unavailable.
Section 1208. Disposition of naval vessels
This section proposes a technical correction to section
7306(a)(1) of title 10, U.S. Code. The National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 consolidated several
statutes dealing with this subject into a single,
consolidated statute. However, the drafting of the
consolidated provision did not exactly duplicate the
previously existing coverage. Some corrections to reconcile
the consolidated provision with previously existing law were
made by FASTA, but this correction was omitted. If this
proposal is adopted, the consolidated
statute will then be identical in scope to the previously
existing law, and permit the transfer of vessels in United
States territories as well as states.
Section 1209. Test program for negotiation of comprehensive
subcontracting plans
This section would amend the Test Program for Negotiation
of Comprehensive Subcontracting Plans (Section 834 of Public
Law No. 101-189, 15 U.S.C. 637 note). Current statutory
language limits purchasing activities allowed to participate
in the test to one activity in each of the Military
Departments and Defense Agencies. Subsection (a) proposes to
remove this limitation. This deletion will enhance the
underlying purpose of the law, which is to improve business
opportunities for small and disadvantaged businesses as well
as small businesses, and to require that efforts be made to
include in the program contracting activities purchasing a
broad range of the supplies and services acquired by the
Department of Defense.
This subsection also proposes a technical correction to a
provision of this same law. The proposal would require that
contractors' ability to participate in the test to be based
on the contracts that they received during the preceding
fiscal year rather than the fiscal year ending September 30,
1989, as the current law states. This amendment also reduces
the number of contracts and aggregate dollar value of those
contracts that are required to establish a condition for a
contractor's participation in the test from five contracts
worth $25 million to three contracts worth $5 million.
Finally, the proposal would delete paragraph (g) of this
public law in its entirety and redesignate paragraph (h) as
paragraph (g). Paragraph (g) currently limits participation
in the program after fiscal year 1994 to those firms that had
participated in the program before October 1, 1993.
All of these amendments would greatly facilitate more
meaningful tests. The test as currently established does not
result in participation of sufficient number of firms to
provide a valid statistical sample of the contractors doing
business with the Department of Defense and does not cover a
representative sample of the supplies and services that the
Department acquires.
For example, the restriction placed upon the conducting of
the test, i.e., allowing only one contracting activity in
each of the military departments and defense agencies to
participate; and limiting contractor participants to those
receiving at least five contracts and being paid at least $25
million, has severely limited both the number of contractors
that are involved and the types of supplies and services
being acquired. As a result of this limitation, of the eight
contractors participating in the program, six are in the
aerospace industry. One of the remaining firms is involved in
shipbuilding and the other is an electronics firm. The
participating contractors represent the very largest prime
contractors and are involved in the development and
manufacture of major weapons systems. Generally, the larger
the prime contractor the more likely that there is a need for
subcontractors that are manufacturers in the high technology
product area. High technology manufacturing is where the
least amount of capability exists in the small and small
disadvantaged business community. As a result, neither the
number of firms involved in the test nor the supplies and
services that they are providing is sufficiently
representative of the Department's acquisition programs.
Therefore, it is not possible to apply the results of the
test to date as representative of what could be achieved by
all of the 1863 defense prime contractors participating the
Department of Defense subcontracting program.
Section 1210. Civil Reserve Air Fleet
This proposal would modify authority newly-enacted by FASTA
that permits the DOD to contract with Civil Reserve Air Fleet
(CRAF) contractors to grant them limited commercial use of
CONUS military airfields. Currently, however, the authority
to permit limited commercial use is limited to times of full
CRAF activation. Deletion of the word ``full'' before
``CRAF'' as proposed will permit use of this valuable
authority during a military operation requiring less than
full CRAF activation. This flexibility is important because
of the need to mobilize civil and reserve fleets in advance
of declaration of war.
Section 1211. Eighteen-month shipbuilding claims
Under section 2403 of title 10 as amended by the FASTA,
contractors may bring shipbuilding claims within 6 years of
the accrual of the claim, for contracts entered into after
the date
of enactment of the FASTA. For contracts entered into before
date of enactment, the prior, 18 month claims limit period
appeals. Under a recent decision of the Federal Circuit
Court of Appeals, the statute's limitations period was
interpreted to apply only to the secretaries of the
military departments, not to the Boards of Contract
Appeals or courts. This technical amendment would clarify
that the 18 month limit on shipbuilding claims, to the
extent that it still exists for contracts entered into
before enactment of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining
Act, applies to the Boards of Contract Appeals and courts
as well as the secretaries of the military departments.
Section 1212. Naval salvage facilities
This proposal would consolidate all statutes pertaining to
naval salvage facilities' contracting currently in chapter
637 of title 10. The consolidate includes a deletion of an
outdated limit on salvage appropriations. This consolidation
would contribute to the streamlining of the acquisition laws.
Section 1213. Factories and arsenals: Manufacture at
This section would consolidate and amend two service
specific statutes dealing with manufacture of supplies at
inhouse, United States owned arsenals and factories.
Currently, the Army authority is mandatory--it must produce
supplies inhouse unless the requirement is waived.
Conversely, the Air Force authority is discretionary--it may
produce supplies inhouse. The consolidation would establish
one authority Department of Defense-wide that is clearly
discretionary. The discretion to make judgments about in-
house production is critical in this era of downsizing.
Section 1214. Bar on documenting economic impact
This section would repeal a bar on the use of government
contract funds to demonstrate the economic impact of a
government contract. It is inappropriate to maintain this
level of oversight in statute. It is also unnecessary because
this bar is currently maintained in regulation.
Section 1215. Fees for samples, drawings
This section would amend a newly-enacted statute,
Sec. 2539b. This statute was intended to provide, among other
things, authority for private sector use of Department of
Defense testing facilities. However, commercial use of a
certain subset of those test facilities, Major Range Test
Facility Bases (MRTFBs), is also authorized by another newly
enacted statute, Sec. 2681. Both statutes were enacted by the
National Defense Authorization Act for FY 1994. However, the
two statutes prescribe different rules on government fees for
the use of such test facilities. Section 2539b provides that
the government can charge only direct costs, thus precluding
the government from charging for indirect costs. Conversely,
Sec. 2681 permits charges for indirect costs as well. This
amendment would resolve that discrepancy by requiring, under
Sec. 2539b, at least the charge of direct costs, but not
prohibiting the charge of indirect costs when appropriate.
Section 1216. Contracts: Delegations
This section would repeal 10 U.S.C. 2356. That statute
provides authority for a secretary of a military department
to delegate specified research contracting authorities to
listed officials. It is not considered necessary because it
duplicates a secretary's inherent authority to delegate. In
addition, the statute is not currently relied upon by any
pertinent Department of Defense components.
The proposal would eliminate unnecessary and duplicative
authorities, thereby increasing efficiency and streamlining
the acquisition process.
Section 1217. Defense acquisition pilot programs
This section would amplify the statutory waivers available
to the defense acquisition pilot programs that were
authorized by the FASTA.
Section 1218. Testing
Section 2366 of title 10 provides for survivability and
lethality testing of major systems with an Office of the
Secretary of Defense-level report to Congress. Survivability
testing must be on the full-up system as configured for
combat unless the Secretary of Defense waives the requirement
for
full-up testing. This provision would change the requirement
to realistic vulnerability or lethality testing rather
than require costly testing of actual products. The
provision makes other changes to ensure the integrity of
the testing process by appropriate contract sources, when
necessary.
Section 1219. Coordination and communication of Defense
research activities
Currently this section establishes a requirement for the
Secretary of Defense to promote, monitor, and evaluate
programs for the communication and exchange of technological
data among Department of Defense Components. It also requires
that technological issues be considered and made part of the
record at Milestone O, I, and II decisions.
The proposed technical change to this section deletes the
specific references to, and definitions of, the Milestone
decisions and substitutes references to acquisition program
decisions. This change retains the intent of the statute, but
does not tie accomplishment of the requirements to events
which may change over time as the acquisition process changes
or may be tailored out
[[Page S5831]] of a particular program's acquisition
approach. Rather, it provides for the requirement to be
satisfied at all decision reviews for the program, whether or
not they are milestone decisions.
Section 1220. Undefinitized contract actions
Section 2326(b)(4) of title 10, United States Code, permits
the head of an agency to waive the limits on the use of
undefinitized contract actions if such waiver is necessary to
support contingency operations. This amendment would exclude
peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief
operations from the scope of these limits on the use of
undefinitized contract actions. This amendment is needed to
provide the Department's contracting personnel with maximum
flexibility during these specialized operations. Contracting
personnel supporting these types of operations should be
granted the same tools as contracting personnel supporting
contingency operations. For example, during disaster relief
operations, the Department often needs authority to purchase
and take delivery of relief supplies prior to final agreement
on price.
Section 1221. Independent cost estimates
This amendment would permit military departments or
agencies, independent of their respective Acquisition
Executives, to prepare independent cost estimates for
acquisition category I C programs (component-overseen major
defense acquisition programs). These offices are the Army
Directorate of Cost Analysis, Naval Center for Cost Analysis,
or Air Force Office of Cost and Economics, all three of which
report to the Assistant Secretary for Financial Management in
their respective departments. The proposed language would
align the responsibility for independent cost estimating with
the level of the decision authority.
Section 1222. Unit cost reports
This section would amend the unit cost report requirement
at 10 U.S.C. 2433 to (1) delete the reference to ``current
fiscal year,'' (2) restore a former provision to report to
the appropriate service acquisition executive further unit
cost increases of 5 percent or more, and (3) replace the
phrase ``contract as of the time the contract was made'' with
``contract cost baseline.''
The current law, as amended by the Federal Acquisition
Streamlining Act of 1994, contains reference to ``current
fiscal year.'' Use of this phrase will result in the second
reporting of the same program breach when a new acquisition
program baseline is not approved prior to the end of the
fiscal year in which the unit cost breach occurred. The
references to ``current fiscal year'' were appropriate when
the President's budget was used as the unit cost reporting
baseline. But it is not appropriate for the acquisition
program baseline, which is not automatically revised each new
fiscal year. The deletion of these references will eliminate
the duplicative reporting of unit cost breaches.
In addition, the newly amended statute does not now require
reporting of subsequent increases in unit cost after a unit
cost breach occurs and before a new acquisition baseline is
approved. Therefore, there is no motivation to have a new
acquisition program baseline approved in a timely manner
after a unit cost breach. The former provision to report to
the appropriate service acquisition executive further unit
cost increases of 5
percent or more is thus proposed to be restored, as amended
for the use of the acquisition program baseline as the
unit cost reporting baseline.
This revision would also replace ``contract as of the time
the contract was made'' with ``contract cost baseline.'' This
amendment would provide the Department with the flexibility
to define the basis for determining contract cost breaches.
Section 1223. Repeal of spare parts quality control
This proposal would repeal 10 U.S.C. 2383, requiring
contractors providing critical aircraft or ship spare parts
to provide parts that meet specified quality requirements
(using quality requirements for original parts unless written
determination to the contrary).
DOD must move away from the use of government unique specs
and standards that are outdated and do not recognize modern
industrial manufacturing methods. Failure to do this may
result in the procurement of higher-priced, inferior quality
goods. Specifically, qualifications and quality standards
should be a matter for engineering and technical judgment
based on current needs, technology and experience with the
use of the particular item.
Section 1224. Patent and copyright cases
This section proposes a technical amendment to update the
statutory terminology. It would amend 10 U.S.C. 2386 to
substitute ``designs, processes, technical data and computer
software'' for ``designs, processes and manufacturing data''
as ``manufacturing data'' is an outmoded phrase.
Section 1225. Defense Acquisition Workforce Act improvements
This proposal, at subsection (a), would amend section 663
of title 10 to authorize the Secretary of Defense to exclude
from the mandatory joint duty requirement for military
members of the Acquisition Corps, as defined in section 1731
of title 10, who have graduated from the Senior Acquisition
Course at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces. This
exemption is permitted if they are assigned to Critical
Acquisition Positions,
as defined in section 1733 of title 10, upon graduation.
This amendment will allow the Acquisition Corps to exploit
the talents of these high-potential officers by assigning
them to billets in the correct career field where they can
employ the skills developed through attendance at the Senior
Acquisition Course. Section 1205(a)(4) of the Defense
Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act (Public Law 101-510)
directed the Department to create a Senior Acquisition Course
as a substitute for and equivalent to, existing senior
professional military education school courses, specifically
designed for personnel serving in critical acquisition
positions. The Industrial College of the Armed Forces (ICAF)
was selected as the location for the Senior Acquisition
Course because a significant portion of the existing
curriculum addressed subjects essential to any advanced
program of study in acquisition.
Consequently, the Senior Acquisition Course is composed of
the standard ICAF curriculum, augmented by specifically
tailored electives, writing projects and additional classes
for acquisition students. While the use of ICAF to present
the Senior Acquisition Course offered significant benefits
derived from the existing curriculum, it also invoked the
joint duty assignment requirement established for officers
graduating from a Joint Professional Military Education
School, as provided in section 663(2)(A) of title 10. This
section requires that ``. . . a high proportion (which shall
be greater than 50 percent) of the officers graduating from a
joint professional military education school who do not have
a joint specialty shall receive assignments to a joint duty
assignment as their next duty assignment or, to the extent
authorized in subparagraph (B), as their second duty
assignment after such graduation.''
The problem, however, is that there are generally more
acquisition graduates than expected joint billets at the
appropriate grade levels. This career field mismatch leaves
the Department with three unsatisfactory alternatives: (1)
assign officers into acquisition career fields in which they
are not certified; (2) assign them to joint billets that do
not require acquisition expertise; or (3) require line
officers to have an increased requirement disproportionately
imposed on them to account for the acquisition personnel not
going into joint assignments. The first alternative conflicts
with the statutory
requirement (section 1723(a)) to apply qualification
standards to all acquisition positions. The second
alternative is counter to the basic concept for
establishing a Senior Acquisition Course, is counter to
the concept that the Acquisition Corps officers should
serve in critical acquisition positions, and could
disadvantage officers competing for promotion. Finally,
the third alternative is not feasible due to the existing
claims for line officers.
Subsection (b) of this proposal would repeal subsection (a)
of Sec. 1734 of title 10 and redesignate the remaining
sections.
Currently, section 1734(a) of title 10, United States Code,
requires individuals assigned to critical acquisition
positions (CAP) to serve in that position for a period of
time not less than three years. Additionally, it establishes
a requirement for individuals entering a CAP to sign a
written agreement to remain in that position for at least
three years. While these provisions were envisioned to
promote stability and professionalism within the acquisition
workforce, they are having a direct and detrimental impact on
civilian professional development and the implementation of
innovative management initiatives to re-engineer the
acquisition process.
Specifically, the tenure requirement, with its associated
written agreement, adversely affects the acquisition
workforce in five areas: (1) civilian promotions are tied
directly to changing jobs. Any barrier, such as a three year
tenure requirement, serves only to inhibit and discourage
individuals from advancement; (2) current management
initiatives seek to employ integrated product/process
development teams. This concept has been endorsed as an
excellent management initiative; however, it requires moving
people into different jobs and positions. The process of
establishing these teams frequently results in team members
moving into positions prior to meeting the three year tenure
mark in their former position; (3) cross-functional expertise
is another attribute desirable in today's acquisition
workforce. Yet in order to develop the requisite skills,
individuals must be assigned to a variety of positions to
develop the background experience and exposure to multiple
functional areas. A three year tenure requirement in each
position inhibits the breadth of the developmental events
that someone can experience; (4) the realities of today's
environment
in terms of force reductions, realignments and BRAC all
place our acquisition professionals in tenuous positions.
The tenure agreement obligates the acquisition
professional to remain in Federal service for at least
three years. Enforcement of this agreement deprives the
individual of taking advantage of the early out and early
retirement incentives that accompany the on-going force
reductions. Further, with the uncertainties associated
with the BRAC process and subsequent relocation of major
organizations (e.g., NAVAIR with approximately 4,700 jobs)
people are reluctant to sign tenure agreements they
probably would not honor because they do not want to move
out of their current geographic region; and (5) finally,
if rigidly enforced, the tenure
[[Page S5832]] agreements could create the situation where
critical acquisition positions are filled by the most
available, not the best qualified person, because the best
qualified individual for the job has not completed three
years in their current position.
The Department is provided the authority to waive these
provisions. However, waivers are viewed negatively,
especially given the annual GAO audit of all waivers executed
under the provisions of Chapter 87. Waivers should be used
for exceptional situations, but the requirements of this
section generate waivers as a routine and normal event.
Today's acquisition workforce is significantly different
from when this provision was enacted. We now have a cadre of
trained and experienced acquisition professionals. This
provision serves only to constrain viable career paths that
contribute to developing cross-functional expertise through
career broadening assignments. It stifles the opportunity to
assign the best qualified people to critical positions and to
employ innovative management practices. Consequently, this
provision is counterproductive to good management practices
and should be repealed.
Section 1226. Technical amendment to authority to procure for
experimental or test purposes
This section would amend a newly codified authority, at 10
U.S.C. 2373, that currently permits a narrow category of
noncompetitive procurement of limited quantities for test or
experimental purposes, to conform the new codified section to
the full scope of the prior, existing service specific
statutes.
Section 1227. Repeal of certain depot level maintenance
provisions
Section 2466 provides that not more than 40 percent of the
funds made available in a Fiscal Year to a military
department or a Defense Agency, for depot-level maintenance
and repair workload may be used to contract for performance
by non-Federal Government personnel of such workload for the
military department or the Defense Agency. Repeal of Section
2466 will provide the Department of Defense and the military
departments the needed flexibility to accomplish more than 40
percent of their depot maintenance workload by non-Federal
Government employees when needed to achieve the best balance
between the public and private sectors of the Defense
industrial base. The repeal of Section 2466 will not increase
the budgetary requirements of the Department of Defense.
Section 2469 prohibits the Secretary of Defense or the
Secretary of a Military Department from changing the
performance of a depot-level maintenance workload that has
value of not less than $3,000,000 and is being performed by a
depot-level activity of the Department of Defense unless,
prior to any such change, the Secretary uses competitive
procedures to make the change. The Department has suspended
cost competitions for depot maintenance workloads because of
problems with the data and cost accounting systems of the
Department. Repeal of Section 2469 will permit the Department
of Defense and the military departments to shift workloads
from one depot to another or to private industry as required
to resize the depot maintenance infrastructure to support a
smaller force structure. The repeal of section 2469 will not
increase the budgetary requirements of the Department of
Defense.
______
By Mr. THURMOND (for himself and Mr. Nunn) (by request):
S. 728. A bill to authorize certain construction at military
installations for fiscal year 1996, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
the military construction authorization act for fiscal year 1996
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, by request, for myself and the senior
Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], I introduce, for appropriate
reference, a bill to authorize certain construction at military
installations for fiscal year 1996 and for other purposes.
I ask unanimous consent that a letter of transmittal requesting
consideration of the legislation and a section-by-section analysis
explaining its purpose be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
General Counsel of the
Department of Defense,
Washington, DC, April 24, 1995.
Hon. Albert Gore, Jr.,
President of the Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: The Department of Defense proposes the
following draft of legislation that would authorize certain
construction at military installations for Fiscal Year 1996,
and for other purposes. The bill would be called the
``Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1996.'' This proposal is necessary to execute the President's
Fiscal Year 1996 budget plan. It is drafted to be a principal
division of the departmental authorization legislation.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection to the presentation of this proposal to
Congress, and that its enactment would be in accord with the
program of the President.
This proposal would authorize appropriations in Fiscal Year
1996 for new construction and family housing support for the
Active Forces, Defense Agencies, NATO Infrastructure Program,
and Guard and Reserve Forces. The proposal establishes the
effective dates for the program. The proposal includes
construction projects resulting from base realignment and
closure actions. Additionally, the Fiscal Year 1996 draft
legislation includes General Provisions.
Enactment of this legislation is of great importance to the
Department of Defense and the Department urges its favorable
consideration.
Sincerely,
Judith A. Miller.
____
Department of Defense--Facility Programs Legislative Sectional Analysis
sale and replacement of excess and/or deteriorated military family
housing (sec. 2801)
This provision authorizes the Secretaries of the Military
Departments to sell, at fair market value, military family
housing at non-base closure United States or U.S. Overseas
installations which has deteriorated beyond economical repair
or is no longer required, along with the parcel of land on
which the structures are located. The provision also
authorizes the Secretary concerned to use the proceeds from
the sale of the property to replace or revitalize housing at
the existing installation or at another installation with a
continuing requirement.
As a result of planned force structure reductions and base
closures, the Services are divesting themselves of military
family housing deteriorated beyond economical repair or no
longer required. Currently there is no statutory authority
available to enable the proceeds from the sale of these
properties at non-base closure installations to be used
specifically for the replacement of revitalization of family
housing. The proceeds from the disposal of excess military
family housing at non-base closure locations must be
deposited in a special account in the Treasury of the United
States to be used by DoD for maintenance and repair and for
environmental restoration (40 U.S.C. 485(h)). Allowing the
military departments to sell and reinvest the proceeds will
accelerate the revitalization of military family housing and
reduce the requirement for appropriated funds.
waiver of maximum amounts for family housing foreign lease (sec. 2802)
Notwithstanding the overseas drawdown, the Department's
requirements for overseas high cost leases continues to grow.
This increase is attributable to the growth of the
Department's presence in overseas cities rather than at U.S.
installations or enclaves, particularly in extremely high-
cost Asian cities, such as Singapore. In Singapore, the rents
range from $25,000 to $44,000 per year, and those rental
costs are below market rates, in accordance with an agreement
with the government of Singapore. Without the increase in the
number of high cost
leases allowed to the Department, military members assigned
to duties that require them to live on the economy in high
cost areas will have to pay the difference out of their
own pocket. In some instances, the cost difference will be
prohibitive.
increase in square footage when acquiring existing family housing (sec.
2803)
This modification to 10 U.S.C. 2826(e) would make permanent
the authority to waive statutory square foot limits
established in Fiscal Year 1992. This modification would
permit the military departments, in situations where family
housing construction has been authorized, to continue to
acquire rather than construct existing family housing units
that are larger than the current statutory limits, provided
the purchase price is within the amount authorized for
construction.
expansion of authority for limited partnerships (sec. 2804)
Section 2837 of Title 10, United States Code provides the
Department Of the Navy with authority to invest in limited
partnerships for developing privately owned family housing
near installation if there is a shortage of suitable housing.
The rationale that supported the provision for the Navy
applies equally as well to the Army and Air Force
installations in areas with reasonably large private sector
housing markets. The additional housing units this authority
would generate would have minimal effect on total local
market assets, and if military requirements were reduced in
the future, the units would be readily absorbed into the
private sector.
military construction cost notification reports (sec. 2805)
The proposed change would modify existing subsection (d) by
dropping the requirement for notification to Congress on cost
increases which exceed the limitations of subsection (a) when
the increase is to settle a court ordered contract claim.
This requirement is considered an unnecessary administrative
burden as these settlements are preexisting legal
liabilities, their payment is not discretionary to the
military departments.
clarification of unspecified minor construction authority (sec. 2806)
This clarification provision will make the definition of a
minor military construction project in section 2805(a)(1)
consistent with the definition for a military construction
project in section 2801(b) by removing the portion of
section 2805(a)(1) that is inconsistent with section
2801(b). All other provisions,
[[Page S5833]] including the monetary limitation on minor
construction, are unaffected.
Clarification of funding for environmental restoration at installations
to be closed or realigned (sec. 2807)
Environmental restoration at bases selected for closure or
realignment as the result of BRAC 95 is restricted to the
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) account as the source of
funding. Environmental restoration costs for Fiscal Year 1996
at those bases were submitted in the President's budget for
Fiscal Year 1996 as part of the Defense Environmental
Restoration Account (DERA); the recommendations from the 1995
BRAC Commission will not be final until September 1995 and
the Fiscal Year 1996 budget was submitted in February, 1995.
This provision permits the environmental cleanup at
installations selected for closure pursuant to BRAC 95 to be
funded from the DERA account for Fiscal Year 1996 only. After
Fiscal Year 1996, environmental restoration must be funded
from the BRAC account.
Contracts for certain services at installations being closed (sec.
2808)
P.L. 103-160, Section 2907, authorized the Secretary to
obtain certain caretaker services from local governments at
installations being closed. As written, however, Section 2907
requires the use of a standard government contract executed
in accordance with applicable procurement laws and
regulations. Local governments are reluctant, and in some
cases have refused, to enter into such standard government
contracts.
The proposed legislation authorizes the use of less formal
agreements with local governments while still protecting the
Government's interests, thereby providing the military
departments with the maximum degree of flexibility in
obtaining caretaker services at closing installations during
the transition from military to civilian use. The primary
benefit is the ability to obtain caretaker services by the
most practical and cost effective means.
Clarification of covenants applicable to leases (sec. 2809)
Environmental remedial actions may take several years to
complete and to demonstrate their effectiveness. This
amendment allows DoD to enter into an agreement with
prospective purchasers and the environmental regulator to
assure all remedial actions will be undertaken by DoD after a
lease transfer. This agreement is similar to purchase
agreements private parties can enter into to transfer cleanup
liability with the additional protection of regulator
concurrence. Without this amendment, interim leases and the
associated economic redevelopment at closing military
installations are impeded.
contents of certain deeds and leases (sec. 2810)
This provision allows EPA or a state to defer the Superfund
(Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980, as amended) Section 120(h)(3)(B)(I)
determination if an agreement between DoD and the potential
buyer has been entered and appropriate measures will be
undertaken assuring future remedial action, if necessary.
This determination requires the completion of all
environmental remedial action before DoD can convey title to
property at closing bases.
This amendment allows DoD to enter into long-term leases
while any phase of cleanup, which can be a lengthy process,
is ongoing. Long-term leases at closing military
installations are an important tool for both the government
and the community in stimulating the local economic
redevelopment following the base closure. However, a recent
court decision questioned DoD's ability under CERCLA
120(h)(3)(B) to enter into long term leases before remedial
action is complete. Without this amendment, both the
Government's ability to enter into such long-term leases at
closing bases and the community's ability to begin economic
redevelopment as soon as possible are impeded.
utility transfer at fort dix, new jersey to burlington county, new
jersey (sec. 2811)
This provision will authorize the Secretary of the Army to
transfer the Resource Recovery Facility at Fort Dix, New
Jersey, which receives solid waste from the Fort Dix Military
Reservation, McGuire Air Force Base, and other operations at
Fort Dix, including a federal prison, to Burlington County,
New Jersey.
The Fort Dix Resource Recovery Facility has failed to
produce the cost savings originally anticipated. Moreover
escalating O&M expenses continue to increase solid waste
disposal costs beyond projections. With the reduced
activities of Fort Dix due to base realignments and closure,
the Fort is unable to collect enough solid waste to utilize
the facility effectively. In addition the facility is
currently in violation of its Air Permit issued by the New
Jersey Department of Environment Protection and Energy
(NJDEPE).
The transfer of the Resource Recovery Facility to
Burlington County will result in present worth savings of
approximately $20.6M, which translates into annual savings to
the Army of $1.94M, as calculated by a life cycle costs
analysis. Further, as the incinerator operator, Burlington
County would bear all costs related to operations and
maintenance of the facility, including ash testing and
disposal, and utilities. This would eliminate O&M costs,
including operator, auxiliary fuel and off-site disposal
costs associated with incinerator by-products from the Army's
annual budget. With Burlington County operating the facility
at full design capacity, additional steam would be generated,
displacing fuel oil that would otherwise be used to supply
steam to the steam loop. The Army would realize fuel savings
from increased utilization of the resource recovery facility
since the county would credit the installation for steam
purchase from the facility. Additionally, conveyance to the
county will relieve the Army of safety and environmental
compliance requirements associated with the operation of the
facility.
utility transfer at fort gordon, georgia, to the city of augusta,
georgia (sec. 2812)
The provision will authorize the Secretary of the Army to
transfer a water plant and a wastewater treatment plant and
their collection and distribution systems at Fort Gordon,
Georgia to the City of Augusta, Georgia. An Army analysis
comparing the cost of private ownership of the water
distribution and wastewater collection systems to the status-
quo of Government-related ownership of the utility systems
with constructed operation and maintenance of the systems
demonstrates that it is most beneficial to the Army to
transfer the systems to the City of Augusta, Georgia.
The transfer of the water and wastewater treatment plants
and related collection and distribution systems to the City
of Augusta will result in transferring all costs related to
operations and maintenance of the facilities, including
testing, permitting, and environmental compliance, to the
city. This would reduce O&M costs from the post's annual
budget. The conveyance also eliminates the Army's funding
future major capital system improvements and shifts safety
and environmental regulation compliance from the Army to the
City of Augusta.
utility transfer at fort irwin, california to the southern california
edison company, ca (sec. 2813)
This provision will authorize the Secretary of the Army to
transfer an electrical distribution system at Fort Irwin,
California to the Southern California Edison Company, CA.
Fort Irwin, California owns and operates an existing on-post
12-kV electrical distribution system. The Ft. Irwin
electrical distribution system is aging and a planned
maintenance and replacement program is not included in the
Army budget, nor is the inclusion of the cost of such a
program in the Army budget practicable.
It is vital to the continued operation of the National
Training Center that planned maintenance and a replacement
program be in place. The transfer of the electrical
distribution system to the Southern California Edison Company
will result in Southern California Edison implementing a
planned maintenance and replacement program in compliance
with the California Public Utility Commission standards,
while providing the Army utility credits toward the purchase
of electrical
power. The Army will also be relieved of the costs of
massive capital improvements and of future environmental
liability.
Sale of electricity (sec. 2814)
This provision expands the Department of Defense's
authority by providing greater flexibility to allow the
military departments to take advantage of changing electric
power marketing conditions. This revised authority increases
private sector electric generating plant investment
opportunities on military installations. This change also
increases the ability to outsource for energy, as recommended
by the National Performance Review.
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 provisions for increased
competition of independent power producers has created
considerable private sector interest in locating electric
generating facilities on military bases. Current authority
permits the military departments to retain revenues from only
those facilities that use renewable energy or are
cogeneration facilities. The current limitation restricts the
potential benefits of making military bases available to
improve energy independence, improve efficiency, facilitate
private sector investment in energy plants at military bases,
and improve electrical reliability.
Energy and Water conservation savings at military installations (Sec.
2815)
This provision specifically includes water conservation in
the Department's overall conservation efforts, making the
incentives to the Department available for water conservation
efforts, in addition to other energy conservation efforts.
Conveyance of primate research laboratory and Air Force owned
chimpanzees to the Coulston Foundation (sec. 2816)
The provision authorizes the Air Force to transfer a new
primate research laboratory located at Holloman Air Force
Base (AFB) and a colony of Air Force owned chimpanzees to the
Coulston Foundation, a not-for-profit corporation engaged in
primate research. In 1989, and 1990, New Mexico State
University (NMSU) received federal grants totaling ten
million dollars for the construction of a new, state-of-the-
art primate research laboratory within the boundaries of
Holloman AFB. The new building was to replace certain outworn
facilities which had
been leased to NMSU for primate research. A colony of
approximately 150 Air Force owned chimpanzees were used in
NMSU's research
[[Page S5834]] program and this colony, along with additional
NMSU research animals, was to occupy the new laboratory. The
General Services Administration (GSA) was responsible for
grant administration and transfer of the completed building.
On July 8, 1994, NMSU indicated it no longer wished to
conduct a primate research program and would terminate its
leases with the Air Force on September 30, 1994. In light of
NMSU's termination of its primate research program, GSA
deemed it inappropriate and inconsistent with the grant terms
to transfer the new building to NMSU. GSA transferred the
building to the Air Force since the building is on property
under the custody of the Air Force and was intended to house
the Air Force chimpanzees.
The Air Force has no further requirement for its chimpanzee
colony and desires to divest itself completely of chimpanzee
ownership. The Coulston Foundation is a private organization
with demonstrated expertise with primate research programs.
The Coulston Foundation is familiar with the Holloman
chimpanzee research program and, pursuant to an agreement
with NMSU, and with the Air Force consent, has been operating
the primate research facility on a day-to-day basis since
July, 1993. In that time, Coulston has demonstrated its
interest, commitment of resources, and expertise in program
management. Coulston is therefore a well qualified and
appropriate transferee.
The transfer of the laboratory and the Air Force owned
chimpanzees will be without consideration in light of the
value of Coulston's primate research activities and its
caretaking of the chimpanzee population. The Air Force will
continue to provide to Coulston, by lease, the underlying
land and the security of location of the primate laboratory
on a military installation. In the event Coulston declines to
accept the facility and the chimpanzee colony at the time of
conveyance, the Air Force is authorized to convey the
facility and the colony to another not-for-profit entity the
Air Force determines capable of caring for the colony and
conducting research.
special operations land lease authority (sec. 2817)
The amendment making the Special Operations leasing
authority permanent. The amendment also makes permanent the
reporting requirement of activities carried out under this
section.
construction of elementary and secondary schools on dod installations
(sec. 2818)
Section 2008 of title 10, United States Code, enables DoD
to fund repair and maintenance and construction projects on
school buildings constructed by Department of Education
pursuant to section 10 of the Act of September 23, 1950 (20
U.S.C. 640). Section 10 of P.L. 81-815 was repealed as part
of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-382)
as of October 20, 1994. Under section 8008 of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the Department of
Education is now authorized to continue to provide assistance
for school facilities that were supported under section 10
prior to its repeal. Section 2008 would be amended in a
similar fashion.
______
