283
HR 3616 EAS1S
(10) TURKEY.—The Secretary of the Navy is au-
thorized to transfer vessels to the Government of Tur-
key as follows:
(A) On a sale basis, the following vessels:
(i) The Oliver Hazard Perry class
guided missile frigates Mahlon S. Tisdale
(FFG 27), Reid (FFG 30) and Duncan
(FFG 10).
(ii) The Knox class frigates Reasoner
(FF 1063), Fanning (FF 1076), Bowen (FF
1079), McCandless (FF 1084), Donald
Beary (FF 1085), Ainsworth (FF 1090),
Thomas 
C. 
Hart 
(FF 
1092), 
and
Capodanno (FF 1093).
(B) On a grant basis, the Knox class frig-
ates Paul (FF 1080), Miller (FF 1091), W.S.
Simms (FF 1059).
(11) VENEZUELA.—The Secretary of the Navy is
authorized to transfer to the Government of Venezuela
on a sale basis the unnamed medium auxiliary float-
ing dry dock AFDM 2.
(b) BASES OF TRANSFER.—
(1) GRANT.—A transfer of a naval vessel author-
ized to be made on a grant basis under subsection (a)
284
HR 3616 EAS1S
shall be made under section 516 of the Foreign Assist-
ance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j).
(2) SALE.—A transfer of a naval vessel author-
ized to be made on a sale basis under subsection (a)
shall be made under section 21 of the Arms Export
Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2761).
(3) COMBINED LEASE-SALE.—(A) A transfer of a
naval vessel authorized to be made on a combined
lease-sale basis under subsection (a) shall be made
under sections 61 and 21 of the Arms Export Control
Act (22 U.S.C. 2796 and 2761, respectively) in ac-
cordance with this paragraph.
(B) For each naval vessel authorized by sub-
section (a) for transfer on a lease-sale basis, the Sec-
retary of the Navy is authorized to transfer the vessel
under the terms of a lease, with lease payments sus-
pended for the term of the lease, if the country enter-
ing into the lease of the vessel simultaneously enters
into a foreign military sales agreement for the trans-
fer of title to the leased vessel. Delivery of title to the
purchasing country shall not be made until the pur-
chase price of the vessel has been paid in full. Upon
delivery of title to the purchasing country, the lease
shall terminate.
285
HR 3616 EAS1S
(C) If the purchasing country fails to make full
payment of the purchase price by the date required
under the sales agreement, the sales agreement shall
be immediately terminated, the suspension of lease
payments under the lease shall be vacated, and the
United States shall retain all funds received on or be-
fore the date of the termination under the sales agree-
ment, up to the amount of the lease payments due
and payable under the lease and all other costs re-
quired by the lease to be paid to that date. No interest
shall be payable to the recipient by the United States
on any amounts that are paid to the United States
by the recipient under the sales agreement and are
not retained by the United States under the lease.
(c) REQUIREMENT FOR PROVISION IN ADVANCE IN AN
APPROPRIATIONS ACT.—Authority to transfer vessels on a
sale or combined lease-sale basis under subsection (a) shall
be effective only to the extent that authority to effectuate
such transfers, together with appropriations to cover the as-
sociated cost (as defined in section 502 of the Congressional
Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C.
661a)), are provided in advance in an appropriations Act.
(d) NOTIFICATION OF CONGRESS.—Not later than 30
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Sec-
retary of the Navy shall submit to Congress, for each naval
286
HR 3616 EAS1S
vessel that is to be transferred under this section before Jan-
uary 1, 1999, the notifications required under section 516
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j) and
section 525 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing,
and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1998 (Public
Law 105–118; 111 Stat. 2413).
(e) GRANTS
NOT COUNTED
IN ANNUAL TOTAL
OF
TRANSFERRED EXCESS DEFENSE ARTICLES.—The value of
the naval vessels authorized by subsection (a) to be trans-
ferred on a grant basis under section 516 of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j) shall not be count-
ed for the purposes of that section in the aggregate value
of excess defense articles transferred to countries under that
section in any fiscal year.
(f) COSTS OF TRANSFERS.—Any expense of the United
States in connection with a transfer authorized by sub-
section (a) shall be charged to the recipient (notwithstand-
ing section 516(e)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
(22 U.S.C. 2321j(e)(1)) in the case of a transfer authorized
to be made on a grant basis under subsection (a)).
(g) REPAIR AND REFURBISHMENT IN UNITED STATES
SHIPYARDS.—The Secretary of the Navy shall require, as
a condition of the transfer of a vessel under this section,
that the country to which the vessel is transferred have such
repair or refurbishment of the vessel as is needed, before the
287
HR 3616 EAS1S
vessel joins the naval forces of that country, performed at
a shipyard located in the United States, including a United
States Navy shipyard.
(h) EXPIRATION OF AUTHORITY.—The authority to
transfer a vessel under subsection (a) shall expire at the
end of the two-year period beginning on the date of the en-
actment of this Act.
SEC. 1014. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING THE NAMING
OF AN LPD–17 VESSEL.
It is the sense of Congress that, consistent with section
1018 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1996 (Public Law 104–106; 110 Stat. 425), the next
unnamed vessel of the LPD–17 class of amphibious vessels
should be named the U.S.S. Clifton B. Cates, in honor of
Marine General Clifton B. Cates (1893–1970), a native of
Tennessee whose distinguished career of service in the Ma-
rine Corps included combat service in World War I so he-
roic that he became the most decorated Marine Corps officer
of World War I, included exemplary combat leadership from
Guadalcanal to Tinian and Iwo Jima and beyond in the
Pacific Theater during World War II, and culminated in
Lieutenant General Cates being appointed the 19th Com-
mandant of the Marine Corps, a position in which he led
the Marine Corps’ efficient and alacritous response to the
288
HR 3616 EAS1S
invasion of the Republic of South Korea by Communist
North Korea.
SEC. 1015. CONVEYANCE OF NDRF VESSEL EX-U.S.S. LORAIN
COUNTY.
(a) AUTHORITY TO CONVEY.—The Secretary of Trans-
portation may convey all right, title, and interest of the
Federal Government in and to the vessel ex-U.S.S. LORAIN
COUNTY (LST–1177) to the Ohio War Memorial, Inc., lo-
cated in Sandusky, Ohio (in this section referred to as the
‘‘recipient’’), for use as a memorial to Ohio veterans.
(b) TERMS OF CONVEYANCE.—
(1) DELIVERY OF VESSEL.—In carrying out sub-
section (a), the Secretary shall deliver the vessel—
(A) at the place where the vessel is located
on the date of conveyance;
(B) in its condition on that date; and
(C) at no cost to the Federal Government.
(2) REQUIRED CONDITIONS.—The Secretary may
not convey a vessel under this section unless—
(A) the recipient agrees to hold the Govern-
ment harmless for any claims arising from expo-
sure to hazardous materials, including asbestos
and polychlorinated biphenyls, after conveyance
of the vessel, except for claims arising before the
289
HR 3616 EAS1S
date of the conveyance of from use of the vessel
by the Government after that date; and
(B) the recipient has available, for use to
restore the vessel, in the form of cash, liquid as-
sets, or a written loan commitment, financial re-
sources of at least $100,000.
(3) ADDITIONAL TERMS.—The Secretary may re-
quire such additional terms and conditions in connec-
tion with the conveyance authorized by this section as
the Secretary considers appropriate.
(c) OTHER UNNEEDED EQUIPMENT.—The Secretary
may convey to the recipient of the vessel conveyed under
this section any unneeded equipment from other vessels in
the National Defense Reserve Fleet, for use to restore the
vessel conveyed under this section to museum quality.
SEC. 1016. HOMEPORTING OF THE U.S.S. IOWA BATTLESHIP
IN SAN FRANCISCO.
It is the sense of Congress that the U.S.S. Iowa should
be homeported at the Port of San Francisco, California.
SEC. 1017. SHIP SCRAPPING PILOT PROGRAM.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Navy shall
carry out a vessel scrapping pilot program within the
United States during fiscal years 1999 and 2000. The scope
of the program shall be that which the Secretary determines
is sufficient to gather data on the cost of scrapping Govern-
290
HR 3616 EAS1S
ment vessels domestically and to demonstrate cost effective
technologies and techniques to scrap such vessels in a man-
ner that is protective of worker safety and health and the
environment.
(b) CONTRACT
AWARD.—(1) The Secretary shall
award a contract or contracts under subsection (a) to the
offeror or offerors that the Secretary determines will provide
the best value to the United States, taking into account such
factors as the Secretary considers appropriate.
(2) In making a best value determination under this
subsection, the Secretary shall give a greater weight to tech-
nical and performance-related factors than to cost and
price-related factors.
(3) The Secretary shall give significant weight to the
technical qualifications and past performance of the con-
tractor and the major subcontractors or team members of
the contractor in complying with applicable Federal, State,
and local laws and regulations for environmental and work-
er protection. In accordance with the requirements of the
Federal Acquisition Regulation, in the case of an offeror
without a record of relevant past performance or for whom
information on past performance is not available, the offer-
or may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past
performance.
291
HR 3616 EAS1S
(c) CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The contract
or contracts awarded by the Secretary pursuant to sub-
section (b) shall, at a minimum, provide for—
(1) the transfer of the vessel or vessels to the con-
tractor or contractors;
(2) the sharing, by any appropriate contracting
method, of the costs of scrapping the vessel or vessels
between the Government and the contractor or con-
tractors;
(3) a performance incentive for a successful
record of environmental and worker protection; and
(4) Government access to contractor records in
accordance with the requirements of section 2313 of
title 10, United States Code.
(d) REPORTS.—(1) Not later than September 30, 1999,
the Secretary of the Navy shall submit an interim report
on the pilot program to the congressional defense commit-
tees. The report shall contain the following:
(A) The procedures used for the solicitation and
award of a contract or contracts under the pilot pro-
gram.
(B) The contract or contracts awarded under the
pilot program.
(2) Not later than September 30, 2000, the Secretary
of the Navy shall submit a final report on the pilot program
292
HR 3616 EAS1S
to the congressional defense committees. The report shall
contain the following:
(A) The results of the pilot program and the per-
formance of the contractors under such program.
(B) The Secretary’s procurement strategy for fu-
ture ship scrapping activities.
Subtitle C—Miscellaneous Report
Requirements and Repeals
SEC. 1021. REPEAL OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
(a) REPORTS REQUIRED BY TITLE 10.—
(1) HEALTH AND MEDICAL CARE STUDIES AND
DEMONSTRATIONS.—Section 1092(a) of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by striking out para-
graph (3).
(2) ANNUAL REPORT ON USE OF MONEY RENTALS
FOR
LEASES
OF
NON-EXCESS
PROPERTY.—Section
2667(d) of title 10, United States Code, is amended—
(A) in paragraph (1)(A)(ii), by striking out
‘‘paragraph (4) or (5)’’ and inserting in lieu
thereof ‘‘paragraph (3) or (4)’’.
(B) by striking out paragraph (3); and
(C) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and
(5) as paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively.
(b) REPORT REQUIRED BY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
AUTHORIZATION ACT.—Section 2819 of the National De-
293
HR 3616 EAS1S
fense Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1989 (Public Law
100–456; 102 Stat. 2119; 10 U.S.C. 2391 note,), relating
to the Commission on Alternative Utilization of Military
Facilities, is amended—
(1) in subsection (a) by striking out ‘‘(a) ESTAB-
LISHMENT OF COMMISSION.—’’; and
(2) by striking out subsections (b) and (c).
SEC. 1022. REPORT ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FINAN-
CIAL MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
Not later than 60 days after the date on which the Sec-
retary of Defense submits the first biennial financial man-
agement improvement plan required by section 2222 of title
10, United States Code, the Comptroller General shall sub-
mit to Congress an analysis of the plan. The analysis shall
include a discussion of the content of the plan and the extent
to which the plan—
(1) complies with the requirements of such sec-
tion 2222; and
(2) is a workable plan for addressing the finan-
cial management problems of the Department of De-
fense.
294
HR 3616 EAS1S
SEC. 1023. FEASIBILITY STUDY OF PERFORMANCE OF DE-
PARTMENT OF DEFENSE FINANCE AND AC-
COUNTING FUNCTIONS BY PRIVATE SECTOR
SOURCES OR OTHER FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
SOURCES.
(a) STUDY REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Defense shall
carry out a study of the feasibility and advisability of se-
lecting on a competitive basis the source or sources for per-
forming the finance and accounting functions of the Depart-
ment of Defense from among private sector sources, the De-
fense Finance and Accounting Service of the Department
of Defense, the military departments, and other Federal
Government agencies.
(b) REPORT.—Not later than October 1, 1999, the Sec-
retary shall submit a written report on the results of the
study to Congress. The report shall include the following:
(1) A discussion of how the finance and account-
ing functions of the Department of Defense are per-
formed, including the necessary operations, the oper-
ations actually performed, the personnel required for
the operations, and the core competencies that are
necessary for the performance of those functions.
(2) A comparison of the performance of the fi-
nance and accounting functions by the Defense Fi-
nance and Accounting Service with the performance
of finance and accounting functions by the other
295
HR 3616 EAS1S
sources referred to in subsection (a) that exemplify the
best finance and accounting practices and results, to-
gether with a comparison of the costs of the perform-
ance of such functions by the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service and the estimated costs of the per-
formance of such functions by those other sources.
(3) The finance and accounting functions, if
any, that are appropriate for performance by those
other sources, together with a concept of operations
that—
(A) specifies the mission;
(B) identifies the finance and accounting
operations to be performed;
(C) describes the work force that is nec-
essary to perform those operations;
(D) discusses where the operations are to be
performed;
(E) describes how the operations are to be
performed; and
(F) discusses the relationship between how
the operations are to be performed and the mis-
sion.
(4) An analysis of how Department of Defense
programs or processes would be affected by the per-
formance of the finance and accounting functions of
296
HR 3616 EAS1S
the Department of Defense by one or more of those
other sources.
(5) The status of the efforts within the Depart-
ment of Defense to consolidate and eliminate redun-
dant finance and accounting systems and to better in-
tegrate the automated and manual systems of the de-
partment that provide input to financial manage-
ment or accounting systems of the department.
(6) A description of a feasible and effective proc-
ess for selecting, on a competitive basis, sources to
perform the finance and accounting functions of the
Department of Defense from among the sources re-
ferred to in subsection (a), including a discussion of
the selection criteria considered appropriate.
(7) Any recommended policy for selecting sources
to perform the finance and accounting functions of
the Department of Defense on a competitive basis
from among the sources referred to in subsection (a),
together with such other recommendations that the
Secretary considers appropriate.
(8) An analysis of the costs and benefits of the
various policies and actions recommended.
(9) A discussion of any findings, analyses, and
recommendations of the performance of the finance
and accounting functions of the Department of De-
297
HR 3616 EAS1S
fense that have been made by the Task Force on De-
fense Reform appointed by the Secretary of Defense.
(c) MARKET RESEARCH.—In carrying out the study,
the Secretary shall perform market research to determine
whether the availability of responsible private sector sources
of finance and accounting services is sufficient for there to
be a reasonable expectation of meaningful competition for
any contract for the procurement of finance and accounting
services for the Department of Defense.
SEC. 1024. REORGANIZATION AND CONSOLIDATION OF OP-
ERATING LOCATIONS OF THE DEFENSE FI-
NANCE AND ACCOUNTING SERVICE.
(a) LIMITATION.—No operating location of the Defense
Finance and Accounting Service may be closed before the
date that is six months after the date on which the Secretary
submits to Congress the plan required by subsection (b).
(b) PLAN REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Defense shall
submit to Congress a strategic plan for improving the fi-
nancial management operations at each of the operating lo-
cations of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service.
(c) CONTENT OF PLAN.—The plan shall include, at a
minimum, the following:
(1) The workloads that it is necessary to perform
at the operating locations each fiscal year.
298
HR 3616 EAS1S
(2) The capacity and number of operating loca-
tions that are necessary for performing the workloads.
(3) A discussion of the costs and benefits that
could result from reorganizing the operating locations
of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service on the
basis of function performed, together with the Sec-
retary’s assessment of the feasibility of carrying out
such a reorganization.
(d) SUBMITTAL OF PLAN.—The plan shall be submit-
ted to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and
the Committee on National Security of the House of Rep-
resentatives not later than December 15, 1998.
SEC. 1025. REPORT ON INVENTORY AND CONTROL OF MILI-
TARY EQUIPMENT.
(a) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than March 1,
1999, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Commit-
tee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on
National Security of the House of Representatives a report
on the inventory and control of the military equipment of
the Department of Defense as of the end of fiscal year 1998.
The report shall address the inventories of each of the Army,
Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps separately.
(b) CONTENT.—The report shall include the following:
(1) For each item of military equipment in the
inventory, stated by item nomenclature—
299
HR 3616 EAS1S
(A) the quantity of the item in the inven-
tory as of the beginning of the fiscal year;
(B) the quantity of acquisitions of the item
during the fiscal year;
(C) the quantity of disposals of the item
during the fiscal year;
(D) the quantity of losses of the item during
the performance of military missions during the
fiscal year; and
(E) the quantity of the item in the inven-
tory as of the end of the fiscal year.
(2) A reconciliation of the quantity of each item
in the inventory as of the beginning of the fiscal year
with the quantity of the item in the inventory as of
the end of fiscal year.
(3) For each item of military equipment that
cannot be reconciled—
(A) an explanation of why the quantities
cannot be reconciled; and
(B) a discussion of the remedial actions
planned to be taken, including target dates for
accomplishing the remedial actions.
(4) Supporting schedules identifying the location
of each item that are available to Congress or audi-
tors of the Comptroller General upon request.
300
HR 3616 EAS1S
(c) MILITARY EQUIPMENT DEFINED.—For the pur-
poses of this section, the term ‘‘military equipment’’ means
all equipment that is used in support of military missions
and is maintained on the visibility systems of the Army,
Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps.
(d) INSPECTOR GENERAL REVIEW.—Not later than
June 1, 1999, the Inspector General of the Department of
Defense shall review the report submitted to the committees
under subsection (a) and shall submit to the committees any
comments that the Inspector General considers appropriate.
SEC. 1026. REPORT ON CONTINUITY OF ESSENTIAL OPER-
ATIONS AT RISK OF FAILURE BECAUSE OF
COMPUTER SYSTEMS THAT ARE NOT YEAR
2000 COMPLIANT.
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Because of the way computers store and proc-
ess dates, most computers will not function properly,
or at all, after January 1, 2000, a problem that is
commonly referred to as the year 2000 problem.
(2) The United States Government is currently
conducting a massive program to identify and correct
computer systems that suffer from the year 2000 prob-
lem.
301
HR 3616 EAS1S
(3) The cost to the Department of Defense of cor-
recting this problem in its computer systems has been
estimated to be more than $1,000,000,000.
(4) Other nations have failed to initiate aggres-
sive action to identify and correct the year 2000 prob-
lem within their own computers.
(5) Unless other nations initiate aggressive ac-
tions to ensure the reliability and stability of certain
communications and strategic systems, United States
nationally security may be jeopardized.
(b) REPORT REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Defense
and the Director of Central Intelligence shall jointly submit
to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the
Committee on National Security of the House of Represent-
atives a report on the plans of the Department of Defense
and the intelligence community for ensuring the continuity
of performance of essential operations that are at risk of
failure because of computer systems and other information
and support systems that are not year 2000 compliant.
(c) CONTENT.—The report shall contain, at a mini-
mum, the following:
(1) A prioritization of mission critical systems
to ensure that the most critical systems have the high-
est priority for efforts to reprogram computers to be
year 2000 compliant.
302
HR 3616 EAS1S
(2) A discussion of the private and other public
information and support systems relied on by the na-
tional security community, including the intelligence
community, and the efforts under way to ensure that
those systems are year 2000 compliant.
(3) The efforts under way to repair the underly-
ing operating systems and infrastructure.
(4) The plans for comprehensive testing of De-
partment of Defense systems, including simulated
operational tests in mission areas.
(5) A comprehensive contingency plan, for the
entire national security community, which provides
for resolving emergencies resulting from a system that
is not year 2000 compliant and includes provision for
the creation of crisis action teams for use in resolving
such emergencies.
(6) A discussion of the efforts undertaken to en-
sure the continued reliability of service on the systems
used by the President and other leaders of the United
States for communicating with the leaders of other
nations.
(7) A discussion of the vulnerability of allied
armed forces to failure systems that are not, or have
critical components that are not, year 2000 compli-
ant, together with an assessment of the potential prob-
303
HR 3616 EAS1S
lems for interoperability among the Armed Forces of
the United States and allied armed forces because of
the potential for failure of such systems.
(8) An estimate of the total cost of making the
computer systems and other information and support
systems comprising the computer networks of the De-
partment of Defense and the intelligence community
year 2000 compliant.
(9) The countries that have critical computer-
based systems any disruption of which, due to not
being year 2000 compliant, would cause a significant
potential national security risk to the United States.
(10) A discussion of the cooperative arrange-
ments between the United States and other nations to
assist those nations in identifying and correcting (to
the extent necessary to meet national security inter-
ests of the United States) any problems in their com-
munications and strategic systems, or other systems
identified by the Secretary of Defense, that make the
systems not year 2000 compliant.
(11) A discussion of the threat posed to the na-
tional security interests of the United States from any
potential failure of strategic systems of foreign coun-
tries that are not year 2000 compliant.
304
HR 3616 EAS1S
(d) SUBMITTAL.—The report shall be submitted not
later than March 31, 1999, in classified form and, as nec-
essary, unclassified form.
(e) INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE ARRANGEMENTS.—
The Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Sec-
retary of State may enter into a cooperative arrangement
with a representative of any foreign government to provide
for the United States to assist the foreign government in
identifying and correcting (to the extent necessary to meet
national security interests of the United States) any prob-
lems in communications, strategic, or other systems of that
foreign government that make the systems not year 2000
compliant.
(f) YEAR 2000 COMPLIANT.—In this section, the term
‘‘year 2000 compliant’’, with respect to a computer system
or any other information or support system, means that
the programs of the system correctly recognize dates in
years after 1999 as being dates after 1999 for the purposes
of program functions for which the correct date is relevant
to the performance of the functions.
SEC. 1027. REPORTS ON NAVAL SURFACE FIRE-SUPPORT
CAPABILITIES.
(a) NAVY REPORT.—(1) Not later than March 31,
1999, the Secretary of the Navy shall submit to the Commit-
tee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on
305
HR 3616 EAS1S
National Security of the House of Representatives a report
on battleship readiness for meeting requirements of the
Armed Forces for naval surface fire support.
(2) The report shall contain the following:
(A) The reasons for the Secretary’s failure to
comply with the requirements of section 1011 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1996 (Public Law 104–106; 110 Stat. 421) until Feb-
ruary 1998.
(B) The requirements for Air-Naval Gunfire Li-
aison Companies.
(C) The plans of the Navy for retaining and
maintaining 16-inch ammunition for the main guns
of battleships.
(D) The plans of the Navy for retaining the
hammerhead crane essential for lifting battleship tur-
rets.
(E) An estimate of the cost of reactivating Iowa-
class battleships for listing on the Naval Vessel Reg-
ister, restoring the vessels to seaworthiness with oper-
ational capabilities necessary to meet requirements
for naval surface fire-support, and maintaining the
battleships in that condition for continued listing on
the register, together with an estimate of the time nec-
306
HR 3616 EAS1S
essary to reactivate and restore the vessels to that con-
dition.
(3) The Secretary shall act through the Director of Ex-
peditionary Warfare Division (N85) of the Office of the
Chief of Naval Operations in preparing the report.
(b) GAO REPORT.—(1) The Comptroller 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 on the naval surface fire-support
capabilities of the Navy.
(2) The report shall contain the following:
(A) An assessment of the extent of the compliance
by the Secretary of the Navy with the requirements of
section 1011 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104–106; 110
Stat. 421).
(B) The plans of the Navy for executing the
naval surface fire-support mission of the Navy.
(C) An assessment of the short-term costs and the
long-term costs associated with the plans.
(D) An assessment of the short-term costs and the
long-term costs associated with alternative methods
for executing the naval surface fire-support mission of
the Navy, including the alternative of reactivating
two battleships.
307
HR 3616 EAS1S
SEC. 1028. REPORT ON ROLES IN DEPARTMENT OF DE-
FENSE 
AVIATION 
ACCIDENT 
INVESTIGA-
TIONS.
(a) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than March 31,
1999, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a
report on the roles of the Office of the Secretary of Defense
and the Joint Staff in the investigation of Department of
Defense aviation accidents.
(b) CONTENT OF REPORT.—The report shall include
the following:
(1) An assessment of whether the Office of the
Secretary of Defense and the Joint Staff should have
more direct involvement in the investigation of mili-
tary aviation accidents.
(2) The advisability of the Office of the Secretary
of Defense, the Joint Staff, or another Department of
Defense entity independent of the military depart-
ments supervising the conduct of aviation accident
investigations.
(3) An assessment of the minimum training and
experience required for aviation accident investiga-
tion board presidents and board members.
SEC. 1029. STRATEGIC PLAN FOR EXPANDING DISTANCE
LEARNING INITIATIVES.
(a) PLAN REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Defense shall
develop a strategic plan for guiding and expanding distance
308
HR 3616 EAS1S
learning initiatives within the Department of Defense. The
plan shall provide for an expansion of such initiatives over
five consecutive fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 2000.
(b) CONTENT OF PLAN.—The strategic plan shall, at
a minimum, contain the following:
(1) A statement of measurable goals and objec-
tives and outcome-related performance indicators
(consistent with section 1115 of title 31, United
States Code, relating to agency performance plans)
for the development and execution of distance learn-
ing initiatives throughout the Department of Defense.
(2) A detailed description of how distance learn-
ing initiatives are to be developed and managed with-
in the Department of Defense.
(3) An assessment of the estimated costs and the
benefits associated with developing and maintaining
an appropriate infrastructure for distance learning.
(4) A statement of planned expenditures for the
investments necessary to build and maintain the in-
frastructure.
(5) A description of the mechanisms that are to
be used to supervise the development and coordination
of the distance learning initiatives of the Department
of Defense.
309
HR 3616 EAS1S
(c) RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING INITIATIVE.—In de-
veloping the strategic plan, the Secretary may take into ac-
count the ongoing collaborative effort among the Depart-
ment of Defense, other Federal agencies, and private indus-
try that is known as the Advanced Distribution Learning
initiative. However, the Secretary shall ensure that the stra-
tegic plan is specifically focused on the training and edu-
cation goals and objectives of the Department of Defense.
(d) SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS.—The Secretary of De-
fense shall submit the strategic plan to Congress not later
than March 1, 1999.
SEC. 1030. REPORT ON INVOLVEMENT OF ARMED FORCES
IN 
CONTINGENCY 
AND 
ONGOING 
OPER-
ATIONS.
(a) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than January 31,
1999, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congres-
sional defense committees a report on the involvement of
the Armed Forces of the United States in major contingency
operations and major ongoing operations since the end of
the Persian Gulf War, including such operations as the in-
volvement in the Stabilization Force in Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Operation Southern Watch, and Operation
Northern Watch. The report shall contain the following:
310
HR 3616 EAS1S
(1) A discussion of the effects of that involvement
on retention and reenlistment of personnel in the
Armed Forces.
(2) The extent to which the use of combat sup-
port and combat service support personnel and equip-
ment of the Armed Forces in the operations has re-
sulted in shortages of Armed Forces personnel and
equipment in other regions of the world.
(3) The accounts from which funds have been
drawn to pay for the operations and the specific pro-
grams for which the funds were available until di-
verted to pay for the operations.
(4) The vital interests of the United States that
are involved in each operation or, if none, the inter-
ests of the United States that are involved in each op-
eration and a characterization of those interests.
(5) What clear and distinct objectives guide the
activities of United States forces in each operation.
(6) What the President has identified on the
basis of those objectives as the date, or the set of con-
ditions, that defines the end of each operation.
(b) FORM OF REPORT.—The report shall be submitted
in unclassified form, but may also be submitted in a classi-
fied form if necessary.
311
HR 3616 EAS1S
(c) MAJOR OPERATION DEFINED.—For the purposes
of this section, a contingency operation or an ongoing oper-
ation is a major contingency operation or a major ongoing
operation, respectively, if the operation involves more than
500 members of the Armed Forces.
SEC. 1031. SUBMISSION OF REPORT ON OBJECTIVES OF A
CONTINGENCY OPERATION WITH FIRST RE-
QUEST FOR FUNDING THE OPERATION.
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following findings:
(1) On May 3, 1994, the President issued Presi-
dential Decision Directive 25 declaring that Amer-
ican participation in United Nations and other peace
operations would depend in part on whether the role
of United States forces is tied to clear objectives and
an endpoint for United States participation can be
identified.
(2) Between that date and mid-1998, the Presi-
dent and other executive branch officials have obli-
gated or requested appropriations of approximately
$9,400,000,000 
for 
military-related 
operations
throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina without provid-
ing to Congress, in conjunction with the budget sub-
mission for any fiscal year, a strategic plan for such
operations under the criteria set forth in that Presi-
dential Decision Directive.
312
HR 3616 EAS1S
(3) Between November 27, 1995, and mid-1998
the President has established three deadlines, since
elapsed, for the termination of United States mili-
tary-related 
operations 
throughout 
Bosnia 
and
Herzegovina.
(4) On December 17, 1997, the President an-
nounced that United States ground combat forces
would remain in Bosnia and Herzegovina for an un-
known period of time.
(5) Approximately 47,880 United States mili-
tary personnel (excluding personnel serving in units
assigned to the Republic of Korea) have participated
in 14 international contingency operations between
fiscal years 1991 and 1998.
(6) The 1998 posture statements of the Navy and
Air Force included declarations that the pace of mili-
tary operations over fiscal year 1997 adversely af-
fected the readiness of non-deployed forces, personnel
retention rates, and spare parts inventories of the
Navy and Air Force.
(b) INFORMATION TO BE REPORTED WITH FUNDING
REQUEST.—Section 113 of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(l) INFORMATION TO ACCOMPANY INITIAL FUNDING
REQUEST FOR CONTINGENCY OPERATION.—Whenever the
313
HR 3616 EAS1S
President submits to Congress a request for appropriations
for costs associated with a contingency operation that in-
volves, or likely will involve, the deployment of more than
500 members of the armed forces, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to Congress a report on the objectives of the
operation. The report shall include a discussion of the fol-
lowing:
‘‘(1) What clear and distinct objectives guide the
activities of United States forces in the operation.
‘‘(2) What the President has identified on the
basis of those objectives as the date, or the set of con-
ditions, that defines the endpoint of the operation.’’.
SEC. 1032. REPORTS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EURO-
PEAN SECURITY AND DEFENSE IDENTITY.
(a) REQUIREMENT FOR REPORTS.—The Secretary of
Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees
in accordance with this section reports on the development
of the European Security and Defense Identity (ESDI)
within the NATO Alliance that would enable the Western
European Union (WEU), with the consent of the NATO Al-
liance, to assume the political control and strategic direc-
tion of NATO assets and capabilities made available by the
Alliance.
(b) REPORTS TO BE SUBMITTED.—The reports re-
quired to be submitted under subsection (a) are as follows:
314
HR 3616 EAS1S
(1) An initial report, submitted not later than
December 15, 1998, that contains a discussion of the
actions taken, and the plans for future actions, to
build the European Security and Defense Identity, to-
gether with the matters required under subsection (c).
(2) A semiannual report on the progress made
toward establishing the European Security and De-
fense Identity, submitted not later than March 15 and
December 15 of each year after 1998.
(c) CONTENT OF REPORTS.—The Secretary shall in-
clude in each report under this section the following:
(1) A discussion of the arrangements between
NATO and the Western European Union for the re-
lease, transfer, monitoring, return, and recall of
NATO assets and capabilities.
(2) A discussion of the development of such plan-
ning and other capabilities by the Western European
Union that are necessary to provide political control
and strategic direction of NATO assets and capabili-
ties.
(3) A discussion of the development of terms of
reference for the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander,
Europe, with respect to the European Security and
Defense Identity.
315
HR 3616 EAS1S
(4) A discussion of the arrangements for the as-
signment or appointment of NATO officers to serve in
two positions concurrently (commonly referred to as
‘‘dual-hatting’’).
(5) A discussion of the development of the Com-
bined Joint Task Force (CJTF) concept, including
lessons-learning from the NATO-led Stabilization
Force in Bosnia.
(6) Identification within the NATO Alliance of
the types of separable but not separate capabilities,
assets, and support assets for Western European
Union-led operations.
(7) Identification of separable but not separate
headquarters, headquarters elements, and command
positions for command and conduct of Western Euro-
pean Union-led operations.
(8) The conduct by NATO, at the request of and
in coordination with the Western European Union, of
military planning and exercises for illustrative mis-
sions.
(9) A discussion of the arrangements between
NATO and the Western European Union for the shar-
ing of information, including intelligence.
(10) Such other information as the Secretary
considers useful for a complete understanding of the
316
HR 3616 EAS1S
establishment of the European Security and Defense
Identity within the NATO Alliance.
(d) TERMINATION OF SEMIANNUAL REPORTING RE-
QUIREMENT.—No report is required under subsection (b)(2)
after the Secretary submits under that subsection a report
in which the Secretary states that the European Security
and Defense Identity has been fully established.
SEC. 1033. REPORT ON REDUCTION OF INFRASTRUCTURE
COSTS AT BROOKS AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS.
(a) REQUIREMENT.—Not later than December 31,
1998, the Secretary of the Air Force shall, in consultation
with the Secretary of Defense, submit to the congressional
defense committees a report on means of reducing signifi-
cantly the infrastructure costs at Brooks Air Force Base,
Texas, while also maintaining or improving the support for
Department of Defense missions and personnel provided
through Brooks Air Force Base.
(b) ELEMENTS.—The report shall include the follow-
ing:
(1) A description of any barriers (including bar-
riers under law and through policy) to improved in-
frastructure management at Brooks Air Force Base.
(2) A description of means of reducing infra-
structure management costs at Brooks Air Force Base
317
HR 3616 EAS1S
through cost-sharing arrangements and more cost-ef-
fective utilization of property.
(3) A description of any potential public part-
nerships or public-private partnerships to enhance
management and operations at Brooks Air Force
Base.
(4) An assessment of any potential for expanding
infrastructure management opportunities at Brooks
Air Force Base as a result of initiative considered at
the Base or at other installations.
(5) An analysis (including appropriate data) on
current and projected costs of the ownership or lease
of Brooks Air Force Base under a variety of owner-
ship or leasing scenarios, including the savings that
would accrue to the Air Force under such scenarios
and a schedule for achieving such savings.
(6) Any recommendations relating to reducing
the infrastructure costs at Brooks Air Force Base that
the Secretary considers appropriate.
SEC. 1034. ANNUAL GAO REVIEW OF F/A–18E/F AIRCRAFT
PROGRAM.
(a) REVIEW AND REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than
June 15 of each year, the Comptroller General shall review
the F/A–18E/F aircraft program and submit to Congress
a report on the results of the review. The Comptroller Gen-
318
HR 3616 EAS1S
eral shall also submit to Congress with each report a certifi-
cation regarding whether the Comptroller General has had
access to sufficient information to make informed judgments
on the matters covered by the report.
(b) CONTENT OF REPORT.—The report submitted on
the program each year shall include the following:
(1) The extent to which engineering and manu-
facturing development and operational test and eval-
uation under the program are meeting the goals es-
tablished for engineering and manufacturing develop-
ment and operational test and evaluation under the
program, including the performance, cost, and sched-
ule goals.
(2) The status of modifications expected to have
a significant effect on the cost or performance of the
F/A–18E/F aircraft.
(c) DURATION OF REQUIREMENT.—The Comptroller
General shall submit the first report under this section not
later than June 15, 1999. No report is required under this
section after the full rate production contract is awarded
under the program.
(d) REQUIREMENT TO SUPPORT ANNUAL GAO RE-
VIEW.—The Secretary of Defense and the prime contractors
under the F/A–18E/F aircraft program shall timely provide
the Comptroller General with such information on the pro-
319
HR 3616 EAS1S
gram, including information on program performance, as
the Comptroller General considers necessary to carry out
the responsibilities under this section.
SEC. 1035. REVIEW AND REPORT REGARDING THE DIS-
TRIBUTION 
OF 
NATIONAL 
GUARD 
RE-
SOURCES AMONG STATES.
(a) REQUIREMENT FOR REVIEW.—The Chief of the Na-
tional Guard Bureau shall review the process used for allo-
cating and distributing resources, including all categories
of full-time manning, among the States for the National
Guard of the States.
(b) PURPOSE OF REVIEW.—The purpose of the review
is to determine whether the process provides for adequately
funding the National Guard of the States that have within
the National Guard no unit or few (15 or less) units cat-
egorized in readiness tiers I, II, and III.
(c) MATTERS REVIEWED.—The matters reviewed shall
include the following:
(1) The factors considered for the process of de-
termining the distribution of resources, including the
weights assigned to the factors.
(2) The extent to which the process results in
funding for the units of the States described in sub-
section (b) at the levels necessary to optimize the pre-
320
HR 3616 EAS1S
paredness of the units to meet the mission require-
ments applicable to the units.
(3) The effects that funding at levels determined
under the process will have on the National Guard of
those States in the future, including the effects on all
categories of full-time manning, and unit readiness,
recruitment, and continued use of existing National
Guard armories and other facilities.
(d) REPORT.—Not later than March 15, 1999, the
Chief of the National Guard Bureau shall submit a report
on the results of the review to the congressional defense com-
mittees.
SEC. 1036. REPORT ON THE PEACEFUL EMPLOYMENT OF
FORMER SOVIET EXPERTS ON WEAPONS OF
MASS DESTRUCTION.
(a) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than January 31,
1999, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congres-
sional defense committees a report on the need for and the
feasibility of programs, other than those involving the devel-
opment or promotion of commercially viable proposals, to
further United States nonproliferation objectives regarding
former Soviet experts in ballistic missiles or weapons of
mass destruction. The report shall contain an analysis of
the following:
321
HR 3616 EAS1S
(1) The number of such former Soviet experts
who are, or are likely to become within the coming
decade, unemployed, underemployed, or unpaid and,
therefore, at risk of accepting export orders, contracts,
or job offers from countries developing weapons of
mass destruction.
(2) The extent to which the development of non-
threatening, commercially viable products and serv-
ices, with or without United States assistance, can
reasonably be expected to employ such former experts.
(3) The extent to which projects that do not in-
volve the development of commercially viable products
or services could usefully employ additional such
former experts.
(4) The likely cost and benefits of a 10-year pro-
gram of United States or international assistance to
projects of the sort discussed in paragraph (3).
(b) CONSULTATION REQUIREMENT.—The report shall
be prepared in consultation with the Secretary of State, the
Secretary of Energy, and such other officials as the Sec-
retary of Defense considers appropriate.
322
HR 3616 EAS1S
Subtitle D—Other Matters
SEC. 1041. COOPERATIVE COUNTERPROLIFERATION PRO-
GRAM.
(a) ASSISTANCE AUTHORIZED.—Subject to subsection
(b), the Secretary of Defense may provide a foreign country
or any of its instrumentalities with assistance that the Sec-
retary determines necessary for destroying, removing, or ob-
taining from that country—
(1) weapons of mass destruction; or
(2) materials, equipment, or technology related
to the delivery or development of weapons of mass de-
struction.
(b) CERTIFICATION REQUIRED.—(1) Not later than 15
days before providing assistance under subsection (a) re-
garding weapons, materials, equipment, or technology re-
ferred to in that subsection, the Secretary of Defense shall
certify to the congressional defense committees that the
weapons, materials, equipment, or technology meet each of
the following requirements:
(A) The weapons, materials, equipment, or tech-
nology are at risk of being sold or otherwise trans-
ferred to a restricted foreign state or entity.
(B) The transfer of the weapons, materials,
equipment, or technology would pose a significant
threat to national security interests of the United
323
HR 3616 EAS1S
States or would significantly advance a foreign coun-
try’s weapon program that threatens national secu-
rity interests of the United States.
(C) Other options for securing or otherwise pre-
venting the transfer of the weapons, materials, equip-
ment, or technology have been considered and rejected
as ineffective or inadequate.
(2) The Secretary may waive the deadline for submit-
ting a certification required under paragraph (1) in any
case if the Secretary determines that compliance with the
requirement would compromise national security objectives
of the United States in that case. The Secretary shall
promptly notify the Chairman and ranking minority mem-
bers of the congressional defense committees regarding the
waiver and submit the certification not later than 45 days
after completing the action of providing the assistance in
the case.
(3) No assistance may be provided under subsection
(a) in any case unless the Secretary submits the certifi-
cation required under paragraph (1) or a notification re-
quired under paragraph (2) in such case.
(c) ANNUAL REPORTS.—(1) Not later than January
30 of each year, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to
the congressional defense committees a report on the activi-
324
HR 3616 EAS1S
ties carried out under this section. The first annual report
shall be submitted not later than January 30, 2000.
(2) Each annual report shall set forth in separate sec-
tions for the previous year the following:
(A) The assistance provided under this section
and the purposes for which provided.
(B) The sources of funds for the assistance pro-
vided.
(C) Any assistance provided for the Department
of Defense under this section by any other department
or agency of the Federal Government, together with
the source or sources of that assistance.
(D) Any other information that the Secretary
considers appropriate for informing the appropriate
congressional committees about actions taken under
this section.
(d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
(1) The term ‘‘restricted foreign state or entity’’,
with respect to weapons, materials, equipment, or
technology covered by a certification of the Secretary
of Defense under subsection (b), means—
(A) any foreign country the government of
which has repeatedly provided support for acts of
international terrorism, as determined by the
Secretary of State determines under section 620A
325
HR 3616 EAS1S
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.
2371); or
(B) any foreign state or entity that the Sec-
retary of Defense determines would constitute a
military threat to the territory of the United
States, national security interests of the United
States, or allies of the United States, if that for-
eign state or entity were to possess the weapons,
materials, equipment, or technology.
(2) The term ‘‘weapon of mass destruction’’ has
the meaning given that term in section 1402 of the
Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of
1996 (50 U.S.C. 2302(1)).
SEC. 1042. EXTENSION OF COUNTERPROLIFERATION AU-
THORITIES FOR SUPPORT OF UNITED NA-
TIONS SPECIAL COMMISSION ON IRAQ.
Section 1505 of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Con-
trol Act of 1992 (title XV of Public Law 102–484; 22 U.S.C.
5859a) is amended—
(1) in subsection (d)(3), by striking out ‘‘or
$15,000,000 for fiscal year 1998’’ and inserting in
lieu thereof ‘‘or $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years
1998 and 1999’’; and
326
HR 3616 EAS1S
(2) in subsection (f), by striking out ‘‘fiscal year
1998’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘fiscal year
1999’’.
SEC. 1043. ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION ON RE-
TIREMENT OR DISMANTLEMENT OF STRATE-
GIC NUCLEAR DELIVERY SYSTEMS.
Section 1302 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85; 111 Stat.
1948) is amended—
(1) by striking out ‘‘during fiscal year 1998’’
each place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof
‘‘during any fiscal year’’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(g) APPLICABILITY
TO FISCAL YEARS 1998 and
1999.—This section applies to fiscal years 1998 and 1999.’’.
SEC. 1044. 
DIRECT-LINE 
COMMUNICATION 
BETWEEN
UNITED STATES AND RUSSIAN COMMANDERS
OF STRATEGIC FORCES.
(a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress
that a direct line of communication between the command-
ers in chief of the United States Strategic and Space Com-
mands and the Commander of the Russian Strategic Rocket
Forces could be a useful confidence-building tool.
(b) REPORT.—Not later than two months after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall
327
HR 3616 EAS1S
submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate
and to the Committee on National Security of the House
of Representatives a report on the feasibility of initiating
discussions on direct-line communication described in sub-
section (a).
SEC. 1045. CHEMICAL WARFARE DEFENSE.
(a) REVIEW AND MODIFICATION OF POLICIES AND
DOCTRINE.—The Secretary of Defense shall review the poli-
cies and doctrines of the Department of Defense on chemical
warfare defense and modify the policies and doctrine as ap-
propriate to achieve the objectives set forth in subsection (b).
(b) OBJECTIVES.—The objectives for the modification
of policies and doctrines of the Department of Defense on
chemical warfare defense are as follows:
(1) To provide for adequate protection of person-
nel from any low-level exposure to a chemical warfare
agent that would endanger the health of exposed per-
sonnel because of the deleterious effects of—
(A) a single exposure to the agent;
(B) exposure to the agent concurrently with
other dangerous exposures, such as exposures
to—
(i) other potentially toxic substances in
the environment, including pesticides, other
328
HR 3616 EAS1S
insect and vermin control agents, and envi-
ronmental pollutants;
(ii) low-grade nuclear and electro-
magnetic radiation present in the environ-
ment;
(iii) preventive medications (that are
dangerous when taken concurrently with
other dangerous exposures referred to in this
paragraph); and
(iv) occupational hazards, including
battlefield hazards; and
(C) repeated exposures to the agent, or some
combination of one or more exposures to the
agent and other dangerous exposures referred to
in subparagraph (B), over time.
(2) To provide for—
(A) the prevention of and protection
against, and the detection (including confirma-
tion) of, exposures to a chemical warfare agent
(whether intentional or inadvertent) at levels
that, even if not sufficient to endanger health im-
mediately, are greater than the level that is rec-
ognized under Department of Defense policies as
being the maximum safe level of exposure to that
agent for the general population; and