[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 85 (Wednesday, June 16, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7039-S7044]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to the consideration of S. 1205 which the clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1205) making appropriations for military 
     construction, family housing, and base realignment and 
     closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 10 
minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form with an additional 
5 minutes for the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain.
  The distinguished Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I will have to ask some of the staff but I 
think Mr. McCain will not be present to make his statement this 
morning. I will make mine, and then we will work that out later.
  I am pleased to bring before the Senate the military construction 
appropriations bill and report for fiscal year 2000. The bill reflects 
a bipartisan approach that the ranking member, Senator Murray of the 
State of Washington, and I have tried to maintain regarding military 
construction and this subcommittee.
  This isn't the first year we have put this bill together. We are 
getting to be old hands at it. But I want to say personally it is a 
pleasure to work with the Senator and her staff. It seems as if we have 
a lot of luck in working out some of the problems some people would run 
into before we ever get the bill to the floor. So those problems are 
taken care of. I appreciate the attitude and manner in which we have 
worked together on this bill.
  This bill was reported out of the full Appropriations Committee on 
June 10 by a unanimous vote of 28 to nothing. The bill recommended by 
the full Committee on Appropriations is $8,273,820,000.
  The administration submitted the fiscal year 2000 military 
construction budget with all of the military construction and family 
housing projects incrementally funded over a 2-year period. We are 
finding that some of that is working and some of it is not, and we will 
probably be looking at this in a different light in another year.
  To have proceeded in this manner would have demonstrated a poor 
financial stewardship on the part of the Senate and placed the 
Department's 2000 military construction program in great jeopardy. That 
is the reason we are taking a look at it. The subcommittee rejected 
that recommendation and provided full funding for all of the 
construction projects.
  Accordingly, the bill is $2.8 billion over the budget request, but 
the bill is

[[Page S7040]]

still $176 million less than what was appropriated just a year ago. 
However, more important, the legislation reflects a reduction of $1.7 
billion from just 3 years ago.
  We have sought to recommend a balanced bill to the Senate. We believe 
it addresses key military construction requirements for readiness, 
family housing, barracks, quality of life, and of course we do not want 
to forget our Guard and our Reserve components.
  This bill honors the commitment we have to our Armed Forces. It helps 
ensure that the housing and infrastructure needs of the military are 
given proper recognition.
  Also, I am pleased to report to the Senate that the bill is within 
the committee's 302(b) budget allocations for both budget authority and 
outlays.
  This bill has some points I want to mention. We have added $485 
million above the budget request to provide better and more modern 
family housing for our service personnel and their families.
  Just less than a month ago, we opened a new housing unit at Malmstrom 
Air Force Base in Montana. I said at that time, and I still mean it, 
there is no better way to send a strong message to our fighting men and 
women than to provide them with good housing in a good atmosphere and 
the greatest way we can say we care.
  On another quality of life measure, we added substantially to the 
budget request for barracks construction projects, some $587 million 
for 47 projects throughout the United States and overseas.
  I say right now to the American people, we have American troops 
deployed in over 70 countries around the world.
  This funding will provide single service members a more favorable 
living environment wherever they are stationed.
  The committee also fully funds the budget request of $245 million for 
funding 25 environmental compliance projects.
  We also addressed the shortfalls that continue to plague our reserve 
components.
  I continue to be greatly alarmed that the Department of Defense takes 
no responsibility for ensuring that our reserve components have 
adequate facilities.
  Their lack of disregard for the total force concept very much 
concerns me and a number of our colleagues.
  This comes at a time when our country is so heavily dependent on the 
Guard and Reserve to maintain our presence around the world.
  For example, the President's budget requested funding of only $77 
million for all of the Reserve components and the National Guard.
  Recognizing this chronic shortfall, we have again lent support by 
adding $560 million to these accounts.
  In each case, the funds will help satisfy essential mission, quality 
of life or readiness requirements.
  We fully funded the budget request for the base realignment and 
closure account by providing $706 million to continue the ongoing brac 
process.
  All of the projects that we have recommended were thoroughly screened 
to ensure that they meet a series of defensible criteria and that they 
were authorized in the defense authorization bill.
  We will work very closely with the Senate Armed Services Committee, 
as we put together a conference package for military construction.
  There are many other issues that I could speak about at this time. I 
urge the Members of the Senate to support this bill and move it forward 
expeditiously.
  I yield the floor for the ranking member.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Washington is 
recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my colleague, Chairman 
Burns, in recommending the fiscal year 2000 military construction bill 
to the Senate for approval.
  I begin by thanking him and his staff for being so great to work 
with. He is right, we are old hands but not that old; and it is great 
to work with him.
  This bill, which was reported with the unanimous approval of the 
Senate Appropriations Committee last week, bears little resemblance to 
the spending structure proposed by the administration last winter. The 
administration, in what I consider to be a misguided effort to free up 
more money for defense spending, proposed a buy-now, pay-later military 
construction bill. The subcommittee carefully analyzed the 
administration's plan. We had numerous briefings as well as two 
subcommittee hearings. Our conclusion was that split funding not only 
would set a dangerous precedent but also would jeopardize the integrity 
of the entire military construction program.
  At the recommendation of the Military Construction Subcommittee, the 
Appropriations Committee wisely rejected the administration's proposal 
for incremental funding. With the help of our chairman and ranking 
member, Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd, we were able to fully fund 
our Military Construction Program. Moreover, we were able to surmount 
the woefully inadequate amounts of funding that the administration 
sought to spread over the full 2-year construction program. In the end, 
we increased construction funding for active duty components by $278 
million over the administration's total request, and for reserve 
components by nearly $388 million over the request.
  We achieved these increases by judicious reductions in other 
accounts, such as the base realignment and closure account, without 
jeopardizing the pace of ongoing work. Senator Burns and his staff 
deserve a great deal of credit for the thoughtful and careful approach 
that they took in the drafting of this bill. As always, they have 
worked hard to produce a balanced, bipartisan product that takes into 
account both the concerns of the Senate and the needs of the military.
  In particular, they have done a superb job of continuing to shine the 
spotlight on the quality of life projects that are so important to our 
men and women in uniform, and to their families. At a time when 
military enlistment and retention are in free fall, and the services 
cannot hope to match the financial incentives of the private sector, 
quality of life issues are magnified in importance. They do not 
diminish the importance of readiness projects, but they are a factor in 
recruiting and retaining our military personnel.
  Within the budget constraints that we are all forced to operate this 
year, this bill attempts to meet the most urgent and most timely of the 
military construction projects available. All of the major construction 
projects that we have funded have been authorized. In addition, we have 
ensured adequate funding for family housing and barracks construction, 
and we have suggested that the Department of Defense revisit the issue 
of housing privatization to determine if it is a workable solution to 
our military housing needs.
  Even so, this bill is $176 million below the military construction 
bill enacted last year. This continues the recent, and troubling, 
downward spiral in military construction investment. During a year in 
which the Congress has made great strides toward addressing the need to 
enhance defense readiness and military personnel spending, it is 
disappointing--and in my opinion, shortsighted--to see defense 
infrastructure needs struggling to keep pace.
  This is an extremely important bill for our Nation and our military 
forces. I again commend Senator Burns and his staff for their excellent 
work in producing the bill, and I urge the Senate to approve it.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as United States military forces deploy 
into war-torn Kosovo for another protracted, costly stay of 
indeterminate duration and of considerable potential risk, I am left 
wondering why, with all of the readiness and modernization problems 
that are well-established matters of record, we felt compelled to add 
over $6 million in this bill for a new Visiting Officers Quarters at 
Niagara Falls. Is this really the message we want to send to our 
military personnel and to the American taxpayer. I think not.
  The propensity of members of Congress to devote enormous time and 
energy to adding items to spending bills for primarily parochial 
considerations remains one of our most serious weaknesses. The 
implications for national defense, however, are no laughing matter. 
Those of us who serve on the Armed Services Committee have heard a 
great deal of testimony from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as from

[[Page S7041]]

regional and functional commanders in chief, of the impact 
extraordinarily high operational tempos are having on both near- and 
long-term military readiness. And we hear it directly from troops in 
the field. They are tired; repeated deployments and declining quality 
of life has taken a toll. A vicious cycle has emerged wherein the 
impact of high deployment rates and shrinking force structure are 
exacerbated by the flight of skilled personnel out of the service as a 
result of those trends.
  So I have to wonder why, given the scale of the problems documented, 
we are adding $12 million to the budget for new visitors quarters at 
Dover Air Force Base, $12 million for a Regional Training Institute in 
Hawaii, $3 million for a Marine Corps Reserve Center in Louisiana, $8.9 
million for a C-130J simulator facility in Mississippi, $8 million for 
the Red Butte Dam in Utah, and $15 million for an Armed Forces Reserve 
Center in Oregon. None of these projects--none of them--were requested 
by the Department of Defense, and none of them are on the services' 
Unfunded Priority Lists. Unrequested projects totaling $985 million--
almost $1 billion--was added to this bill, on top of the $5 billion in 
member-adds included in the defense appropriations bill passed last 
week.
  I have asked rhetorically on the floor of the Senate many times when 
we are going to stop this destructive and irresponsible practice of 
adding projects to the defense budget primarily for parochial reasons. 
I have yet to receive an answer. Certainly, the practice has neither 
stopped nor slowed. The last minute insertion in the defense 
appropriations bill of $220 million for four F-15 fighters not 
requested by the Air Force solely for the purpose of appeasing hometown 
constituencies was one of the more disgraceful acts I've witnessed 
since, well, since we went through the same exercise last year. The 
total in unrequested items between the defense and military 
construction appropriations bills is almost $6 billion. That is serious 
money.
  As American pilots continue to patrol the skies over Iraq, maintain a 
tenuous peace in Bosnia, and proceed into uncharted terrain in Kosovo, 
we would do well to consider the ramifications of our actions. I'm 
under no illusions, however, that such contemplation will occur. It is 
apparently, and sadly, not in our nature.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying list be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                  MILCON appropriations adds for FY 00
                        [In millions of dollars]
                            ALABAMA
 
Maxwell AFB: Off. Transient Student Dormitory.................    10.6
Anniston AD: Ammo Demilitarization Facility...................     7.0
Redstone Arsenal: Unit Training Equip. Site...................     8.9
Dannelly Field: Med. Training & Dining Facility...............     6.0
 
                            ALASKA
 
Fort Wainwright: Ammo Surveillance Facility...................     2.3
Fort Wainwright: MOUT Collective Trng. Facility...............    17.0
Elmendorf AFB: Alter Roadway, Davis Highway...................     9.5
 
                           ARKANSAS
 
Pine Bluff Arsenal: Chemical Defense Qual. Facility...........    18.0
Pine Bluff Arsenal: Ammo. Demilitarization Facility...........    61.8
 
                          CALIFORNIA
 
Fresno ANG: Ops Training and Dining Facility..................     9.1
 
                           COLORADO
 
Pueblo AD: Ammo. Demilitarization Facility....................    11.8
 
                          CONNECTICUT
 
West Hartford: ADAL Reserve Center............................    17.525
Orange ANG: Air Control Squadron Complex......................    11.0
 
                           DELAWARE
 
Dover AFB: Visitor's Quarters.................................    12.0
Smyrna: Readiness Center......................................     4.381
 
                            FLORIDA
 
Pensacola: Readiness Center...................................     4.628
 
                            GEORGIA
 
Fort Stewart: Contingency Logistics Facility..................    19.0
NAS Atlanta: BEQ-A............................................     5.43
 
                            HAWAII
 
Bellows AFS: Regional Training Institute......................    12.105
 
                             IDAHO
 
Gowen Field: Fuel Cell & Corrosion Control Hgr................     2.3
 
                            INDIANA
 
Newport AD: Ammo. Demilitarization Facility...................    61.2
Fort Wayne: Med. Training & Dining Facility...................     7.2
 
                             IOWA
 
Sioux City IAP: Vehicle Maintenance Facility..................     3.6
 
                            KANSAS
 
Fort Riley: Whole Barracks Renovation.........................    27.0
 
                           KENTUCKY
 
Fort Campbell: Vehicle Maintenance Facility...................    17.0
Blue Grass AD: Ammo. Demilitarization Facility................    11.8
Blue Grass AD: Ammo. Demilitarization Support.................    11.0
 
                           LOUISIANA
 
Fort Polk: Organization Maintenance Shop......................     4.309
Lafayette: Marine Corps Reserve Center........................     3.33
NAS Belle Chase: Ammunition Storage Igloo.....................     1.35
 
                           MARYLAND
 
Andrews AFB: Squadron Operations Facility.....................     9.9
Aberdeen P.G.: Ammo. Demilitarization Facility................    66.6
 
                         MASSACHUSETTS
 
Hansen AFB: Acquisition Man. Fac. Renovation..................    16.0
 
                           MICHIGAN
 
Camp Grayling: Air Ground Range Support Facility..............     5.8
 
                           MINNESOTA
 
Camp Ripley: Combined Support Maintenance Shop................    10.368
 
                          MISSISSIPPI
 
Columbus AFB: Add to T-1A Hangar..............................     2.6
Keesler AFB: C-130J Simulator Facility........................     8.9
Miss. Army Ammo Pl.: Land/Water Ranges........................     3.3
Camp Shelby: Multi-purpose Range..............................    14.9
Vicksburg: Readiness Center...................................     5.914
Jackson Airport: C-17 Simulator Building......................     3.6
 
                           MISSOURI
 
Rosencrans Mem APT: Upgrade Aircraft Parking Apron............     9.0
 
                            MONTANA
 
Malmstrom AFB: Dormitory......................................    11.6
Great Falls IAP: Base Supply Complex..........................     1.4
 
                            NEVADA
 
Hawthorne Army Dep.: Container Repair Facility................     1.7
Nellis AFB: Land Acquisition..................................    11.6
 
                         NEW HAMPSHIRE
 
Portsmouth: Waterfront Crane..................................     3.850
Pearl Trade Part ANG: Upgrade KC-135 Parking Apron............     9.6
 
                          NEW JERSEY
 
Fort Monmouth: Barracks Improvement...........................    11.8
 
                          NEW MEXICO
 
Kirtland AFB: Composite Support Complex.......................     9.7
Cannon AFB: Control Tower.....................................     4.0
Cannon AFB: Repair Runway #2204...............................     8.1
 
                           NEW YORK
 
Niagara Falls: Visiting Officer's Quarters....................     6.3
 
                        NORTH CAROLINA
 
Fort Bragg: Upgrade Barracks D-Area...........................    14.4
 
                         NORTH DAKOTA
 
Grand Forks AFB: Parking Apron Extension......................     9.5
 
                             OHIO
 
Wright Patterson: Convert to Physical Fitness Ctr.............     4.6
Columbus AFB: Reserve Center Addition.........................     3.541
Springfield: Complex..........................................     1.77
 
                           OKLAHOMA
 
Tinker AFB: Repair and Upgrade Runway.........................    11.0
Vance AFB: Upgrade Center Runway..............................    12.6
Tulsa IAP: Composite Support Complex..........................    10.8
 
                            OREGON
 
Umatilla DA: Ammo. Demilitarization Facility..................    35.9
Salem: Armed Forces Reserve Center............................    15.255
 
                         PENNSYLVANIA
 
NFPC Philadelphia: Casting Pits Modification..................    13.320

[[Page S7042]]

 
NAS Willow Grove: Ground Equipment Shop.......................     0.6
Johnstown ANG: Air Traffic Control Facility...................     6.2
 
                         RHODE ISLAND
 
Quonset: Maintenance Hangar and Shops.........................    16.5
 
                        SOUTH CAROLINA
 
McEntire ANG: Replace Control Tower...........................     8.0
 
                         SOUTH DAKOTA
 
Ellsworth AFB: Education/library Center.......................    10.2
 
                           TENNESSEE
 
Henderson: Organization Maintenance Shop......................     1.976
 
                             TEXAS
 
Dyess AFB: Child Development Center...........................     5.4
Lackland AFB: F-16 Squadron Ops Flight Complex................     9.7
 
                             UTAH
 
Salt Lake: Red Butte Dam......................................     8.0
Salt Lake City IAP: Upgrade Aircraft Main. Complex............     9.7
 
                            VERMONT
 
Northfield: Multi-purpose Training Facility...................     8.652
 
                           VIRGINIA
 
Fort Pickett: Multi-purpose Training Range....................    13.5
 
                          WASHINGTON
 
Fairchild AFB: Flight Line Support Facility...................     9.1
Fairchild AFB: Composite Support Complex......................     9.8
 
                         WEST VIRGINIA
 
Eleanor: Maintenance Complex..................................    18.521
Eleanor: Readiness Center.....................................     9.583
                                                               ---------
    Total.....................................................   985
 

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the pending Military Construction 
Appropriations bill provides $8.3 billion in new budget authority and 
$2.5 billion in new outlays for Military Construction and Family 
Housing programs and other purposes for the Department of Defense for 
fiscal year 2000.
  When outlays from prior-year budget authority and other completed 
actions are taken into account, the outlays for the 2000 program total 
$8.8 billion.
  Compared to 1999 appropriations, this bill is $385 million lower in 
budget authority, and it is $622 million lower in outlays.
  This legislation provides for construction by the Department of 
Defense for U.S. military facilities throughout the world, and it 
provides for family housing for the active forces of each of the U.S. 
military services. Accordingly, it provides for important readiness and 
quality of life programs for our service men and women.
  The bill is within the revised section 302(b) allocation for the 
Military Construction Subcommittee. I commend the distinguished 
subcommittee Chairman, the Senator from Montana, for bringing this bill 
to the floor within the subcommittee's allocation.
  The bill provides an important and necessary increase in budget 
authority above the President's request for 2000. Most of the $2.8 
billion increase fully funds projects that the President's request only 
partially funded. Because the bill supports appropriate full funding 
budgeting practices and because it funds highly important quality of 
life programs for our armed services, I urge the adoption of the bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table showing the 
relationship of the bill to the subcommittee's section 302(b) 
allocation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

      S. 1205, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS, 2000, SPENDING
                    COMPARISONS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL
               [Fiscal year 2000, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    General
             Category               purpose   Crime   Mandatory   Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
  Budget authority...............    8,274   .......  .........   8,274
  Outlays........................    8,789   .......  .........   8,789
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority...............    8,274   .......  .........   8,274
  Outlays........................    8,789   .......  .........   8,789
1999 level:
  Budget authority...............    8,659   .......  .........   8,659
  Outlays........................    9,411   .......  .........   9,411
President's request:
  Budget authority...............    5,438   .......  .........   5,438
  Outlays........................    8,921   .......  .........   8,921
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority...............  ........  .......  .........  .......
  Outlays........................  ........  .......  .........  .......
 
SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO:
 
 Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority...............  ........  .......  .........  .......
  Outlays........................  ........  .......  .........  .......
1999 level:
  Budget authority...............     (385)  .......  .........    (385)
  Outlays........................     (622)  .......  .........    (622)
President's request:
  Budget authority...............    2,836   .......  .........   2,836
  Outlays........................     (132)  .......  .........    (132)
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority...............    8,274   .......  .........   8,274
  Outlays........................    8,789   .......  .........   8,789
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
  consistency with scorekeeping conventions. Prepared by SBC Majority
  Staff, 06/14/99.

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong 
support for the speedy passage of S. 1205, the fiscal year 2000 
military construction appropriations bill. I compliment both Chairman 
Burns and the ranking member, Senator Murray, for their excellent work 
in producing a bill that won the unanimous endorsement of the 
subcommittee. I am sure the bill will receive a similar degree of 
support from the entire Senate. I must also commend Senators Burns and 
Murray for rejecting the President's premature and irresponsible 
attempt to incrementally fund these essential projects. The Congress 
must continue to send this President the clear and consistent message 
that his fiscal negligence toward our Armed Forces will not be 
tolerated.
  I would like to take a moment to highlight two of the four important 
military construction projects for Arkansas included in this bill. The 
first is an $8.7 million project for Little Rock Air Force Base. This 
project is comprised of three new facilities, and the renovation of a 
fourth, that will greatly enhance the mission capabilities of the 189th 
Airlift Wing, Arkansas National Guard. The new Communications, Vehicle 
Maintenance and Civil Engineering/Medical Services facilities along 
with the renovated Aircraft Support building will stand as visible 
reminders of the Federal Government's commitment of Little Rock Air 
Force Base's bright future as an essential component of our nation's 
security.
  The other military construction project I would like to highlight is 
one that the Subcommittee wisely added to the President's insufficient 
proposal. I am speaking about the inclusion of an $18 million Chemical 
Defense Quality Evaluation Facility to be constructed at the Pine Bluff 
Arsenal.
  Pine Bluff Arsenal presently serves as the Department of Defense's 
primary maintenance and certification facility for chemical and 
biological defense equipment such as gas masks for our soldiers and air 
filters for M-1 tanks. The Department of Defense describes the present 
facility as:

     operating at maximum capacity, beyond levels consistent with 
     good laboratory practice, with no space for [expansion].

  According to the Department of Defense:

     if this project is not provided, inadequate . . . stockpile 
     surveillance testing will continue, with an undefined chance 
     that defective, deteriorated or damaged protective equipment 
     or components could be accepted or retained in stock for 
     issue. This risk directly endangers the worker in a toxic 
     chemical environment or the soldier facing toxic chemicals in 
     a combat situation. [DOD] cannot ensure reliability of 
     [chemical and biological] equipment without . . . a suitable 
     test facility.

  The construction of this new Chemical Defense Quality Evaluation 
Facility will reaffirm that defense against Weapons of Mass Destruction 
remains a national priority, and that the Pine Bluff Arsenal remains at 
the forefront of America's efforts in that endeavor.
  I will finish by again complimenting the subcommittee for its efforts 
in producing this legislation, and urge my colleagues to vote for its 
quick adoption.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to state my concern about a 
provision in the Military Construction Appropriations Bill for Fiscal 
Year 2000 that the Senate is considering today. I am very concerned 
about the potential effects of Section 129 of the bill relating to the 
chemical weapons demilitarization program planned for the Bluegrass 
Army Depot.
  My concern, simply stated, is that Section 129 could delay the 
chemical demilitarization process beyond the deadline for destroying 
all our chemical weapons under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). 
This provision, which would levy additional requirements before 
demilitarization work can begin at the depot, could prevent the United 
States from complying with its obligations under the CWC.
  The Administration shares my concern and strongly opposes this 
provision of S. 1205. In fact, their opposition is stated in the first 
item listed in the

[[Page S7043]]

Statement of Administration Policy regarding this bill. Here's what the 
Administration has to say about this matter:

       The Administration strongly opposes Section 129, which 
     would require the demonstration of six alternative 
     technologies to chemical weapons incineration before 
     construction of the Chemical Demilitarization facility at 
     Bluegrass, Kentucky could begin. Prompt construction of the 
     Bluegrass site is critical to ensuring U.S. compliance with 
     the deadline for chemical weapons destruction agreed to under 
     the Chemical Weapons Convention. The Department of Defense 
     has demonstrated three alternative technologies, one more 
     than required by P.L. 104-208, the Omnibus Consolidated 
     Appropriations Act of 1997. This provision would delay 
     construction of the Bluegrass site by at least one year, 
     resulting in a breach of the Chemical Weapons Convention 
     deadline.

  The President of the United States signed the Chemical Weapons 
Convention and the Senate provided its advice and consent to 
ratification of that treaty. The treaty is now in force and the United 
States is a party to it, so we are bound by its terms and requirements. 
I am very disturbed and dismayed that the United States is not in 
compliance with this treaty, a situation that could worsen if 
legislation such as contained in Section 129 is enacted into law.
  I remind my fellow Senators that the United States has still not 
gathered and declared information regarding U.S. industrial chemical 
facilities that is required by the treaty. In addition, the U.S. has 
not complied with treaty provisions governing inspections of military 
facilities authorizing the use of treaty-approved inspection equipment. 
Finally, the implementing legislation for the CWC contains provisions 
that are antithetical to treaty provisions. Should the President 
exercise the option approved in the implementing legislation to refuse 
a challenge inspection, such action would directly contravene both the 
intent and the letter of the treaty that entered into force. I urge my 
fellow Senators to be aware of these problems and to support efforts to 
resolve them so that the United States can become compliant with its 
international treaty obligations and assume the leadership needed in 
order to make this treaty effective.
  One of the central requirements of the Chemical Weapons Convention is 
that parties must destroy their chemical weapons stockpile within 10 
years of the date of entry into force of the treaty. That means that 
the United States must destroy all its chemical weapons by April 29, 
2007. I am concerned that Section 129 of this bill would prevent the 
United States from meeting its legal obligation to destroy all its 
chemical weapons before this deadline. I believe it would be both 
unwise and unnecessary to enact legislation that would have the effect 
of preventing the United States from meeting one of its treaty 
obligations.
  To be specific, Section 129 would prevent the obligation or 
expenditure of any funds made available by the Military Construction 
Appropriations Act or any other Act for the purpose relating to 
construction of a facility at Bluegrass Army Depot in Kentucky for 
demilitarization of chemical weapons until the Secretary of Defense 
reports to the Congress on the results of evaluating six alternative 
technologies to the current baseline incineration process for 
destroying chemical weapons.
  While this may sound quite reasonable, it poses a problem that I want 
to highlight. It would effectively delay the chemical demilitarization 
process at Bluegrass to the point that we would likely not be able to 
meet the Chemical Weapons Convention. This is because it would add a 
new requirement to demonstrate and evaluate three additional 
alternative destruction technologies, and for the Secretary of Defense 
to report to the Congress on those additional technologies before any 
demilitarization construction funding could be used at the Bluegrass 
Depot.
  There are currently three alternative technologies being considered 
by the Defense Department under the Assembled Chemical Weapons 
Assessment (ACWA) program. This program was established in law several 
years ago, but the law required the Department to evaluate at least two 
alternative technologies---not six. Section 129 would add the 
requirement to evaluate four additional technologies which will take 
additional time and money. That will result in a one-year delay in 
starting the chemical demilitarization process at Bluegrass which would 
prevent the U.S. from destroying all the chemical weapons there before 
the CWC deadline.
  I note that the Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member, has 
no provision in the Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2000 
that places any restriction on the chemical demilitarization program. 
In fact, the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, on 
which I serve as the Ranking Member, included report language that 
emphasizes the importance of meeting our CWC Treaty obligation to 
destroy all of our chemical weapons by the treaty deadline. Moreover, 
the Defense Authorization bill which passed the Senate on May 27, 1999, 
fully funds the Defense Department's request for funds for the chemical 
demilitarization program.
  I do not believe that it is the intent of this provision or of its 
sponsors to prevent the United States from meeting its treaty 
obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention, or to force the U.S. 
to violate the treaty. Therefore, I urge my fellow Senators during the 
forthcoming conference on the Military Construction Appropriations bill 
to support modifications to Section 129 so that the bill will not have 
this unintended effect. I'm certain that my colleagues agree that it is 
essential for the Senate to take all actions necessary to ensure that 
we uphold our treaty obligations just as we would demand of other 
states. Modification of Section 129 would constitute such an action.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1205, the 
Military Construction Appropriations bill. I congratulate Chairman 
Burns and the ranking member, Senator Murray, for crafting a spending 
bill which addresses the critical priorities of America's soldiers in a 
prudent and effective manner.
  This year's Administration submission made the task of the Committee 
more difficult than at any time since I have been a member of the 
Senate Appropriations Committee. By suggesting that Congress 
incrementally fund all military construction programs, the 
Administration charted a course for failure and left Senators Burns and 
Murray to clean up the mess. They have done so admirably and I am proud 
to support their efforts.
  While I strongly support the entire bill before the Senate today, I 
would like to take just a moment of the Senate's time to explain a 
particular section of the bill. Section 129 of this measure was 
included at my request and deals with the construction of chemical 
demilitarization facilities at the Bluegrass Army Depot in Kentucky. 
Specifically, this provision would prohibit such construction until the 
Secretary of Defense reports on the completed demonstration of 6 
alternatives to baseline incineration as a means of destroying 
America's chemical weapons stockpile.
  I think it is important to state first what this amendment does not 
do. This language will have no impact on any proposed funding in the 
FY00 military construction bill. The reason is that the prohibition on 
spending for construction at Bluegrass Army Depot applies only to 
facilities which are technology specific. This means that construction 
for buildings which will be necessary regardless of the method of 
destruction employed at Bluegrass is permitted. This allows for 
progress on necessary components for eventual demilitarization 
activities such as administrative facilities, but prohibits 
construction of the actual treatment facility to be deployed in 
Kentucky until the Secretary certifies that demonstration of the six 
alternatives is complete.
  It is also not my intent to delay or avoid destruction of the 
stockpile in Kentucky. My sole purpose is to ensure that when the 
weapons stored in Kentucky are destroyed only the safest most effective 
method is utilized. Once the Secretary certifies that all six 
alternative technologies have been demonstrated--and this can occur in 
the very near future--technology specific efforts at Bluegrass may 
begin. I supported ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention and 
believe that the United States should do everything it can to meet the 
April 2007 deadline. The language contained in Section 129 should have 
no adverse impact on the

[[Page S7044]]

U.S. being able to satisfy its Chemical Weapons Convention obligations.
  Now that I have offered an explanation as to what this language will 
not do, let me describe what I hope it will accomplish. Quite simply, 
this is a continuation of my efforts to push the military to recognize 
that public safety should be the top priority as America eliminates its 
chemical weapons in compliance with the CWC. The Army's selection of 
incineration as their preferred technology dates all the way back to 
1982--almost 20 years ago. It is unreasonable, and in fact 
irresponsible, to assume that there have been no technological 
advancements since that time which could lead to improved methods of 
disposal. Only ten years ago few would have predicted the dynamic 
nature of the Internet would provide Americans instant access to 
information around the globe. Given that example, why has the 
department chosen to ignore potential strides in chemical weapons 
destruction? Why then has the safety of those Americans who live near 
chemical weapons destruction sites taken a back seat to fiscal and 
calendar concerns?
  In an effort to force the Department to consider the possibility of 
alternatives to incineration, I offered and the Senate accepted an 
amendment to the FY97 Defense Appropriations bill which established the 
Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment program. As I previously stated, 
this program identified a total of six technologies as suitable for 
demonstration. Unfortunately the Department has chosen to fund only 
three. As a result of the Department's decision to not fully test each 
technology, much of the good will established by the program has 
eroded. Continued DOD intransigence will lead to well deserved 
skepticism regarding the eventual report issued by ACWA. The citizens 
who are counting on the federal government's honest assessment of how 
to proceed deserve the security of knowing that all viable options were 
appropriately considered.
  I have outlined the hypocrisy of the Department's argument in a floor 
statement I made on June 8, 1999, and so I will not repeat myself at 
this point. Regardless of the Department's contention that funding for 
further testing is limited, I believe the interests of public safety 
far outweigh any limited fiscal concerns. This is not a case of one 
Senator screaming that the ``sky is falling.'' Rather, this is an 
effort to hold the Department of Defense accountable for what should 
have always been its first priority--the safety of potentially impacted 
citizens. I will continue to press for full testing and accountability.
  I thank my colleagues and urge their support for the Military 
Construction bill.

                          ____________________