[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 124 (Wednesday, September 22, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11189-S11201]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000--CONFERENCE 
                                 REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of the conference report accompanying S. 1059, 
which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       Conference report to accompany S. 1059 to authorize 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for military activities 
     of the Department of Defense, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 15 
minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form prior to the vote 
on the conference report.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senate worked well into the evening 
last night, and we had about an hour and a half of deliberations 
regarding this bill. We are prepared this morning, the distinguished 
ranking member and myself, to conclude that debate.
  Once again, I pay my heartfelt tribute to my distinguished ranking 
member and the staff of the committee for a job well done. We have 
produced a work product in which I believe this institution can take 
great pride.
  Mr. President, the Senate is a constant learning experience, and 
although I have been privileged to have represented the Commonwealth of 
Virginia for some 21 years in the Senate, I experienced last night an 
event which I shall always remember. We had concluded our debate, and I 
was proceeding to do the wrapup on behalf of the majority leader, and 
when the Senate concluded its work, I was suddenly surrounded by the 
pages, shaking hands, and expressing their great appreciation. It then 
took me a minute to realize that we had concluded debate beyond the 
hour of 9 p.m., thereby foreclosing any requirement that they perform 
their homework. That was a tribute that I shall long remember.
  The other experience last night was my distinguished good friend and 
ranking member, the senior Senator from Michigan, announcing that he 
would support this bill. I recognize it has been a serious struggle for 
him and others occasioned by the amendment

[[Page S11190]]

on the bill regarding the reorganization of the Department of Energy.
  I feel very strongly that the Senate did its duty on behalf of the 
country and put on that bill legislation in the course of the 
conference that is badly needed to reorganize that Department. I am 
confident the current Secretary has the ability within this statute to 
lead that Department, restructuring it in a manner that it can continue 
to serve the United States and at the same time protect the vital 
security matters that come before that Department.
  The bill before us now marks a necessary turning point in reversing 
the dangerous trends that we have witnessed in our military after 15 
years of declining defense spending. While the world has changed in 
many ways since the end of the cold war, what has not changed is that 
America's Armed Forces are bearing our commitments as they have always 
done. There are, however, limits to that commitment by the men and 
women who proudly serve in uniform. Our forces are clearly overstressed 
in commitments throughout the world, the most recent being East Timor, 
where there was clear justification for U.S. participation.
  Over the past decade, our military manpower has been reduced by one-
third, from 2.2 million to 1.4 million, and during this same period our 
troops have been involved in 50 military operations worldwide. As the 
force levels have been brought down, as the defense spending in that 
same period was brought down, up went the number of times that 
President Clinton and, indeed, President Bush sent our troops beyond 
our shores--50 times. Compare that period of 10 years to the end of the 
Vietnam war, in 1975, when we had a bipolar world--the Soviet Union and 
the United States. In that period from 1975 until roughly 1990, a 15-
year period, U.S. military forces were engaged in only 20 deployments 
beyond our shores. Therein is the reason why our committee, with the 
strong support of the leadership--certainly Senator Lott initiated the 
correspondence that began to bring to the attention of the President, 
and indeed this body, the need for increased defense spending. 
Eventually the President did recognize that need and indicated a 
willingness to increase that spending.

  Our committee, I am very proud to say, even went beyond the 
President's number for defense spending. We did so with the very able 
help and assistance of the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. On two 
occasions they came before our committee and clearly told us their own 
personal views regarding the need for additional pay for the men and 
women in the Armed Forces, additional money for research and 
development and procurement, and, indeed, it was their testimony that 
laid the solid foundation on which we come before the Senate today, 
proudly, with a bill, for the first time in 15 years, increasing 
defense spending.
  I yield the floor at this time to my distinguished colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, let me thank again the very able, 
very distinguished chairman of our committee for the bipartisan 
approach with which he leads our committee. It has been a consistent 
pattern for him since he has been in the Senate. We came here together, 
so we have a lot of knowledge and awareness of each other. He has 
really made an extraordinary contribution to this body and to the well-
being of the Nation. I commend him for it.
  This bill is an important bill. It is really two bills. It is the 
Department of Defense bill, an authorization bill, but it is also a 
Department of Energy reorganization bill. It is the second bill that is 
the troubling one. I have resolved to vote for this bill because I 
believe, on balance, it is at least possible that the reorganization 
can be workable and that the Secretary of the Department of Energy will 
be able to manage the Department and we will be able to hold him 
accountable. I am going to go into that a little more in a few moments, 
but before I do, I want to talk a bit about the Department of Defense 
part of this bill because, as the chairman says, this is a very 
important contribution to the security of this Nation.
  By increasing pay, by improving retirement, by enhancing retention, 
we are making, we hope, a significant contribution to the security of 
this Nation. The morale of our troops will be given a boost when they 
see a bigger pay raise than they expected. The morale of our troops 
will be boosted when they see a better retirement package than they 
previously had. The morale of our troops, and indeed of all of our 
citizens, should be boosted when they see that the readiness of our 
forces is given a boost from this bill. So the defense part of this 
bill, I believe, makes a significant contribution to the well-being of 
the men and women in the military and to the security of this Nation.
  The problem we had on this bill came from the DOE reorganization 
because the conference report is significantly different from what 
passed the Senate. What passed the Senate, after a great deal of 
debate, was a reorganization of the Department of Energy which 
reflected the recommendation of the Rudman panel that there be a 
semiautonomous Department of Energy. I think most of us favored that. I 
surely do. But in a number of respects, this conference report goes 
beyond what the Senate passed by an overwhelming vote. And when we 
referred the language in the conference report to the Congressional 
Research Service and asked them to do an analysis for us, to tell us 
what the differences were and whether or not they really were relevant, 
whether or not they really were significant, whether or not they really 
limited the ability of the Secretary of Energy to run his Department, 
the CRS gave us their objective view of the conference report language. 
There are some parts of that CRS review which should make us all pause, 
and which made me pause.
  The Congressional Research Service concluded, for instance, that the 
Secretary's authority over this new nuclear security administration, 
``may be problematic, in view of the overall scheme of the proposed 
legislation.''
  The CRS said the language in the conference report raises questions 
about ``whether it is possible, or desirable in practice, to split 
policy and operations in organizational terms.'' And the CRS report 
asks whether the practice of insulating the staff offices of this new 
entity from the departmental staff offices ``effectively vitiate[s] the 
meaning of the earlier provisions assigning the Secretary full 
authority and control over any function of the Administration and its 
personnel.''

  Those are significant questions and potentially significant problems. 
On the other hand, there is language in this conference report which 
says that this new entity is established ``within the Department of 
Energy,'' and therefore it is subject, obviously, to the direction and 
control of the Secretary. The conference report says that the Secretary 
of Energy--not the new head of this entity, an Under Secretary, but the 
Secretary himself--is responsible for ``developing the security, 
counterintelligence, and intelligence policies of the Department.''
  The conference report says that the Secretary of Energy--not the new 
head of the entity, who is an Under Secretary, but the Secretary--is 
given continuing responsibility for the security and 
counterintelligence problems within the Department's nuclear energy 
defense programs. And there are a number of other provisions similar to 
that.
  So it seems to me one can at least fairly argue that, given that 
authority to establish policies, one will then have the authority to 
ensure that policies are carried out. So we are going to have to 
monitor very carefully this new entity as it is implemented, assuming 
the President, of course, does not veto it. If the President does veto 
it, there is no certainty by any stretch of the imagination that the 
veto would be sustained. I am voting for this bill. I am always open to 
the argument of a President, if he decided to veto it, as to why the 
veto, in fact, was dealt.
  But based on what is before us, it seems to me there is at least a 
reasonable prospect that the Secretary of Energy will be able to manage 
this Department. We intend to create a semiautonomous entity--not a 
semiaccountable entity but a semiautonomous entity. We intend to create 
here a semiautonomous entity, not a semiaccountable Secretary of 
Energy. We want that Secretary to be fully accountable, which means he 
must be able to manage, control, and

[[Page S11191]]

direct his Department, the policies in that Department, and the 
implementation of those policies.
  So I close by thanking our staff. I will not thank the pages since 
they apparently owe us one, since we kept them here late enough last 
night so they were relieved from some other duties. But I thank our 
staff for their great work in making this bill a reality.
  I shall vote for this bill. I, again, thank the chairman for his 
reaching out to all members of the committee for contributions.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague. This 
is a committee that works together as a team under our joint 
leadership.
  The House of Representatives sent a strong signal which I hope, 
within the next 30 minutes, will likewise be sent by the Senate. That 
signal went worldwide to the men and women of the Armed Forces, many of 
whom are serving in harm's way to defend the very flag to which we 
pledged our allegiance today. That vote was 375 to 45. I urge all 
Senators to give, likewise, support to this bill.
  As I close my remarks and say that this bill is for those men and 
women of the Armed Forces, I take note of the presence on the floor of 
our distinguished former chairman, Senator Thurmond. There is no braver 
soldier who ever served in the Senate than our distinguished chairman.
  Mr. THURMOND. Thank you very much.
  Mr. WARNER. He will, I assume, be casting one of the very first votes 
for this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to offer my views on this year's 
Defense authorization conference report. I plan to vote for the 
conference report. It is a bill that, like other defense bills of the 
past, contains a great many excellent provisions that enhance our 
military capability and the quality of life for our service personnel 
and their families. My normal enthusiasm for the Defense bill this year 
is tempered, though, by a number of provisions that, in my view, do not 
serve the interest of national security well. I would like to review 
the positive aspects of the conference report first, though, before 
discussing its troubling aspects.
  As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I have worked very hard 
to see that issues and programs that I care about were addressed in 
this conference report. I am pleased to say that many of the concerns 
that I raised in subcommittee, full committee, the floor, and finally, 
in conference have been met.
  A few examples are worth emphasizing:
  This conference report does a lot of very good things for the men and 
women in the military and their families. The services reported 
difficulties in recruiting and retaining key personnel during the past 
year--raising concerns that this might grow more serious in years to 
come.
  In response, the conference report includes a 4.8 percent pay raise 
for military personnel, and raises the annual increase for service 
people by a half a percentage point above increases in the cost of 
living over the next five years. That's good news.
  The conference report extends, and, in some important instances, 
increases special pay and bonuses for key skill categories that were 
due to expire at the end of this year.
  Of particular interest to many New Mexico families at our Air Force 
bases at Holloman, Kirtland, and Cannon, junior and mid-career Air 
Force aviation officers could qualify for additional bonuses of $25,000 
for each year they promise to extend active duty service. That is good 
news in our State and for the Nation.
  The conference report also increases authority for re-enlistment 
bonuses from $45,000 to $60,000.
  For retirees and folks in the military contemplating retirement, the 
conference report fixes the inequity that penalized those who came 
under the Redux system after 1986. Those military personnel may now 
elect to transfer to the old system, or to accept a $30,000 bonus while 
remaining under the Redux program. Recent retirees and those soon to 
retire in New Mexico enthusiastically welcome this provision.
  Veterans and their families will also benefit from a very important 
measure in this year's conference report--a change that have been 
advocating for the last couple of years. Any veteran's family seeking 
an honor guard at the funeral of one of our veterans is now guaranteed 
to have one. Uniformed personnel, the presentation of an American flag, 
and the playing taps will be provided in recognition for service to the 
nation whenever requested. That is good news for our veterans 
community.
  There is another initiative for veterans that I strongly support in 
this conference report. It could lead to authorization for veterans to 
use National Guard armories to receive services and counseling 
regarding a wide spectrum of veterans' benefit programs. This measure 
could go a long way toward making it easier for our veterans to receive 
the benefits that they are due.
  That is a bit about the ``people part'' of the conference report--an 
area where I think it has quite a bit to offer.
  The conference report also makes some important contributions on key 
policy matters--for example, programs that have to do with preventing 
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, particularly through 
cooperative programs with Russia and other countries of the Newly 
Independent States.
  The conference report includes, for example, $475 million for the 
Cooperative Threat Reduction Program to accelerate the disarmament of 
Russian strategic weapons, assist in chemical weapons destruction, and 
support efforts to increase security for Russian nuclear materials in 
order to prevent them from being smuggled aboard. I urge the Congress 
to fully support this program through authorization and appropriation 
of the necessary funds. It remains fully in our own security interests 
to do so.
  There is also funding for programs to prevent Russian weapons 
scientists from selling their skills to the higher bidder. The 
Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention and the Nuclear Cities 
Initiative will help us to keep that from happening, while at the same 
time building important people to people relationships that we hope 
will sustain improved relations between our nations during coming 
decades.
  Again, although I believe these programs are worthy of more funding 
than they received, I am pleased that funding has been authorized and I 
urge the Congress to appropriate those funds as well.
  This conference report also authorizes funds for another important 
cooperative program that will serve our security interest well--the 
Russian-American Observation Satellite program (RAMOS). RAMOS is being 
designed to take the uncertainty out of early warning of missile 
attacks. It is meant to ensure that in case a missile firing is 
detected, a military order to respond with nuclear missiles is not made 
in error. Fully funding a robust RAMOS program will greatly serve our 
nation's nuclear security. I urge the defense appropriators to ensure 
that those funds are available.

  Looking toward the future of the Nation's military capability, this 
conference report includes funding for basic science and technology 
research in accordance with my hopes and intentions to increase that 
level of funding by 2 percent in real terms. That level of funding was 
not won without a fight, however, and I remain concerned that future 
defense budgets may fall short in this area. If that happens, the 
technological advantages that we have witnessed in the Persian Gulf and 
in the Balkans will erode quickly, and international military 
challenges could result in significant casualties and losses of 
expensive military equipment.
  As you know, the conference report also authorizes funding for 
defense programs within the Department of Energy (DOE). This bill 
authorizes $4.5 billion for DOE weapons programs including the science-
based stockpile stewardship that enables the Department to certify the 
safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons without having to test 
them.
  Stockpile Stewardship is providing challenging science to a new 
generation of scientists employed at the labs that will not only 
certify the stockpile, but assure the nation that the best scientific 
talent available continues to

[[Page S11192]]

support science programs at our national laboratories such as those in 
my State, Sandia and Los Alamos.
  These aspects of the Defense conference report are all very 
favorable, and normally I would vote for such a report with the 
greatest enthusiasm. My enthusiasm, though, is diminished by the 
provisions of the conference report dealing with the management of the 
Department of Energy. These provisions cause me deep concern, as I 
believe they will be damaging to our national security in the long 
term.
  These troublesome provisions are largely found in Title 32 of the 
conference report. This is a wholly new Title that was inserted in 
conference. It was not part of the original Defense bill passed by the 
Senate or by the House. It differs substantially, in a few crucial 
respects, from the DOE reorganization proposals considered and agreed 
to by the Senate in the intelligence authorization bill.
  Title 32 contains the most sweeping revisions in DOE organization 
since the founding of the agency in 1977. Yet, there was not a single 
Members' meeting throughout the entire conference to discuss its 
provisions. When you consider the importance of our nuclear arsenal, 
the lack of a role for Members in fixing the terms of its 
reorganization is striking and very hard to justify.
  The result is a statute that, in my view, will be exceptionally 
difficult to implement. Coping with the ambiguities and internal 
contradictions of Title 32 will needlessly distract the new 
administration and the Department of Energy from the mission of 
maintaining the safety and reliability of the nuclear stockpile. This 
is not just my personal view. The ranking member of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee commissioned a study of title 32 from the experts in 
law and government organization at the Congressional Research Service 
(CRS), after the conference report was filed. The CRS produced a 
sobering assessment of this new title, highlights of which my colleague 
has shared with us. I have also received an expression of deep concern 
from 43 State attorneys general about the impact of the changes that 
were made in Title 32 on the applicability of the Federal Facilities 
Compliance Act to the new administration. Their concern merits our 
attention, and I hope that the Armed Services Committee arranges for 
hearings at which they can present their views directly for our 
consideration.
  In addition to these issues, the new title 32 creates what looks to 
me to be a complete muddle in the area of counterintelligence and 
responsibilities and authorities. The problems that the conference 
report create for DOE counterintelligence programs can best be 
described by looking at before-and-after organizational charts of 
counterintelligence responsibilities related to one of DOE's 
facilities, the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
  Chart 1 shows the current flow of responsibility and authority for 
counterintelligence at DOE and Los Alamos. It is very simple, and 
Secretary Richardson is to be commended for putting it in place. The 
DOE Chief of Counterintelligence, Ed Curran, is in charge. He has hire-
and-fire authority over the Chief of Counterintelligence at DOE 
facilities like Los Alamos. If we discover a loss of classified 
information at Los Alamos tomorrow, we know where to look for answers.
  Chart 2 depicts the lines of authority that will exist under title 
32. Secretary Richardson's reforms will be completely reversed. Under 
title 32, DOE will have two competing centers of control over 
counterintelligence in the nuclear weapons complex. Which of these 
individuals is in charge of counterintelligence? If you define ``being 
in charge'' as being able to issue direct commands to the labs, where 
the counterintelligence threat exists, it would appear that neither 
person is in charge.

  The Director of DOE-wide Counterintelligence is statutorily forbidden 
from exercising any direct control over the laboratories. He can issue 
policy pronouncements, and has to go up through the Secretary of Energy 
and then down through 4 layers of bureaucracy to get in touch with a 
lab like Los Alamos.
  And the Chief of Defense Nuclear Counterintelligence is not in a much 
better position, either. He also has to go up through his boss and down 
through a lateral chain of command to impose his will on anyone at the 
laboratories. He can talk to everyone, hence the dotted lines, but he 
cannot tell anyone anything definitive on his own authority.
  The lack of clarity for counterintelligence responsibility in title 
32 is perhaps the most ironic and distressing aspect of the whole DOE 
reorganization scheme. Right now, these responsibilities in the 
Department are clear, thanks to Secretary Richardson's reforms. When we 
started debating changes to DOE organization, the one change that 
everyone seemed to agree on was the need to have clarity on matters of 
counterintelligence. Yet, after this Defense bill is enacted, we will 
be back to the days of diffuse responsibility for counterintelligence.
  I have no illusions that we are going to vote down this conference 
report because of the defects in title 32. There are too many other 
important things that got done right in this bill. But we have created 
a real muddle at the Department of Energy in the area of nuclear 
weapons and their management. We will have to come back in next year's 
Defense bill to fix it.
  There is one other issue that we will have to address next year. That 
is the issue of polygraphs. The section on counterintelligence 
polygraphs in the conference report is a slight improvement over the 
corresponding provision in the Senate-passed Defense bill. But there 
are still fundamental problems with what we are asking DOE to do. We 
are asking DOE to use polygraphs as a screening tool--the one 
application where the scientific validity of polygraphs is most 
suspect. I don't have a big problem with using some forms of polygraphs 
in the context of an investigation, where there is already evidence of 
wrongdoing. There is scientific support for that sort of polygraph 
test. But polygraphs as a screening tool have little or no track record 
in the scientific literature. We shouldn't be using them in the nuclear 
weapons complex. And the way that DOE has proposed to use polygraphs in 
its recent Federal Register notice goes beyond what we actually call 
for in this bill. I have taken a public position in opposition to this 
proposed DOE rule on polygraphs, because it is not based on sound 
science and does not represent reasoned decision making, in my view.
  I hope that DOE will rethink its proposed rule. This conference 
report, although it encourages the use of screening polygraphs, also 
gives DOE the flexibility to study the matter further. I hope that DOE 
will seek review from the National Academy of Sciences on the 
reliability of the types of polygraph screening it plans to implement. 
I also recommend that the DOE reconstitute and reconvene the Chiles 
Commission to study the rule's likely impact on the critical human 
resources needed to ensure the safety and reliability of the nuclear 
weapons stockpile. The Senate could, in my view, profit from such 
studies in revisiting this issue in next year's Defense bill.
  In the end, then this year's conference report is more of a mixed bag 
than in most years. What we have done through the normal committee and 
conference process, on a bipartisan basis, has been done well, and we 
can be justly proud of it. What was done in a rushed and less 
cooperative fashion is much less satisfactory. I support the conference 
report overall, and I expect that the problems that have been 
needlessly created will manifest themselves for corrective action in 
fairly short order. I hope that when they do arise, we are able to 
address them in a more bipartisan and thoughtful way.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am very concerned about the provisions 
in this bill reorganizing the Department of Energy. In particular, I 
fear we are returning to the days of DOE ``self regulation'', which has 
historically translated into ``no regulation'' for environment, health 
and safety laws.
  Senator Warner and I will enter into a colloquy later that I hope 
will clarify the intent of this legislation regarding provisions 
critical to the safety of our workers and communities. We are 
particularly concerned about the autonomy of the newly-created, largely 
independent ``National Nuclear Security Administration.'' We fear the 
creation of NNSA will recreate the institutional conditions that 
resulted in 50 years of

[[Page S11193]]

environmental, safety, and health mismanagement at DOE facilities--
estimated to cost up to $200 billion to clean up. Hanford alone now 
receives appropriations of about $1 billion/year to clean up the legacy 
left from decades of the Atomic Energy Commission and/or Department of 
Energy self-regulation.
  I am heartened by Senator Domenici's statements in the press that we 
have little to fear in this regard. He is quoted in USA Today (9/16/99) 
as saying: ``Nowhere does the legislation waive the application of 
environment or safety laws. What this legislation changes is not the 
statutory requirements, just the management structure responsible for 
complying with them.'' I will take him at his word that that is the 
intent. I ask unanimous consent to have the USA Today article printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    [From USA Today, Sept. 16, 1999]

Nuclear Security Scare Could Put Safety Second--Driven by Spy Scandal, 
  Legislation Would Take Weapons Sites Out of the Hands of Regulators

                           [By Peter Eisler]

       Washington.--U.S. nuclear weapons plants and labs, 
     notorious as toxic and radioactive polluters, could be left 
     outside the reach of environmental, health and safety 
     regulators under management changes Congress is pushing to 
     deal with security concerns.
       Spurred by a spy scandal at the Los Alamos (N.M.) National 
     Laboratory that highlighted security problems at weapons 
     facilities nationwide, the House passed legislation Wednesday 
     to put eight of the Energy Department's plants and labs under 
     a new, semi-autonomous National Nuclear Security 
     Administration (NNSA). Senate approval is expected soon.
       The plan aims to free the sites from a mammoth Energy 
     Department bureaucracy criticized for diluting protections 
     against spies, thieves and saboteurs.
       But it also leaves the NNSA largely on its own to make sure 
     plants and labs meet environmental, health and worker safety 
     laws. Federal oversight programs set up in the late '80s to 
     address longtime contamination problems would lose virtually 
     all jurisdiction over the facilities. And the states, which 
     also have gained regulatory power over the weapons sites in 
     recent years, complain that they, too, could lose authority.
       The plan is reviving debates that have burned since the 
     first atomic bombs rolled out of Los Alamos in 1945.
       On one hand, recent reports that Chinese spies penetrated 
     key facilities to steal an array of U.S. nuclear secrets 
     highlight the program's need for secrecy and insularity. On 
     the other, the program has a record of poisoning workers and 
     communities with toxic and radioactive material when left on 
     its own.
       ``For over four decades, (the nuclear weapons program) 
     operated with no external and little internal oversight of 
     environment, safety and health . . . (with) disastrous 
     consequences,'' says a recent letter to lawmakers from the 
     attorneys general of 45 states. ``We should not return to 
     (that) era.''
       The National Governors' Association and former Energy 
     officials from the Clinton and Bush administrations also 
     oppose the reorganization plan. And Energy Secretary Bill 
     Richardson says he probably will urge a presidential veto.
       But a veto would be politically and practically difficult, 
     in large part because the plan is folded into a bill 
     authorizing unrelated but popular defense programs, including 
     a military pay raise. President Clinton would have to reject 
     the entire bill, and aides concede that would be a tough 
     call.
       ``The bottom line is we have a 20-year-old problem'' with 
     security at weapons plants and labs, says Rep. Mac 
     Thornberry, R-Texas, a chief backer of the reorganization 
     plan. Those problems, he says, lie in Energy Department 
     management that is ``cluttered up worrying about refrigerator 
     coolant standards'' and other missions--not about weapons 
     production and safeguarding secrets.
       ``I don't think the Congress or the administration wants to 
     end this year without making some reforms,'' Thornberry says.


                           changing missions

       In the scramble to win the Cold War arms race, the U.S. 
     nuclear weapons program operated largely in secret, churning 
     out warheads with a doggedness that left little room for 
     environmental, health and safety concerns. With almost no 
     outside supervision, weapons facilities put workers in harm's 
     way without telling them and illegally dumped millions of 
     tons of toxic and radioactive waste on and around their 
     sites.
       In communities from Richland, Wash., to Oak Ridge, Tenn., 
     soil and groundwater contamination is widespread. Several 
     communities have sued the Energy Department, claiming health 
     problems.
       Since the United States halted nuclear arms production in 
     1989, the focus at many sites has shifted to environmental 
     restoration. Even those facilities still doing weapons work--
     refining the current nuclear arsenal and disassembling 
     weapons eliminated by global treaties--spend up to half their 
     money on cleanup. The work is expected to take decades and 
     cost up to $200 billion.
       Beginning in the late '80s, environmental, health and 
     safety officials who oversee that work gained far more sway 
     over the plants and the labs. States, in particular, picked 
     up vast new powers in 1992, when Congress stripped weapons 
     sites' immunity from local regulation.
       Now, the spy scandal that erupted this spring at Los Alamos 
     raises questions about whether weapons sites lost track of 
     security concerns amid their changing missions.
       A congressional report in May suggested that China stole 
     information throughout the 1980s and perhaps into the early 
     '90s on every U.S. warhead. Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee 
     was pegged as a suspect and fired for alleged security 
     violations, though no criminal charges have been filed and he 
     denies wrongdoing.
       The episode drew attention to security problems at weapons 
     facilities nationwide, leading to a damning investigation by 
     a presidential board.
       ``Never before has this panel found such a cavalier 
     attitude toward one of the most serious responsibilities in 
     the federal government--control of the design information 
     related to nuclear weapons,'' the President's Foreign 
     Intelligence Advisory Board reported.
       Throughout the '90s, senior management at the Energy 
     Department failed repeatedly to act on security officials' 
     reports that budget cuts and institutional inattention were 
     weakening safeguards at weapons sites.
       Supporters of Congress' restructuring plan say the problem 
     is a lack of clear responsibility for facilities' security 
     and argue that the weapons sites must be put on their own, 
     for everything from security to environmental restoration, so 
     they're clearly accountable for all aspects of their 
     operation.
       The plan puts the new weapons agency on its own with the 
     Energy Department, giving it autonomy in key areas:
       All policy matters, including personnel, legal affairs and 
     budget decisions; security, intelligence and 
     counterintelligence operations; and environmental, health and 
     safety programs.
       ``Nowhere does the legislation waive the application of 
     environment or safety laws,'' says Sen. Pete Domenici, R-NM., 
     a chief sponsor. ``What this legislation changes is not the 
     statutory requirements, just the management structure 
     responsible for complying'' with them.


                               bad omens

       Opponents of the congressional plan note that weapons 
     plants and labs have been on their own before, and their 
     environmental, health and safety records were abysmal.
       ``Production of nuclear weapons has always been their whole 
     role in life; everything else is secondary,'' says Leo Duffy, 
     assistant Energy secretary in the Bush administration.
       ``All the environmental damage, the jeopardy to employees' 
     safety and health, almost none of this was identified until 
     1988,'' when outside regulators went in, says Duffy, who ran 
     those early oversight programs.
       Duffy and other critics of Congress' plan suggest the 
     answer is to set up clearer responsibility for security 
     within the Energy Department. But they say oversight on 
     environmental, safety and health matters should remain 
     outside the purview of those running weapons programs. They 
     also want the legislation's language to more clearly retain 
     states' jurisdiction over the sites.
       Proponents dismiss such concerns as unfounded. And they 
     note that many of the plants and labs with the worst records 
     on pollution and worker safety no longer do much weapons 
     work, so Congress' plans wouldn't necessarily change their 
     oversight.
       Among them: the Hanford nuclear reservation in western 
     Washington, where poorly stored waste has fouled water 
     supplies; the Rocky Flats plant outside Denver, where large 
     tracts of land suffer from radioactive contamination; and 
     uranium processing plants in Cincinnati and Paducah, Ky., 
     where workers were unknowingly exposed to radioactivity.
       But sites that would come under new management also have 
     their share of problems.
       Just this month, for example, the Department of Energy's 
     office of environment, safety and health cited the Los Alamos 
     lab for two incidents in which workers were exposed to 
     radioactive material that wasn't stored or handled properly. 
     In 1998, the Lawrence Livermore lab was forced to shut down a 
     plutonium storage facility after repeated failures to follow 
     procedures meant to prevent an uncontrolled nuclear reaction.
       Congress' plan to have those sites regulated by an agency 
     primarily devoted to weapons work ``would undermine over a 
     decade of progress to improve environment and safety 
     standards,'' Richardson says.
       The reorganization would leave the Energy secretary with 
     power to fire the head of the weapons agency, but neither he 
     nor any other Energy officials would have direct control over 
     operations.
       If the secretary suspected wrongdoing at a facility, he 
     could assign outside inspectors and order the agency director 
     to implement their recommendations. But if the director 
     refused, the secretary's only recourse would be to replace 
     him, a proposition that would require congressional consent 
     and could take months.
       The Congressional Research Service, Congress' nonpartisan 
     research arm, reported

[[Page S11194]]

     last week that such an arrangement ``may be problematic'' 
     because it ``tends to make secretarial authority less 
     direct.''
       Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who requested the study, wants 
     Congress to rework the plan.
       Officials in the states also want changes, arguing that the 
     legislation's language could return weapons plants and labs 
     to the pre-1992 era when they were immune from state 
     environmental and safety laws.
       The bill's proponents say it does no such thing, suggesting 
     that foes are nitpicking the plan simply because they don't 
     want to oppose it outright.
       ``This is a chance to fix a serious (security) problem,'' 
     says Thornberry, ``and I don't think turf disputes or 
     jurisdictional disputes should get in the way.''

  Mrs. MURRAY. Unfortunately, 46 State Attorneys General have written 
voicing their ``serious concerns'' with many of this bill's provisions. 
They fear title XXXII of the bill would ``weaken the existing internal 
and external oversight structure for DOE's environmental, safety and 
health operations.''
  I am very concerned about the DOE restricting provisions of this bill 
and so am tempted to vote against it. However, there are many 
provisions in the DOD authorization bill that will strengthen our 
country, our national defense, and our cleanup programs at DOE sites. I 
am particularly proud to support our belated efforts to increase the 
pay of our military personnel.
  In addition, I very much appreciate Chairman Warner's agreement to 
enter into the colloquy that follows. Therefore, I will support this 
bill in the hopes that this colloquy and the public comments made by 
drafters of title XXXII will ensure continuing compliance with 
environment, safety, and health laws and orders by the NNSA.
  I hope we can go back to the drawing board on the DOE restructuring 
provisions either through a veto of the bill this year or a new attempt 
to craft a better solution next year.
  Thank you, again, Chairman Warner for your work on the overall bill 
and your colloquy with me on the important subject of protecting our 
communities and environment at DOE facilities.


                              Title XXXII

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would like to enter into a colloquy 
regarding Title XXXII of the bill regarding Department of Energy 
restructuring. I understand the intent of this title was to improve 
security at Department facilities. Unfortunately, I am concerned that 
some of the language might cause confusion with regard to the 
obligation of the National Nuclear Security Administration to comply 
with environmental laws. From remarks I have seen in the popular press, 
I understand this was not the author's intent and I would like to 
clarify several provisions.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator for her interest in helping clarify 
these important provisions. I agree we must continue to protect the 
environment, safety and health at DOE facilities.
  Mrs. MURRAY. First, Title XXXII of the Defense Authorization bill has 
not been drafted to impair state regulatory authority or to eliminate 
DOE's internal oversight of environment, safety and health. Correct?
  Mr. WARNER. That is correct. Section 3261 provides: ``COMPLIANCE 
REQUIRED.--The Administrator [of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration] shall ensure that the Administration complies with all 
applicable environmental, safety, and health statutes and substantive 
requirements. PROCEDURES REQUIRED.--The Administrator shall develop 
procedures for meeting such requirements. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.--
Nothing in this title shall diminish the authority of the Secretary of 
Energy to ascertain and ensure that such compliance occurs.'' Section 
3261 was included to make clear NNSA's obligation to continue to comply 
with environmental laws and DOE environmental orders.
  Mrs. MURRAY. It is clear then that this provision does not affect the 
obligation of the Administrator of the NNSA and the Secretary of 
Energy, to comply with existing environmental laws and DOE 
environmental orders. Indeed, it makes explicit NNSA's legal obligation 
to comply with all applicable environmental laws and regulations, and 
provides that the Administrator of the NNSA has primary responsibility 
and accountability for environmental compliance programs at NNSA 
facilities. Furthermore, Section 3261 does not affect or abrogate 
existing waivers of sovereign immunity in environmental laws. Finally, 
Section 3261 retains the Secretary of Energy's existing authority over 
environmental compliance issues at the nine sites that will be 
incorporated into the NNSA. If compliance problems arise, the Secretary 
may investigate them, which can include requesting the assistance of 
staff from DOE's Environmental Management or Environmental, Health & 
Safety programs, and impose corrective actions when the Secretary 
identifies deficiencies. Is this a correct interpretation?
  Mr. WARNER. This is the correct interpretation of Section 3261. 
Retaining Secretarial authorities over environmental compliance is an 
essential element of Title XXXII.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 Conference Report before 
us today. Chairman Warner and his Committee have done an excellent job 
in prioritizing available funds to provide for our national defense.
  Any deficiencies in this authorization bill are a result of overall 
budget constraints and expanded commitments rather than inattention to 
our nation's vital security needs. I appreciate the Committees efforts 
to bring direct spending under control in this bill and conform to the 
Budget Act limitations.
  As Chairman of the Budget Committee and a member of the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee I know how difficult the exercise of 
prioritizing funds is. Every year all of the Congressional Defense 
Committees face tough choices as to how to best allocate funding so as 
to meet our immediate defense needs without sacrificing our future. As 
budgets shrink and global commitments swell, this task becomes 
increasingly difficult.
  Mr. President, I would like to underscore the problems Congress 
currently faces. Here my message is two-fold: first, we do not live in 
a peaceful world; and, secondly, we cannot defend our national 
interests if we are not committed to a strong military.
  I, and many of my colleagues, believe that U.S. prosperity rests on a 
strong, dedicated military. Everyone has heard the phrase ``peace 
through strength.'' Perhaps some believe that having been coined during 
the Cold War, this adage is anachronistic. I strongly disagree.
  Continued economic growth and the absence of a tangible, imminent 
threat to our security breed complacency. Complacency characterizes the 
current attitude toward our national security.
  As victors of the Cold War we appear to have a false sense of 
security about this new era. Thus far, the results of U.S. military 
intervention have not offered evidence that we should worry.
  However, our current military superiority is a product of the massive 
investments made during the Cold War. This Administration has not 
sustained the necessary investments. At the same time, they've 
increased U.S. military commitments overseas--often without clearly 
defining the strategic objective of those deployments.
  Complacency regarding our nation's strategic interests sends a 
message that ripples through every level of our national security 
apparatus--from our current inability to recruit the requisite talent 
to the trained pilots, technicians, and mid-career military 
professionals leaving for private sector jobs.
  Although diffuse and more difficult to discern, threats to our 
national security do exist.
  Instability in numerous regions throughout the world create security 
risks with adverse economic, and potentially strategic, impact. 
Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction also presents a grave 
threat. NATO intervention in Kosovo further aggravated potential 
threats to our national security--specifically, damage to our relations 
with Russia and China. In addition, Kosovo deployments will stretch an 
already overextended military to its limits--not to mention a limited, 
but not insignificant, contribution to peacekeeping efforts in East 
Timor.
  Peace through strength is still an appropriate theme. Complacency 
erodes our potential. If we demonstrate a strong commitment to the men 
and women in uniform, they will have a good reason to join and to stay.
  Mr. President, with those thoughts in mind, I would like to briefly 
discuss

[[Page S11195]]

the work of Senator Warner's Committee on the Conference Report before 
us today.
  First, a critical initial step in meeting our commitment to the men 
and women in uniform is found in the pay raises, incentive pay, and 
pension reforms found in this bill. As of January 1 next year, all 
members of the uniformed services will receive a 4.8% increase in their 
monthly pay. Furthermore, pay increases beyond that date will be one 
half a percent above inflation.
  The Conference Report outlines special incentive pay and enlistment 
bonuses to a variety of needed specialists or highly-trained personnel 
in our armed forces.
  Lastly, improvements to military retirement pay and eligibility in 
the Thrift Savings Plan will provide additional reasons to join and 
continue serving in our military services.
  According to a GAO study requested by myself and Senator Stevens 
military pay and retirement packages are not the core reasons for our 
retention problems. However, these improvements offer an important 
first step toward addressing quality of life shortfalls in the lives of 
our military men and women.
  The Committee also increased readiness funding beyond the 
Administration's request. In addition to the $2.25 billion of emergency 
money, this conference report adds about $1.6 billion in readiness-
related accounts.
  The President's budget only included $5.4 billion in military 
construction to fund $8.5 billion worth of projects. This ``split 
funding'' approach was to be a one-time accounting gimmick to create 
room for other spending and still remain under the budget caps. I 
applaud the Authorization Committees' decision not to use this approach 
for military construction.
  The pay and pension reforms as well as additional funding for 
military readiness and military construction will alleviate some of the 
problems in the immediate term.
  Necessary still is to address the foreign policy decisions that have 
led to the high operational tempo. More money cannot resolve questions 
regarding overseas operations or the organizational ability of any one 
military branch to respond to post-Cold War deployments.
  These are systemic problems borne of both domestic and foreign policy 
decisions. Unless and until we clarify the U.S. position and 
responsibilities in this new era, we will not know the rules for 
engagement or intervention. This dilemma has profound implications for 
the size, structure, and capabilities of our military.
  There are several items of significant impact on the state of New 
Mexico included in this authorization bill. I would like to briefly 
discuss a few of them.
  Although foremost a matter of national security, the provisions on 
the Department of Energy restructuring also will have a substantial 
impact on thousands of workers in New Mexico. These provisions ensure 
that brilliant science and tight security are compatible within our 
nuclear weapons infrastructure.
  Mr. President, I remind my colleagues that the President's Foreign 
Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB) Report demanded legislative 
changes. It clearly stated, ``The Department of Energy is a 
dysfunctional bureaucracy that has proven incapable of reforming 
itself.'' The PFIAB Report's specific recommendations included:
  Creation of a new, semi-autonomous Agency for Nuclear Stewardship.
  Streamline the Nuclear Stewardship management structure.
  Ensure effective administration of safeguards, security, and 
counterintelligence at all the weapons labs and plants by creating a 
coherent security/CI structure within the new agency.
  I and my colleagues, Senator Kyl and Senator Murkowski, followed 
these recommendations closely in drafting the legislation for DOE 
restructuring. The creation of a semi-autonomous agency for our nuclear 
weapons work will implement a true ``Chain of Command'' approach, with 
all the discipline this entails. I truly believe that this approach, if 
it had been used in the past, may have avoided some of these security 
problems and will help us avoid them in the future.
  These changes are desperately needed at the Department of Energy, and 
they must be made now.
  Another national defense issue that has substantial implications for 
New Mexico is the McGregor Range withdrawal.
  McGregor Range is one of six military parcels withdrawn from public 
domain in 1986. These parcels comprise nearly 30 percent of the 
Department of Defense's 25 million acres. McGregor Range comprises 
nearly 700,000 of Fort Bliss's 1.12 million acres. The Fort Bliss 
garrison is adjacent to El Paso, Texas, but McGregor Range is located 
entirely in New Mexico.
  McGregor range is vital to military training and readiness. Fort 
Bliss has a critical role as a national center for air defense, and 
McGregor Range is essential for fulfilling that role. McGregor Range is 
the only range in the United States capable of training America's air 
and missile defense forces. Because all CONUS Patriot forces are 
stationed at Fort Bliss they depend on McGregor for the training needed 
to ensure their full readiness prior to deployment.
  There is strong regional support for this renewal. 176 public 
comments expressed support for the Army's preferred alternative. An 
additional 26 expressed support for one of the other alternatives. The 
provisions in this bill will continue historic non-military uses of the 
range which include livestock grazing and hunting for 25 years.
  Military training and testing requirements for McGregor Range are 
foreseen for at least the next 50-years based on weapons systems that 
are either currently fielded or are planned for fielding in the near 
future. For this reason, the Army's Environmental Impact Statement 
preferred a 50-year withdrawal.
  My amendment to the Senate Defense Appropriations bill includes a 50-
year withdrawal. I am pleased with the work of the Authorization 
Committee, but I still firmly believe that 25 years is not an adequate 
period of time for withdrawal of the McGregor Range.
  Many important programs for the Air Force Research Laboratory at 
Kirtland were authorized by the conferees. Aerospace propulsion 
programs at Phillips were increased by $6 million. An increase of $28.6 
million above the $115.3 million budget request was authorized for 
Phillips' Exploratory Development programs. Advanced Spacecraft 
Technology programs received an additional $19.5 million authorization, 
including $5 million for the Scorpius Low-Cost Launch program.
  Directed energy programs comprise a substantial proportion of New 
Mexico's defense related research, development, and testing 
initiatives. Different services are working on a variety of laser 
weapons to achieve better and cheaper cost-per-kill defenses against 
missiles. Chemical lasers development for the Airborne and Space Based 
Laser programs are authorized at almost $500 million annually. The 
pioneering work and ongoing basic research for these systems is at 
Phillips in Albuquerque.
  With a view toward the future of laser weapons, this conference 
report requires the Secretary of Defense to develop a unified DoD laser 
master plan. The objective is to maximize the return on our investment 
in these important technologies by coordinating these efforts across 
the services and provide a roadmap for future development. I strongly 
support this effort.
  The conferees also provided an additional $20 million authorization 
for solid state laser development and $10 million for the Tactical High 
Energy Laser (THEL), programs which are tested at the High Energy Laser 
Test Facility (HELSTF) at White Sands Missile Range. HELSTF is also 
designated as the Army's Center of Excellence for all Army test and 
evaluation activities.
  An additional $4 million is authorized for the Counterterror 
Technical Support program. This funding will support the cutting-edge 
research in blast mitigation materials and structures at New Mexico 
Tech.
  Although the President's request included no funding for military 
construction at New Mexico's defense installations, the conferees added 
$9.8 million to renovate 76 units of housing at Holloman Air Force base 
and $14 million to replace cracked and deteriorating airfield ramps at 
Kirtland. Another $8.1 million is authorized to repair one of the main 
runways at Cannon Air Force base. In addition, the

[[Page S11196]]

New Mexico Air National Guard's Composite Support Complex at Kirtland 
is authorized at $9.7 million. All of these projects address quality of 
life or operational needs of the utmost importance to personnel at 
these installations.
  Mr. President, again, I would like to thank Senator Warner and the 
members of his Committee for their diligent work in allocating tight 
resources in the best feasible manner.
  At the same time, I would like to reiterate my view that many of the 
problems we currently face in our Defense Committees result from 
inadequate definition of U.S. interests.
  The systemic problems--retention, readiness, operational tempo--are a 
product of domestic and foreign policy decisions. We have neither 
clarified the U.S. position in the current international environment 
nor have we established relevant rules for U.S. engagement. Instead, we 
rely more and more on our military to compensate for failed diplomacy. 
Or we ask our soldiers to play referee in regions of the world teeming 
with ethnic conflict and territorial disputes.
  Without first defining our national interest in this new era, we 
cannot pretend to downsize, right-size, or structure our military to 
adequately defend U.S. interests throughout the world. More 
importantly, without a clear picture of the appropriate military 
structure and necessary force capabilities we cannot answer the $280 
billion question: How much is enough?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support the Department of Defense 
authorization conference report for fiscal year 2000, and I 
congratulate our new chairman, Senator John Warner, on completing this 
first conference report as chairman. While I am disappointed that some 
provisions in the Senate version of the bill were dropped, on the whole 
it is an excellent piece of legislation and I am pleased to support it.
  My most important concern is over the changes made in Title 32, which 
establishes the National Nuclear Security Administration and 
reorganizes the Department of Energy's nuclear laboratories. When we 
first considered this issue on the intelligence authorization bill in 
July, the Senate passed the Kyl amendment, which reorganized these 
nuclear labs by a vote of 96-1. Unfortunately, during conference 
deliberations, these provisions were substantially rewritten. Secretary 
Richrdson has expressed his strong objections to these provisions, and 
states that they will make it more difficult for the Secretary of 
energy to oversee the labs. I hope that the Armed Services Committee 
will work with Secretary Richardson to address his concerns in the 
fiscal year 2001 Defense authorization bill.
  America has faced many global challenges this year that have re-
emphasized the need for our Nation to maintain a well-trained and well-
equipped military. This year's crisis in Kosovo was particularly 
challenging and required the Nation's Armed Forces to perform a wide 
variety of duties, including peacekeeping and humanitarian activities, 
in addition to sustained combat operations. Our service men and women 
performed superbly in all that was asked of them, and I commend them on 
their dedication, professionalism, and unwavering devotion to duty. 
Without their skill, we would not be as close to peace in the Balkans 
as we are today.
  It is the duty of Congress to ensure that we provide our military 
with what is needs to meet the international challenges common in the 
post-cold-war era. America must be ready, when necessary, to protect 
its vital interests and encourage global stability. The fiscal year 
2000 Defense conference report is a positive step toward ensuring that 
the Nation's military is prepared to meet the challenges of the years 
ahead.
  The cornerstone of the military's preeminence rests on its most 
critical component, its people. Without adequate number of men and 
women willing to serve in the military, the Nation would not be able to 
respond to crises around the globe. We need cutting-edge weapon 
systems, but we also need dedicated men and women to operate these 
systems. The conference report contains many new initiatives and 
constructive changes in personnel policies that will help to ensure 
that we adequately provide for our servicemen and women and their 
families.
  Specifically, the conference report provides a fully-funded and well-
deserved 4.8 percent pay raise for military personnel, as well as 
expanded authority to offer additional pay and other incentives to 
retain service members in critical military specialties. The conference 
report also improves retirement benefits by addressing service members' 
concerns with the current system and approving their participation in 
the Thrift Savings Plan.
  I am very disappointed, however, that Senator Cleland's amendment to 
improve and expand GI bill benefits for servicemen and women was not 
included in the conference report. The Montgomery GI bill has been a 
very successful and important program for the military. But, in order 
for the GI bill to continue to be a valuable program, it must evolve as 
our military forces evolve. Access to higher education is an 
increasingly important issue for our servicemen and women in today's 
all-volunteer, professional military. Senator Cleland's GI bill 
provisions, included in the Senate version of the bill, made needed 
improvements in the GI bill that would have enhanced the program's 
value and benefit to our troops, and would have improved its 
effectiveness as a recruiting tool. I commend Senator Cleland on his 
leadership on these provisions and I urge my colleagues to reconsider 
these innovative ideas next year.
  The DOD authorization conference report also reauthorizes and 
enhances the very successful Troops-to-Teachers program. Over the next 
ten years, the Nation's schools will need to hire two million new 
teachers to fill their classrooms. Troops-to-Teachers is helping to 
meet that challenge by recruiting and training servicemen and women to 
become teachers in public schools. This program was established by 
Congress in 1993 and has already placed over 3,000 servicemen and women 
in elementary and secondary schools in 48 states. The conference report 
also provides for the transfer of this program to the Department of 
Education, so that it will be coordinated with other federal education 
programs that are helping communities to improve their public schools.
  Concern for our military personnel doesn't end with the active duty 
servicemember, but with the whole military family. Well over half of 
the members of today's military are married, and in many cases both 
parents are employed. The military also contains many single mothers 
and fathers. All of these individuals have unique characteristics and 
needs that must be recognized so that we can encourage their continued 
service and careers in the armed forces.
  The conference report contains a provision, which I strongly 
supported, authorizing the Secretary of Defense to provide financial 
assistance for child care services and youth programs for members of 
the Armed Forces and their families. These expanded child care 
provisions will ensure that many more military families have access to 
quality childcare and after-school care for their children.
  Also, military families are not immune to the epidemic of domestic 
violence that confronts the rest of America. We have a responsibility 
to military families to help prevent domestic violence, and to protect 
the victims when abuse occurs.
  An important provision in this year's conference report requires the 
Secretary of Defense to appoint a military-civilian task force to 
review military policies on domestic violence. This task force, 
comprised of military, DOD, law enforcement personnel, and civilian 
advocates for battered women and children, will work with the Secretary 
of Defense to establish Department-wide standards for combating 
domestic violence.
  These initiatives will include standard formats for memorandums of 
understanding between the armed services and local law enforcement 
authorities for responding to domestic violence; a requirement that 
commanding officers must provide a written copy of any no-contact or 
restraining order to victims of abuse; standard guidance for commanding 
officers on considering criminal charges in cases of domestic violence; 
and a standard training program for all commanding officers on domestic 
violence.
  This provision also requires the Department to establish a database, 
the contents of which will be annually reported to Congress. The 
information

[[Page S11197]]

will include each domestic violence incident reported to military 
authorities and how that incident was resolved. This provision also 
requires the military-civilian task force to report to Congress 
annually about the progress made in combating domestic violence in the 
military.
  The conference report also takes a number of worthwhile steps to 
address equipment modernization requirements that have been deferred 
for too long. The chairwoman of the Seapower Subcommittee, Senator 
Snowe, took the lead this year in advocating a strong shipbuilding 
budget, as well as a strong research and development budget, for the 
Navy and Marine Corps. It was a privilege to work with her this year, 
and, I am pleased that this conference report takes these important 
steps to ensure that the Navy has the ships, submarines, and other 
equipment needed to sustain its operations throughout the world.
  The conference report authorizes the extension of the DDG-51 
Destroyer multi-year procurement into fiscal years 2002 and 2003 and 
increases the number of ships to be built from 12 to 18 ships. The 
conference report also authorizes the Navy to enter into a five-year 
multi-year procurement contract for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, and 
increases the number of Marine Corps MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft 
from 10 to 12. These are all strong steps in strengthening the 
readiness of the Nation's Navy-Marine Corps team.
  Procurement isn't the only area where we need to strengthen our 
investment. We also need to strengthen investment in science and 
technology. Last year, the Defense authorization bill called for a 2 
percent annual increase, above inflation, in military spending on 
science and technology from 2000 to 2008. Unfortunately, the 
Department's proposed fiscal year 2000 budget reduced spending on 
science and technology programs. The Air Force alone was slated for $95 
million in cuts in science and technology funding. Such a decline would 
have been detrimental to national defense, particularly when the 
battlefield environment is becoming more and more reliant on high 
technology.
  Fortunately, thanks in great part to the chairman of the Emerging 
Threats and Technology Subcommittee, Senator Roberts, and his ranking 
member, Senator Bingaman, Congress restored much of this Air Force 
science and technology funding. This restoration will help to ensure 
that high quality scientists and engineers are available to conduct 
research to address the Department's technology needs for the future. 
Congress has taken a clear position in support of maintaining sound 
investments in Defense science and technology programs. I urge the 
Department to request a strong science and technology budget next year, 
one that will ensure the future of these important programs.
  One of the most significant of these science and technology fields is 
cyber-security. The growing frequency and sophistication of attacks on 
the Department of Defense's computer systems are cause for concern, and 
they highlight the need for improved protection of the nation's 
critical defense networks. This conference report includes a 
substantial increase in research and development for defenses against 
cyber attacks, and this increase will greatly improve the Department's 
focus on this emerging threat.
  Existing threats from the cold war are also addressed in this 
legislation. Financial assistance to the nations of the former Soviet 
Union for nonproliferation activities such as the Nunn-Lugar 
Comprehensive Threat Reduction programs is essential for our national 
security. I commend the administration's plans to continue funding 
these valuable initiatives, and I commend a Congress' support for them.
  One of the most serious threats to our national security is the 
danger of terrorism, particularly using biological, chemical or nuclear 
weapons of mass destruction. We must do all we can to prevent our 
enemies from acquiring these devastating weapons, and do all we can to 
keep terrorists from being able to conduct an attack on our nation. 
Significant progress has been made to strengthen the nation's response 
to such attacks, but more must be done. The conference report 
strengthens counter-terrorism activities and increases support for the 
National Guard teams that are part of this important effort.
  Again, I commend my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee for 
their leadership on these important national security issues. This 
conference report is essential for our national security in the years 
ahead, and I urge the Senate to approve it.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a very important 
issue concerning the Department of Energy and its ability to secure 
nuclear information. Nuclear security is imperative to this nation, and 
after the scandals in the last year, Americans have questioned the 
ability of the Department of Energy to keep nuclear information secure. 
As a result, Senator Warner, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee 
and Ranking Member Levin included legislation in the Defense 
Authorization Conference Report that creates a new division within the 
Department to restore nuclear security. I applaud their efforts.
  However, Mr. President, I am concerned about the potential for 
unintended consequences as a result of the Department of Energy 
reorganization. Specifically, the attorneys general of 46 states, 
including the State of Ohio, wrote to Congress stating that the 1992 
Department of Energy reforms which clarify that states have regulatory 
authority of the Department of Energy's hazardous waste management and 
cleanup could be undermined by this legislation. The attorneys general 
believe that this legislation could allow the Federal Government to 
abandon its commitment to ``environmental, health and safety 
requirements'' at Energy Department facilities nationwide. This is 
troubling for the State of Ohio, which has three former Department of 
Energy nuclear facilities--the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, 
Fernald, and the Mound Nuclear Facility. Each facility is at a 
different stage of cleanup, and recent revelations of plutonium 
contamination at the Portsmouth facility only emphasize the need for 
strong environmental, health, and safety requirements at these DOE 
facilities.
  While I have heard the concerns of the attorneys general, I am 
assured by the Armed Services Committee that the intent of this 
legislation is not to exempt nuclear facilities from state 
environmental regulations and requirements or worker safety and health 
regulations. I am further assured that if there are any unintended 
consequences, Congress will rectify these problems.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, the Conference Report on the National 
Defense Authorization Act before us today makes a healthy increase of 
over 8 billion dollars to the President's request. This reflects 
concerns by the Congress that readiness has eroded to a point where our 
military is having to take significant risks in its day-to-day 
operations.
  Many of our colleagues are aware that we have sized our armed forces 
to engage not only in two major theater wars that break out nearly 
simultaneously, but also to handle the Bosnias, Kosovos and other 
smaller-scale contingencies that challenge our interests overseas. For 
the first time since we adopted our 2-war strategy not long after the 
end of the Cold War, the commanders in charge of our warfighting forces 
are warning the Congress--again for the first time in the post Cold War 
era--that the risks in our ability to fight in that second theater have 
gone from moderate to high.
  This risk is not merely some esoteric metric that only some military 
strategist can comprehend. Rather, the dangers are that we will lose an 
unacceptable number of men and women in battle, that we will lose 
excessive territory in the initial phases of battle, and that battles 
will last much longer than they would with a more capable force.
  This is a serious warning--not one we should take lightly. The 
military challenges to the U.S. in the decades ahead are ill-defined 
and very difficult to predict. While the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
has signaled a significant drawdown in Bosnia in the near future, while 
our commitment of troops to Kosovo is relatively small compared to 
those of our European allies, and while signs of progress on the Korean 
peninsula are making news this week, we also see the tragedy in East 
Timor, renewed Chinese threats against Taiwan, and rebel action in 
Russia, all of which

[[Page S11198]]

remind us of the extraordinary instabilities that we will face in the 
next century.
  Whether we will see more or less conflict is unclear, but the growing 
competition for fixed resources in impoverished regions where 
populations grow unabated suggests that civil and interstate strife 
will only worsen. These strains will also spawn terrorists--including 
those embittered by their harsh circumstances and in particular those 
who feel they have nothing to lose.
  Decisive action, as we saw by the U.S. and others in Bosnia and 
Kosovo, will, we hope, deter future conflicts and gross human rights 
violations. But the speed with which the tragedy in East Timor 
developed on the heels of NATO's victory in Kosovo tempers such 
optimism. Ultimately, a combination of resolute determination to defeat 
aggression, strong support for democracies, and effective means for 
improving the quality of life for all is the best path to ensure we 
don't have to send our young men and women into harm's way repeatedly 
in the twenty first century.
  This conference report goes a long way toward ensuring we will be 
ready in the years to come. It invests in new weapons to the tune of 
three billion dollars over the FY 2000 Administration's request, and 
looks to the distant future with an increase for research and 
development of almost two billion dollars over the request. Readiness 
is increased by about 1.5 billion dollars. More importantly, this bill 
focusses on our greatest asset--our soldiers, sailors, airmen and 
marines--that ultimately make the defining difference between victory 
and defeat. With a significant pay raise and retirement reforms, the 
bill meets head on a continuing crisis in recruiting and retention. I 
was particularly pleased that the Senate and conferees agreed to 
provisions I had included in an earlier bill, S. 4, to focus pay 
increases on specialties--such as aviators--where retention and 
recruiting problems are particularly severe.
  At a time when we are watching every defense dollar so closely, I am 
disappointed that we did not do much more in this bill to rid the 
Department of Defense of so many wasteful expenditures. Across the 
nation, we are now obligating in excess of 3 billion dollars a year to 
pay for utilities, to maintain buildings and roadways, and to operate 
equipment on bases that are unneeded by our military. We are likewise 
spending billions on weapons and research programs that the Department 
of Defense did not request but was forced to pursue by the Congress. We 
watch the Department waste hundreds of millions of dollars due to 
misguided acquisition policies, poor oversight of inventories, and 
service duplication of effort. These are difficult problems to fix--due 
either to political inertia or sheer organizational complexity, but 
nonetheless we should and can do much more.
  Finally, Mr. President, I want to comment briefly on this bill's 
attempt to reorganize the entire Department of Energy. While PRC 
espionage has severely damaging consequences for long-term U.S. 
security, rushing to restructure a department with such vital 
responsibilities is not, in my view, prudent oversight on our part. In 
short, had the changes included here been instituted two decades ago, 
it is unclear that these changes would have had any impact on the PRC's 
ability to garner intelligence on our nuclear weapons. Indeed, one 
might even make the case that the bill will worsen this situation. I 
intend to track this matter closely in the years ahead and to support 
necessary modications of this language as the reorganization proceeds.
  Mr. President, on balance, this is a very good bill that does much to 
fix military readiness and other problems. I support its passage and 
urge my colleagues to support it as well.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to 
offer some comments in support of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2000. Since Operation Desert Storm in 1991, I have 
been extremely concerned with the drastic decline in funding for our 
Armed Services. We have all watched as the military lost more and more 
of its highly trained warriors, as the equipment aged year after year 
with few spare parts and no replacements, and as the infrastructure at 
our military bases fell into disrepair. Today, I am cautiously 
optimistic that we have finally, if belatedly, recognized serious 
readiness shortfalls and are taking steps to correct them. That this 
bill represents a 4.4 percent increase over the current fiscal year's 
level is a step in the right direction.
  I am most heartened by the package of personnel benefits that are 
incorporated in this bill. Several identified shortcomings in pay and 
retirement benefits have been addressed. Pay table reform brings the 
focus of the pay raises to the middle leadership in both the officer 
and enlisted ranks. Repealing REDUX brings equity across the military 
for retirement benefits. Securing higher annual pay raises takes the 
first step to closing the pay gap between military personnel and their 
civilian counterparts. Implementing a Thrift Savings Plan for military 
personnel will help retain our dedicated soldiers, sailors, airmen, and 
marines.
  Two critical areas of our military that begin to be addressed in this 
bill are the shortage of spare parts and the lack of replacement 
equipment. In every branch of the service, examples abound of equipment 
being utilized far in excess of its intended service life. In many 
cases the equipment is older than the operator and costs more and more 
each year to maintain. This bill funds spare parts programs to allow 
our equipment to be fully combat ready, and funds many follow-on 
systems that will directly benefit the war fighter.
  This trend must continue in the years to come. Maintaining a viable 
military is a commitment, not a once-a-decade afterthought.
  While I applaud the effort to bolster some of the areas of our 
military that have been under funded for the last 10 years, I am 
disheartened that, yet again, Congress has failed to take two of the 
most meaningful steps to free more dollars for our defense budget. The 
first of these is the continued and reprehensible practice of spending 
billions of dollars on programs that the armed services did not ask for 
and, in many cases, do not need. Allocating funding from an already 
tight budget for programs added primarily for parochial reasons 
continues to undermine honest efforts to adequately provide for the 
national defense.
  I applaud the Committee chairman's effort to minimize the number of 
member adds not reflected on service Unfunded Priority Lists. Committee 
staff should be commended for their great efforts in carefully drafting 
legislation and checking amendments with the Service's Unfunded 
Priority Lists and the Future Years Defense Plan--ensuring that, in 
most cases, the Services' priorities were funded. There is no question, 
however, that enormous sums continue to be earmarked as much for 
political as for operational reasons. In fact, my concern about the 
continued viability of the Unfunded Priority Lists has grown in the 
face of questionable inclusions on those lists, such as executive and 
tactical airlift aircraft that clearly expand on existing inventory 
surpluses, and programs from the Future Years Defense Plans that are 
moved ahead more to accommodate powerful members of Congress than to 
address pressing funding shortfalls. That there is more than $3 billion 
in questionable spending added by members for parochial reasons 
illustrates that the scale of the problem remains unacceptably high.
  I also continue to find incomprehensible Congress's unwillingness to 
permit the military to divest itself of excess infrastructure. 
Literally billions of dollars can be saved over the course of a FYDP if 
the services are authorized to close unneeded installations and 
facilities. And let there be no mistake: Congressional opposition to 
another round of base closures is not predicated upon specious 
arguments about the supposed lack of cost savings and operational 
requirements that defy simple economics and common sense; this 
opposition grows solely out of the desire on the part of members of 
this body to avoid the politically painful process of defending 
hometown installations.
  As one who saw a major installation in my state closed during the 
1991 BRAC round, I can sympathize with that reluctance to undertake an 
unpleasant task. As one who also saw the rejuvenation of a community 
previously dependent upon that military installation after it was 
turned over to

[[Page S11199]]

local authorities, and as one more than a little concerned about our 
inability to fully address vital readiness and modernization problems, 
I must respectfully disagree with those who oppose another round of 
base closures.
  The elimination of excess infrastructure is vital to allow the 
Department of Defense to focus resources on necessary support 
facilities rather than base structure from the Cold War era. Savings 
from previous BRAC rounds have been validated in the billions of 
dollars by every conceivable research foundation. There is just no 
excuse for continuing to require taxpayers to pay for infrastructure we 
do not need.
  I am also distressed that the bill does not address a personnel issue 
I find an embarrassment and a tragedy. With over 12,000 military 
families on food stamps, and the potential of more than double that 
number eligible for the program, I cannot reconcile the lack of 
attention to this issue in this bill. I have been open to all 
suggestions for solutions to this problem. I have hoped for and worked 
toward a bipartisan response that would satisfy the Administration, 
Congress, and the Department of Defense. Although the Senate approved 
my legislation, I was greatly disappointed when this measure was 
rejected by conferees from the House of Representatives despite the 
strong support of Admiral Jay Johnson, the Chief of Naval Operations, 
and General Jim Jones, the Marine Corps Commandant.
  I find it an outrage that enlisted families line up for free food and 
furniture while we pour hundreds of millions of dollars into C-130J, 
automatic grenade launcher, anti-ship decoy, hyperspectral research, 
and free electron laser programs. The insertion into the budget of 
hundreds of millions of dollars for an amphibious assault ship that the 
Navy does not want and that the Secretary of Defense specified diverts 
dollars from higher priority programs is difficult to reconcile with 
our professed concern for the welfare of military families.
  What we have here is a situation in which certain members of the 
House are apparently unconcerned about having tens of thousands of 
military families eligible for food stamps. Yet, they raise no 
opposition to funding a gymnasium at the Naval Post-Graduate School or 
a $15 million Reserve Center in Oregon that were not in the 
department's budget request. In fact, a vast majority of unrequested 
items costing many millions of dollars were added to the bill by the 
same body that opposed the food stamp provision. Sadly, politics, not 
military necessity, remains the rule, not the exception.
  Although my legislative proposal would have been funded for the 
Department of Defense at approximately $6 million annually, the 
Congressional Budget Office found that it actually would have 
represented a savings to taxpayers, since it would save more in the 
Agriculture Department by removing service members from the food stamp 
rolls. I am at a loss to understand or explain how such a 
straightforward measure could be so easily rejected by the House of 
Representatives, particularly in a year when Congress voted to increase 
its own pay and also included a 15% annual pay raise for generals and 
admirals.
  I will continue to press forward to resolve this tragic problem, and 
I believe that most Americans will support my effort. I will not stand 
by and watch as our military is permitted to erode to the breaking 
point by the President's lack of foresight and the Congress' lack of 
compassion. These military men and women--our soldiers, sailors, 
airmen, and Marines--are the very same Americans that the President and 
Congress have sent into harm's way in recent years in Somalia, Bosnia, 
Haiti, Kosovo, and currently East Timor. Our service members deserve 
better. They deserve our continuing respect, our unwavering support, 
and a living wage.
  On another matter, I am very pleased that the bill contains 
provisions for the renewal of the withdrawal of the Goldwater Range.
  The Goldwater Range is one of the most important military training 
ranges in the country, supporting activities of all services. It 
currently comprises approximately 2.7 million acres of desert land in 
southwest Arizona, with climate and weather conditions that allow 
flight and other training over 360 days a year. This range is vital to 
the continued military readiness of our Armed Forces.
  It is also located in the heart of the Sonoran desert and contains 
one of the most undisturbed desert ecosystems in North America. The 
Sonoran desert ecosystem on the Goldwater Range is one of the few 
places in the nation that contains virtually all of the plant and 
animal species that were present before the continent was discovered by 
Europeans. The dozen mountain ranges and arid bajadas of the range are 
home to the desert bighorn sheep, the critically endangered Sonoran 
pronghorn antelope, and dozens of plant species found almost nowhere 
else in the U.S.
  The challenge is to provide for necessary national defense training 
while protecting this natural treasure. In 1986, the Congress passed 
the Military Lands Withdrawal Act which formally authorized the Barry 
M. Goldwater Range. Included within the range was more than 860,000 
acres of the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge managed by the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service and more than 1.8 million acres of lands 
administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The withdrawals 
established under the 1986 Act were for 15 years and were due to expire 
unless extended in 2001.

  While the approach to the withdrawal of the Goldwater Range in this 
bill is different from what we did in 1986, the provisions will ensure 
the continued availability of this range for vital military training, 
while protecting and preserving the unique cultural and natural 
resources of this part of Arizona.
  The withdrawal provisions included in the conference report are based 
on the Administration's proposal. Because of the environmental 
protections included in the Administration's proposal and additional 
provisions added in the conference agreement, I am comfortable with the 
plan to transfer management of the natural and cultural resources 
within the range to the Air Force and the Navy, a decision which is 
fully supported by both the Interior Department and the President's 
Council on Environmental Quality. In practical effect, the Air Force 
and Marine Corps have been performing the management functions at the 
Goldwater Range for many years, and doing a superb job of it, according 
to most observers, while the efforts of the Bureau of Land Management 
and Interior Department have been widely criticized. In fact, the 
Department of Defense already dedicates significant resources to land 
and resource management of the Range. The decision to formally transfer 
management recognizes the superior fiscal and manpower resources 
available to the military Services, who also have the most compelling 
interest in maintaining future training access to the range, which can 
only be accomplished by effectively addressing environmental concerns 
regarding its use.
  The Cabeza Prieta will no longer be included in the military lands 
withdrawal, and it will continue to be protected and managed by the 
Interior Department and the Fish and Wildlife Service as one of our 
Nation's crown jewels of wilderness areas.
  President Franklin D. Roosevelt established the Cabeza Prieta refuge 
in 1939 in recognition of the tremendous natural resources of the area. 
Congress--with my strong support--designated about 803,000 acres of the 
860,000-acre Refuge as wilderness in the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act 
of 1990, making it the largest and one of the most pristine wilderness 
areas managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the lower 48 
states. I am very proud to have been a part of the effort to protect 
this unique wilderness area. The management of Cabeza Prieta should set 
the highest standard for the protection of wilderness and wildlife 
values.
  This bill ensures that military aviation training can continue over 
the refuge pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding in place between 
the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Air Force but ensures that the 
wildlife and wilderness conservation purposes of the refuge remain 
unaltered. The bill does not seek to add new purposes to the Refuge's 
management mandate.
  Under the 1990 wilderness act, the Air Force was allowed to maintain 
a small number of ground instruments on the refuge within the Cabeza 
Prieta Wilderness. Man-made structures are not generally allowed within 
wilderness

[[Page S11200]]

areas. The bill before us allows the Air Force to upgrade, replace, or 
relocate the structures but only if doing so will have a similar or 
less impact on the wilderness and the environment than the existing 
structures.
  The legislation also requires the Defense and Interior Departments to 
jointly develop a comprehensive integrated natural and cultural 
resources management plan for the Range, and to conduct a full 
environmental review, with public comment, every five years, including 
submission of a report to Congress. The Secretary of the Interior is 
given unilateral authority to take back the responsibility to manage 
the Range lands if the Secretary determines that the military is 
failing to adequately protect them. If at any time this authority is 
exercised, or if any of the five-year reports indicate degradation of 
the natural and cultural resources on the range, the Congress could and 
should take prompt action to redress those problems. I would certainly 
support such action.
  The conference agreement also directs the Department of the Interior 
to work with all affected parties, including state, local, and tribal 
governments, to determine how best to manage and protect the natural 
and cultural resources of the four parcels of land, totaling 112,179 
acres, that will no longer be withdrawn from public use for military 
utilization. The study will examine whether such lands can be better 
managed by the Federal Government or through conveyance of such lands 
to another appropriate entity. The prompt completion of this study will 
give the Department of the Interior an opportunity to plan for the most 
appropriate management strategies for these lands, which, because of 
the withdrawal, have not been subject to mining, livestock grazing, or 
heavy recreation use for a half-century. These lands include the 
spectacular, 83,554-acre Sand Tank Mountains area. I expect that the 
Department of the Interior will explore a number of management options 
for management of the Sand Tank Mountains (and the other parcels) 
including transfer to Native American peoples, as well as the potential 
to protect the important natural values of the area through the 
designation of qualifying lands as wilderness, or through the limiting 
of livestock grazing and mining. This area is home to the highly 
endangered Sonoran pronghorn antelope and I expect that the study will 
include provisions for this and other threatened and endangered 
species. The study is to be completed within one year from the date of 
enactment of this bill.
  Finally, the bill establishes an Intergovernmental Executive 
Committee of federal, state, and tribal representatives for the purpose 
of exchanging information, views, and advice relating to the management 
of the natural and cultural resources of the range. I fully expect that 
this body will conduct its meetings in public, and will provide ample 
opportunity for the public to participate in meetings and to review and 
comment on any proposals for the administration of the area that may be 
discussed by the committee.
  I am very disappointed that the conferees did not include language 
for a comprehensive study of alternative management plans for the 
Goldwater Range. A proposal was made earlier this year to designate the 
range as a park or preserve, managed by the National Park Service, 
while permitting continued military training. In addition, several 
environmental groups registered concerns about the Administration's 
proposal for DOD management of the range and expressed concern that the 
military would be an ineffective manager of the natural resources at 
issue.
  In response, I worked with the concerned individuals and groups to 
develop language directing the Department of the Interior to make 
recommendations on management of the range, including possible 
designation as a park, a preserve, a wilderness area, a nature 
conservation area, or other similar protected status. Simply studying 
alternative management schemes would not interfere with military 
training activities for which the range is essential. Rather, a 
comprehensive study would provide information to guide the 
Administration and the Congress in taking appropriate action to ensure 
that the cultural and natural resources on the range are preserved and 
protected.
  It is incomprehensible that anyone could object to a study, but, 
unfortunately, significant opposition was raised by outside conferees 
on the House side. I will continue to pursue other avenues in this 
matter, because I am uncomfortable with the idea of locking in the 
Administration's proposal without ensuring that we could revisit that 
decision if the experts determined after studying alternative 
suggestions that some other form of management would be more 
appropriate.
  In July, I wrote to the Secretaries of Interior and Defense, 
requesting that they independently undertake an assessment of 
alternative management plans for the Goldwater Range. They have the 
authority to do so, and I have urged them to begin a study immediately. 
In addition, I proposed an amendment to the FY 2000 Interior 
Appropriations bill to require such a study, and I am working to ensure 
such a study is included in legislation pending before the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee to authorize new park areas. Once an 
alternative management study is completed, I will ensure that any 
recommendations for improved management of the Goldwater Range are 
considered and acted on, as necessary, by the Congress.
  Despite shortfalls in the conference report before us today, I urge 
my colleagues to support its passage. On the whole, it is a step in the 
right direction toward resuscitating an armed force suffering from the 
diverging pattern of expanding commitments and contracting resources. 
It includes tangible incentives for the men and women who defend our 
nation day and night, 365 days a year, at home and overseas. It paves 
the way for better equipment and higher equipment availability rates. 
It is imperfect, as, I suppose, a bill of this magnitude is destined to 
be, but our armed forces deserve the good that is included in it, even 
if they must also suffer the bad.
  Mr. President, the full list of unquested adds will be available on 
my website.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
FY 2000 Defense authorization bill. This legislation demonstrates a 
strong commitment to America's defense and to our ability to meet 
future military challenges.
  I am particularly pleased by the committee's inclusion of $176.1 
million to purchase 17 UH-60L Blackhawk helicopters. A coalition of 
eight companies in my state manufacture critical components for the 
Black Hawk, which is the Army's premier tactical transport helicopter. 
First produced in 1977, it is used for combat assault, combat re-
supply, battlefield command and control, electronic warfare and medical 
evacuation. This year, the Black hawk provided critical support 
functions for our armed services in the Kosovo. This funding will 
ensure that our military has the ability to continue its current 
operations and sustain readiness for future dangers.
  I am also pleased by the committee's support for high school ROTC 
programs. The additional $32 million for high school ROTC program will 
make a particular impact in my State where many programs have been 
approved for participation in ROTC but remain unfunded. Clark High 
School is an example of one such program which has remained on a 
waiting list of approved ROTC program but has been unable to 
participate because funding has not been available. I am hopeful that 
this funding will be appropriated, allowing the Department of Defense 
to immediately utilize this funding so that unfunded programs, like 
Clark High School, can begin operating as soon as possible.
  Additionally, the additional benefits for all members of the military 
included in this bill deals with serious concerns I have had regarding 
quality of life and morale of our soldiers. The pay raise of almost 
five percent addresses serious inequities between military pay and 
civilian wages. In addition, the legislation creates a civilian-style 
401(k) by allowing military personnel to contribute up to 5 percent of 
their pre-tax to a tax-shelter investment fund. These benefits will go 
a long way toward reaching our goals of recruiting and retaining highly 
trained personnel. Most importantly, it will give our soldiers and 
their families the quality of life they deserve.

[[Page S11201]]

  I am also pleased by the $10 million in procurement funding for 
secure terminal equipment for the military services and defense 
agencies. This versatile equipments is the cornerstone of our multi-
media secure digital communication. The new generation of secure 
terminal equipment, produced by a defense company in my State, is more 
effective technology and generates significant operations and 
maintenance cost savings.
  Finally, I am extremely pleased by the committee's inclusion of a 
provision regarding the Economic development conveyance of base closure 
property. When an installation is recommended for closure, it is 
imperative that the transfer of property benefit the local community. 
This provision will accomplish this goal by allowing a more efficient 
transfer of property to the local re-development authority for job 
creation and economic development.
  I again thank Chairman Warner, Ranking Member Levin and Ranking 
Member Inouye for their commitment and attention to these important 
issues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference 
report.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. GORTON (when his name was called). Present.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced, yeas 93, nays 5, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 284 Leg.]

                                YEAS--93

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--5

     Boxer
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Kohl
     Wellstone

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Gorton
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     McCain
       
  The conference report was agreed to.
  (Mr. VOINOVICH assumed the chair.)
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, as the Record shows, I voted present 
during the rollcall vote on passage of the FY2000 Defense Authorization 
Conference Report. My decision to cast this vote was prompted by 
Section 651 of the Conference Report, which would repeal the reduction 
in retired pay for U.S. military retirees who are employed by the 
federal government or hold federal office. As a retired U.S. Air Force 
Reserve officer, I stand to be benefitted by this provision when it is 
signed into law by the President. It is for this reason I voted 
present.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is anticipating a unanimous consent 
agreement to move forward with the VA-HUD appropriations.

                          ____________________